Talk:Killing of Michael Brown

Video and police report where Wilson arrests citizen videographer for "Failure to Comply" to his demands that he cease videotaping

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/shock-video-darren-wilson-violates-1st-amendment-ill-lock-ass-up-arrests-man-filming/ Notable in that Wilson is clearly understood to threaten that if the individual takes one more picture of him, "I'm locking your ass up." Also notable is the full inclusion of the police report where Wilson gives his version of events and admits to arresting the individual for "Failure to Comply," the same infraction for which a large number of Ferguson protesteres have been arrested in the the months since the shooting. The article states that this story is an exclusive. I guess that means we can't use it, right? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian picked it up: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/16/ferguson-video-shows-darren-wilson-arresting-man-for-recording-him Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, a user Bdel555 added that about 13 hours after your comments. Some time after that, I removed it on NPOV grounds. If RS reported an incident two years ago when Brown shoved a girl, I would oppose inclusion of that for the same reason. I'm not 100% confident on this, which is why I encouraged the user to take it to talk. Btw, I don't see any reason why an exclusive from a reliable source would be prohibited, that fact wouldn't make it any less reliable. Btw #2, I note that the home page of thefreethoughtproject.com includes a convenient index to all their articles that have negative things to say about cops. "Police Throw 3-Year-Old in Jail Cell After Arresting Mother." Very impressive. I wouldn't want them and The Guardian to be my only sources for something like this. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should stay out. The facts about that earlier arrest are unclear (What was the cause of the incident? Are we sure the "failure to comply" was about filming as opposed to a lawful order?), and in any event, I don't see the relevance to the Michael Brown shooting or the question of whether Wilson was justified in using lethal force. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that it should be left out. Has nothing to do with the shooting and whether it was justified or not. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be added back in order for NPOV is to be maintained. "Wilson received a commendation for extraordinary effort in the line of duty'" also has "nothing to do with the shooting and whether it was justified or not" yet that bit of fluff is in the article, apparently in order to push on the reader the POV that Wilson is some sort of model officer. There are also paragraphs and paragraphs under "Leaked testimony from Darren Wilson" yet, as the Guardian clearly pointed out, Wilson's claim in the police report that he had a camera in his face, etc was not what everyone would call a full and accurate account of what actually happened. Readers are entitled to know what to make of the source's reliability when Wikipedia is using the source (Wilson) so extensively.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555: So fix it. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not about to add back material with three clear "votes" against, but I'm going to read your take, and that of the original poster, as partial to inclusion, so together with my own view (by the way, I'm the one who added Brown's theft to the "Shooting" section, so it's not like I think only one party's history here is notable) I take it as reasonable to re-add until there is another comment here addressing 1) exclusively having the "commendation" stuff and 2) the relevance of the question of how accurate Wilson's report about the video-ed incident was.
I'll add here that there's a lot more about Wilson that is still left unsaid, e.g. had an unstable childhood with his mother remarrying 3 times (and her being convicted of financial crimes), himself divorced last year, his former department, Jennings, was disbanded over race relations problems and a corruption scandal, many accusing felons are now walking right back into the community because Wilson has been a no show at any of their court appearances since the shooting, etc. Yet the Washington Post is reporting this stuff... and "old video surfaced of an officer who looked like Wilson threatening to arrest a man who was videotaping him" as well.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It's called NPOV. You'll also note that we report that someone said Brown "didn't cause trouble" and was "a gentle giant", and that he was scheduled to start trade school in a few days, things that could also be called "fluff". There's a balance already there, and you don't balance a brief mention of a commendation with a 116-word paragraph on an unrelated incident from 2013. Your POV is showing here, clearly evident in your final paragraph, and you go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize adding the paragraph back (for example, "So fix it", without an accompanying argument, doesn't count for much, but you gave it full weight). Even after your rationalization, you still only have a 3-3 tie, which is not a consensus for change, and thus you rationalize twice. Frankly, it's stunning from someone at your level of experience. I'm not going to edit war with you, so I ask that you please remove this content again. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Usually I would have more patience on something like this. But I think it will be especially important to be as neutral as possible just after the no bill is announced. If I'm awake and around when that happens (I have irregular sleep hours), I will remove this content if it's still there. I hope Bdel555 does the responsible thing before then. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Noting consensus or the absence thereof is not "rationalization" in the pejorative way you use that term, it's a reason why it is unreasonable to take a "my way or the highway" take on this and imply another editor is being disruptive (or ir"responsible") by adding back well sourced material you deleted. Reasonable people can disagree about this, which is why I have given time for more community input. Reasonable people, however, provide reasons, not just opinions. I am not calling here for the inclusion of "gentle giant". That is not the issue here. The issue here is the continued lack of any substantive argument for suppressing material that the Guardian, the Washington Post, and others have found notable besides that it doesn't flatter the shooter in this incident as if that automatically means a NPOV violation. I should note that the other opinions calling for deletion are equally poorly substantiated in terms of actual argument as opposed to hand waving about "NPOV" where NPOV is defined to be whatever the hand waver claims it to be. To quote policy (always a good idea when there is a disagreement), "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments".

NPOV means we do not try to push any particular POV on the reader about this subject. We instead follow the lead of the Guardian and WaPo and we present the facts, and do not spin them because you perceive them as negative or unflattering. Wikipedia is not a public relations platform. I will now ask you again to address my concern that we have possible reason here to question Wilson's reliability and thus readers should be informed of that so that they can draw their own conclusions instead of Wikipedia editors deciding for them that Wilson's account should be presented very extensively (ie a LOT more than the 116 word limit you seem to see as a trigger threshold for excessive) without any hint that RS like the Guardian have questioned his credibility. Our job is provide accurate information to readers, not spin it, and to anyone arguing WP:RS to call for deletion, I would say it is unreasonable to contend that the scans of Wilson's report, or the video, are faked. You say this incident is "unrelated". No, it is not. It goes to both Wilson's credibility and how he reacts. It's certainly more related than how many people live in Crestwood, yet I don't see you complaining about that. If you want this material excluded, then explain just why it is that something deemed unflattering should be excluded instead of just defining NPOV as the inclusion of unflattering material. If the article was a giant hit piece against Wilson, we'd have a NPOV problem. We'd also have a NPOV problem if all reliably sourced material that Wilson would presumably want excluded was excluded. Is there anything else in this article Wilson would want removed? Unflattering material about Brown ("robbery" is mentioned 19 times in the article) is certainly not being excluded. Calling for the exclusion of negative material (by implying that having even just this 1.2% of the article referring to negative material about the shooter would be WP:UNDUE) is, in fact, the exact opposite of maintaining neutrality.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

From the police report, here is what the Failure to Comply was about.[1]

”Arman was then escorted to my patrol vehicle, #108, where he was seated in the rear seat. I then advised Arman that he was under arrest for Failure to Comply, as he refused to comply with all the requests needed in order to complete the summons process.”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

And whether this is true or not is disputed since there is reason to believe that the "request" was to stop recording and that stopping recording was not, in fact, "needed in order to complete the summons process.” One can deliver a summons while being recorded. But no one associated with Wikipedia need to come to a conclusion one way or another about that as readers inclined to take Wilson's claim at face value are free to do so. We should not be denying readers not inclined to take Wilson's claim at face value the opportunity to become skeptical. Skepticism about Wilson's claims would not be an issue if Wilson's claims about another event were not being repeated in the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears that The Guardian article is getting from the police report the information about what Arman was charged with. The article says, "Arman, 30, was charged with failing to comply with Wilson’s orders." It is consistent with what was in the police report, "I then advised Arman that he was under arrest for Failure to Comply, as he refused to comply with all the requests needed in order to complete the summons process." --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Bob, where the Guardian questions Wilson's credibility is the paragraph "Despite being shown at the other end of Arman’s garden path, Wilson wrote in his report that he told Arman 'to remove the camera from my face'. He [also] claimed to have asked Arman to place his hands behind his back, [but this] is not visible or audible from the recording. 'I was forced to grab his wrists one at a time and secure them into handcuffs,' Wilson wrote."--Brian Dell (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We were discussing what Arman was charged with. Let's try to finish that before continuing on another aspect. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Brian Dell, Just a reminder of my above response to you. Did you want to continue our discussion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. What question would you like me to answer? May I first ask just what edit to the article you would like to see? "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shooting of Michael Brown article." Is it not a waste of time to talk about Arman being charged with "failure to comply" with when nobody has introduced into the article, or has proposed introducing, any particular claim about what Arman was charged with?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Re your comment "Is it not a waste of time to talk about Arman being charged with "failure to comply" with when nobody has introduced into the article, or has proposed introducing, any particular claim about what Arman was charged with?” — No because your edit implied that Arman was charged with failure to comply for not stopping his video recording. Here's the excerpt from your edit:[2] "A video later emerged of Wilson standing near his vehicle telling the resident on his front porch, 'If you wanna take a picture of me one more time, I’m gonna lock your ass up.' Wilson subsequently advanced to the porch to arrest the resident while insisting that the resident did not have a right to record.” --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not necessarily imply that. Wilson could be of the view that there was a "failure to comply" with some other instruction of his that was off camera. The edit does not rule out this possibility so why are you? If, in your view, something between those quotes must, as matter of logical necessity, be factually false because something is necessarily implied that is indisputably false, please spell out for us just what it is that is indisputably false. If your contention is rather (the more comprehensible objection) that I am misrepresenting the Guardian by creating an implication the Guardian did not, I already addressed that above (but you called that off topic).--Brian Dell (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I oppose your edit because it has a false implication per my previous remarks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You're saying, if A then B, but not B, therefore not A, right? First of all, where's your proof of "not B"? I would advise you to keep WP:NOR in mind when attempting to assemble that proof. Secondly, it isn't necessarily an if A then B situation anyway, because if could be if A then C.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Brian, I think people here will attest to the fact that I tend to get a little "pejorative" with editors who ignore the controls, the checks and balances, that make this encyclopedia work (somewhat), when they don't have inexperience as an excuse. You didn't have consensus for that edit, and you knew it, but you did it anyway. I'll try to stay out of any further discussions with you. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation of bad faith on my part is completely bogus. You reverted me and declined to raise the matter on the Talk page for discussion before you reverted me. It is not true that I was editing against consensus while you were editing consistent with consensus. You did not know what consensus was when you reverted me. And consensus remains disputed, in my view. I do have some experience, yes, experience with editors who take a "consensus" of the sort you called a "3-3 tie" and then manipulate that into something they think is solid enough and strong enough to just start shoving on instead of addressing the pros and cons of the edit in question. The ball is in the court of those calling for exclusion, and absent a Talk page response that addresses the specific reasons for inclusion that have been given, editors should not be intimidated into not editing by other editors who are not engaging in discussion. This page is for discussion of the edit, and in your last response here, you've refused to engage in that discussion, or answer the specific points I put to you, instead trying to make this about an editor instead of about the edit in question. if you don't have the time or the inclination to discuss this, then you don't have the time to edit war over it.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware of the concept of de facto consensus? De facto consensus before you showed up was without that content. It remained for 6 hours before I removed it, and 6 hours does not establish a new de facto consensus. That's less than a decent night's sleep for most of us. I'm sorry, but you're playing a very weak hand here, Brian. I couldn't count the number of times I've had to just give up on something because I couldn't force anyone to talk to me about it. It sucks, but it's Wikipedia. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I previously complained about your defining NPOV to suit your purposes but the way you've just defined consensus is self-serving in spades. I presume this is why you just now deleted this, yet again, a mere TWO MINUTES after it was added. Because every minute that goes by strengthens the "de facto consensus" in favour of keeping it? And you clearly can't have that! How about giving it a chance to find "de facto consensus" like I've been giving your edits? ie 24 hours. If no one else removes it during that time, maybe Wikipedia doesn't need your deletion services as badly as you think they do. For the record, I'll note that another editor appeared on your user Talk page to question your deletion of this material, an inclusion opinion you have not disclosed here in your claims about what the consensus is.

