Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ProudOfYourMan (talk | contribs) at 23:12, 25 June 2020 (→‎Background). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 14 June 2020

Killing of Rayshard Brooks → Shooting of Rayshard Brooks – Not yet ruled as a homicide. Redthreadhx (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If a person dies and there is a cause, whether there was intent or not, it is still a killing. Soldiers in wars have killed people. However, given the natural laws of society, they are not usually described as "murder". The intention to cause death is murder. A cause which results in the death of a person (or animal) is a killing. Intent is not relevant. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment info: As you mentioned dictionary definitions, here are a few:
  • Dictionary.com: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of The dictionary has two additional grammar notes about the definition of the word...
  • WORDS THAT MAY BE CONFUSED WITH kill - execute, murder
  • SYNONYM STUDY FOR KILL - Kill, execute, murder all mean to deprive of life. Kill is the general word, with no implication of the manner of killing, the agent or cause, or the nature of what is killed (whether human being, animal, or plant): to kill a person. Execute is used with reference to the putting to death of one in accordance with a legal sentence, no matter what the means are: to execute a criminal. Murder is used of killing a human being unlawfully: He murdered him for his money.
  • lexico.com (apparently that is what Oxford is now called): Cause the death of
  • Collins Dictionary: to cause the death of (a person or animal). Collins further explains with examples:
  • More than 1,000 people have been killed by the armed forces.
  • The earthquake killed 62 people.
  • Heroin can kill.
  • Usage note There are several words which mean similar things to kill. To murder someone means to kill them deliberately. Assassinate is used to talk about the murder of an important person, often for political reasons. If a large number of people are murdered, the words slaughter or massacre are sometimes used. Slaughter can also be used to talk about killing animals for their meat.
  • Merriam-Webster: to deprive of life : cause the death of. Noah's dictionary also states the following:
  • Choose the Right Synonym for kill - kill, slay, murder, assassinate, dispatch, execute mean to deprive of life. kill merely states the fact of death caused by an agency in any manner. killed in an accident frost killed the plants slay is a chiefly literary term implying deliberateness and violence but not necessarily motive. slew thousands of the Philistines murder SPECIFICALLY implies stealth and motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility. [etc... caps for emphasis]
  • Cambridge: to cause someone or something to die
  • I also looked up the MacMillan dictionary, and it's entry for "kill" was this: to make a person or other living thing die. It then gives the example of people "being killed on the roads". It also gives a definition for murder: to deliberately kill someone. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above IP comments seem to describe dictionary definitions for kill, which is a different word from killing (per Bagumba's link). "Killing" is typically implies intent, and I believe that introducing a topic as "Killing of" is a phrasing that implies intentionally setting out to kill. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right. They killed him. The title isn't "Intentional Killing of Rayshard Brooks". If it were, then your vote would be valid. Logically, your argument actually opposes the move. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What a meritless argument. It's the equivalent of saying to a judge, "I just stabbed him in the throat and he died, doesn't mean I intended to kill him, your honor! Therefore I should be charged with manslaughter, not murder!" You don't have to explicitly say "I intend to kill you" or some equivalent for it to clearly be intentional. The question should be would any reasonable person expect a human being to survive the pain inflicted by the perpetrator and no sane person expects someone to survive three gunshots at such close range. This isn't an argument on whether it's justified btw. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 2:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Many people find this killing to be justified yet still describe it as a killing. --Flejern (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael: A stern reminder that WP:BLP applies to talk pages. Please keep your personal opinions about Rayshard Brooks to yourself. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brooks isn't a living person.
It's not opinion. The camera on Wendy's recorded Brooks firing the taser at one of the officers who tried to arrest him, having stolen the taser from them. Surveillance video of police shooting of Reyshard Brooks Jim Michael (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have been here since 2010 and aren't aware that BLP applies to recently dead people (WP:BDP)? I have redacted your comment for you per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPTALK as it is apparent you do not believe you have to abide by our policies. Reverting this will not bode well for you. You are free to rewrite what you wrote backed by actual sourcing, but the way you wrote that was unquestionably in violation of the policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we all have to abide by WP policies. I agree that I shouldn't have used the wording that I did in that comment & I won't reinstate it, but I stand by my view that Shooting of x is a better title in cases such as this one. Jim Michael (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (with alternative). I suggest the article be titled "Death of Rayshard Brooks". The "killing" usage implies intention that has not been established. The "shooting" usage gives undue weight to an inessential aspect of the event. The important fact, and why there is an article, is that Brooks died. Dayirmiter (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we do, "Death of" sounds like a poor choice. It's completely passive. As though he died from Covid, or in his sleep. Of had an overdose, as in Death of Michael Jackson or Death of Ludwig van Beethoven. 2604:2000:E010:1100:9853:FFC:DDD4:F35D (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, though I'd support Death of Rayshard Brooks. As Dayirmiter says above, the most important point is his death. (There can surely be no dispute that he was killed either, even if it hasn't yet been officially ruled a homicide. I don't think 'killing' implies anything about intention, but I recognise that it could be considered unnecessarily emotive language.) Robofish (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC) Changed to[reply]

Support, see below. Robofish (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dayirmiter Robofish This might give some insight. Redthreadhx (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I wasn't aware there was a previous consensus on titles of these articles. In that case I've changed my position above. Robofish (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robofish: One local consensus, does not equal a set in stone sitewide consensus. @Redthreadhx: Can you explain why you are not withdrawing this requested move when it has in fact been ruled a homicide at this point? That was your original contention with the current name. Moving the goalposts is not how we should be trying to determine article titles. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: Please stop pinging me. I can't, OK? Redthreadhx (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is the only time I've ever pinged you in my entire time on the site. I did not say you could close it, I'm asking why you haven't changed your position towards withdrawl/opposition of this after the situation has changed to meet the criteria you originally posited. If you don't want to answer that, that is fine, but I'm lost as to why you're making it seem I've pestered you about this when I've only pinged you once. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you're not the only one who "pinged me once", and I'm shocked you're experienced enough to redact a comment yet explicitly asked me "why I am not withdrawing this requested move". I'm more likely to withdraw due to stress from this discussion than change of my stand. Redthreadhx (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether you still support your own move request, given that the sole basis of the request is no longer valid. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 14:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter? You know full well what the elephant in the room is. Hopefully this discussion can get rid of that animal. Redthreadhx (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, actually it does matter. Your move request is a !vote in support of moving. Do you still support moving to "shooting", and if so, why? I have no idea what the elephant in the room is. What are you referring to? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do support moving. Isn't the elephant obvious? If I don't support my own move request and it gets withdrawn, another move request will surely pop up because the elephant is still there. Redthreadhx (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Not yet ruled as a homicide was entirely pretextual and you support a move absent any reason? Got it. nableezy - 16:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't pretextual at the time I requested the move. Editors like you made me very hesitant to engage in this discussion any further. Thanks. Redthreadhx (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should look up what pretext means. If your support for the move does not depend on what you stated justifies it then that justification is pretextual. You currently support a move with a stricken through reason. nableezy - 16:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this move request is that you opened it within the first 24hrs with the rationale, "Not yet ruled as a homicide." Move requests take 7 days. It was 100% guaranteed that long before those 7 days expired, this was going to be ruled a homicide. If you didn't know that, then respectfully, you don't know enough about homicide to open a move request based on a death not yet being ruled a homicide. If you did know it was going to be ruled a homicide, then the move request was frivolous. Here we are, on day two, and it's been ruled a homicide already. Overall, this move request is a waste of time. The facts will continue to develop over the next five days, and everybody's rationale's are going to end up shifting as new facts come out. It almost never makes sense to open up a move request on the first day of a breaking news story.
Now, if you support moving the title to "shooting of..." for some reason other than "Not yet ruled as a homicide.", e.g., if you think fatal shootings should also be titled "shooting of" and not "killing of", then by all means, make that argument. But please don't open any more move requests for articles about fatal shootings based on the rationale "Not yet ruled as a homicide.", because fatal shootings will always be ruled as a homicide, because "homicide" is the act of one human killing another. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No the elephant is not obvious, at least not to me. Are you talking about a move request to "murder of"? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Shooting. It's not a killing. I even wonder why this event has an article. Is every police shooting's gonna be an article? Or just police shootings where the criminal is black? --Wester (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we follow the RSs on that? 2604:2000:E010:1100:9853:FFC:DDD4:F35D (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is a killing. A Wikipedia page just needs to have enough information to be sufficiently informative and the scenario needs to be somewhat notable, which this article is. Not every police shooting meets those qualifications. Also, your final sentence completely disregards scenarios like Shooting of Breonna Taylor where the black person killed is not accused of a crime, yet is killed all the same. It seems your Partial block from Death of George Floyd, Talk:Death of George Floyd and Death of Eric Garner was not sufficient. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 2:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
There are shootings which aren't intended to be fatal. Jim Michael (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every fatal shooting is a homicide. Even an accidental fatal shooting is a homicide. Legally speaking, if you intend to shoot, you intend to kill. There is no such thing as "shooting to wound" under the law. Don't confuse intent with justification; they're two separate concepts. It's not like this was an accidental discharge of a firearm; when the officer shot the gun, he intended to kill. It may have been justified, but the intent was to kill. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be declaring intent in a case that's being investigated.
Many shootings are intended to incapacitate rather than kill. Where does the law say that there's no such thing as shooting to wound? Jim Michael (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Michael, it's only a stub but you can start with shooting to wound and the sources cited there. Or google it. It's not a thing. It's because a firearm is deadly force. Think of it this way: Can I say I launched a missile at someone but didn't intend to kill them? No, of course not. Even if I honestly didn't intend to kill them, a missile is deadly force, so by using it, I at least was reckless in the use of deadly force. The same goes if I throw a grenade at someone. The same if I shoot a gun. A gun is deadly force, and intending to shoot someone is intending to use deadly force against them, which is the same as intending to kill. That's why "shoot to wound" is not recognized under the law. Here are a couple more sources about it, not in the shooting to wound article: [2] [3] Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are types of missiles & grenades that aren't likely / capable of killing people. The law regarding proving intent varies & I'm not familiar with the specifics of Georgia law.
This incident would still be notable if RB had survived being shot. Jim Michael (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, one doesn't have intent to kill if one is using a non-lethal weapon, like for example a taser. If RB had survived, I'd support calling this article "shooting of". The proposed move is based on the argument that it's not a homicide. Because it is a homicide, I support the title "killing of" and not "shooting of". Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of our Shooting of x articles are about fatal shootings. Jim Michael (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that doesn't mean this one has to be. Our article titles are all over map, because they are decided in move-requests-brought-too-soon, such as this one. In fact, I have yet to see one of these articles (about a high profile death) where there hasn't been a move request in the first 24 hours of the article's creation. Because every editor has an opinion and thinks they're right about what articles should be titled :-) And those opinions differ, widely, and passionately. As can be seen here, with some editors arguing that "death" is most the most appropriate title, and others that it's inappropriate. That's why there's a discussion going on about this flowchart (see previous thread), to bring some level of standardization to these article titles. I named this article following the flowchart because I believe the flowchart (or some version of it) is the way of the future, because enough editors who have participated in the move requests are sick of them and looking for a better way to figure out article titles. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 14:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we would use "Killing of" for the title of an article about a homicide that was clearly justified as self defense or the defense of others – or at least I don't think we should use it in such an instance. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-killing-rayshard-brooks-atlanta-ruled-homicide-n1231042
  2. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/us/atlanta-protests-rayshard-brooks-sunday/index.html
  3. ^ https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/autopsy-rayshard-brooks-death-considered-homicide-shot-twice-in-the-back
  4. ^ https://www.cbs46.com/news/medical-examiner-rules-rayshard-brooks-death-a-homicide/article_0da3a952-ae95-11ea-90cf-230cae2584c6.html
Yep, plenty of "killing" in titles and texts! gidonb (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Several editors have noted that the death of Rayshard Brooks was ruled a homicide a few hours ago. Though I agree with Robofish that "killing" is likely an accurate and conventional way of describing what happened, it may also be unnecessary charged language. The convention seems to be to use the word "shooting" in an article title. --Flejern (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So should we use newspeak? I call upon Redthreadhx to withdraw the nomination ("not yet ruled as a homicide.") as it no longer holds water. Nor do the opinions expressed above mine. They were written reflecting another reality. gidonb (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People (Levivich for example) are confused at to what homicide means here. All it means is that "the death was caused by the actions of another person." It does not mean that a murder was committed. It has zero to do with "intent." And thus all the discussion above as to whether there is intent is wasted space - if you meant to shoot a deer but shot and killed a person, or thought a gun was empty and shot through a wall and killed someone, you had zero intent to kill a person but still committed a homicide. Not all homicides are murder. Just read what the GBI Medical Examiner's Office says on the issue.[4] 184.153.21.19 (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am, indeed, very confused, but not about the difference between homicide and murder. Nobody here is talking about murder. At the top of this thread, you'll see that the move request from "killing" to "shooting" was based on, and only on, "Not yet ruled as a homicide." I opposed based on there being a 100% probability that it was going to be ruled a homicide. And it was. (Because two gunshots in the back is always homicide, though not always murder.) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 14:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Oppose - I am flabbergasted by some of the highly biased reasons for wanting this changed, reality is reality. Rayshard Brooks is dead, he was killed by a gun that was fired at his back, and the medical examiner has ruled it was a homicide, and the DA is looking at felony murder charges. Our policies do not permit such POV changes, and this should be resoundingly closed based on the clear weakness in the arguments of those attempting to support this move. Full stop. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That article - which doesn't mention charges - omits the crucial details that Brooks stole a taser from an officer & fired it at him. Jim Michael (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article (by an ABC affiliate) does mention the murder/felony murder charges (it took two second to locate that). The DA has considered the circumstances and is looking at this route for charges, it is not up to you to decide what happens here. We go by reliable sources and we base our data in our articles off of them, we do not base our articles off of any editor's personal views of what happens in current events. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that talk about "intent" is a red herring in the context of titling an encyclopedia article. Here the focus should be on descriptive accuracy and neutrality, as well as cross-article consistency. Thus the desirability of "The death of".

