Talk:Killing of Eric Garner

Requested move 2 June 2020

Death of Eric Garner → Killing of Eric Garner – In the recently concluded discussion on the renaming of the earlier page titled Death of George Floyd to Killing of George Floyd, many of those against the move cited this page as a precedence. However, the motion has passed, and one of the deciding arguments was that the autopsy reports have ruled the death of George Floyd it as a homicide. Since this is also the case for Eric Garner, for the sake of consistency we should also rename this page. Bubka42 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support per nom. Love of Corey (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• The justice system has not ruled against anybody, yet activist here still insist on rewriting history: Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. 2601:602:9200:1310:93B:1B27:C783:41DD (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support according to the same rationale I voiced in the George Floyd move. The word "killing" does not necessarily imply murder. "Kill" only really implies that one did not die from some cause like disease or suicide; it implies that one's life ended upon action by another human being. In the case of Eric Garner, which was ruled a homicide, it is clear that Garner's life ended upon action by other human beings. Additionally, there is already precedent in such examples as Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, Shooting of Michael Brown, etc. which use more specific terms besides merely "death". There are already around 53 such "Killing of" article names, as can be seen in a prefix search: [1] BirdValiant (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support – same rationale as with the article about the killing of George Floyd Ca1ek (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per "The medical examiner ruled Garner's death a homicide.", in other words, "killing". - MrX 🖋 22:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, for consistency. Feelthhis (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Six years ago it was named "Death" and no one complained. Now it's not good anymore, certain users want to turn Wikipedia in a politicized tool, always sided with an apparent position on social matters. "Killing" implies that he was effectively killed, still no one was indicted—are we sure we should call it this way? I am not, the term proposed is not neutral. --Foghe (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S: The autopsy motivation is so precarious: an autopsy is not a trial—it didn't state a ruling, there was no right for the suspect to defend his innocence. The usual frase "everybody knows it" is not enough for settling the truth, we need certainty. It will be named "killing" or "homicide" only when the Justice system will have proven it has been a killing, not when some activist says it. --Foghe (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not you who is doing what you accuse "certain users" of?[2] - MrX 🖋 00:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Are we here to talk about this page or that page, attempting to take distraction for this matter here? In case, do you really think this topics are neutral and objective, or you are just trying to take advantage of the left-leaning majority on en.wiki to weaponize the site for political purposes? And by the way, what about this, this, and this your edit summary? --Foghe (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Foghe, I see seven comments from you in this thread; in at two of these you cast imputations on the good faith of the editors in favour of the move, as indicated by phrases like certain users want to turn Wikipedia in a politicized tool... and ...not when some activist says it, and in two others you resort to direct personal attacks, with phrases like you are just trying to take advantage of the left-leaning majority on en.wiki to weaponize the site for political purposes and you should learn a bit of education. I must remind you that in discussions such as these you are expected to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. You should also remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing political inclinations. I can see two points you raise, and I will try to answer those below:

(1) That this was accepted over the past six years, so there is no need to change it now. To this I think the reply of Althunyon below is adequate; as was clearly indicated by the discussion under the George Floyd move, if the editors by and large feel like it's more acceptable to name similar cases 'Killing of...' instead of 'Death of...', older articles should be changed to reflect this change of attitude. In Wikipedia consensus is more important than tradition. (2) That the coroner's report doesn't justify calling it a 'killing' till we get an indictment from a court. As was heavily discussed in the case of George Floyd, 'killing' is different from 'murder', which is 'killing with intent'. Most editors agreed that the coroner's report is the authority on whether someone was killed, i.e., died due to the actions of another person, irrespective of intent. A court does not judge how a person died, but to what degree another party is accountable for it. I heavily recommend you to browse through that discussion; I think you will find your answers there. (Also, can you cite the court ruling you keep referring to? The article itself does not mention any similar ruling.) Bubka42 (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Foghe, there's plenty of issues with Wikipedia due to old outcomes of decisions. Just because a decision was made once doesn't mean we always have to live by it and can never revisit the issue. That reasoning is shaky even outside of Wikipedia; should we never attempt to right past mistakes? Your reasoning makes no reference to WP policy, so I cannot comment in that regard.