I take it that "the number of times I've had to just give up on something" doesn't include many cases of edit warring because you don't seem to be at all willing to stop THAT (and instead address, substantively, why we should not include what the WaPo, the Guardian, FOX News,, USA Today, etc all include. What else about Wilson is not notable, in your books? You disagree with Erik Wemple that "That Wilson would be absenting himself from official court testimony while shopping his story around to TV network types is enormous news"? If we can't nention that either just what are we allowed to say about this guy?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We clearly have very different ideas about what's correct procedure, so I'll bow out and let you resolve this with others. If they feel less strongly about it, fine. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time you've brought up the fact that Wilson hasn't appeared to testify as the arresting officer in other cases he's been involved with. I don't see how that is relevant in any way to the Michael Brown incident, especially given the facts that Wilson is the subject of a criminal homicide investigation and also some death threats. That and a whole host of really tangential points you mentioned previously, like Wilson's mother's marital status, only serves to question your NPOV further IMHO. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and WP:NOCONSENSUS inclusion of material for BLPs requires positive consensus. There does not appear to be consensus at this time. Therefore, the material is correctly not included in the article at this time. If you would like to get a wider audience to develop that consensus, the next step would be to create a concise and neutral RFC to more formally gauge consensus and get a wider input. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As an FYI, Brian has created a thread advocating policy changes as a result of this discussion that may be of interest to editors here Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#An_example_of_the_absurdity_of_this_policy Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that in this case the text (as opposed to one of the citations) was deleted because of a "BLP objection". At least I do not recall BLP being cited as the reason. My comments about BLP were more about a hypothetical than anything.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this piece should be added back in to maintain a NPOV for the article. It is relevant to the shooter's background and has been reported in the news as a presumably relevant event. Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been a few days without comment on this - has this been resolved by the (apparent) removal of the content on Wilson's "commendation"? I don't see the content Bdell555 mentions. I'm not sure the short video clip provides enough context and informational value to be relevant here, but if it's not resolved, and the issue is about the length of the proposed addition and POV concerns based on that, would some more concise version of the addition be more acceptable? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity is African American

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see Race and ethnicity in the United States where Ethnicity of people like Brown is African American. that is the official term people prefer for their ethnicity. Just as people are called Hispanic not Brown people. I have been to all the sources which cite his ethnicity is black not one of them say his Ethnicity was black, they use black in the lay way, not in any official capacity, so it is a misuse of a source. BTW race and ethnicity are not the same. So while news sources commenting on "race" have used both terms Black and African American, ethnic grouping is NOT black. Black is not actually an ethnic grouping. It is not like Hausa, Igbo, Zulu. So the counterpart in America in official terms is African American male. So if both terms are used equally African American is more accurate at describing him. --Inayity (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at great length in the Wikipedia community and there is no consensus for African American. I am not going to engage in that debate with you here, as you can find it if you try and this is not the place for it anyway. Whatever you mean by "the lay way", that is the way many quality mainstream sources refer to it, including the three big players cited in the infobox. Until there is community consensus for African American, I see no need for Wikipedia to bow to political correctness on this, and as far as I know that is the existing consensus in this article. Aside from a few drive-by attempts like yours, the word black has stood throughout the life of this article. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have no need for engagement then do not comment, and leave that to someone else willing to address the issues. Nothing like this is cast in stone on Wikipedia. Can you please tell me where ethnicity in those sources is stated as Black. And I can discuss it here as it relates to one of the most central part of this whole incident. RACE. Something I spend a hell of a lot of time on Wikipedia dealing with unlike you. So drive by? You better watch you tone. per WP:AGF--Inayity (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

According to Google News Archive, news sources prefer "black" by at least 90-to-1 depending on how you enter the searches. {{Infobox person}} states, "Ethnicity should be supported with a citation from a reliable source" (we currently support it with three, not one), and it says absolutely nothing about a distinction between a "lay way" and an "official way". I'm perfectly willing to stay out of the rest of this discussion. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 11:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree and support changing the infobox to state Brown's Ethnicity as African-American, and would even support using that in the lede sentence as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose explicitly, if we're !voting, per arguments already given. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing his ethnicity in the infobox to "African-American" (though I personally have little use for the term). What I would oppose is an across the board purging of the adjective "black". Sources routinely use the word "black' and so should we. – JBarta (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I looked at the statements made in the first message here by Inayity and they seemed to be questionable personal notions. Here's some additional info. U.S. Blacks, Hispanics Have No Preferences on Group Labels

Re the editor's statement, "I have been to all the sources which cite his ethnicity is black not one of them say his Ethnicity was black, they use black in the lay way, not in any official capacity, so it is a misuse of a source." — Apparently the editor is evaluating the sources as to whether they explicitly use the term "Ethnicity". Inayity, have you found any sources that say Brown's Ethnicity was African American? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I said both terms were used with equal frequency so between two terms African American is preferred. Black means what? On this note please go to Malcolm X, go to all these famous African Americans and see that the term African American is the category used for them, not black. Far more accurate than a color, is African American esp since this is not Fox News but an encyclopedia. All I am asking for is for his ethnicity be changed to something that actually more progressive, just like we do with Native Americans we do not call them Red Indians, or Inuit Eskimo. On that note I see this debate come up with Tim Wise he is not called White. And far from being a fly by editor, not only have I read this entire article and checked the ref, I have dealt heavily with issues of identity on Wikipedia for years now bushmen or san debate--Inayity (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I said I would sit this out. I am breaking that promise (and will avoid making it in the future).

• No, the two terms are far from being used with equal frequency, as I stated previously. 90-to-1 in favor of "black" is almost 99%. When one limits the searches to only the past month's news, thereby excluding things from a long time ago, the preference for "black" falls to about 70%. That would seem to indicate a trend away from black, but it also indicates that the trend has not reached the point of "equal frequency". Wait another ten years or so, and it might have fallen to 50% (it might also have risen to 80%, as trends have been known to reverse). You are welcome to verify my results at Google News Archive, challenge my search methodology, or do your own searches.
• Please point to something in Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or consensus that says being progressive (in the opinion of some) should supersede following the sources.
• If the preponderance of reliable sources used Red Indian or Eskimo, I would support using Red Indian or Eskimo. As we both know, they do not, so that is a false equivalence. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at some random articles of black people. Most don't list anything for ethnicity in the infobox, a couple list "Nationality - American", and one listed "Ethnicity - African-American". None listed ethnicity as "black". Keep in mind this was a completely random search of around a dozen names off the top of my head. This is really a minor issue. There are certainly bigger things to argue about here. I'm going to change it to African-American. As I noted earlier, I don't really like the term, but I see no problem using it in the infobox in the interest of compromise and consensus. Hopefully that will be the end of it. – JBarta (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well sorry to be a pain, but I believe strongly in following the sources, and, frankly, I feel your edit was out of line given the discussion so far. I hope you won't mind if I change it back until there is a consensus for the change. I think a few more people will weigh in if we give them a little time to do so. Thanks. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is arrived at by compromise. – JBarta (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not agreed to your compromise. As I said, I believe strongly in following the sources. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "African-American" has been in sources for a long time to describe the race/ethnicity of black people... including Michael Brown. Your claim that you're only following the sources is a hollow one in my view. I'm not suggesting we eliminate all instances of the word "black" (because THAT would go against sources), but use "African-American" in this one instance to describe his ethnicity in the infobox. A perfectly reasonable compromise and one that's easily supported by sources. – JBarta (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we have stated our positions articulately and no one has been swayed yet. That's not unusual, in fact it's extremely rare for someone to change their mind in the course of a debate like this. But it's premature to make the change before more people have given their opinions, and there's no urgency to make the change right this minute. I'm asking for a little patience. Fair? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

* Oppose This is not an article about anthropology. The commonly accepted term in the U.S. for people of African American ethnicity is black, and that term is preferred not only by journalistic sources but generally by the population being described. There is no reason for us to use the more academic term here. The chemical name for table salt is sodium chloride, but we generally call it salt. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• I opened an RfC below. – JBarta (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article's claims despite disputes in evidence

Many of the allegations in the article do not have all the evidence needed to back them up. There have been many disputes in evidence.

"There is evidence that Michael Brown did not steal anything, the store owner of the supposed store that he reportedly stole the cigarillos from told reporters that he never even saw brown in his store at all, the time stamps in the video used as evidence do not match up to the time of brown’s murder

Analyst disputing the forensics (or lack therof) of the crime scene, and here’s pictures of Daren Wilson’s so called “life threatening injuries”, Micheal Brown never attempted to grab Wilson’s gun." (Statement from this person.)

Wikipedia should avoid making such statements without conclusive evidence. 92.20.203.57 (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnson himself has stated that Brown robbed the store; we know that this happened. Everyone involved agrees to this - Wilson, Johnson, the physical evidence, the video evidence, the phone call to the police from the store, and the description of the people involved matching Johnson and Brown.

The person who called the police about the strongarm robbery was a customer in the store. The descriptions of the two suspects - which matched Johnson and Brown - went out prior to the shooting.

Conspiracy theories spread by people on social media websites are not reliable sources of information, and indeed, everyone agrees that the footage was of the incident. The footage says 8, not 6.

People whined about the forensics on the crime scene. People always whine about forensics. And the sad reality is that the police screw up forensics all the time - see also the OJ Simpson case. The idea that there was some sort of grand conspiracy is a conspiracy theory with zero evidence behind it. The fact of the matter is that the events took place in a bad part of town, and a "hostile crowd" had gathered after the incident took place. Wilson washed his hands because he was worried that he would get some sort of bloodborne disease from the blood all over his hands. He had never shot anyone on the job before, and it is clear that everyone involved was not really totally on top of things.

Wilson's injuries were sufficiently severe that his supervisor felt it was necessary for him to go to the hospital, and Wilson testified that he felt close to passing out after being punched in the head repeatedly - the only possible source on that is Wilson, but there's not any evidence to the contrary, and the grand jury felt that the preponderance of evidence suggests that Wilson used appropriate force. As does every competent legal analyst. It is basic self-defense law; if someone is beating you to that point, they represent a lethal threat to your well-being.