"Killing" - While accurate enough, the word is not neutral; on the contrary, when used as a noun, as in this case, it is quite emotionally evocative. The verb form is less so. Though I might say Fred Smith "was killed" in an automobile accident, I would refer to that event as "the killing of Fred Smith" only if I were trying to evoke an emotional response. So it's important to distinguish between the verb form and the noun form. (Please note that I am not suggesting moral equivalence between Brooks's death and a traffic fatality.)

"Shooting" - The reader of an article titled "The death of" surely will learn the cause of death in the first paragraph, so that fact does not need to be in the title. To understand why it should not be in the title, consider the following:

"The strangling of"

"The bludgeoning of"

"The decapitation of"

While each of these may be faithful to the facts of a particular death, I should think it obvious that, as titles, they have more the flavor of a supermarket tabloid than an encyclopedia. Are those in favor of the "shooting" usage here prepared to retitle an already extant article to "The asphyxiation of George Floyd"?

In the interest of an accuracy that is neutral and non-sensational and can offer consistency across the encyclopedia, I suggest "The death of" as the best usage. Dayirmiter (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The word "killing" only implies that a person was killed by another person or, for example, an animal. It is neutral language, as it doesn't suggest whether or not the killing was justifiable.
A person "killed in" a car crash is also neutral. However, due to the quirks of the English language, "killing" suggests a cause. Most car crashes are accidental, and therefore "the killing of Joesph Bloggs" isn't quite correct.
Ironically, "the shooting of" is more similar to the other examples you list: "decapitation of", "strangling of", as well as "stabbing of" or "asphyxiation of".
But here's the thing, with the exception of "decapitation", the other titles do not necessarily suggest that the subject had died. One can be strangled, stabbed, bludgeoned, pushed from a height and run-over and still be alive.
Alternatively, "death of" only suggests a death, but is in itself not neutral because it ignores the fact that there was a cause. "Death of" is more ambiguous, as it could suggest that a person died due to their own fault, or natural causes or any number of other reasons.
The fact is that the subject of this article was killed. He didn't merely die. That means someone was responsible for the death, but it doesn't necessarily imply that a person was culpable. It's a subtle difference, but appropriate language. I think everyone, without question, will agree that the police officer in question was responsible for the subject's death. But it is up to the appropriate authorities or potentially a court.
Interestingly, I would be curious as to the title of this argument in the event that, if the police officer is charged and found guilty, will be. I would assume there would be a need to re-title the article to "The murder of.." Perhaps that shows how a "the killing of.." as a title is neutral. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this article title should follow the course of George Floyd's article renaming. Since the facts are not known fully at this time, go with a more neutral title then change as necessary. I support both "Death of" or "Shooting of", but prefer "Death of" at this stage. As additional facts or determinations are made, I would support "Killing of". -Glennfcowan (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose It saddens me to see our community of editors going through such growing pains. Attempts to downplay the seriousness of this killing do not come across as objectivity. They hurt. They add insult to injury. Why is it so hard to admit that police are killing people? At best, putting "death" in the title makes the encyclopedia sound pusillanimous. At worst, it looks like we are still in deep denial. Dismissing this police killing as a "death" amounts to refusing to face the facts (unless the proposal to move was some kind of sick joke about the victim's pre-existing condition of being Black). It's time for Wikipedia to show greater maturity in these matters. - phi (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ph7five—you refer to "some kind of sick joke about the victim's pre-existing condition of being Black" but "being Black" is not known to be a component of this shooting. The individual refused to be handcuffed, the individual engaged in physical battle with the police officers, the individual removed the taser from one of the police officers, and the individual pointed the taser at one of the police officers. Can you explain why you are referring to "the victim's pre-existing condition of being Black"? Bus stop (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, Bus stop, context may have changed or made the remark obscure. This was a reply to previous suggestions that a compromise before putting "Shooting of..." in place of the current title might have been to put "Death of...". The point I was hoping to get across was that despite Rayshard Brooks's apparent skill in de-escalating a confrontation with the police, almost successfully, the broader trajectory of a life that included completion of the prison pipeline ought not to have death by police as an ending. Therefore it seems to me that putting "Death of..." in the title would be highly offensive, like a foregone conclusion. However, I'm not sure what you mean about not being Black. Who was the non-Black component? I mostly go by radio. Thanks. - phi (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ph7five—you refer to "Rayshard Brooks's apparent skill in de-escalating a confrontation with the police". Would that include physically fighting with the police and taking one of the tasers from the police and pointing that taser at the police? I don't think those are deescalation skills. Our article's lede says "Brooks scuffled with the officers, got hold of Brosnan's taser, punched Rolfe, and ran. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks turned partially and fired the taser toward Rolfe". Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody provide a single source demonstrating there is any such debate on if Brooks was killed? Anybody? nableezy - 21:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the comment above mine. And several other supports. If there is no debate on whether or not Brooks was killed, and it being true that not all shootings result in death whereas all killings do, why is there an argument about this title? And I have no idea what I am supposed to note is different there besides subject and object there. nableezy - 22:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dayirmiter somewhat addressed this above under "Killing" explanation --Digihoe (talk) 22:31, 15June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I see. Maybe that's not quite what was meant. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is perhaps bad form to vote this way in the face of overwhelming precedent to use "shooting" instead of "killing" in this situation, but I truly believe that this precedent is moribund. It is incoherent that the killing of Rayshard Brooks appears in the articles List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2020 and Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States while the article on this killing cannot use the word "killing" in its title. Anyone who has shot someone else dead has killed them. Such an event is described as a killing. This is the nature of the English language.
Some wish to use "killing" only to describe intentional killings, in line with this dictionary definition. But that is a moot point, since this killing was by all accounts intentional. I would be more amenable to changing the name from "killing" if it seemed that this death were not the result of the correct usage of an instrument designed to kill.
A good reason to change the name away from "killing" would be to avoid excessive emphasis on the actions of whoever caused the death, as in the event of an accidental death or one caused by carelessness. Moving to "shooting" does not at all reduce this emphasis, but does introduce vagueness. Moving to "death" would be vague to a lesser degree and would accomplish the reduction of emphasis that is perhaps desirable since this article is about much more than the events that caused Rayshard Brooks' death.
Many of us have acknowledged that killing is an emotionally charged topic. Nevertheless, we name it.
Also, please note that:
  1. clearly a justified intentional killing is a killing
  2. substituting one's own judgment on the justifiability of this killing for that of legal authorities or reliable sources is a clear violation of NPOV