  A lack of an indictment isn't doesn't really change the fact. It was ruled a homicide, which means the death was caused, which is the very definition of 'killing'. The proposal is not to change it to murder, so the fact that nobody was charged is not relevant - I feel you're mixing up 'killing' and 'murder' here. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Six years ago a mistake was made. The detailed discussion under the George Floyd move is applicable here as well. It was an oversight then, and we have the opportunity to correct it now. Althunyon (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually that discussion has nothing to do with this case: here we have a ruling by Courts that states that no one is responsible—the policeman is no killer, hence no killing by him. --Foghe (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Now you're just making shit up. The courts did no such thing. - MrX 🖋 00:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's what what they did, the policeman did not commit killing. And instead of being very vulgar with people who disagree with you, you should learn a bit of education (or maybe is this the long-awaited socialism!?) --Foghe (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Foghe, I can see the reason for your opposition, in that you feel this is a politically fuelled and biased move. I would note that killing and murder are not the same thing. The proposal here is not to rename it to murder, it's to rename it to killing. The nature of what happened fits the definition of killing, even though it may not fit murder.

I'd also note that you're mistaken in what the courts did. The case never reached a trial, and hence the courts never commented on the matter. There was a civil case, and that was settled out of court, with the City paying out to the family. But that's all irrelevant, because the change proposed is not affected by conviction, or lack thereof. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support, the medical examiner for Eric Garner found that the chokehold caused a cascade of events that led to his death (Source). She ruled it a homicide and despite the outcome of the case, Eric Garner didn't just happen to die, he was killed (Source). Following the decision with the George Floyd article, I agree with the move of this article. TJScalzo (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, the medical examiner is not a judge, and her report (refuted by the Jury) is not a sentence—the fact that she "ruled it a homicide" has really little significance, since it's not up to her to emanate the verdict. The assumption that "he was killed" doesn't actually find corroboration in the trial records, it's your opinion, since the Court could not be able to assert that Garner had been killed. We like it or not, in other words, the Court did not find Garner had suffered a killing. This appears to me to be well enough to settle once and for all the question. --Foghe (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. As the officer was never changed, there are significant BLP concerns here, as "killing" often implies a deliberate killing rather than an unintentional or accidental one: "killing--an act in which someone is deliberately killed"[3]. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"The medical examiner ruled Garner's death a homicide." When someone dies of homicide, they have been killed. - MrX 🖋 00:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

But they have not necessarily been killed deliberately. Homicides can be accidental or unintentional. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not the examiner that makes senteces, it's the Court: and it said they couldn't prove the policeman was responsible of a killing. --Foghe (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The proposed article title is not about a criminal sentence at all, and please cite a source for the court ruling that you keep referring to? - MrX 🖋 10:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and per "support" arguments presented above, especially those by BirdValiant at 20:51, 2 June 2020 and by TJScalzo at 00:28, 3 June 2020. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, for reasons given above. "Killing" is more specific than "death", and there is more than enough evidence to justify calling this a killing. Will also be consistent with the newly moved George Floyd article.3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support – This is a good precedent and I am glad the dam has broken. Whether or not he was murdered is not being discussed here. Whether or not he was killed is the question at hand. The answer to that question has been confidently shown in RS as yes. He was killed. The title should reflect that for NPOV. Our policy on NPOV is not blind like Lady Justice. We follow the majority consensus opinion of reliable sources, which includes the medical examiner. The consensus is that one person caused the death of another, and therefore killed the latter. As per usual, COMMONNAME is no help because the Google search results show almost equal number of hits for both titles. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