Brown's hand was within an inch of Wilson's gun, at such an angle that his fingers must have been extremely close to if not actually touching the gun at the time his hand was shot, which is consistent with Brown having gone for Wilson's gun; there is blood on the gun, as well as flesh in the car and gunpowder residue on the wound on Brown's hand. The grand jury agreed. Again, every competent legal analyst has pointed out that the police have wide latitude in use of force, and that the evidence that Brown's hand was within an inch of the gun at the time he his hand was shot, and that his hand was very likely on the gun at the time, not only corroborated Wilson's story, but justified the use of lethal force against Brown. You can't just speculate about other things - you have to prove that Brown didn't do that. That's the standard in court. The most likely cause of Brown's hand being within an inch of Wilson's gun is that he had tried to grab the weapon; any other cause is considerably less likely. It doesn't matter what actually happened - what matters is what can be proved. And the fact of the matter is that the grand jury found that the preponderance of evidence pointed against the idea that Wilson had committed any crime. This was, in fact, exactly why legal analysts said for months that Wilson was not going to be indicted - once the evidence about the hand wound came out, that was pretty much the end of it for them, because they knew that barring evidence that there was not a struggle for his gun and that something else had caused Wilson's hand to be so close to the gun when it was discharged that there was no way that they could come to any other conclusion.

This is Wikipedia. It is our job to report accurate, correct, verifiable information to the public. People on Tumblr are free to lie about what happened. They have the first amendment right to do so, so long as they are not attempting to incite people to commit some crime. But don't trust some guy on Tumblr. IIRC, all the evidence the grand jury got is publicly available at this point. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Titanium Dragon: Amen! Amen! Amen! Thanks for being a voice of reason. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It is our job to report report accurate, correct, verifiable information. Not sure I agree with you, because "correct and accurate" is not what the core content policies of Wikipedia speak about. Our role is to report what reliable sources say in a manner that can be verified, regardless if the source is correct or accurate. It may be counter intuitive, but that is how Wikipedia works. We present facts and opinions as reported by reliable sources, period. - Cwobeel (talk)

I think you're a bit confused about Wikipedia policy, Cwobeel; I'd take another gander at WP:V and WP:RS. The purpose of these policies to try and ensure that information on Wikipedia is verifiable, accurate, and correct as much as possible. Verifiability is the single most important standard because if you can't even do that, then how are you going to gauge its accuracy or correctness? Our goal is to be all three of those things whenever possible. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, your comment the fact of the matter is that the grand jury found that the preponderance of evidence pointed against the idea that Wilson had committed any crime means that you are not well versed on how grand juries work, which is very different than in a trial. What the grand jury had to do is just to find probable cause that a crime was committed and that has nothing to do with preponderance of evidence. These are very different standards. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend re-reading the probable cause article, @Cwobeel:; to find probable cause, you must have a preponderance of evidence which suggests that a crime has been committed. Probable cause uses the preponderance of evidence standard. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

the phone call to the police from the store the store owner and his lawyer both have asserted that no member of staff made a phone call to the police from the store after the incident. As a side note, I'm not completely trusting 'evidence' from the Ferguson police, considering they're the ones who are under scrutiny and would wish to protect their image. Another thing, if Micheal Brown's hand touched that gun, why was no fingerprint test run? Wilson's injuries were sufficiently severe that his supervisor felt it was necessary for him to go to the hospital And said hospital claimed there was no evidence of anything to be alarmed about. While there was an altercation, I doubt Wilson's 'injuries' would be so small and light if he had been repeatedly punched in the face by someone 6'4 and much heavier than him.

The fact is, making conclusive statements on the article about allegations which have not been proven concretely is detrimental to its construction and validity. At the very least, it should be said that these are claims with disputing evidence, and not facts. A mention of the opposing evidence in the article would also be important. As Cwobeel said above: Our role is to report what reliable sources say in a manner that can be verified, regardless if the source is correct or accurate. It may be counter intuitive, but that is how Wikipedia works. We present facts and opinions as reported by reliable sources, period. 92.20.206.49 (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, by definition, if a source is presenting factually incorrect information, then it means that the source was poorly fact-checked. Poor fact-checking is a sign that a source isn't reliable. While we may quote sources which contain inaccurate information for their opinions, we don't use them for factual information. This is why the Shape of the Earth article does not indicate that the Earth is flat, and why Evolution is presented as fact - because it is.

As far as assertions - I already noted what happened above. Please read my post. And as for "why was no fingerprint test run" - I know a lot of people don't know anything about fingerprints, but in real life, not fantasyland (i.e. CSI), fingerprints are surprisingly rare. If you touch something, chances are good you aren't going to leave behind useful, usable fingerprints. Also, I'm not sure if I've seen any assertion that a fingerprint test was not run on the gun; it may have been.

As for your doubts - his face was swollen. When I was a kid, I got punched a number of times and never really suffered any visible damage from them at all. Most punches aren't actually going to leave a mark at all; getting hit hard enough to actually show damage indicates that they weren't light punches. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Physical evidence map

I think a map such as this would be a good addition. We could possibly use this one directly if it falls into the govt exemption, otherwise we can reproduce it ourselves using this (or other secondary versions) as a source.

• map  : http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-evidence/assets/ferguson/photos/2014-43984/photos-7/capture.png
• Legend : http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-evidence/assets/ferguson/photos/2014-43984/photos-7/picture2.png

Gaijin42 (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

SVG reproduction

Not sure it is free content, but it can be easily reproduced. I'll see if I can find some time and attempt to get it done. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it is better to recreate it using SVG and try to make locations to scale and insert to the article in the wide format. We should also have separate colors for 6 categories: red strains, casings, projectile, personal items, tires and body. This will allow readers to quickly classify items on the map. Z22 (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are some diagrams that might be useful. – JBarta (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

And another. – JBarta (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think those diagrams in your first link are the most useful I've seen, specifically this one. The fact that they were made by the New York Times is even better. The second link is of the diagram shown in court and has the unfortunate quality of being "not to scale" as indicted in the diagram. —Megiddo1013 05:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is my attempt to recreate the scene as an SVG based on the exhibits released File:Michael Brown shooting scene diagram.svg. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A very nice addition, thanks. I was going to complain about only using two colors, and describing the blood as "red stain" but I see that is what the RS have done as well, so it can't be helped currently. Anyone know what "apparent projectile" is supposed to be? An actual bullet? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No idea. That is what the exhibit says. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Colors are easily changed. Would it be better to use additional colors? If so, what should be different? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think a separate color for Brown/Johnsons personal effects, vs the projectile and red stains (blood). For literalness/intuitiveness sake, it seems like gold/yellow for the bullet casings (and perhaps "apparent projectile?), and red for the "red stains" makes things easier. Blue (or some other color) then for the personal effects. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made these changes as suggested. Much better. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble reconciling the SVG with the map produced by the article's coordinates, which are sourced from this CNN map. If the location of Canfield Court is as shown in the SVG, then our coordinates and the CNN map would be appear to be wrong. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

See the exhibit [3] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm blinder than I thought, that exhibit does not show Canfield Court. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I see ... Is it Canfield Drive or Canfield Court? I thought it is the latter. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It was on Canfield Drive. Google Maps labels that part of Canfield Drive as Canfield Court, hence the confusion. Both Google Maps and OSM show a Canfield Court off of Canfield Drive east of this location, so it seems clear that Google is wrong. I was confused by the gap in your top line, as I thought that's what the Canfield Court was referring to. Maybe you could change Canfield Court to Canfield Drive and close that gap. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing beats a second pair of eyes... Corrected. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the gap should be closed or Canfield Drive moved quite a bit to the right. Otherwise it looks like Canfield Drive refers to the gap, as if that's the entry to Canfield Drive. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I will correct. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Also the NYT version linked above (which uses google maps as a background, awesome idea) http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/08/13/ferguson-qa/2e754ae76c10ce9a0ea2e1dc9166a341312be797/testimony-Artboard_1.jpg Gaijin42 (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought of that, but Google Maps is not free use. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Canfield Court appears to just be a parking lot, not an actual street, so that may be where the confusion is. If you go to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ and search for canfield court, ferguson, missouri, you can get free sat imagery, but unfortunatley its a bit lower resolution than google maps. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Great job Cwobeel. I think we should include it in the article. Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Physical_evidence seems the best place? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Not sure about the size, used 980px. Is there a way in WP to set images to auto-scale based on the viewport size? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but that would be a great question for Help desk. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel I don't know if this is just an artifact of my browser (chrome), but in the legend "effects" is difficult to read, the ffs look like they are overlapping. the issue is less pronounced in IE Gaijin42 (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, in Firefox the leading "e" is way too intimate with the first "f". ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is an issue on the SVG to PNG conversion that WP does. I'll see if it can be fixed. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue is the WP conversion, when it renders the ligature in the "ff". Not fixable I am afraid. It is OK on the SVG itself, though, see [4] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

We could change the legend to "Personal items". What do you think? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think thats fine. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Works 4 me. While you're at it you could decapitalize "Bracelet" in two places. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In Firefox the V in SUV collides with the left distance arrow, which could be fixed by removing "Officer" or even "Officer Darren". How picky are you? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Very ... Corrected, including apostrophe. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And I'm out of nits. Nice work. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the scale of the street width is out of whack. Seems too wide. The street should be to scale, including the curb location and center stripe. And some of the casings landed slightly off the street. Also a small north indicator would be nice. We don't have to limit ourselves to a crude drawing. As long as we reflect sources, we can make it as nice as we wish. – JBarta (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I used a photo of the street as the basis for laying out the different elements, so the width should be OK. I could add a center strip, but not sure if that would help. As for the casings, I paid close attention looking at several representations of the scene in different media outlets, and it seems that some were either on the curb on or sidewalk. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the drawing, the width of the road is a little over 42 ft wide. Considering a two lane road is normally 22-24 ft wide, something is obviously wrong. Possibly you mistook the treelawn area and sidewalks as part of the road? – JBarta (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, the actual line on the street is a double yellow line, the drawing currently shows a single broken yellow line. – JBarta (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that and assumed we were being symbolic. E.g., it's not a real accurate representation of the top of a Chevrolet Tahoe, either, and I don't have a problem with that. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We have the opportunity to make it as we wish. We can either make the drawing as accurate as possible.... or not. – JBarta (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fully in favor of every bit of accuracy that is useful to the reader. For example, it would not help the reader to shrink the shell casings symbols to scale; in fact, it would hurt, since it would make the color harder to see. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Now you're being just plain silly. – JBarta (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to make the point that it doesn't help the reader to know that Canfield has a double solid yellow there. The reader needs to know where the center line is (I guess) and a broken yellow is more recognizable as a center line. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now you're making a rational argument. I actually think that done to scale, each line style would be equally visible/recognizable. I would suggest Cwobeel give it a try. (I would do it myself, but sometimes things work best with only one hand stirring the pot, plus I use Inkscape while he uses Illustrator and that might cause irritating issues.) – JBarta (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Added curb and center line. Hope this works. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Added North indicator. Thanks for the suggestion. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Are your horizontal lines meant to represent the curb line? If not, I think that's how most people will interpret them. You might move them so they do represent the curb line, and omit any lines delimiting the "crime scene", as they would only tend to confuse. This would apply to the vertical side lines too. I was already thinking the ends could be left open to reflect that the street continues in both directions. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also your north arrow needs to be rotated about 45 degrees counter-clockwise, according to the maps. Canfield is pretty close to NW-SE at that point. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Added center line and curbs (as close as I could). The North seems OK according to the exhibit [5]. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The exhibit says one thing, all map sources we have say another (including satellite views). Sources disagree, so I don't know why we couldn't go with the one we know is correct. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Google maps is a reliable source for determining which direction is north. – JBarta (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we ought to be careful not to dab in WP:OR. Can we correct the police report diagram without violating OR? - Cwobeel (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a source giving us the coordinates, but it's accepted to deduce them from the CNN map. Likewise the CNN map shows Canfield going NW-SE at that point, as do Google Maps, OSM, and all other map sources I've seen. I don't think that's OR, per Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked two maps (Google and mac Maps app) and the north seems to be correct in the diagram. Care to clarify what is that you see to make you think otherwise? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• The CNN map, from which we derive the coordinates. It doesn't say, but it's safe to assume that north is straight up, especially given...
• The Google Map of that location. Google Maps always orient north up. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is really weird. This is what Maps show (mac and iOS map app), which is consistent with the evidence diagram [6] - Cwobeel (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Zoom in the Google map. The location of the incident is at a point where Canfield goes NW-SE. This same point is visible on the map you linked above, also showing Canfield going NW-SE. I don't know why you're not seeing that. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