--Flejern (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This was gone over just a few weeks ago on Killing of George Floyd. The word "kill" has nothing to do with whether or not it was a murder or even intentional. It means that something with agency caused the death of a person. "Kill" is in no way charged language, nor does it have an improper legal meaning the way "murder" does for someone who hasn't been convicted (yet). That said, "shooting" is more consistent with other article titles related to death by gunshot --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Shooting is factually accurate and consistent with other shootings. I don't see a problem with "killing of", as there is no doubt that the shooting was intentional. Possible justification of the shooting/killing is separate from intent. Most "shooting of" articles are intentional, and it is more specific as to the type of killing.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all reasons have been mentioned above and whatever I write is a repeat of facts. Gharouni Talk 13:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BarrelProof.Boardg (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double non-support. What I support is deadly-force homicide of Rayshard Brooks or some variant of that nature (deadly-force police homicide of ~). Most people know that "deadly force" is a concept from law enforcement and military contexts, that deadly force is sometimes justified, but that agreement about when deadly force is justified is commonly contentious. The fact that he was killed by shooting is rather secondary here. Killing and murder are both somewhat loaded. "Homicide" leaves no ambiguity that death resulted, with the added advantage that it reads closer to "penis" than it does to "cock" or "prick" (these being the loaded terms of choice for the loaded genital organ). I'm not sure my suggestion will usefully further this debate, but it does capture my underlying sentiment about this debate on both sides. The Wikipedia article on deadly force is entirely apt here. This article points out that the police have a right to shoot a fleeing subject if the subject is deemed willing to harm others (or the cops themselves). By pointing a taser at the cops, Rayshard demonstrated a panicked lack of willingness to deal with immediate consequence. At this point, if the cops have any doubt about the availability of a more dangerous weapon, they might well be justified to shoot back. But in this case, he had by then been frisked and evaluated (one highly suspects), so despite his evident lack of judgement—it's quite possible the only reason he didn't fire a hand gun at the police is that he didn't possess a hand gun in that moment—he was likely a non-threat to the police and public for as long as it would have taken to apprehend him again, all things considered. — MaxEnt 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We never have article titles like that you suggest. In your last sentence, you suggest that the police should have not shot RB, but you don't say how you think they should have apprehended him instead. Jim Michael (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may be helpful to refer to WP:WAX. If Wikipedia makes the same mistake ten times we dont need to repeat it an eleventh time. nableezy - 16:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but that was not WP:WAX. I was calling attention to very recent RM discussions and consensus in very similar cases. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you were saying "What about article x and y and z?" In other words, WP:WAX. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In at least one of the articles that you link, some of the support votes reference the convention of naming articles "shooting" in cases where the person in question has been fatally shot. However, there has been a push to reconsider the naming of all fatal shooting articles as a result of the frequent recent RMs regarding such articles. So, although this convention exists on Wikipedia now, this article is one of the first to go through an RM in the middle of the discussion on changing that convention; for this reason, I don't think we should point solely to articles following the current convention as a reason to move this article away from "killing". --Flejern (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per NPOV and NOTCENSORED. The killing has been ruled a homicide; there's no need to hide this fact. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Shooting does not necessarily mean killing. Killing is precise. As an encyclopedia English Wikipedia needs English language precision. "Killing" is recognizabile, natural, precise, concise and consistent and the chart under Title of article, above, reflects these requirements.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2020
  • Oppose, This has been ruled a homicide, "Killing" is clearly the correct terminology. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We should be seeking the most appropriate title. That would obviously be "Shooting of Rayshard Brooks". 22:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not obvious to me. "Shooting" leaves the reader with the idea that the victim may have lived. "Killing" leaves no such ambiguity to the reader and prepares them for what is to come. That being said, I am open to alternatives ("Shooting death of ..."). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is quintessentially about the moments leading up to the shooting. I don't think the article is quintessentially about whether Rayshard Brooks survived the shooting or not. Hi Locke Cole, by the way, good to see you. Bus stop (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 'Shooting' is not encyclopedic unless he survived. Even tossing out the homicide judgement, 'killing' is exactly what happened, and doesn't even have to imply intent. He died. He was killed. This is not in contention. Parabolist (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"exactly what happened" is that he grabbed a cop's taser and pointed it at a cop. Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was he killed or not? If a bus hits me, I've been killed. If lightning strikes me, I've been killed. If a person bumps into me and knocks me off a cliff, I've been tragically killed. It doesn't matter what happens before then. People die when they are killed. Parabolist (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parabolist—the word "killing" would suffice if the English language did not have the word "shooting". The question is—why would we choose the word "killing" over the word "shooting"? Cops don't want to die trying to keep roads free of drunk drivers. "Killing" would not be the appropriate word in our article's title. A cop's life is in danger when a weapon—a taser—is pointed at them. The cop shot Rayshard Brooks at a point at which a taser was being pointed at the cop. That would most appropriately be called a "shooting". Yes, if we didn't have the word "shooting" in the English language, the word "killing" would suffice. But we should be choosing the most appropriate term. Why would "killing" be the most appropriate term? Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a. The cop shot Rayshard Brooks at a point at which a taser was being pointed at the cop. untrue, and b. wholly irrelevant. Killing is more appropriate because it was a shooting that ended in death (aka a killing) and it is what is commonly used in reliable sources. nableezy - 14:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parabolist—I don’t think anyone is contending he wasn’t killed, nor saying that is not an accurate description. The issue lies more with use of the word “killing”, which conveys more. To use a pet cat as an example if I titled a blog article “The killing of the cat” vs “The cat was killed”, the former evokes some level of intent beyond simply stating a fact of the final result. And this is bore out in most dictionary definitions of “killing”, which usually state or imply some level of deliberateness.Digihoe (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and per WP:CONSISTENT. We have 275 entries under Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States, nearly all of which use the form "Person Name" or "Shooting of Person Name", and even more entries under Category:Deaths by firearm in the United States by state which includes fatal shootings not only by police officers but by civilians, such as Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori or Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Unless there is a mass movement of all such headers to Fatal shooting of Person Name or of combining all Killing of Person Name and Shooting of Person Name (excluding non-fatal shootings) under the umbrella header Killing of Person Name, it would be inconsistent and counterintuitive to have this header at "Killing of...." but other such headers at "Shooting of". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Long Comment Actually, Roman Spinner, your point is really useful. Kudos! While continuing to favor the other outcome, as I stated above, my take is that you are helpfully providing a solid answer to the question: “Why move title to ‘shooting of’?” So the answer would be “Because precedent.” Let’s suppose the question might also be, at least for some: “Why ‘Shooting of...’?” And, let’s be honest. Let’s take a deep breath. Alot of English Wikipedia editors are Americans and we are discussing this at a time when our whole country is finally timidly beginning to traipse toward reckoning with the fact that we have long been engaged in some sort of mass collective denial about the fact that our police chronically kill Black citizens. Of course we deny that. Who would want to admit it? As Flejern notes above: "A good reason to change the name away from "killing" would be to avoid excessive emphasis on the actions of whoever caused the death."
This denial is just one facet of a larger bundle of denyings, a whole culture accreted onto our living society. Like a whole passel of barnacles globbed onto the hull of the ship of state, this big deny is making smooth sailing impossible. Wikipedia reflects this, in part, cuz us Wikipedia editors are, on average, mostly human. For years the denialism afflicting our society has crept into the encyclopedia and afflicted our discourse. So, why ‘shooting’? Well, “shooting” sounds more neutral. We wanna be NPOV. We wanna sound objective. But let us be wary lest an excessive infatuation with ‘neutrality’ lend cover the virality of collective denial. So I think your idea is great. Slowly, cautiously, we can identify 275 articles titled “Shooting of...” for careful review. For each, we might ask whether the title is there that way because we were afraid to face the fact that our society keeps killing African Americans. We have been striving to talk neutrally about the fact that our society has been paying people to kill some of us. Now we are realizing that this is not a neutral fact.
So, now, let us Wikipedia editors take a long, loving look into our collective heart and see that, historically, we have been a bit craven in our titles of the many, many articles on events that are part of the American carnage. We can start by applying the finalized version of the flowchart posted above. Are we afraid of going through 275 titles? “Be bold!” it says in the instructions for editing here. Furthermore, we can give the individual articles individual attention. We should always ask: “Why ‘Shooting...’?” We do not have an article titled “shooting of president Reagan” but such an article could perhaps exist. Hanging out with friends, at the mention of John Wilkes Booth, I observed one asking the name of the “that guy who shot President Reagan” only to be quickly met by another friend’s quick draw of the smartphone. The phone wielder typed in “shooting of president Reagan” whose first result is Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. “Of course,” I thought; not “shooting” because “assassination” befits status as a public figure but not simply “assassination” because Ronald Reagan survived.
Nor do we (yet) have an article titled: “Shooting of Derrick Sanderlin” (now NN I suppose) though I can imagine a scenario after RSs may in a fictional future have headlined pieces like “Police Shoot Police Trainer” that somehow some of us Wikipedia editors could feel the need to create a title like that “Shooting of Derrick Sanderlin.” So the flowchart would say “not lethal” and the article would say “rubber bullets.” But it would be shooting that was central to the event. Or we might just possibly imagine an article “Shooting of Palnatoki,” an example that serves well to show just why we should not use ‘shooting’ in the case of Rayshard Brooks. The possibility of a phrase “shooting of y” being a subjective rather than objective genitive (y shot z instead of y got shot) contributes to the attractiveness of “Shooting of...” as a weaselword way of phrasing it for those who are in denial. “Shooting” is the word chosen in likely a couple hundred of those 275 articles because we have sought the ambiguity of not saying outright that a citizen was killed by a public servant. We have been avoiding the truth.
When you avoid telling the truth up front, directly facing facts, ambiguity is an advantage. That “Shooting of...” as a title holds such ambiguity is obvious from a comparison of two of the three articles specifically cited above. Anyone who has worked with exchange students can tell you that the tragic, fatal but not truly murderous, shooting of Yoshihiro often comes up when foreigners express doubts about our country’s love of firearms. The killing of Ahmaud involves a very different backstory, in which the role of our Second Amendment rights would seem much less marked, so perhaps in that case the verb ought to be not ‘shooting’ but something that gives an idea closer to what happened, hunting down, lying in wait, being part of the ‘criminal justice’ system, etc. Do we use “lynching” only for hangings or events in the distant past?
In this case, the shooting was not the point. And the past is not so distant, any more, as it was only a few years prior, when the denialist articles were titled up. The point was that after extended interaction a man was killed by the police, that it strains credulity to claim because of the color of his skin color did not factor into violent police behavior following failed negotiation, that this took place in a country with a long history of denying that such things were part of a pattern. All editors should note that the police kicking the shot citizen and standing upon him afterwards really ought to be enough to convince us that “shooting” was not the main point. We can ensure consistency by questioning precedent, following Roman Spinner’s excellent quantitative survey of what that precedent is with qualitative surveying of what we have been writing in our titles. Are we mature enough to admit we have a problem? May the article on this killing of Rayshard Brooks be the first step in Wikipedia’s recovery from unconscious or unconscientious denial. - phi (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you making the unsupported claim that RB was killed by the police because of the color of his skin? The camera on Wendy's clearly shows that he was shot just after he fired a stolen taser at one of the cops. Jim Michael (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jim Michael. I have adjusted the wording of the phrase in question (last paragraph, following "extended interaction"). - phi (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ph7five—per WP:TALK, please don't alter your post after it has been responded to. You may strike through some of your text and add new text. I am troubled by this edit. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you, Bus stop, I hope I got it right now. - phi (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Killing of" would be fine if he hadn't been shot (as with George Floyd) but as he was, "Shooting of" is more precise. I don't think it implies he was shot and still lived.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Oppose Killing is defined as "an act of causing death, especially deliberately." Is that not what happened here? We got "an act causing death" down. Any reasonable person knows when you shoot a guy three times at such close range they are going to die. This is not manslaughter, where reckless actions let to death. This was intentional. Unintentional would be a tazer killing someone, throwing small rocks at someone ends up turning them into a corpse or kicking a soccer ball so hard that ultimately ends up decapitating someone. In those cases, death is so unlikely in the normal sense that when death does occur it's clear accidental, without intent, and at most manslaughter. This was not that. It's a gun. Anyone knows that a gun at close range (let alone three shots) is going to kill someone in the ordinary sense. The only thing that would be unlikely in the normal sense was his survival. (Not an argument of weather it was justified or not, just intent is all). GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Any reasonable person knows when you shoot a guy three times at such close range they are going to die" and they are going to cease threatening your life with a tazer, as was the case here. GreenFrogsGoRibbit—the cop does not want to die. The subject of the article quintessentially is the attempt to arrest a man for DWI and their physical fight with the cops that involved taking a tazer from one of the cops and pointing it at one of the cops. Whether death resulted or not, is not what this article is quintessentially about. It is my contention that the subject of this article primarily is the Shooting of Rayshard Brooks. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this point everyone understands that you feel about his killing was warranted, Bus stop. I'm not sure you need to hammer it home any more. Parabolist (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing to understand, Parabolist, is that the essence of the article spans mere seconds—from the individual's refusal to be handcuffed, to the firing of shots from a gun at that individual. Refute that if you wish. And by the way I most definitely did not assert that "his killing was warranted". Bus stop (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Would prefer death of as it would be consistent with other police involved incidents like Death of Eric Garner...but shooting is factually accurate. Lightburst (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The significant fact here is that Brooks is dead. The manner of his death is a secondary issue. "Shooting" includes non-fatal shootings, and if Brooks f he had been shot non-fatally, then we probably wouldn't even an article about him.
    The core fact here is that Brroks is dead, and he is dead because of the actions of another person. The dictionaries define "kill" as "cause the death", regardless of intent; an accidental killing is still a killing.
    So the neutral term here is "killing" ... and the alternatives such as "shooting of" and "death of" are whitewash. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - it's the shooting that's the most notable part of this event. This would more likely than not be notable & have been responded to in a similar way had RB survived being shot. This happened with the police beating of Rodney King, which he survived. Jim Michael (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl—it is not so simple that "he is dead because of the actions of another person". The police may be required to arrest a person for DWI. They fought and took a taser from a cop and pointed it at a cop. Are they not complicit in that which transpired? Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is really getting into the territory of the highly tiresome. I've added an FAQ at the top of this page; read the entry explaining what homicide is. As to your idea that the police may be required to arrest a person for DWI: instead of just making stuff up, why don't you actually find out? You also need to look up complicit. EEng 16:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I may have misused "complicit". The cops may have been required to arrest. That is not a controversial statement as I did not assert for instance that they definitely were required to arrest. I responded to the assertion, I will quote it in full, "The core fact here is that Brroks is dead, and he is dead because of the actions of another person." As we are choosing a title for the article we want to be concerned with "The core fact here". Could that not have bearing on the title best suited to this article, EEng? Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
not a controversial statement as I did not assert for instance that they definitely were required to arrest – No, it's just a completely useless statement that muddles the discussion by injecting doubt on something about which there need not be doubt. Among situations in which an officer has the authority to arrest, there are very few in which an officer doesn't also have discretion as to whether to exercise that authority. A classic nowadays is that in most jurisdictions, officers receiving certain types of domestic-violence complaints are required to make an arrest if possible.
As to the rest of your post, I can't understand what you're trying to say. EEng 17:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your views on this move have been made abundantly clear. Kindly stop WP:BLUDGEONING, this move request already has way too many personal opinions in it. nableezy - 17:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least he's only bludgeoning it. He's not strangling, shooting, decapitating, or killing it. EEng 17:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng—you raise valid points. I will strike through my problematic post. I will just state that the cops are allowed to arrest, not required to arrest. It is my understanding that arrests for DWIs are commonplace. My overriding point was a response to BrownHairedGirl's statement that "he is dead because of the actions of another person". He bolted from the cops and fought with the cops, physically, even going so far as to take taser off of one of the cops. I don't consider those the "actions of another person", as stated by BrownHairedGirl. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of those actions are what killed him. It was the gunshots. Rolfe's gunshots. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I appreciate your taking my comments to heart. I'm only going to say one more thing, and then I think we should end this. Yes, Brooks bolted, fought, punched, and even tasered these officers. But none of those things killed him. What killed him was Rolfe aiming his gun and pulling the trigger. There are punishments prescribed for the things Brooks did, but none of them is death. Nor, in a civil society, is punishment meted out at the curbside. Rolfe's job was to maintain order, know the law, and follow the law -- even under pressure, even when provoked. Police officers are supposed to be especially good at that, and if they're not then they shouldn't be police officers. Unfortunately too many of them take the job because they like the idea of a line of work in which the customer is always wrong. EEng 18:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying "There are punishments prescribed for the things Brooks did, but none of them is death." There is not one participant in this discussion that is unaware that death is not the punishment for DWI. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about DWI. We're talking about (in your words) the fact that Brooks fought and took a taser from a cop and pointed it at a cop, which you say made Brooks complicit in that which transpired -- i.e. in his own death. If that's not what you meant then you need to choose your words more carefully. EEng 20:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Taser aim