So the fact that the policeman was declared not to have killed Garner is just my idea. So stupid I am to cherish Justice, you already know everything, don't need proof nor corroboration. --Foghe (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No, there was no such finding. The grand jury simply decided not to prosecute. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support for consistency. epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support A ruling of homicide in the inquest means Garner was killed. The fact that no one was charged is irrelevant; a lack of criminal charges does not negate the fact that it was a killing. Waterfire (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support even though either is a travesty as it is undoubtably murder, ruled as homicide, even with no charges given. ɱ (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Dying after being assaulted, especially with such a crime as homicide, sounds more like being killed than dying. To use the word "dying" removes responsibility from the officer in question in much the same way as newspaper titles such as "Officer-involved shooting" do. Support also for consistency, and because a lack of criminal charges does not negate the fact that it was a killing, as people above have stated. DancingGrumpyCat^talk | ze/zir or she/her) 05:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support I actually brought this up in the discussion of the George Floyd article. In moving his article to 'killing', a new precedent has been set. Thornsie (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support for consistency. RopeTricks (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support It is first of all not a natural death anyway and it was a murder so the article can be better titled as Killing of Eric Garner. Abishe (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support for consistency. If Eric Garner had simply just died, there would be no article here. How and why he died--he was killed--is why we are here. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per most of what other "supporters" have said - such as specificity, consistency, the very reason for the article ("alleged killing" could also be a reason but is not the case here). 151.177.57.24 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME: For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. There is no convicted killer, so legally, this is not a killing. Nihlus 22:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As per the consensus reached recently in George Floyd's case, the term killing indicates that the actions of one person or a group of persons caused the death of another person, without assuming criminal intent on the part of the first group (as opposed to murder, which would indeed be inappropriate here). Hence the requested move should not violate WP:BLPCRIME. Bubka42 (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Bubka42, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override policy. Nihlus 06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not suggest a policy violation. From your quoted passage: ...has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime...; thus this policy is only violated when the title suggests a crime. As per reliable dictionaries, to kill is to commit a homicide (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford Advanced Learners'), while murder or manslaughter are unlawful homicides, i.e., crimes (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford Advanced Learners'). The consensus I mentioned was simply on interpreting these words as such. Unless there's global consensus or an explicit policy to treat killing as suggestive of committing a criminal homicide, the proposed move does not violate WP:BLPCRIME, so WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not apply. Bubka42 (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As Bubka42 says (and several others). Of course no one in their right senses wants to be associated with having killed a person. But if someone happens to hit a person with their car and that person dies, it is what it is: a killing, however accidental and unfortunate. Same in principle with this. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Manslaughter is still a crime and accusing a person of a crime without a conviction is against policy. Nihlus 20:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nobody proposes "manslaughter" as far as I can see. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, accusing a living person of manslaughter without conviction would be against policy. However, there's also non-criminal homicide, which is neither murder nor manslaughter. Bubka42 (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nihlus, 'manslaughter' and 'murder' are legal terms. There was no conviction, so I agree, we shouldn't use these words. "Killing" is not a legal term; it simply means the causing of death by another. Homicide ⇒ killing, but homicide ⇏ murder. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and other supporting comments. "Killing" does not imply a crime or intent, it's a neutral description of what actually happened. ThunderBacon (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support because it was a homicide. "Homicide of Eric Garner" just doesn't flow as well as "Killing of Eric Garner". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  By the way, I think we could save ourselves some time by having one large RFC proposing that every article about a homicide be named "Killing of [victim]" by default (i.e., such moves could be done boldly, but individual articles could still be moved to a title other than "Killing of..." by move request, if there's consensus to do so). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom. When deciding terminology between active "killing" and passive "death", it makes sense to me to go with a medical examiner's opinion rather than the findings of a court of law. We're not talking about changing it to "Murder of Eric Garner", which would imply criminal action that was never found in a court. See also Shooting of Samuel DuBose for instance.--Unionhawk ^Talk 14:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support for reasons of both accuracy and consistency. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Death" is more neutral. As noted by Bagumba at Talk:Shooting of David McAtee, dictionaries typically define killing as being an intentional act to cause death, as found at this link. It is not completely clear (or at least was apparently not clear to a grand jury) that Mr Garner's death was intentional. Wikipedia should not appear to express an opinionated judgment about people's actions. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree that this is a comparable case: this article uses a passive voice to begin with. "Shooting of" vs "Killing of" on the other hand is fairly semantic. The emphasis is still the same in either case there, either David McAtee was killed, or David McAtee was shot to death. Neither proposed title says that David simply died. I furthermore disagree with the idea that dictionaries "typically" define killing as an intentional act, every dictionary that I can find simply defines "kill" as "to cause the death of". It's not about intent, it's about cause. --Unionhawk ^Talk 04:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment I've noticed that, already, there have been several allegations that this move request or its supporters have not been in good faith. I would encourage all participants to assume good faith and focus discussion on the topic at hand. BirdValiant (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have not yet voted as I do not feel strongly either way, but as to the consistency argument I am wondering which usage is truly more common. BirdValiant points to 53 "Killing of" articles, but I also see 501 "Death of" articles, including numerous homicides/killings/more specific manners of death, such as (in the order I see them from the frst couple pages of the prefix search and excluding this article) Death of Osama bin Laden, Death of JonBenét Ramsey, Death of Mark Duggan, Death of Aiyana Jones, Death of Joseph Smith, Death of Muammar Gaddafi, and Death of Marvin Gaye. I think that if consistency is the goal, most "Death of" articles should probably be re-named to be more specific to the manner of death, but I wonder if there is a preference for the passive voice rather than active voice in regards to article titles, and if perhaps an RFC regarding naming conventions should move to a larger, project wide platform, rather than being this having to be discussed on each individual page. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment "re-named to be more specific to the manner of death" Do you mean things like "Death by strangulation", "asphyxiation", "cardiac arrest", etc. to match the autopsy results? Dimadick (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment You have a point. Death by killing is often traditionally called just "death". On the other hand: when the person concerned is a hero or public figure, s/he is already notable for other reasons; that isn't relevant when the person became known because s/he was killed. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Comment Yes, something along those lines. My point was that there is currently very little consistency in the titling of articles. "Murder of" seems to be the most common (890 articles), but is obviously only appropriate when it has been determined to be a murder in the legal sense, with "Death of" being second most common (501 articles). Less common are "Shooting of" (134 articles), "Killing of" (54 articles), "Suicide of" (49 articles), and "Stabbing of" (6 articles). My point about consistency was that we have, within the larger categories, many articles that could also just as easily fall into one or more of the other categories. Death of Marvin Gaye, Death of Mark Duggan, Death of Neda Agha-Soltan, and Death of Aiyana Jones could all be "Shooting of" or "Killing of", Death of JonBenét Ramsey could be "Killing of" or "Murder of", Death of Vincent van Gogh could be "Suicide of", etc. Like I said, my point was that there currently seems to be very little consistency on the naming conventions. It seems that what consistency there is tends to suggest "Murder of" for legally defined murders, and "Death of" for most others. That is why I think if consistency is the argument being used for the change, that might be a worthwhile discussion to have in regards to overall naming conventions, rather than the individual articles. I am all for consistency, and consistency is best achieved with policies that can be applied equally. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Comment I agree: that would be a worthwhile discussion. But I am also afraid a total standardisation would take forever or longer if changes along the way should be routinely stifled until an overall policy is set out. In my feeling, there is a level of exactness between the general "death" and the very specific "strangulation", "asphyxiation", "cardiac arrest" etc. that Dimadick mentioned - a level which I imagine many others also recognise and where words like "murder" and "killing" dwell. Perhaps also "suicide", if not too many argue that may still be too stigmatising in some quarters. But of course, this is already a start of the discussion. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Switching the graphic image of Garner in a choke-hold with the other graphic