North in the image is 37 degrees to the left of up. Also, the image currenly has no north indicator. It appears to have been removed in the edit of 00:56, 4 December 2014. – JBarta (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please check now and let me know if I got it right now. I need to retire for the night, so any additional tweaks will need to wait till tomorrow. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, assuming JBarta's 37 degrees is correct (no idea where s/he got that). Anyway close enough for our purposes. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It's easily calculated from Google maps per WP:CALC. – JBarta (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know Google Maps had a "compass tool". ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

They don't (AFAIK). However, every human is equipped with a brain. – JBarta (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

On that somewhat snarky and very unhelpful note, I guess I'll turn in too. Good night. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Snarky? Maybe a teeny tiny bit. But unhelpful? I calculated the angle of the street from north using Google maps. I'm not sure what else there is to explain. My point was that sometimes there is no "tool". We have to figure it out with our brain. Ok, maybe kinda-sorta snarky.... but definitely no more than that ;-) – JBarta (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The distance of SUV to body... the diagram shows 152'9" from the FRONT of the SUV to the head of the body. Is this correct? Seems odd. I haven't studied source diagrams, but are we sure it's not from the REAR of the SUV? Just thought I'd ask. – JBarta (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems odd to me too, like why would they choose the right front corner of the SUV to start the measurement. But that's consistent with the grand jury exhibit as well as at least one news source that I can't put my finger on at the moment, so we have to show it that way if we show it at all. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel perhaps a distance measurement from Brown's body to the red stains? (IIRC ~25ft?) The evidence list has distances there so WP:CALC should cover the WP:RS issue? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42:. Using the evidence list, the two red stains are 22' 6" and 26' 11" from the head of the deceased. Can you corroborate my calculation? - Cwobeel (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I wondering what exactly the 152'9" is measuring to inch precision. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That measure is reported in two different sources, the NYT, and the St. Louis Post Dispatch. It is the distance from the car to the body. [7] - Cwobeel (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Photos

• A little off-topic here, but what about the photos of Wilson that were released as part of the GJ docs, do they fall under the govt. exemption? And also, what about getting a photo of Brown in the article under the Non-free use rationale - "for visual identification of the person in question", we used a photo of Trayvon Martin under this rationale successfully, any thoughts on this? Isaidnoway (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

For the wilson photos, I think either the govt exemption would apply, or the fair use exemption would apply, as they can render to what degree there is or is not injury in a way that cannot be easily replicated in a text format. (We use the Zimmerman photos in a similar manner). For the Brown photos, we can get one photo as fair use under the "dead, so no future free photos" exception, but would have to get consensus on which photo we wanted to use. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was thinking about the Wilson photo's as well. Totally agree on consensus for which photo to use of Brown, if any, and will work on that later, as I have to work tonight. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that Florida is different than Missouri as it relates to public use of material published by government, but I am not sure. In any case, this is an article on the shooting of Michael Brown, not an article on Wilson. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The photos of wilsons face and the degree of injury (or lack thereof) is certainly relevant to the shooting. I don't think anyone was discussing general purpose "this is a photo of wilson" photos Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we know if the material released is "free use"? I am not so sure. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hence my original reply that I think we would also have a fair use WP:NFCC justification as a photo that cannot be reproduced that is the subject of discussion in the article, and where textually describing it is difficult. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Attack on a Police Officer

Would a phrase like "Brown attacked the police officer" be useful to clarify the initial escalation of force? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.209.30 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"Attack" implies intent to do physical harm. Even the grand jury could not ascertain Brown's intent, only determine whether it was reasonable for Wilson to think he was being or going to be attacked. Since Brown's intent is unknown and is a contentious issue, it would not be neutral point of view to insert such a statement. We should describe only his actions, since we will never be certain of his intent. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been repeatedly proven that Mike Brown had no intent to harm Darren Wilson, and in fact was running away with his hands up, and was shot in the back. There is no room for discussion on whether Mike Brown was aggressive. He wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.61.179 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No such thing has been "repeatedly proven", but thank you for your comment. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no; as I explained above, in the absence of evidence of premeditation or use of a weapon no one, including the prosecutor or the grand jury, can prove or be certain of what Brown's intentions were. Evidence other than the subject's testimony can only suggest assumptions about intent. But the answer remains the same. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of this is that the only point that matters is whether Wilson perceived an imminent threat to his life. It's impossible to ascertain what Brown's intentions were or were not. I believe the question that the grand jury had to decide was whether any other officer in Wilson's position would also have perceived that there was an imminent threat to his/her life to justify the use of deadly force. There's some more details at Deadly force and I remember reading the exact legal phrasing on a source somewhere. I'll post it here when I find it again. -Myopia123 (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wilson personal life details

Details are emerging about Wilson's personal life that are relevant to this article, such as his marriage in secret two months after the shooting, and the violent altercation with his wife's ex-husband six months before the shooting. I have added a short summary of these details, as they are as relevant as personal details about Brown that are already included. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This is as relevant to the shooting of Michael Brown as the incident about the citizen taking video of Wilson. Which is to say, not at all. What negative things are we saying about Brown for which the best RS validation we can find are The Telegraph and The Daily Mail? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mandruss. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

the secret marriage may be relevant. I'm fairly confident the domestic incident is not, particularly since the violence was directed against Wilson and not by wilson. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the possible relevance of the secret marriage? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Its weak certainly. However, its fairly obvious the reason it was secret was due to the issues surrounding the shooting. Its not negative, so I see no harm in it as part of him mini BLP.I also see his presumed retirement as relevant to his BLP once that is finalized. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not Wilson was or is married has no relevance to this article. Therefore, how and when he became married, and whether the ceremony was public or private, has no relevance. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, Re your comment "its fairly obvious the reason it was secret was due to the issues surrounding the shooting." — It's possible but not obvious. Another possibility is that Wilson is a private type of person and may have been married quietly in any case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no harm in mentioning he's married, details about the marriage aren't relevant. I agree with other users about the domestic incident in leaving it out, if he does retire, that's certainly worth a mention. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it would only be worth a mention if this article was Darren Wilson instead of Shooting of Michael Brown. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Still opposed to the marriage. "Does no harm" is not a high enough bar for a BLP, imo. Same rationale as the removal of his city of residence. Agreed that the retirement is relevant. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see the city is still there. I thought it had been removed, and I think it should be. No personal details about a living person should be included unless relevance is shown, especially in a story like this one, where a lot of people would take a shot at Wilson if they thought they could get away with it. Neither city of residence nor marital status is relevant. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The marriage is significant because of spousal privileges in court.. It further protects him if further charges from other sources arise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.61.179 (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Since no one has claimed that Wilson's now-wife played a role, was present or has any knowledge of the events on August 9, I'm not sure what spousal privilege has to do with this. Also not sure what you mean by "further protects him". How? From what? Dwpaul ^Talk 19:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning one's marital status in a BLP is pretty standard info and widely accepted on WP, but like I said, the details are not relevant. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

See my comments. This is not just any BLP. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't a BLP, biography of a living person, it's an article about a shooting and Wilson wasn't married at the time of the shooting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to any article or portion of an article that presents detailed biographical information about a living person. The references above were to the "mini-BLP" for Wilson contained within this article. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I was responding to Isaidnoway's comment, "Mentioning one's marital status in a BLP is pretty standard info " which isn't a WP:BLP issue. Here again is what I wrote, "This article isn't a BLP, biography of a living person, it's an article about a shooting and Wilson wasn't married at the time of the shooting." Regarding your point that WP:BLP applies to mini-BLPs, I agree but again that wasn't the issue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand all the comments above, but I would argue that like it or not, Wilson's personal life details are relevant. This is a person that killed another and two months later while in hiding during the grand jury proceedings he gets married. Six months before the shooting he gets embroiled in a violent domestic dispute. We have included elements of Brown's personal life, haven't we? The fact that he is dead and Wilson is not should not make a difference. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that the if there is a civil suit filed against him, his new wife would not be able to be called as a witness. Let's be clear: Wilson has had the opportunity to get good lawyers that have advised him not only on what to say in his testimony to claim self-defense ("Brown had his right hand on his belt below the shirt", which only Wilson testifying on that, no other witnesses) but also on how to manage his personal affairs. Nothing wrong with it, but relevant indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your line of reasoning assumes that Wilson's lawyers believe that his now-wife possesses some knowledge that could be damaging to Wilson in court. I see no way to introduce this information to the article without engaging in speculation or synthesis and creating that implication when currently no evidence for it has been presented. We should not include it just because someone somewhere might suspect that she could be called some day as a witness. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Speculation aside, it is being reported and for a reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, the above discussion indicates that the item isn't appropriate for the article, based on information available so far. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, this is precisely the type of novel synthesis of published material that I have warned you against countless times, do you even care? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "The communications privilege begins on marriage, and cannot be invoked to protect confidential communications between now-married spouses that occurred prior to their marriage."[8] So according to this, getting married wouldn't have helped Wilson if there was something incriminating that he had told his wife before they were married. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's info from a collateral source, "For the privilege to attach, the communication must have been made during a valid marriage."[9] --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

He didn't "get involved with" he was assaulted. And he apparently was seeing the woman for at least 8 months, we have no idea when they got engaged, or when their wedding was originally scheduled for. This info tells us nothing about him, and certainly doesn't tell us what you wrote in your original edit. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. We are not here to speculate just to describe facts as reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Shall we report the mean annual precipitation in Luxembourg, too? No, because it's not relevant. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Follow up to the RfC - the infoboxes

Should we get rid of the two infoboxes altogether? – JBarta (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, for reasons already discussed above. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes - Ditto Dwpaul. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes - No added value to the article. 76.78.3.93 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes does not add anything new to the narrative in the respective sections. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: infoboxes are removed. – JBarta (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they did not offer anything of serious value to the article, especially considering the length of the sections for each. However, if there are fair use pictures of both I think this discussion should be revisited. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. After this discussion and RfC I noticed the pair of infoboxes in Shooting of Trayvon Martin. That would be a good model for this article as well. – JBarta (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes for guidance. Here's the first sentence from that guideline.