The Times found, and the video shows clearly, that the aim was not in any way accurate. Why exactly should that not be included? nableezy - 16:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to see by what margin the taser which RB fired at the cop missed him & it isn't of significant relevance. He fired it while drunk & running, so it's not surprising that he missed. Jim Michael (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the significance of relevance. And so too apparently does the New York Times. If he aimed wildly while running in another direction he didnt represent a threat to the officers, even more so after the leads missed and he could not fire again without reloading a new taser cartridge (and Ill let you guess the odds that he just happened to have a cartridge on hand). I dont see a reason in your response why we should not include, when saying that he aimed in the officers direction (note that it previously had the even more inaccurate aimed at the officer, aping the police's original claim of pointed at the officer) that his aim was not in any way accurate. nableezy - 16:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He certainly did represent a threat. After drink driving, he attacked them & stole a taser from them. He turned to fire the taser to try to hit one of them. They couldn't wait to see if they'd be lucky enough to avoid being hit by the taser then hope to catch up with him. They pulled their guns as he ran off with the taser so that they could shoot him if he tried to fire the taser at them - which is what happened. Had the taser hit one of them, he could have stolen a gun from the incapacitated officer. Cops can't let attackers incapacitate them. Jim Michael (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thats cool man. But uh I have a reliable source that talks about how his aim was inaccurate. You have what again? nableezy - 20:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article already has the footage from the cam on Wendy's, which shows what happened. We know it was inaccurate because he missed his target. That doesn't contradict him having clearly aimed it at the cop. Jim Michael (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have a reliable source that says he aimed "in the direction" of the police officer, and further that he did not aim with any accuracy at all. Id very much appreciate not needing to read your personal opinions on this topic and rather see what sources you have to support your contentions. I asked why we should not include what a reliable source finds relevant. Is there an answer to that outside of Cops can't let attackers incapacitate them? nableezy - 21:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUE ultimately is a matter of consensus, regardless of the legitimacy of your source. Him firing at an angle doesn’t change the fact that he fired it in the direction of the cop. I too fail to see the significance of the angleAnon0098 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Youre the first person to say anything about an angle. Which isnt what the source considers significant. nableezy - 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the margin the taser which RB fired at the cop missed him which is in what direction the taser was fired in relation to the officer. Again, he fired the taser in the direction of the officer. Anything further is insignificant Anon0098 (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Respectfully, the reason Rayshard Brooks’ marksmanship with a Taser is wholly irrelevant is because Georgia State law and the Atlanta City Police Department Policy Manual deem it to be so.

In Georgia:

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Sources

1. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/us/rayshard-brooks-force-law/index.html

2. https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-3-21.html

The Atlanta Police Department Policy Manual states:

An officer may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when: 1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or 2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm and the officer reasonably believes that the suspect’s escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person.

Sources

1. https://www.atlantapd.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=3273

In none of these sources is an offender’s accuracy with a weapon considered a determining factor when an officer decides to use deadly force. This is a tragedy and I can sympathize with the perspectives from Malachy Browne & Christina Kelso, but by the article’s own admission at the 11:23 mark, “the flash of the Taser suggests that Brooks did not fire it with any real accuracy,” which means that in the opinion of these journalists they think the video of the altercation suggests poor marksmanship. Suggestion and speculative analysis are not facts and even if we could factually determine Rayshard Brooks’ Taser accuracy, it would still be irrelevant given state law and APD policy.76.218.230.54 (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)c2ley[reply]

Im sorry, but what reliable sources report as fact is not, on this website, speculation. Apparently the DA disagrees with your views on state law and APD policy. nableezy - 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN citation is an RS. The district attorney is just that, an attorney for the state. Obviously he disagrees or else there wouldn’t be charges. That being said, an RS stating what the law says is important. Whether or not you agree it is WP:DUE to include it in the actual page, which isn’t the point, it does affect what other information is WP:DUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon0098 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm further sorry nableezy, but the article you're pulling from is not reporting this fact. Again quote, “the flash of the Taser suggests that Brooks did not fire it with any real accuracy.” In what part of this can we reach the conclusion that these journalists are factually reporting that Rayshard Brooks fired inaccurately? They're suggesting from the video they've seen that Rayshard Brooks might have fired the Taser without any real accuracy. That type of suggestion is not fact. We would need a ballistics expert and forensic Taser examination, to factually conclude if Rayshard Brooks' shot could reasonably be determined to be without any real accuracy. Truthfully, I'm not even aware if forensic Taser ballistic examination is even a field that exists - I don't know. Though the even bigger problem with this whole point is that all of this is completely and totally irrelevant given Georgia state law and APD policy. I did not give nor cite my own personal views nableezy. The things I cited are Georgia State law and the Atlanta Police Department Policy Manual. Again, In none of these sources is an offender’s accuracy with a weapon considered a determining factor when an officer decides to use deadly force. So, the Atlanta District Attorney is welcome to disagree, but he or she is not disagreeing with me, he or she is disagreeing with Georgia State law and APD policy.

This is a tragedy. We all wish this hadn't happened, but Rayshard Brooks' marksmanship with a Taser needs to be removed as it's wholly irrelevant to this article.76.218.230.54 (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)c2ley[reply]

I revised this content and added additional sources regarding the shot going over Rolfe's head. I suggest this thread can be archived. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Levivich 76.218.230.54 (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)c2ley[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Add this image to article (maybe infobox?): File:Rayshard_Brooks_Bodycam.jpg. It is a screenshot of Atlanta Police bodycam footage. Police bodycam footage is automatically in the public domain under United States copyright law, since it fails to meet the threshold of originality required for copyright to apply. (There is no photographer/videographer controlling the bodycam and making creative decisions about which camera angles to shoot from, etc; the bodycam just automatically, mechanically, records whatever occurs.)