I would be bold and do it myself but I don't have the technical skill on Wikipedia yet. I'd recommend switching the map with the graphic imagery so that people do not have an adverse reaction (e.g. a psychological trigger, flashback, etc.) when mousing over a link to this article, or in the embed when providing a link to the article on many social media platforms. (edited to fix signature; missing left round bracket) DancingGrumpyCat^talk | (ze/zir or she/her) 18:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Justin D'Amico's named misspelled as Justin Damico in three instances?

It seems that Justin D'Amico's name is spelled Justin Damico in three instances in the article, even though else where it is spelled "D'Amico"? Google search results all refer to the seplling "D'Amico". Eric.c.zhang (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I also noticed that, though it is spelled as Damico here, so they are both probably accepted spellings. I too feel like we should make the spelling consistent, but I'm not sure what the common practice is in such situations. Bubka42 (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of news articles seems to spell it D'Amico. I think I'm just going to change it pending some other sources. If we could find some sort of court document spelling his name maybe that'll settle it. Eric.c.zhang (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Why isn’t Ramsey Orta’s subsequent harassment by NYPD not more heavily discussed in the article?

I think he’s deserving of an article of his own, frankly, but the disgusting treatment he’s received is pretty much directly in response to his role in publicizing his friend’s murder, and the media has really failed this guy by moving on as soon as Garner stopped being headline news. On the other hand, Orta is still incarcerated, and I fear and more attention to his plight may make his situation worse. Dude was fed rat poison, for God’s sake. There are plenty of reliably sourced interviews detailing his abuse at the hands of NYPD and corrections. 69.124.33.62 (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If you (or someone else) can prepare a properly sourced draft write-up, we can include it. (If you don't have editing permissions for the article page you can put your draft here with an edit request.) Bubka42 (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Funnily enough I was just looking at this; earlier versions of this article (as recently as 2019) actually had described all of this, but was subsequently removed (I didn't have time to look up why). So you don't even have to write stuff you can just confirm the stuff previously written and put it back up. Only things is I don't know why it was removed, but I can't see why you wouldn't include it. Eric.c.zhang (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Apparently this edit removed the content, a possible vandalism attempt that no one subsequently reverted. Even before this, there was a series of edits from a now-blocked editor that cut the material short with virtually no explanation. After a bit of searching, it appears to me that this revision has the most developed section on Ramsey Orta. Should I restore it? Bubka42 (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes given this discussion please do. Eric.c.zhang (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Bubka42 (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bubka42 and Eric.c.zhang: - thank you - I support the reinstatement. 69 also - thanks. starship.paint (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)