"An infobox template is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section, (in the desktop view) or at the very top of an article (in mobile view), that summarizes key features of the page's subject."

It looks like an infobox is meant to be used for an article, rather than a section in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction... usually meant. – JBarta (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The "usually" in the sentence was referring to the position of the infobox, not its content, which is described at the end of the sentence, "summarizes key features of the page's subject". --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Grand jury

There is an excellent article in the NYT highlighting the difference of application of grand jury process in this case, and why it has been deemed unorthodox and controversial. [10]. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason for this is pretty well-known: the prosecutor knew that Wilson hadn't committed a crime, but was afraid of rioting and being blamed for clearing Wilson if he simply dismissed the charges. So he made use of a grand jury and presented them with all the evidence and thus could point the blame at the grand jury rather than be blamed himself, and say that the whole thing had been investigated fairly and that people outside of the justice system were involved and arrived at the correct conclusion. It didn't work, but it isn't anything nefarious. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added a table indicating the differences as reported by the NYT. I will not respond to the above if it was nefarious or not, as it is irrelevant to what we are trying to do here, which is reporting on what reliable sources said about the subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown not convicted of theft.

Article still displays that Michael Brown 'stole' cigarillos. If we are not going to reffer to his death as a murder due to a lack of indictment, it is only fair not to inflict criminal connotations to the victim for charges that were never laid or pursued.

Please remove reference to this lawfully ambiguous and possibly fabricated incident until it is proven that Michael Brown was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

-Agair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.113.30 (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has been changed to say that he allegedly stole the cigarillos, and that the cigarillos were allegedly stolen. Those are the only changes needed to address your criticism, as those are the facts. The article cannot be changed to say, however, that Wilson allegedly murdered Brown, because there is no evidence that that was ever alleged by authorities and murder is the judicial determination of a killing without an affirmative defense, a determination that will never be made in this case. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed it back, there is no need to say alleged, Brown is dead and therefore cannot be prosecuted, but that does not negate the fact that he stole the cigars. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You said in your edit summary that "alleged" is unnecessary because "Johnson said Brown stole them and that Brown was walking down the street with them in his hands". However, neither fact means that the cigars were stolen. Johnson is only one witness who could have lied, and Brown would have them in his hands whether he paid for them or not. Since it will never be proven, we should say alleged, as we do routinely on Wikipedia when a charge will not be brought or proven. Please revert. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There is video. There is johnson's version. There is brown's families admission. We can say alleged, but then we also have to dump in all of the evidence supporting that allegation. This is not merely "someone accused him" Gaijin42 (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

As discussed innumerable times here, the video does not show conclusively whether Brown did or did not pay for the cigars, despite efforts to say that it does. Johnson is one witness who could have been misinformed or lied. I am not aware of the "Brown family's admission", nor that the Brown family was present in the convenience store in order to have first-hand knowledge of Brown's acts. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

And no, the inclusion of the word allegedly doesn't obligate us to include any more information than the claim that he committed a robbery obligated us to include. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't say that Adam Lanza allegedly shot all those kids at Sandy Hook, because there were plenty of eyewitnesses to the fact. There are multiple eyewitnesses here as well that said Brown definetely stole cigars and as Gaijin42 rightly points out, there is a video of him stealing them and the family attorney said it was him as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

At the article on the Lanza case, the reason that we don't say allegedly is not because there were lots of witnesses; it's because there was a judicial determination that he was responsible, and because there was no alternative theory. Neither is true here. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The video does not prove that it wasn't an alien shapeshifter that was impersonating brown either. there are multiple supporting pieces of evidence and testinomy, and more importantly for wiki purposes, hundreds and hundreds of reliable sources that say he stole them without qualification. And per the previous comment, there is numerous precedent on wiki for this type of qualification. But we are obviously going to go around in circles here. Someone craft up a neutrally worded RFC on this specific question, and lets be done with it. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Several times now an editor has said that the "Brown family admitted" that Brown stole the cigars, or perhaps even that he committed robbery. I don't recall seeing such an admission, and I wonder how the family was able to make it since presumably his family was not present at the time Brown was in the convenience store. Can someone point me to the source for that admission? Dwpaul ^Talk 03:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

More importantly then the theft / alleged theft of the cigarillos, why is there no reference to Brown threatening and assaulting the shop keeper, for which there is clear and unequivocal video evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.176.12 (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The video (at least the video I have seen) is not clear or unequivocal about anything. It would have served as evidence to support the State's case (if it was being prosecuted), but it is open to interpretation exactly what is going on. Had the robbery case been prosecuted, the defense would have successfully argued that the video by itself is inconclusive. Dwpaul ^Talk

Just want to double check with you whether it is the same video you saw. This one contains the interaction from two cameras. Z22 (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I had not seen the first video segment at that link, only the second. Even so, the first segment provides (to 24.192.176.12's point above, which I concede) substantial visual evidence that an assault occurred, but doesn't (by itself) speak to the accusations of theft and/or robbery, since it doesn't show clearly what occurred during the transaction. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear in case the article is expanded as the IP suggests, the video isn't evidence that Brown threatened the shopkeeper, since unless audio is also available we have no idea what Brown said to him. A threat is an utterance, not an action. We can see, however, that he intimidated (made threatening gestures, assumed a threatening stance) and assaulted (pushed) him. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In the video looking at the counter, he clearly took the first box and gave that to his friend. You may argue that he might actually obtain that box legally (paid for it). However, his friend later placed that box back to the counter. If his friend knew that the box was obtained legally and it was Brown's property by that time, then why didn't his friend return that box back to Brown, but instead returned that to the clerk? For another box, the box was yanked from its place with such force that items inside felt out all over the floor. It will be extremely unlikely that the number of items that fell on the floor which he took matched exactly to whatever you think the amount he might have paid to the clerk. As for the payment, you can take a note of both of Brown's hands at the beginning of the "transaction" that you mentioned. There video clearly shows that there was no money, credit card, or anything on his hands. His hands never been put inside his pocket at anytime, giving no opportunity for him to give any sort of payments to the clerk before he started taking the first box. It is up to you to think for yourself whether he had made a payment for those items that fell on the floor or not. If not, then it is stealing. If stealing, it will be combined with the use of physical force in that event, making that a robbery. Z22 (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

All a very reasonable interpretation of what appears in the second video segment. My point is only (has only ever been) that it is exactly that, an interpretation, not necessarily the only (reasonable) one, and very possibly not sufficiently unique to allow the video (the second segment at the link above) to serve as incontrovertible evidence of a crime (much less the absence of one). Dwpaul ^Talk 04:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the lack of a conviction means we have to misleadingly imply he didn't do it... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion, but really has no bearing here. Evaluating and drawing conclusions from our viewing of a video is WP:OR. Any statement one way or another should be based on WP:RS the wording should be based on those sources. I think any other discussion on this is moot. Rmosler | ● 16:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Page unprotection requests at Wikipedia:Help Desk

I probably don't belong here but can everyone who wants to continue asking us to unprotect this page and "remove inaccuracies" from it on the Help Desk please stop? We've asked you many times to stop and it's wasting our time that we could be using to resolve real problems. We understand your strong feelings about this subject; if we ask you to stop more than once, please stop. Thank you.--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 01:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see, responding editors chose to waste their own time. The responses could have been shorter and easier, and could have been copied-and-pasted from one section to the next:

This is the Wikipedia Help desk, which is for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. Issues such as yours should be discussed on the article's talk page. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Force Escalation

It might be useful to have a force escalation timeline and identification of the persons and their force category, like a script listing the verbal, physical, and force application :

Officer Wilson (verbal) : ...
Michael Brown (verbal) ...

...and so forth. Force escalation training is used extensively in the military and in many police departments.

Use of force continuum

71.243.209.30 (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

While this could be valuable, it would also be cumbersome, and more importantly, it would likely be WP:OR unless we can find a reliable source that has done all that analysis and categorization for us. Gaijin42 (talk)

RFC: Alleged theft of cigars from convenience store?

In references here to the theft and/or strong-arm robbery of cigars from a convenience store prior to the shooting of the decedent, should this article use the term alleged or allegedly before any such claims since the decedent was never and will never be charged or convicted of theft or robbery? Dwpaul ^Talk 02:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

survey

• (As nom) Yes, as that is Wikipedia's standard practice when a criminal act is alleged but will never be prosecuted. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• no There is video of the event. An admission from his friend who was present, and admission from the Brown family. We actually have numerous opposite examples of non-convicted persons who are described as having done certain illegal actions, and we have hundreds of reliable sources saying without qualification that brown took the Cigars without paying. However, describing that theft in a specific legal crime term should not be done as we do not have sufficient proof that all elements of a crime were done, it is enough to say "stole cigars" or "took cigars without paying" but not "committed robbery" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In regard to the question whether there is "sufficient proof that all elements of a crime were done", we just need to follow the MO law. It says, "A person commits the crime of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property." Did he steal the items? Did he use force when confronted by the clerk? If you say yes to both questions, then all elements of the crime were done and the act is called robbery in the second degree. Z22 (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No per Gaijin42 above and also see Columbine Shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting,, Isla Vista Killings and numerous other articles here on WP where a crime has been committed with the individual being killed and/or suicide with no prosecution and/or conviction and the word alleged is not used in those articles. I would also note that the police have classified this case as being "exceptionally cleared", a stringent standard to meet in a case when there will be no prosecution or conviction. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• No - Alleged refers to something that is said, without proof, to have taken place or done. Also, by the same logic of Dwpaul, you cannot identify someone for a criminal act if they are incapable of being tried. Glad to know that despite the Columbine Shooting evidence that you are content to put "alleged", again a reference to "unproven", in front of any act or attribution of the killers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Didn't say you "cannot identify someone for a criminal act"; simply said you should make clear you are not claiming they have been convicted of it, if only for your own protection (in this case, for the protection of the project). That is all allegedly does. Dwpaul ^Talk 06:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

We are not "convicting" anyone. Your understanding of "alleged"'s use is wrong according to the dictionary. Allegations in a legal sense are no different, but you should be aware of that process. Since this is not a pending court matter so kindly take your armchair lawyering off this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• No. According to WP:ALLEGED, alleged is "appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial." In this case, Brown will never go to trial so the issue won't be determined that way. However, we are not entirely without the ability to make an editorial determination here. We have a published security video showing what certainly appears to be a theft (or more accurately strong arm robbery) and there is the published testimony of Brown's friend Johnson describing the events in the store. That description supports that it was in fact a strong arm robbery. In addition, many (though not all) sources refer to the event as a theft and do not use the term "alleged". Taking all this into consideration, I think it's perfectly reasonable, neutral and accurate to treat it as an actual crime and leave out he word "alleged".