I think an image is important since it emphasises the humanity of the victim that he was an actual person. Of course, this may not be the ideal image to remember him by, but it has the advantage of being clearly in the public domain. If someone finds another image which Wikipedia can use which is more suitable, of course I would not object to replacing this image with that one. But an imperfect image is better for the article than no image at all. X373844 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done:@X373844: I understand why you want this added, but in terms of documenting the events of the incident, which is the purpose of this article, I am not sure it adds anything. I'm therefore gonna go ahead and close this as not done for now, but I'm happy for another editor to take another stance. Best, Darren-M talk 17:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darren-M: Question: Is the objection to having any image of the late Mr. Brooks in the article? Or is the objection to having this particular image? I don't quite understand your reasoning. I should note that very very many media articles on this tragic event include images of the victim and also of the two police officers involved, so I am not sure why Wikipedia would not want to also include such images. X373844 (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Looking for consensus

1. For the most part this is just a compilation of records from verifiable government sources. I will add more direct links to all the records and not just the wrap sheet of offenses. These records themselves are not disputed and below is how they are linked to the actual person. As noted in the background already, Brooks in his own words stated that he plead guilty to two offenses, false imprisonment and financial card theft. He was giving the interview to Reconnect in Atlanta about his experience with parole, as explained on Reconnect's website https://reconnect.io/rayshard-brooks-in-his-own-words/. So his offences have to have been committed in Atlanta area. Looking for Rayshard Brooks on the Clayton County Court public records website, linked below, we see that there is only one Rayshard Brooks with those offenses. The reason for putting the description of charges into words and not just giving a list of links to cases is that they are somewhat confusing to navigate as multiple cases relate to the same charges, but are a result of cases being transferred between court levels. So giving a link to the list might create the impression that he had 23 offences (or whatever a prior number was, that was given), when in reality the actual charges are less. So it is established that the charges he talked about in the interview are the charges from the website. The other charges are linked to him based on references to other cases. For example, we can see cases with his name, but specifying his birth year too. These are state court cases (Not clear why they also give the year, either because at state level there is another Rayshard Brooks, or it's just the state naming convention. Have not found other Rayshard Brooks records in Georgia, so leaning towards the second option). They further confirm that this is the same Rayshard Brooks as the birth year is the same. Tracking how cases make it out of Magistrate to State and out of State to Superior court we can see that the same Rayshard brooks is referenced in Superior court cases (the state case pages list the superior court case pages). The fact that all the charges are linked to the same person and that person is Brooks is further confirmed by going to the Georgia Department of Corrections public records website http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/GDC/Offender/Query and looking for GDC ID 1001370147 (for some reason looking just by name did not consistently yield results). His identity is verified by name, birth year, photo and description. All offences listed on the Clayton County website are linked to him here as well, including the ones he spoke about himself.

Specifically related to the false imprisonment charge that he plead guilty to, we can note that the case number in Clayton County court was 2014CR01069. Looking for Rayshard Brooks on Fulton County's public jail records website http://justice.fultoncountyga.gov/PAJailManager/default.aspx, we see two bookings show up, one related to the same case number. The person's description and name match Brooks's on top of case number. The other booking is from much earlier (2010) and is not related to any of the offences listed on Clayton County website. However, the warrant authority is listed as Fulton County Sheriff. Taking the listed case reference (07SC62537) and going to Fulton County Court public record https://publicrecordsaccess.fultoncountyga.gov/Portal/Home/Dashboard/29 we find case that the case is also for Rashad Brooks (one of known aliases according to Correction Department records). His identity is even further confirmed by his birth date, given on page 6 of the indictment (only page 1 is available for preview and one does have to pay for electronic delivery of the whole public record). His juvenile record is not public, but in one of the hearing transcripts (bond petition) the prosecutor refers to it in front of the judge and Brook's lawyer does not dispute it.

To sum up, all cases are conclusively linked to Brooks by his own admission and by internal unique identifiers, and further linked by verification of identity, such as name, age, photo, location.

All of the above are authoritative sources for what Brooks's record is. The proposed edit does not express an opinion on the record, nor what someone else could have thought of the record and thus does not need someone in the news to report on it to be authoritative: it's not a news article, it's a statement of fact. Next point explains why the facts are relevant.

2. The background section talks about facts and events that should be relevant to the shooting. It already references Brooks's record, what he himself thought of his situation in life and how both of those could have affected how this tragedy played out. The proposed edit establishes a factual basis for the severity of Brook's situation. It also further underscores that he really knew what he was talking about when he talked about how parole/probation works. He was on and off probation since he was 10 or 11 (that was what he got for his juvenile offences). This edit further removes speculation around the extent of his record (like people counting court cases instead of actual offences).

3. I would like to broadly address the possible reluctance to make the edit because it will skew the the narrative in some way. I see most of the references made to his record on fringe or tabloid publications with a lot of it leaning towards a narrative of "he was a thug, so he got what was coming to him". This fact may create the impression that listing his record can only be aimed at that outcome. I'd like to point out, however, that Reconnect published the interview with him, where they basically inform the public of a portion of his record, but it does not support the 'thug' narrative. Sure a lot of it is because it's in his own words, but what it goes to demonstrate is that the fact of having a record can skew the narrative surrounding the topic of the article only if people on the one side of the argument are talking about it. In fact the little reference i heard from more authoritative news sources were along the lines of how hurt Brooks was "by the system". His full record can just as well be used to demonstrate the full extent of how hurt he was, as i can to demonstrate how big of an offender he was. A long record can be used to say that he consistently made poor choices, but at he same time can anyone really say that a 10 yo child or 14 yo child "made bad choices" and so he led himself down the path leading to this event. His long probation experience can be used to say that he very well knew not to break the rules, but can also be used to say that if you're on probation for year and years, you are bound to make some missteps (just like people say that the longer a police officer's service is, the more normal it is to see a larger number of complaints). His early age felony charges can be used to say that the system allowed him to get off easy (if convicted, around now would be the earliest he'd be getting out) or that it screwed him, when he had to spend two years in a detention center for the case to only be placed in a 'dead docket' after prosecution decided they may loose the actual trial ('dead docket' cases allow the defendant to walk free, but the record of a pending case often shows up in background checks limiting opportunities). All i'm saying with this is that facts are facts and people choose to read narratives into facts. The edit does not create a narrative by itself and Wikipedia is a place for facts for people to make their own judgement on the issue. Not listing the fact of his record in the portion which centers around discussing the same makes no sense. The only question if it's verifiable and relevant and i think i cover both in my points 1 and 2. I also try to make the language describing the facts of his record neutral, by not saying 'he did something', but 'he was charged with something', 'he plead guilty to something', 'records show..', etc. Suggestions on how to make the language more neutral are welcome.

Change Brooks's background from

Rayshard Brooks was a 27-year-old African American resident of Atlanta. He had been married for eight years and had three daughters and a stepson.[11][12] In February 2020, he gave an interview where he discussed his experience being incarcerated, his life struggles after incarceration, and his difficulty finding work and financial problems.[13] He said that he had pleaded guilty to false imprisonment and credit card fraud and was sentenced to one year in prison.[14] A driving under the influence conviction would have been grounds for his probation revocation and return to prison.[15][16]

to

Rayshard Brooks was a 27-year-old African American resident of Atlanta. He had been married for eight years and had three daughters and a stepson.[11][12] In February 2020, he gave an interview where he discussed his experience being incarcerated, his life struggles after incarceration, and his difficulty finding work and financial problems.[13] He said that he had pleaded guilty to false imprisonment and credit card fraud and was sentenced to one year in prison.[14] A driving under the influence conviction would have been grounds for his probation revocation and return to prison.[15][16]

According to Fulton County public records: In 2007 Rayshard Brooks (known alias Rashad Brooks) was indited by a grand jury of a capital felony involving two armed robberies and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (the victim was shot in the stomach 3 times). case 07SC62537 Brooks was 14 at the time. The case took over 2 years to litigate and ended up being "placed on the dead docket" after critical evidence was suppressed due to a procedural error by the detaining officers (the key to the car, where the gun and stolen wallet were found, was seized about an hour before an arrest warrant was obtained), even though both victims identified Brooks as the perpetrator. The transcript of the bond petition hearing, contained in the public records, shows the prosecutor referring to Brook's juvenile record, which included theft by receiving of a motor vehicle in 2003, when he was 10 or 11, and criminal trespassing and theft in 2005, when he was 12 or 13. He got probation for both of those. While the 2007 case was being litigated Brooks spent two years in Metro Regional Youth Detention Center and, after turning 17 in Jan 2010, a month in Fulton County Jail [5].

According to Clayton County Court Public Records:

2010 and 2011 - false statement converted to obstruction of an officer in Oct 2010 and battery, simple battery and family violence in Jan 2011. Both cases were merged and resulted in 12 months probation with no contact with the victim. He violated probation in Nov 2011 and a warrant was issued for his arrest in March 2012. [6]

2012 - He was convicted of 2 counts of marijuana possession of over an ounce in May 2012. He got 12 months jail time, which was delayed. [7]

2013 - In March 2013 he was charged with theft by receiving stolen property, obstruction of law enforcement officer, felony cruelty to children, interference with custody, false imprisonment. The charges went to the county's Superior Court to be tried in 2014.

2014 - In March 2014 he is also charged with simple battery/family violence. 2013 and 2014 cases make it to the Superior court in May 2014. In Aug 2014 he pleads guilty to all counts, with the largest sentence being 7 years, 1 year of which he has to serve jail time for, and 6 years on probation. [8][9]

2015 - After 6 months his case is transferred over to the Pardon and Parole Board. However, just 3 months after that, in May 2015 an arrest warrant is issued for violation of probation. In October another warrant is issued for his arrest for 'theft by taking'.[10][11]

2016 - In February 2016 the case is transferred to State and in April to Superior court with 4 counts of credit card theft. In June 2016 his probation from the prior conviction is revoked and he is required to serve another 12 months. In July he pleads guilty to theft charges and is allowed to serve the 12 month term concurrently with his term for probation violation. [12]

2018 - In December 2018 an arrest warrant is issued again in relation to another probation violation. [13]

According to Lucas County Common Pleas court's public records:

On 12/30/2019 Brooks was apprehended in Lucas County, Ohio and held based on a Georgia issued fugitive warrant issued for failure to notify community supervision of address change and failure to complete theft prevention class. On January 6 2020 he was in custody of Georgia law enforcement. [14]

On January 29th 2020 Brooks is released on probation again.