There have been theories suggesting that maybe Brown did pay for the cigars and the clerk just wanted an ID. This is an interesting theory, but entirely unsupported by anything. Others note that no store employee contacted the police (a customer did). In no way does this cause other evidence to vanish. Again, taking ALL things into consideration from what is available to us, it is reasonable to say that a crime was committed and there is nothing "alleged" about it. – JBarta (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That actually brings up an interesting question. Let's suppose Brown (who is of age) wants to buy cigars and the clerk wants to see an ID. Let's further suppose Brown throws down the money and says "screw the ID, here's the money" then grabs the cigars and leaves. The clerk tries to stop him still wanting to see the ID. Brown pushes past and exits the store (we'll forget about the hard shoving). Has a crime been committed? Or more specifically, is it theft? – JBarta (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If for some reasons you put a million dollars cash on the counter but the clerk refuses to "sell" an inexpensive product (no matter what it is) and you take that product anyway, then you use force to clear your way out of the store, you will still be charged with robbery in the second degree as per MO law. Even when give a correct amount of money to the clerk for the cigar, but the clerk refuses to sell that to you. The transaction does not take place. When you take valuable propety from that store when you have not been the owner of that property yet, it is stealing. To add to that, you use force, it's a robbery of the second degree. Z22 (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

What a poor example - the discussion below shows it is closed and why. Original research or other accusations carry no real weight because the official report is our proper source. As a result, no matter what excuses or theoretical case you come up with, it does not apply to this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No – In prior weeks there was some question from news sources whether Brown might have actually paid for the cigarillos, that analysis seems to have disappeared even in Brown-friendly news outlets as more information has come out. Also, John Wilkes Booth did not "allegedly" assassinate Abraham Lincoln, even though he was never convicted of it. —Megiddo1013 01:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No - In the absence of any other reasonable explanations for what can be seen in the footage and testimonies, it seems safe to go with what the recently written RSs say on this one. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No - There's really no question at this point of what happened, and Brown is very much dead and thus we have no reason to worry about prejudicing a jury against him. It is safe to not use "alleged" here as we have video, testimony from his friend, RSs which don't use "alleged", and standard Wiki policy that in cases like this that we don't use it (John Wilkes Booth, Columbine shooting, ect.). Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• COMMENT Due to the apparent WP:SNOW above, I am going to remove the "allege"s that are referring to the robbery. However, the RFC remains open, and consensus could certainly swing the other way over the next days/weeks. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No - Per the users above. There is no question as to the factual nature of the crime.--TMD Talk Page. 16:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No Per AdventurousSquirrel. We should be going with what the recent WP:RS are saying. Rmosler | ● 16:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Can you include a source for the "exceptionally cleared" classification being applied to this case and its meaningsignificance, since this information (not there now) would be useful to include in the article? I can find references to the police report including this notation, but none that say it gives it some special degree of "truthiness".Dwpaul ^Talk 03:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Exceptionally cleared is a Uniform Crime Reports term. It means "solved" by "exception" not the "awesome" meaning of exceptional http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances NPR is one of many many sources saying that the case was closed with this status, but they appear to be doing so based on just viewing the police report. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/15/340594634/ferguson-police-release-name-of-officer-who-shot-michael-brown Gaijin42 (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I was about to point out the same finding to Isaidnoway, with a caution against using it to suggest some special quality of the investigation. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Its not some special quality, but it does indicate that the case was formally solved including identifying the perp sufficient for FBI reporting purposes. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is one interpretation; I would tend to go with your suggestion above that the case was said to have been resolved "by exception", in this case by the death of the only suspect at the time rather than by diligent and detailed police work that would have achieved a conviction. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

From the Missouri Uniform Crime Reporting Program (Missouri State Highway Patrol):

Exceptional Clearance - If all four of the following questions can be answered 'Yes' the offense can be cleared “exceptionally”.

1. Do you know who the offender is?
2. Has the investigation determined there is enough information to support an arrest/charge of a specific individual?
3. Is the location of this individual known so the subject could by taken into custody now?
4. Is there some reason outside law enforcement‟s control that precludes arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender?

Examples of exceptional clearances include: death (suicide or justifiable homicide where the offender is killed by a police officers or citizen). This case meets all the above criteria for the case to be closed as "exceptionally cleared". Isaidnoway (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The police report (external links) says that it has been exceptionally cleared and if you search the archives of this talk page, you will see that this very same discussion has been had before about using the word alleged in relation to this strong-arm robbery committed by Brown. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see this previous discussion from August, and I see you making the same arguments you're making now, but I don't see that any consensus evolved in support of them. In fact, I see quite a lot of dissent on the question. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the RfC, maybe we can put these unsourced conspiracy theories to rest once and for all.

• Michael Brown Robbed Convenience Store, Stole Cigarillos Before Darren Wilson Shooting, Dorian Johnson Says
• Dorian Johnson told the grand jury he was stunned when Brown stole cigarillos from the convenience store
• The attorney for Dorian Johnson, the man who was with Michael Brown when he was shot, says it was Brown who stole the cigars from the store where police say the two were filmed before Brown’s death, and that the FBI is aware of it. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Also... "Brown was a suspect in an alleged robbery" is horrendous writing because you cannot "allege a robbery" and the nature of the matter requires "alleged" be dropped. Either a robbery took place or it didn't; it is mutually exclusive here, just as you cannot be an "alleged suspect" in the case. One alleged needs to remain in the article: "Brown then allegedly attempted to seize Wilson's gun..." which has not been conclusively proven. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Dwpaul, I ended up as a main dissenter in that August discussion, based on the use of reliable sources available at that time. However, more information has been published since then, notably Dorian Johnson's testimony under oath, and I have more carefully reviewed the video, and I don't think that using allege is appropriate. It gives the impression that there is a reasonable doubt that Brown stole the cigars, which isn't the case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether to use the word "alleged" or not, one thing clear is that we should not misrepresent the act as a theft or stealing. It should either be called "forcibly steal" or "robbery". Apparently, the force was involved. The first mentioning of the act as just stealing in the lead is actually misleading. See definitions here: [11] [12]. Z22 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson city of residence

I brought this up in #Wilson personal life details but it got lost in that discussion. I feel it's important enough to resolve. I'm tempted to boldly remove the city, but I generally err on the side of caution and it's not clear removal would be uncontroversial.

NYT and WaPo have both reported the name of the street on which Wilson currently lives, resulting in some public debate, but we are not bound by their editorial judgment. As I said in the other discussion, a lot of people would take a shot at Wilson if they knew where he was and thought they could get away with it. While such a person could find what they need to know easily enough on the web, there's no requirement or justification for helping them do that.

The inclusion of city of residence was easier to tolerate when Wilson was in hiding. As far as I can tell, he is no longer in hiding. The information is not relevant to this article, and it should be removed. I would apply similar reasoning to middle name, birthdate, and birthplace, but I'm okay with limiting this particular discussion to city of residence. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the location of his residence is relevant or has anything to do with the shooting itself. Inclusion of the location of his residence is an undue weight and not encyclopedic. Therefore, that should be removed. Z22 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson's city of residence is unnecessary information. As editors it's not our job to pack the article with every bit of infomation we can find, but only what is needed for the reader to gain a thorough understanding of the subject. Unless someone can explain why Wilson's city of residence is necessary to understand the Shooting of Michael Brown, it can be left out as unnecessary clutter. – JBarta (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Where Wilson lives is entirely irrelevant to the events here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed city of residence. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

The protection of this page to permit only autoconfirmed users to edit it directly expired at 20:30 UTC 29 November. Any reason not to request that it be renewed? We are already seeing unconstructive editing by IPs. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Already done. Sam Walton (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson resigned.

Wilson resigned. Source: Ferguson officer who shot Michael Brown resigns. Please add this to the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Collapsed digressed discussion of talk page etiquette

By the look of it you have a keyboard too. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Some editors may not feel comfortable editing. Personally, while comfortable with small edits, I find others often do a much better job with larger edits. Every editor is welcome to contribute in any capacity he wishes... including just asking that an edit be made ;-) – JBarta (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC) @JBarta: - thanks for your comments (and insight). @Cwobeel: there is no need for your sarcastic and snarky comment. I did not have the time, energy, or inclination to craft appropriate language at the moment. I could get to it, maybe in three or four days from now. So, I posted the news updates here, so that everyone would be aware of it and some editor would take the time and attention to word it correctly. Not that I need to explain myself to you. But, nonetheless, I did. Now, in reciprocation, do you have some reasonable explanation for your comments? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I don't think an explanation is necessary. Let's just let it be and move on. – JBarta (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC) @JBarta: Why do you say that? The explanation was for me, not for you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC) There is no explanation. It was a snarky remark. We're all human, we've all done it. He said it, then I called him on it and you called him on it. It's done. Sometimes it's good to just file it under 'shit happens', let it go and move on. – JBarta (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC) When I make a mistake, I apologize. So, I am not sure why you are so quick to want to bypass that (important) step (i.e., to relieve him of that "obligation"). Especially when the apology is owed to me, not to you. Please explain? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Joseph, I am not taking sides in this, but if you want to pursue this further, please take it up with Cwobeel on their Talk page, since your complaint is with that editor and this discussion has completely ceased to be about the improvement of this article. Thanks. Dwpaul Talk 03:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Agreed. Or you could challenge Cwobeel to a duel at dawn tomorrow. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Actually, my question was directed to JBarta. But, thanks to you both for your valuable input. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Discussions on an article talk page are open to everyone (and very visible to everyone). The best way to reduce or eliminate comments from others is to post on the user talk page of the person you wish to address. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC) And this applies to me only, but not the other two gentlemen, is that correct? In the comments of the other two gentlemen, I don't see anything related to the editing of this article. Nonetheless, I don't see you (Mandruss) or the other editor (Dwpaul) advising them to take their comments off this page and onto a User Talk page. Only me. Am I correct? Or did I miss that? And to think ... all this adolescent bullshit started by my simple and well-intentioned request that an editor add some vital information to the article. Wow. You editors at Wikipedia really have your priorities straight. Really. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Don't waste your breath waiting for an apology; do prepare yourself emotionally for when the dude does it again. Won't be long. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC) @Factchecker atyourservice: Thanks for the heads up. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I will take all of the above discussion as a "thank you" to me for my attempt to add to and to improve this article. You're welcome, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has been updated. – JBarta (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent chart from PBS of what all witnesses said

PBS has an excellent chart they developed from the research they conducted about the key critical points of each witness. Can we include it?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/ Quisp65 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include it in the "External links" section. In fact, it should be added there. (And perhaps elsewhere in the body of the article.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of the witness tesimony has proven a little unreliable. I'm wondering... if a witness says he saw X, then later admits the reason he said he saw X was because he heard someone say that X happened, does this chart still reflect that he saw X? While interesting, I'm wondering about its actual usefulness. That said, I have no problem with it as an External link. Elsewhere in the body of the article? I don' know about that. It's a potentially dodgy bit. I don't mind a link to it, but let's not wrap ourselves up in it. – JBarta (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, but it's PBS and the date is pretty current, so I think our usual practice is to just assume they got it right. Thoughts? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Quisp65: @Factchecker atyourservice: @Joseph A. Spadaro: @Jbarta: I don't think we should use this chart at all; it contains a number of inaccuracies and I haven't even read all the testimony. Just looking at the first line, it states that Officer Wilson did not say anything about whether Brown was fleeing when he was fired upon by Wilson, or whether or not Brown was kneeling when Wilson shot him, but this is quite wrong: Wilson testified that he did not shoot Brown until Brown turned around and began to charge him, and that Brown was charging him at the time he was shot to death. He also stated that Brown's hands were not up in surrender when he was shot to death. Likewise, he said he stopped shooting when Brown went down, which would preclude that he shot MB repeatedly when Brown went down. Given that the very top line contains four factual inaccuracies, I wouldn't use that chart for anything or use it as an external link. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

One item that makes the "what the witnesses said" charts problematic, is that it doesn't really get much into the reliability of the witnesses, depending on what items were selected for the chart. For example, The construction workers show up as "hands up" in the charts, but the worker also said three cops were chasing brown down the street but only one was shooting. Unless the chart also includes "how many cops did the witnesses report" that type of inconsistency is not visible. This STL story goes into quite a few instances of this type of problem http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/in-grand-jury-testimony-passion-but-little-agreement-from-witnesses/article_f2fc0e21-dc59-59bf-82bc-c0f35fd40572.html Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone actually did something pretty neat and made this chart; obviously they were a bit annoyed with PBS when they made it, but it points out a lot of the issues with the chart. I'm not sure who made the chart, though. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Its from someone (https://twitter.com/ScriblyUnctious) at theconservativetreehouse.com . In general its not a reliable source, and the site is often very racist. But they have also broken/pointed out (in the journalistic sense) evidence/stories in this case that turned out to be true or important. this guy claims that they have contacted PBS and that PBS is reviewing their chart to see if any updates are warranted. [13] Gaijin42 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Questionable Content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There have been many people complaining about how this article has content that has been disproven. As shown in this social media post there are many articles that contradict previously undisputed information. I know that usually a request like this usually amounts to nothing but I think it is important for somebody to verify and find more articles. We can not show a point of view in this especially controversial topic. Thanks, 107.211.141.128 (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The article already has more than 250 citations, and more are being added daily. If there is a specific article or other source you think should be used to add to this article, please mention it here, but this article does not suffer from a lack of citation of a variety of sources, nor have any reliable sources been intentionally excluded from it. Note, however, that Tumblr is not a reliable source. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think all those folks who "like this" should spend more time actually reading the article and the sources that back it up than what gets passed back and forth on social media. Another source of useful information is the talk page behind the article (not immediately apparent on a mobile device however). Sometimes getting at the "real truth" requires a little more effort than simply re-tweeting something you heard. That said, the bit about time stamps is interesting. I wonder where that came from? – JBarta (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Haven't investigated it, but I wouldn't expect that the inexpensive surveillance systems usually used by this kind of small business are necessarily going to use ntp or some other method of automatically ensuring the internal clock is correct. If time shown for both cameras is consistent, most likely it is VCR syndrome (i.e., the proprietor never set the clock correctly). Dwpaul ^Talk 03:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't notice the video had a time stamp. It does. The older I get, the more dimwitted I become. – JBarta (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

there is a major error regarding the charging of the grand jury....

i am a complete newbie to wikipedia ( tho i have used it and donated to it for years). so i do not know how to edit this article to correct it. but the error is very important. the article as written says....

well it seems i cant go back and grab a quote without leaving this page, so i'll paraphrase. it says that the grand jurors had to decide there was probably cause that a crime had been committed and that it had not been in self defense, or in the process of making an arrest. this last statement is technically not true. while jurors were originally provided with the MO law stating that deadly force could be used to effect an arrest. and that jurors had operated under that belief thru-out the proceedings, at the very end of testimony the assistant prosecutors corrected their previous error pointing out that almost 30 years ago the us supreme court had ruled unconstitutional the use of deadly force simply to effect an arrest. the actual grand jury testimony in the pages between 134 and 140 of the last volumn discuss the charges and this correction, which was not done in the most definite of manners, leaving it possible that the prosecutors sobourned grand jury nullification by leaving this possible charge out there for the length of the jury, only half hardheartedly correcting it in the final minutes of the grand jury.

this is a major error in the article as written. if someone more experienced than i would like to edit the article to this effect, please feel free to email me at jbrown413@aol.com for more details.--Jbrown413 (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Which section are you referring to? For others, I believe this user is referring to this Lawrence O'Donnel MSNBC segment [14] where he points out the prosecutors gave the jury incorrect information thus lowering the bar for an indictment. I agree that this is important and should be addressed somewhere in the article. Saeranv (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The part of the Missouri law that is questioned as being unconstitutional regards non-violent felonies. There were no non-violent felonies in the Michael Brown case, so the criticism of the assistant prosecutor’s actions appears to be unwarranted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bob is correct; while it is true that Missouri law is outdated, it is irrelevant in this case. It isn't relevant to the outcome of the case, so it doesn't belong in the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant. The prosecutors gave wrong instructions to the jury, which they corrected later. Sources are reporting that this created additional confusion for the jurors. I will find these sources and add a sentence or two about this additional aspect. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Here [15] - I will summarize and add this later today. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, as other legal analysts have pointed out, is that the unconstitutional portion of the law was irrelevant, because Brown was a violent felon, and in the end, the revised instructions were disadvantageous to Wilson, and they still cleared him. We don't need to note every little thing in the article; this is not very relevant compared to more pertinent things. This isn't an in-depth legal article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think their point is that something that was disadvantageous to Wilson was left out until the very end. Especially something that affects the very lens through which the jurors viewed all the evidence in a multi-month process. —Megiddo1013 05:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't disadvantageous to Wilson. The tainted part of the Missouri law concerned non-violent felonies, which didn't apply to this case as there were no non-violent felonies. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wilson: "Dorian Johnson was wearing a black shirt"

In his ABC interview and his testimony Wilson says that after Brown said "fuck what you have to say", Wilson looked in his rear view mirror and noticed cigarillos in the hand of Brown, and Dorian Johnson was wearing a black shirt... and that's what clicked for him that these were the suspects in the store theft. However, sources say the dispatcher reported a black male in a white T-shirt. Am I missing something here? – JBarta (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

While I am not sure if it is relevant or not to your specific question, but it is known that Johnson changed his shirt immediately after the shooting. He mentions this in his testimony, and I believe in some of his media interviews immediately after, you can see him holding the other shirt. It appears to me that he was wearing both a black and a white shirt at some point, but that may or may not be relevant to Wilson's identification. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnson is seen wearing a black t-shirt in the surveillance video. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Change the intro

People don't need to know that Brown was 'black' and Wilson was 'white' in the first sentence.

... it should be something along the lines of Wilson shot Brown, etc, etc... this has caused controversy as some believe it to be racially motivated.

--JT2958 (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people absolutely do need to know that by the end of the first sentence. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the main issue is one of WP:IMPARTIAL. The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the shooting was racially motivated, so we want to be careful about implying that race actually mattered in the incident. It did certainly matter for the reaction. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The racially charged nature of the incident and/or reaction is the sole reason for its notability, and I would think we can get that information across without misleading anyone. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Brown was black and Wilson was white is one of the major points in the narrative. Of course it should stay in. – JBarta (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

^^^^ Agree. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Darren Wilson quit his job

Several newspapers I see online have said this. I don't see it in the article in an obvious place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

See here. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Is there some reason not to include the basic information under "Darren Wilson" with a link to the details ([[#Aftermath_for_Darren_Wilson|below]] is how I structured this in another article).— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. However, as a general rule we do not link within articles to other parts of the same article on Wikipedia. This information pertains to the aftermath, not the background of Darren Wilson, which is the content contained in the section on Wilson presented before details of the the shooting. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I disagree, but I see your logic. The fact that I didn't think to look in the aftermath section means others might not either. I just wanted to see how Wikipedia decided to cover the story.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Eyewitness Testimony Issues

The AP wrote an article about issues with the eyewitness testimony. This seems likely to have some usable stuff in it to avoid OR, talking about testimony which contradicted the physical evidence or given by people who weren't there. Probably useful for when we re-write the eyewitness testimony section. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Revenge killing — Bosnian man near Ferguson beaten to death with hammers in front of wife by four Hispanic/black teenagers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855535/St-Louis-teens-beat-motorist-32-death-hammers-sparking-protests-Bosnian-community.html

Residents complain about lack of protection from violent black youths; cops respond that they can't provide more manpower. Residents retort: "But you can get 1,000 cops in Ferguson. Well, we’re going to protest to keep them here."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/01/the-protesters-near-ferguson-who-are-begging-for-more-police/

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably want to put this over in the Ferguson Unrest article; this is about the shooting, the resulting protests/riots have a small section here along with their own article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Treatment of 2015 dates

For brevity we have omitted the year from most 2014 dates. When we start adding 2015 dates, should we include the year for clarity? Or will it be clear enough until August 2015? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think within each section (or depending on length, perhaps paragraph) the first date mentioned should include the year. Subsequent events in chronological order, especially where the dates are within a month or so of the previous date, the year can be omitted, until you get up to 2015, then include the year, then go back to yearless. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That will be a very tough system to maintain while content is being added, removed, altered, and reorganized. It will also be sufficiently complex that most editors won't understand it without first finding and reading the instructions (i.e., few editors will understand it). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that based on WP:REALTIME, we need to write this article as if it will be read by someone in the year 2025. —Megiddo1013 05:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you elaborate? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 14:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Offensive Phrasing -- Style Question