Brooks driving offenses include: 2011 - He had a 'driving without a licence' violation in May 2011. [15] 2014 - In March 2014 Brooks had a speeding ticket for going 16-20 miles above the speed limit. [16] Drovosek198 (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Per previous discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - I do not support Drovosek198's edit. That information has absolutely nothing to do with this WP article about Brooks being fatally shot in the back BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: This is particularly relevant, given RS discuss his status on probation as a motivation for attempting to run. We should at the very least comment on why he was on probation at the time of his death (child abuse). Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 00:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a complete nonstarter because it's WP:OR. EEng 02:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like WP:OR is referencing something else and it's more like in research papers: define fact 1,2,3 and then make a conclusion. Here there is no conclusion or opinion, only facts (basically a readout of court records) supporting an already expressed opinion of RB on his life. But let's say i try to follow the OR guideline, then it says it has to be a reliable source. It also needs to be neutral. Based on prior discussion i see reliable source are things like CNN. Regardless of political stance, they do have an editorial policy and service a certain demographic. So to be neutral, i would need to list sources that have opposing editorial policies and serve a different demographic. But those are treated as unreliable (although in this case they are, as it is simply a statement of fact, that he has a record). But if we need someone to speak about a fact (not research) to be able to mention it here's sources: the host talks about his family violence charges https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SxAWFKTgD8 and the text here mentions'other charges', including 'domestic incidents' https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/during-in-depth-interview-rayshard-brooks-talked-about-need-justice-system-reform/IFCAWY2X5BHUHBG762A7XVNWNQ/Drovosek198 (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So to be neutral, i would need to list sources that have opposing editorial policies and serve a different demographic. No, that's not neutrality, that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. Start here: an encyclopedia is a tertiary source; it summarizes secondary sources. Whereas, criminal records are primary sources. If we were to summarize primary sources, we would be a secondary source, and not a tertiary one. The reason your suggestion is a "non starter" is because it summarizes a primary source. Instead, you need multiple reliable secondary sources to summarize, as is done currently in the article. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And the reason for that (in this particular case) is that interpreting court records is complicated (that's why there are lawyers) and it's very difficult to know (a) whether everything a database search turns up is really about the person you have in mind and (b) whether you're seeing everything that bears on interpreting the results properly. That's why one of the sites the OP linked warns By using this service, you acknowledge that you understand that it is solely your responsibility to verify any information you may obtain herein through personal written correspondence with the Inmate Records and Information at PO Box 1529, Forsyth, GA 31029 before making any assumption that said information is factual and complete.
    A similar issue that arises is attempts by editors to say "what the law on X is" by citing the text of a statute; unfortunately, a statute is just the start of knowing what the law is, because other statutes and court decisions can modify or preempt it. It's just way out of our remit. EEng 15:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you use the interpretation from AJC? "In 2014, a domestic dispute between Brooks and his wife, Tomika Miller, led to charges of battery, false imprisonment and child cruelty, but the charges do not tell the whole story. Brooks was accused of grabbing Miller’s wrist (battery), pulling her into another room (false imprisonment) and doing so in front of her 7-year-old son (child cruelty)." www.ajc.com/news/opinion/opinion-taking-time-tell-fuller-story/HC9QQyt9Z2qFUCxN5ShGxL/

Turned "partially"

@EEng: I checked and don't see "partially" in AP, AJC, ABC, BBC or NYT's timelines (cited in the article). However, they almost all note that he turned while running (NYT says "in full stride"). I think that is implied by "With Rolfe pursuing him", but I'm not sure. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to capture the idea, which I think is crucial, that he didn't stop and turn his full body toward Rolfe. It's part-and-parcel of the "fired toward" or "fired in the direction" idea. Can you do whatever you can to express that idea, consistent with sources (in potentially two places -- lead and body)? EEng 20:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While running, Brooks turned and fired doesn't capture the idea that he didn't stop? Because those are the words I wrote that are in the body now, and, believe it or not, a lot of people at the time said they were brilliant words, really tremendous words, the best words, and a lot of people agree they're very, very good.</orange> Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, well "while running ... turned" somewhat admits the reading that he temporarily interrupted a continual (but not necessarily continuous) running process, that is, suspended running long enough to turn etc etc. I leave this in your hands while I plod through the rest of the article. EEng 22:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm coming up with nothing better than variations of "while running, he shot at Rolfe". Why does it matter whether he turned fully or partially, stopped and turned, or shot over his head without looking? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To Levivich - How does this sound, While running, Brooks appeared to pivot and point the taser toward the officers. I've read conflicting RS articles on whether Brooks actually fired the taser -- so I didn't include that. But I do agree, you do know your words, you use the best words, some people say no one has ever used better words. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, both the prosecutors and the defendant (Rolfe) say that Brooks shot at Rolfe, and there's the still image the DA showed from the security camera video that seems to pretty clearly show the Taser firing and the darts flying over Rolfe's head [17]. Not every source says Brooks fired the Taser, but there are multiple sources that say that in their own voice, and the DA says the Taser was fired twice, which is one of the key parts of the case the DA touted at his press conference. And I haven't seen Brooks's family attorney, or any one else, say that Brooks didn't fire the Taser. I think we can say it in wikivoice but attribution would be OK; I don't think we should omit it. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Levivich you are correct. I am mistaken. Thank you for correcting me on that. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed that Mr. Brooks firing the taser is not being disputed in sources. During the charging announcement the DA specifically said: "And this was Mr. Brooks, who was firing a taser as well. But I don’t know if you can see it clearly. The prongs from the taser were actually fired above Officer Rolfe here."
The sources are what count, but note that you can see the taser being fired in the Wendy's security video we link. It's at 28:36 / frames 6-10 (indexed from 0), most clear on frame 7. (This links to 28:30. Go full screen at best quality (720p), pause at 28:36, step frame-by-frame using "," and ".".) I believe what is most visible is the cloud of Anti-Felon Identification (AFID) tags (confetti marked with a serial number) released as the cartridge fires.
That was the second firing of Officer Brosnan's Taser. What I've not seen addressed in sources is the first firing -- by whom and when. -- ToE 09:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our colleague Quaerens-veritatem came up with the wording While still running, Brooks turned his right arm just enough to fire the second shot of Brosnan's Taser, which seems very satisfactory. The first firing is mentioned earlier in the section. EEng 17:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd somehow entirely missed that. -- ToE 17:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks EEng#s. I think we (LevivichBetsyRMadisonThinking of EnglandWWGBall should look @ the YouTube video again: "Security camera video showing Rolfe shooting Brooks and subsequent events" specially @ 23:22:48. The video is the best evidence, its just a matter of putting the evidence into words for readers who will just read the lead or even the article & not see the video. As Levivich noted "partially" is not in AP, AJC, ABC, BBC or NYT's timelines and, just my opinion, it seems "turned" alone is not as accurate. "Turned partially" or "turned" to me relates to Mr. Brooks' whole body turning when the body turning was minimal, if at all. What I see is Mr. Brooks continuing to run and while doing so reached back his right arm just enough to fire in Rolfe's direction and not interfere with his attempt to continue to outrun Rolfe, thus "While still running, Brooks turned his right arm just enough to fire the second shot of Brosnan's Taser toward Rolfe,...". Is there a problem w/this wording? If so, let's discuss because I believe we can do better for the reader than "turned partially" or "turned" without making the clause more wordy than necessary but accurate. Best regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing something on a video and putting it into words is original research, and has no place in Wikipedia. We only include material that is published in reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understand, but frame by frame shown NYT and others. Use cited works does not mean copying, just if they support the clause. Could argue a video published is reliable, published source. Note the videos added to the article - would they be removed as "original research"? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they'd be removed as OR, because they're OR. Here's what WP:OR says:
All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors ... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
"Just enough" requires an (at least somewhat) subjective evaluation. What sourcing we'd accept for such an evaluation would be a question -- certainly multiple sources would be required -- but there's no way we editors can make such an interpretation on our own. EEng 13:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reinserted the sentence: "Brooks turned his body just enough to fire the taser toward Rolfe" back into this WP article because this sentence is supported by the language used in the NYT article [19] that is linked to this WP article that describes the chase.
From the linked NYT article: "While being chased, and in full stride, Mr. Brooks looks behind him, points the Taser he is holding in Officer Rolfe’s direction..."
That sentence is also supported from other reliable sources:
NYmag: [20] "Brooks half turns around and points the Taser toward Rolfe..."
LA Times: [21] "Brooks keeps running, glancing behind him and appearing to fire the Taser in Rolfe's direction ..."
CNBC: [22] "As Rolfe gave chase, Brooks appeared to turn and point the stun gun at the officer.."
That sentence was inserted here [23] and removed here [24]. I have reinserted sentence for two reasons: it is the best way to describe that Brooks did not stop and turn his full body toward Rolfe, and it is verbiage supported by the RS linked within this WP article describing the chase. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: I also reworded the sentence in the body to "While still running, Brooks glanced behind and turned just enough to fire the second shot of Brosnan's Taser for the same reason I reinserted the other sentence. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to sources, he just turned and fired. Anything else is just POV. We follow sources, not opinions. WWGB (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To WWGB - I think you're mistaken. As I explain above, I reinserted the sentence based off of the sentence written in the article of the reliable source that we use within this WP article; therefore, the reinserted sentence is not POV. Please re-read the quote from the RS we link/use within this WP article, "While being chased, and in full stride, Mr. Brooks looks behind him, points the Taser he is holding in Officer Rolfe’s direction." Based off that quote, from our reliable source, I feel it's clear that our linked RS supports the reinserted sentence which underscores that the reinserted sentence is not a POV BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To WWGB - The sentence I reinstated is clearly supported by reliable sources (see evidence of RS support in my comment above) - so I really don't know why you keep undo-ing edits that are so obviously supported by reliable sources. Since no one here wants any appearance of an edit war we have two choices: 1) you take the time to read the quotes reliable source that support the reinserted sentence; or 2) we start an RfC and decide that way. Let me know how you want to proceed. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"glanced behind and turned just enough" is pure opinion, something invented by a Wikipedia editor. Show us any reliable source that uses any words to similar effect. WWGB (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To WWGB - Again, you're mistaken. The RS we use within this WP article writes, " Brooks looks behind him, points the Taser.."
Also, in my above comment (at timestamp 11:28, 24 June 2020 [25]), I quote additional reliable sources who write, "glancing behind him and appearing to fire.." and this reliable source quote "Brooks half turns around and points the Taser..." and this reliable source quote, "Brooks appeared to turn and point the stun gun at the officer.."
Two things to notice:
1) the reliable sourced do support "glanced behind and turned just enough" - and therefore that sentence is not a POV.
2) the reliable sources do not simply say what you're mistakenly claiming which is, "he just turned and fired."
I've given you plenty of quotes from reliable sources that support reinserting the sentence. So, I am very politely & very respectfully asking you: Do you want to start an RfC over this - or - have you re-read the quotes from reliable sources that I gave which will allow you to stop undo-ing the reinsertion of that sentence? Just let me know your answer, thanks & respectfully BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so "glancing behind" and "half turns" I have no problem with. But "just enough" I am not seeing. WWGB (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like your new sentence WWGB - thank you & you are a fine WP editor to work with. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WWGB is right. turned his body just enough simply is not supported (I'm sorry to say, because it's a very neat phrasing) because none of the sources say anything that. They say looked behind, glanced behind, half turns, and if that's the sort of thing we have then we're going to have to go with phrasing that's within those bounds. EEng 13:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks was "relaxed, friendly, co-operative"

Please remove the line "Brooks was relaxed, friendly and cooperative" for the reason that none of the reference articles use the specific words "relaxed" or "cooperative". Only one reference article uses the word "friendly" and it is the journalist opinion and not a statement of fact, plus neglects that Brooks avoided answering direct questions and was slurring his words. We need facts and not media bias. When multiple experts analyse Brooks demeanour through court preceedings then this can be added but for now this is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.143.123 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll double check this but each reference should be using that exact word in their own voice. Originally I think I had two refs per word (for this reason), and reduced it to one. But I'll double check that the cites are right, they get moved around a bit. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Various aspects of Brooks' demeanor can be characterized in verbal proximity to one another. Doing so may be advantageous. I think it is reliably sourced that Brooks tended not to answer questions directly and tended to launch into irrelevancies, both verbal and physical. This should be stated in proximity to other reliably sourced characterizations such as relaxed, friendly, and cooperative. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked and made a slight adjustment to the source ordering. There are more sources we could add, but I think it's overcite; pretty much every source in that entire section says he was "relaxed", "friendly", "cooperative", "compliant", "calm", "respectful", "cordial", in the words of the DA "almost jovial", or some variation thereof. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The change is better but I still dont think biased media reports and personal opinion are suitable. If you want to quote the DA saying he was "almost jovial" then to remain neutral there should also be an opinion from Rolfes lawyer, or quote Brosnan from his bodycam video that he was "fucking wasted". He was acting drunk but non-violent, decribing him as friendly, and cooperative isn't factual and doesnt belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.143.123 (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions - addition

EEng has a problem w/ this add to "Reactions" & would like opinions before wp:DRR:

"The District Attorney’s actions were criticized and there were calls for him to step aside (citation) including by multiple members of the Georgia House and Senate,(citation) the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association condemning his actions as a “... grandstanding vote seeking tactic...", (citation) and U.S. Representative Doug Collins, stating, “Charging an Atlanta police officer with felony murder before the completion of the GBI's investigation was a political decision, not a legal one.”(citation)"

Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with EEng on this. 1) The unsupported accusations, criticism, and complaints from politicians, who themselves are in political election races, has nothing to do with the "killing of Rayshard Brooks" so does not belong. 2) I find no reliable source that accuses the DA of the things that politician Doug Collins is accusing the DA of so we should not insert the unsubstantiated opinion of Doug Collins since there are no RS who substantiate his accusations. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. The move to charge w/o a GBI investigation conclusion is w/o precedent, but agree now that opinions are questionable since everyone is up for election or reelection. Although one law professor and former DA in one of my cites came close - "If you let politics control the decision, you’re not making the right decisions," I'll wait to see if there are other independent opinions on point.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some quotes from sources in the article about the swiftness/severity of the charges and what it means, which might be useful:

  • "The charges reflect a potential “sea change” in tolerance for violence by police, said Caren Morrison, a Georgia State University law professor who used to be a federal prosecutor. Morrison said the view until now has generally been that officers are justified in using deadly force in a case in which the suspect had a stun gun or other weapon that could cause “grievous bodily harm.” Later Wednesday there had been reports that Atlanta police officers were walking off the job or calling in sick in protest of the charges against Rolfe and Brosnan. The APD said in a Tweet that it is experiencing a higher than usual number of officers calling out for their shifts but that, “We have enough resources to maintain operations & remain able to respond to incidents.”"[1]
  • "Legal experts said that the charges came surprisingly quick, and were significant for their severity, with punishment that could extend to life in prison or even the death penalty if Mr. Rolfe is convicted. “These are hefty, hefty charges,” said Jimmy Gurulé, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and a former federal and state prosecutor. The swiftness, he said, reflected a sense of urgency fueled by recent protests and broader efforts to shine a light on shortcomings in the criminal justice system."[2]
  • "The swiftness with which a white police officer has been fired and then charged with murder in the killing of Rayshard Brooks is just the latest sign of how rapidly and dramatically police agencies have shifted strategy when it comes to dealing with deadly force cases. Historically, not only have police chiefs been reticent to take action against officers involved in in-custody deaths until a "full investigation" had taken place, they've been quick to defend the officer's use of force if he or she "reasonably" believed that a person had a deadly weapon or posed immediate danger to the officer. In this case, video shows that Brooks had taken the officer's Taser and appears to use it. But not only is the weapon designated as less than lethal, the video shows he was running away and that the shots that killed him entered his back. Now the officer faces 11 charges, the question of whether or not a Taser should be considered a deadly weapon will surely come into play, as well as whether the officer had "reasonable" fear of Brooks. What is already clear is that police departments are not feeling nearly as confident relying on the old strategies and rhetoric that historically have allowed them to slow-play their response to a police-involved killing."[3] Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brumback, Kate (June 17, 2020). "Officer charged with murder for shooting Rayshard Brooks". Associated Press. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  2. ^ Rojas, Rick; Fausset, Richard (June 17, 2020). "Former Atlanta Officer Is Charged With Murder in Shooting of Rayshard Brooks". The New York Times. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  3. ^ Lussenhop, Jessica (June 18, 2020). "Why this case is different". BBC News. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  • I appreciate your research Levivich. Thought: Include the above under "Reactions"?
    • Also, for consideration as a "reaction", this information:
      “Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard is investigating the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks at the same time he’s the subject of an investigation himself. The confluence of two ongoing GBI investigations — one that Howard says is helping him, another that targets him — has sparked calls for Howard to get out of the Brooks case altogether.” - “He should step aside as Fulton County DA until the GBI investigation of himself is complete,” said Georgia State University law professor Clark Cunningham. "Atlanta’s chief law enforcement official should not be making unreviewable decisions about who to prosecute in this critical moment — for example in the Brooks shooting — while under the cloud of possibly being a felon himself.” https://www.ajc.com/news/local/fulton-county-leads-one-investigation-and-the-subject-another/SCcg7PBghbcMzb0Za0L4UN/ What about this independent, expert, reaction? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Personally I'm opposed to separate "reactions" sections, but more to your point, I agree that the article could be expanded about Howard, his election, that he's also prosecuting that other taser case in Atlanta, and possibly the investigations he's facing, including the one by GBI (though I'd stick it in investigation section, or maybe add Howard to the people involved section). Frankly I think Howard may be notable enough for his own article at this point. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 22:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd love to see all that stuff ... in a separate article about Howard. EEng 22:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's think this over for a few days. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrests before GBI investigation over

EEng has a problem w/ this add to "Investigation and criminal charges" beginning before "On June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney announced..." & would like opinions before wp:DRR:

Instead of in the first sentence "; as of June 17, 2020 that investigation was continuing" add to beginning of next paragraph: "Before conclusion of the GBI investigation, on June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney announced..."

This intro has also been re-added by others. Relevant since GBI is non-political and always GBI investigations have been concluded before charges brought. Use of force investigations by this DA previously have taken up to years & always GBI investigation ended first. -See, e.g. AJC: “Ex-APD officer re-indicted for killing of unarmed black man” Sept 05, 2018 from the June 22, 2016 death. Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By this point in the article the reader has already been told that the GBI investigation remains underway, so the question is why you want to rub that fact in the reader's face as an opening to the sentence about the DA filing charges. As WP:UNDUE says: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. By juxtaposing this particular fact here you make it sound like it has some grave significance, which it doesn't. EEng 13:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* I do not support including the two partial sentences you're talking about for many reasons, including: they may violate WP:UNDUE & WP:BALASP. The two partial sentences focus only on the status of the GBI investigation at the time the officers were charged/arrested. The status of the GBI investigation is an insignificant detail, irrelevant to the arrest/charges being made, and may tend to violate WP:UNDUE & WP:BALASP by giving undue weight to an irrelevant aspect of the charge/arrest of the officers. Here's why I say those things:
According to WSB-2 tv [26] in Atlanta, "there’s no legal requirement" for the DA to wait for GBI to complete their investigation before arrest/charging the officers. In addition to that, WSB-2 tv writes, "the GBI does not make charging recommendations." Therefore, since there is no legal requirement for the DA to wait on GBI to finish their investigation before arresting/charging, and since the GBI does not even make recommendations on whether to charge or arrest the officers; the fact that GBI investigation was not finished is irrelevant, not significant to the officers being charged/arrested and may violate WP:DUE by giving undue weight to an irrelevant aspect of the officers being charged/arrested.
To quote WP:BALASP - "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject..." Therefore, I feel the status of the GBI investigation at the time of arrest/charge of the officers should not be included. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misread or I was not clear. I didn't want the clause repeated ("the two partial sentences"), just one clause to introduce, the other deleted. Obviously, there is no legal requirement for the DA to wait on the GBI to finish its investigation and, actually, the GBI has layed charges itself (see, Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery) but those aren't the points. The notability is the DA proceeding w/o conclusion of GBI investigation being without precedent and questioned. See, e.g. "Many question DA’s decision to charge officers in Brooks case before end of GBI investigation" referenced, above. "I was part of an officer-involved shooting team for many years at the Atlanta police, and we decided to send it to the GBI, Paul Howard was included in that. The DA’s office co-signed that, and that’s been the process all along.” Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think "Before conclusion of the GBI investigation" improperly implies the DA was doing something wrong by not waiting for GBI, whereas I think what RSes say about the actual significance of the DA not waiting for GBI is more complicated than that, and I don't see RSes saying that the DA did something wrong by not waiting. See the quotes I posted in the previous section for analysis of the meaning of the DA charging so quickly in this case. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the introductory clause implies the DA did anything wrong, it’s just a notable fact that is important. The GBI is non-political and always GBI investigations have been concluded before charges brought. It is a matter of perspective. We need to be neutral. As the writings cited by you (Levivich) read, "Legal experts said that the charges came surprisingly quick, ...”The swiftness ... reflected a sense of urgency fueled by recent protests and broader efforts to shine a light on shortcomings in the criminal justice system” and "The swiftness with which a white police officer has been fired and then charged with murder in the killing of Rayshard Brooks is just the latest sign of how rapidly and dramatically police agencies have shifted strategy when it comes to dealing with deadly force cases.” As such, the introduction reflects these realities, not fault by the DA. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between saying "the charges were brought quickly" and saying "the charges were brought before the GBI finished its investigation". None of the three sources I mentioned say the latter in their own voice. The AP and BBC articles, which are specifically about the charges, don't mention GBI at all. NYT writes "Officials from the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the union representing Atlanta officers, denounced the charges against both officers as premature and politically motivated, as Mr. Howard is locked in a tight re-election race. They said prosecutors should have waited until the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which is leading an investigation into the shooting, announces its findings." It seems to me that the swiftness of the charges has been widely commented on by RSes, but not-waiting-for-GBI has not been widely commented on, and NYT presents it as a union talking point. I could be wrong about that of course, I just haven't seen the RS coverage justifying our highlighting that the DA brought charges before GBI finished its investigation. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"We were not consulted on the charges filed by the District Attorney. Despite today’s occurrence, the GBI will complete its mission...” https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/gbi-officers-charged-but-investigation-into-rayshard-brooks-shooting-not-complete “Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard took the unusual step Wednesday of charging the officers in the Brooks case before reviewing that third-party investigation, ... .” “Porter the former head of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia, added the move is still unusual.””He said prosecutors across the state agreed those investigations were critical to their parallel investigations.” “Paul Howard was included in that. The DA’s office co-signed that, and that’s been the process all along.” https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/many-question-das-decision-charge-officers-brooks-case-before-end-gbi-investigation/TB2ZUMLR4VAKBHZLVOFCFGUOUQ/ The GBI “... said it was surprised by the announcement ... caught the agency off guard.” https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/rayshard-brooks-shooting-gbi-didnt-know-of-officers-charges/85-62fcd2c5-fe12-41f8-b736-8475a263f21a “G.B.I. said in a statement on Wednesday that the agency had not been consulted ...””Legal experts said that the charges came surprisingly quick... .” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/us/garrett-rolfe-rayshard-brooks-atlanta.html ??the charges were brought quickly before the GBI finished its investigation??-weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To  Quaerens-veritatem - the two clauses "On June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney announced..." "as of June 17, 2020 that investigation was continuing" and "Before conclusion of the GBI investigation, on June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney announced" appear to violate both WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP by giving undue weight to an irrelevant, minor insignificant aspect of the charge/arrest of the officers. WP:BALASP says,- "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject...". Since 1) there is no legal requirement for the DA to wait on GBI to finish their investigation before arresting/charging, and 2) GBI never, never makes recommendations on whether to charge or arrest the officers; underscores the fact that GBI investigation not being finished is an irrelevant, minor insignificant aspect to the officers being charged/arrested. Therefore, neither clause should be included, both should be excluded. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]
I think the GBI investigation is weighted proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. I fully understand your position BetsyRMadison and you need not repeat it; however, I do not understand how giving the date of the announcement by the DA of charges violates both WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP. Aren't dates of occurrences relevant and significant to the time line? You are the only one I have noticed to object to this dating. In reading the article now and in the future I suggest readers would want to know how announcement of (the date of) the charges fits in with all the activities that are dated including, without limitation, in reference to when the killing occurred and when the police started the "blue flu" absences. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To Quaerens-veritatem - Apparently I was not clear and I have unintentionally confused you. I apologize and will try to be more clear here: I have no problem with including dates in any timeline. It is not the "dates" that I say may violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP. It is the sentences, or rather clauses you wrote, (that happen to include dates) that I feel may violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP.
But, speaking of "dates" - I feel that a WP reader could become a little confused about the timeline of events the way it is currently written. The way it's written, it's hard to know what came first, second, etc. So, to avoid WP:UNDUE & WP:BALASP & to have a better flowing sequence of events, I would suggest having that section read something like this (rough draft): "On the evening of June 12, 2020 the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) began their investigation into the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks by officer Rolfe. The next day the Police chief resigned, officer Rolfe was fired, and officer Bronson was placed on administrative duty. On June 15, The county medical examiner ruled Brooks' death a homicide." That's just a rough draft but it does not include anything that would violate UNDUE or BALASP. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can skip the without limitation. This isn't a contract, counselor. The blue flue material can say, "X days after..." to set the time relationship. EEng 18:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just showing many occurrences beside those listed are, or will be, dated. Sorry for writing in proper grammar. The "On June 17" has been the intro to the paragraph I believe from the beginning, all other editors have left it, including you after deleting "Before the GBI investigation was concluded" a couple of times, I'm not sure why you see it as a problem at this late stage, and it continues to be consistent as other occurrences are all dated and even timed. It's absence won't tell the readers when the charges were made in relation to the death or subsequent activities without unnecessary counting. It is reasonable to set a timeline w/consistency: dates of confrotation and death, charges, bond, hearings, trial, etc. I think that it also shows the DA took quick action which has been viewed as a good thing in these days of proper and timely response to the police use of deadly force. The reader comes first. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because "On June 17" has been there from the beginning, does not mean it should be. This story is very fluid and the fact that another editor's eye's may catch something that was an oversight to you & other WP editors is why & how WP articles are improved upon. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy! Did I ever screw up! I made a huge copy/paste error in my comment above at timestamp 17:03 24 June and have corrected that comment. I intended to copy/paste "as of June 17, 2020 that investigation was continuing" but in error copy/pasted "On June 17." My error has caused unintended confusion and I am very sorry for that. For the record, I only suggest changes for the 1st paragraph under the heading "Investigation and criminal charges" (as I indicate in a rough draft above in green above). I have absolutely no problem with the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph staying as is: On June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney announced eleven charges against Rolfe: felony murder, five counts of aggravated assault, four police oath violations, and damage to property. Very sorry about my copy/paste error. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I feel awful about my copy/paste error & I want to be as precise as I can, I will put my proposed rough draft for the 1st paragraph along with the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph (that I think is fine as-is) below in green. In fact, I think the whole 2nd paragraph is fine as-is but in this comment will only include it's 1st sentence because that's what I screwed up in my copy/paste error. And to reiterate, I feel the current 1st paragraph may violate DUE, BALASP, and it seems to not flow well regarding the sequence of events & that's why I wrote a rough draft for it.
(rough draft) "On the evening of June 12, 2020 the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) began their investigation into the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks by officer Rolfe(, which as of June 17 remains ongoing. The next day the Atlanta police chief resigned, officer Rolfe was fired, and officer Bronson was placed on administrative duty. On June 15, the county medical examiner ruled Brooks's death a homicide.
On June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney announced eleven charges against Rolfe: felony murder, five counts of aggravated assault, four police oath violations, and damage to property...
Ok, I feel stupid now, so I'm gonna get off here & hope none of you are too mad at me for my screw up. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's really, really good, actually. I hope you won't mind, I made some modifications. EEng 21:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem BetsyRMadison! It's hard to be human! I have a plaque that says "Be careful how you present your words because tomorrow you may have to eat them." I was quite mystified about your position, but am relieved now that you have explained. I think your edit is fine. I am dropping the position that the second paragraph should begin "Before completion of the GBI report, on ..."! My only sticking point (sorry) is I would like to indicate to the reader (without necessarily a date) that the GBI's investigation was continuing (the reader may wonder what happened to it). When the investigation is completed we can delete that clause and just have a later entry stating when the GBI submitted its report. Anyway, EEng put in the clause, "; as of June 17, 2020 that investigation was continuing." so would like his opinion. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With what I hope will be her indulgence, I added something to BetsyRMadison's text above. EEng 21:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You all are very kind, thank you! I like the changes EEng made to my proposed rough draft and unless someone else wants to make additional changes to it, I think we should go ahead and use it.   As for the inclusion of the status of the GBI investigation, because of UNDUE and BALASP (and maybe even additional WP guidelines) I don't feel it's a matter of shouldn't include it, but rather it's a matter of can't include it.  I understand that it's a sticking point for you Quaerens-veritatem - but because of WP guidelines, it seems to me that we have no choice but to exclude it. We reported that an investigation has begun and it seems the only thing we can do now is wait til the investigation is over and report on it then.  In fact, at that point, we might need to give the investigation its own subheading depending on what it says. Thanks again to you both for your kind words. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

The description of the scuffle between officers and Rayshard Brooks does not include that he actually shot officer Brosnan. Brooks violently attacked, took and used the officers weapon on the officer. 2601:18C:402:F7F0:35DC:2108:D9F2:EC3 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ed6767 talk! 13:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ed6767, sorry to pick on you, but I'm getting pretty fucking sick and tired of meaningless drive-by "responses" to edit requests. If you don't know anything about the article or its history or the many conversations here on the talk page, you're not helping and just confusing things. The right answer would have been the one I give below. El C, maybe you know some way to block requests on a given article from going into the queue. This is a thrice-daily waste of time for everyone. EEng 18:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, apologies that I'm not an expert at responding to edit requests, something I do very infrequently compared to other work here. Usually, it's due to the things showing up in my recent changes feed, then checking for spam ext. I normally don't turn down responses unless I clearly think there is an issue with it - although I very much appreciate being told much more politely that I made a mistake, as I likely did here judging by that reaction. I am sorry that you found it so insulting and will be more diligent in responding to the edit requests to prevent future frustration, especially on highly active or controversial pages. Ed6767 talk! 19:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, there's nothing in the interface to restrict or otherwise throttle edit requests. Short of semiprotecting the article talk page itself also, there's nothing that can be done about frivolous requests that I am aware of. El_C 19:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make myself clear. It's not the edit requests I'm pissed off about (and you know I swear a lot -- I had a grand uncle who was a longshoreman -- so don't take it personally) but rather the responses to them. It's what we talked about before. EEng 19:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you made yourself clear, I'm just a bit thick today apparently. Anyway, I think educating respondents is the way to go about this. How that is to be done, however, isn't something I have an immediate answer to. El_C 20:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's where I'm stuck as well. New Page Patrol has a project talk page; is there an equivalent for edit requests where this can be raised? I thought of Wikipedia talk:Edit requests but I have a feeling there's little attention there. EEng 20:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"In a press release on Wednesday, the attorneys said Brooks took Brosnan's stun gun from him and used it against the officer." www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/atlanta-officer-charged-death-rayshard-brooks-turns-himself-jail-n1231437

Background discrepancy

Reference the "background" section, What is the reason for redacting the Rayshard Brooks paragraph in a sympathetic manner (kids, family, struggle with jail, etc.) as opposed to the unsympathetic Garrett Rolfe paragraph where it goes straight into negative aspect of his career background (as opposed to also mentioning about his family or any possible stress related struggle he might have had on the job, etc.)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatNPatN (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources on those details? EEng 18:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move a section

I think we should move the statement "prosecutors claim that after Brooks was shot, Rolfe kicked Brooks and Brosnan stood on his shoulder." From the body and into the "investigation" section due to the fact that the video evidence does not support this claim and so far it's simply an allegation made by the prosecution, without evidence. It's misleading on the section it's currently in. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose in this photograph that the DA shows, Rolfe could have been tripping over Brooks rather than kicking him, but I really don't see a logical reason to put "Rolfe kicking Brooks" in the investigations section when "Rolfe shooting Brooks" is in the death section. Of course it should be properly attributed, etc., but I think everything that happened in that parking lot on the night of June 12 should be in one section (currently called "Death"). That "Rolfe kicking Brooks" is a disputed allegation is no reason to move it out of that section. By comparison, "Brooks tased Brosnan" is an allegation; "Brooks was intoxicated' is an allegation; etc., but we wouldn't move those details out of the section. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Why are we including events from the officer's past that are irrelevant to the story, but denying any edits that include background information on the attacker regarding his cruelty to children and battery convictions that are the reason he was on probation and attacked the officers? Seems like a bit of a double standard. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because "cruelty to children and battery convictions" are not "the reason he was on probation and attacked the officers", as clearly explained in the source that someone cited in making one of the edits that I reverted. I have no objection to adding what the secondary sources actually say, though. I'm surprised by the recent focus on this by various editors: is this advertised on some Proud Boys message board or something? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The violent criminal's background of violence and criminality is very relevant to his violence toward the officers. Also, address my points and avoid the accusations and snide remarks, it's uncivil and can get you blocked. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks&oldid=964513187"