Under the section Grand Jury Hearing (which should be capitalized, but I don't have editing privileges), it refers to the grand jury's makeup as "three blacks". This usage of black as a noun is not considered acceptable any longer in American English and is specifically prohibited in most style guides (I don't know if this is covered in wikipedia's). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.125.200 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't offensive and is frequently used in American English. Google shows how many people use it to this very day, including places like the Huffington Post. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked the source used for that sentence, and the source uses the terms "blacks" and "whites" in relation to the race of the grand jury members. Based on that source, I don't see a problem. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Isaidnoway is correct, but there is no requirement to match the specific source on something like this, which is not within a quotation. We paraphrase all the time, and what matters is that the world of reliable sources frequently uses "blacks" as a noun. Here's an example from the New York Times, who are known for close attention to such details. Incidentally, the "Grand jury hearing" is correct; Wikipedia uses "sentence case" in section titles. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This black/African-American question is not going to be solved in general anytime soon around here. Sources generally use a mix of "black" and "African-American" and so should we. Sources however do NOT generally use the word "Caucasian" when describing Wilson, so that has little place in this article. We're not here to worry about what is offensive to this person or that... we're here to reflect the sources in a neutral and balanced manner. – JBarta (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oddly missing pieces of evidence

I've been looking around but there doesn't seem to be any of the following: 1.X rays 2.Pictures taken by the cops or the medical examiner(only pics from bystanders) 3.Distance measurements 4.Pictures of Mike Browns injuries(he did have some to his face) 5.Audio recording of the August 10th interview Have any of these been found? I saw the medical examiner on CNN say she didn't take pictures because she didn't have batteries. Strange that they had his body 2 weeks and took no photos of it. Turtire (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

1. To my knowledge there are no xrays of either brown or wilson
2. bystander photos have copyright issues (if you are aware of freely licensed photos, please tell us). The medical examiner ones may as well (but may have a decent fair use exemption).
3. We are working on getting a map up of locations with distances
4. We are working on getting some photos of Wilsons face up
5. We discuss the interview I believe, but generally do not embed lengthy audio into the article. We could provide an external link perhaps, if it is hosted somewhere deemed both reliable and stable Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction to #1 -- There were x-rays taken of Michael Brown and Darren Wilson's jaw/head. Whether those are publicly available is another story. (and I don't know the answer to that) – JBarta (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Gaijin42 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014

Please add in the security video of Michael Brown robbing a convenience store. I have heard dispute over whether the person in the video was actually him -- it is said that the figure in the recording is very blurry -- so that those on the page can see the video for themselves. Sunburst25 (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but the video is copyrighted, and I don't think we would get away with fair use. We can see what others think, but for now  Not done Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I doubt that the video is released under a license allowing it to be reused on Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done--The video is in the External links section and has been for a while. (Clarification) - The video has not been uploaded to Commons or WP, but is hosted on a news organization's website, hence it being in the external links section. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are you calling Michael Brown a man when being eighteen did not qualify Eric David Harris a man?????

If Eric Harris can be called a boy when he was also 18 yrs old when the shootings took place a Columbine High School, I believe we can come to the conclusion that Michael Brown was just a boy also. Stop making him out to be something another was not....... I do not know him personally, but you are adding to a problem that will not cease because of status that is not really true. He was only a boy!

Butterflygem (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's true that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Columbine High School massacre use the term "boys" in a few instances. That may or may not reflect source's descriptions of them. You would have to bring that up on those article's respective talk pages. Regarding this article, can you point out the specific part of the article you wish to change and what you'd like to see it changed to? Be prepared (if challenged) to back up your suggested edit with sourcing and a rationale that supports it following Wikipedia policies of verifiability, neutral point of view, and due weight. I'm not trying to make it hard on you, I'm just trying to show you that editing this encyclopedia is more than simply inserting one's opinion. – JBarta (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I am starting to see some unconscious racism creep in this manner in articles on wikipedia. Two white guys who shot up a school are boys but an unarmed black guy is a man. Just like missing white girl syndrome -Myopia123 (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with "unconscious racism". It's hard to visualize, much less describe, anyone who is 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m) tall, weighs 292 lb (132 kg) and smokes cigars as a "boy". In every one of these cases, if the subjects are over 18, they should probably be described as "young men", but I think it's easy to see why the term "man" was used here instead of "boy". It's a bit too convenient to invoke the racism card when a simpler explanation will suffice. Dwpaul ^Talk 13:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I also don't think the "unconscious racisim" comment is helpful, it could be seen as casting aspersions and is not WP:AGF. If you believe that an editor is not following policies or POV pushing, discuss it here or their talk page with diffs. Man, boy, teenager, the choice of nouns should be by consensus and backed by WP:RS. If you have sources that would back a change, then please share them, and the proposed change. Rmosler | ● 14:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not accusing any individual editors. I'm saying that RS's and all the editors as a whole(including me) are giving in to a very human tendency to judge on a class basis. -Myopia123 (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that, if not for the POV implications in this case and a desire for him to be perceived as the victim, we'd just as likely be criticized for calling Brown a "boy" because of the connotations that term has had when applied to young black men in the past. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Myopia, I believe that your comments on "unconscious racism" amount to silly navel-gazing. Also a more fit subject for your talk page than here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it was a constructive contribution, if only because it allowed us to address this aspect of the question from a perspective others may have had or will have in mind, even if they didn't frame their arguments in those terms. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Empathize with stupidity and you're half way to thinking like an idiot. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes that's a creative and useful method of problem solving. Think we're done here. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear @Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS), I don't know what navel gazing is but if you want to cuss me out you might as well accept that you're going to violate WP:CIVIL anyway and do it properly. I disagree with your suggestion that it's more fit for my talk page. Racism is a core element of this issue and the deaths of black men at the hands of police in general. As far as you calling me stupid, that was a comment for my talk page. -Myopia123 (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Washington Post: "Witness 10 proves Darren Wilson had a reasonable belief he needed to shoot Michael Brown"

This excellent article should be cited in this article, as it is highly notable and relevant, and is from an exceptionally reliable source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/01/witness-10-proves-darren-wilson-had-a-reasonable-belief-he-needed-to-shoot/

74.98.32.91 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Volokh Conspiracy is a self-edited opinion blog hosted by the Washington Post. It's definitely reliable for the authors' opinions, but not for claims of fact (i.e., the headline's claim of proof of reasonable belief). Dyrnych (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We can certainly report the author's legal analysis and opinion that "Witness 10 proves Darren Wilson had a reasonable belief he needed to shoot Michael Brown" Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, as long as we attribute it to the author. I'm not sure that it adds anything terribly novel to the article, since the author's just saying that Wilson's testimony tracks the standard for justified use of deadly force and that in the author's opinion, Witness 10's testimony is credible and supportive of Wilson's account. That said, I'm not opposed to it going in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A nice thing about the article is that the author refers to the grand jury transcript by using the notation volume#, page#:line#, so we can check what he is saying. Here's a link to the grand jury transcript he is referring to [16].

There's a Wikipedia article on the Washington Post column in general, The Volokh Conspiracy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It can be added if fully attributed as an opinion. One thing that Volokh fails to mention is that in its first interview, witness #10 said he was 100 yards from the incident (length of a football field... would you trust a referee's call from that distance?), only to change his testimony in front of the grand jury saying that he was 50 yards away. But because there is no cross examination in these proceedings, the grand jury was never made aware of this very significant discrepancy. If the material from Volokh is added, I will provide a counter opinion from other sources highlighting the possible lack of credibility of this witness. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

From Volokh: Witness 10 was a neutral observer who saw all the same things that Officer Wilson saw (albeit from a safe distance). But he fails to mention the "distance". So Volokh has an obvious bias, but his opinion can be used if fully attributed as such. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The blog was founded by Eugene Volokh. This author's name is Paul Cassell. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Re Cwobeel's remarks, there is no significant discrepancy between Witness 10's earlier and later statements about his distance from the shooting.

From his Aug 11 interview (see p. 8 at [17]),

”…to guess maybe 100 yards I would say. Maybe less.”

From his Sep 23 grand jury testimony (see p197 line 15 at [18])

”I would give it 50 to 75 yards.”

Witness 10's Aug 11 remark is an offhand estimate of 100 yards that he calls a "guess" and says it might be lower than that. This is consistent with his later grand jury testimony where he is giving his best estimate of 50 to 75 yards. In general, the witnesses seemed to be giving more accurate testimony in the grand jury, probably because they are more careful as they are testifying under oath in a formal proceeding. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is what the controversy is about. Some see this as not an issue as you did, while others fully disagree. Just think about it, witness #10 was the farthest from the scene. Other witnesses were closer. And 75 feet (if we average the conflicting statements) is quite far. In any case what was reported, was reported for a reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the distance of 50 to 75 yards is close enough for Witness 10 to see and hear the events described in his grand jury testimony that appeared in the article. Here's an excerpt from the article that gives an example.[19]

"Perhaps even more important for those trying to get to the bottom of what happened is that Witness 10′s sworn testimony tracks almost perfectly the sworn testimony of Darren Wilson. For example, Witness 10 describes Wilson pursuing but not firing at Brown initially, until Brown turned and charged. Moreover, Witness 10 describes an initial series of shots, Brown stopping, Wilson stopping firing, and then Brown resuming his charge. Wilson gave the same testimony, talking about a “pause” between a first and second round of shots (vol. 5, 229:1) — only to be forced to fire by Brown’s final rush."

Is there anything in this that you think couldn't be seen and heard from a distance of 50 to 75 yards? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally talk pages aren't a platform for using armchair analysis to "refute" things said by RS's, so I'm not sure what the point of this discussion is. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In defense of Cwobeel, actually it is. If someone thinks there is questionable material in an RS, then it may be discussed. Note the Wikipedia policy Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There has got to be some line drawn between occasional fact challenges to a source, on the one hand, and constant attempts to rewrite, misrepresent, spin, and mount endless rambling wikilawyering attacks on perfectly good sources, on the other. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Darren Wilson's interview and testimony

The section starts with an incomplete presentation, stating that "Wilson gave his account of the incident in an interview with a detective on August 10, and in testimony before the grand jury in September", while only including material from his testimony to the grand jury. There are sources now reporting of crucial inconsistencies between the two accounts, one of which I have added to the end of the section, but it may be a better idea to incorporate to the narrative. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail has been the subject of many discussions at Reliable Sources/Noticeboard concerning its reliability versus its penchant for sensationalism, and many (most?) consider it to be a tabloid. I would look for better sources before trying to integrate this into the narrative. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The facts as reported in the evidence released are undisputed, so in this case the Daily Mail reliability should not be questioned. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, even if facts are undisputed they require reliable sources here, emphasis on the word reliable. And even undisputed facts can be be presented and/or manipulated, in order to sell newspapers, in such a way as to make a source unsuitable. See National Enquirer, for example.Dwpaul ^Talk 02:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

To all: Please be kind and provide links so occasional watchers like me don't have to click around. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right ... here is the diff [20] - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'd say the entry would've merit if it wasn't sourced only to the "Daily mail" which I (and Wikipedia) don't consider a reliable source at least when it comes to controversial claims. Are RS's picking up on that or available right now? In that case it most likely would be legit content to add.TMCk (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Tabloids like the DM shouldn't be used to source any content in this article. If the DM is the only source for this claim, it shouldn't be trusted, if it isn't the only source, then those sources should be used instead of a gossip tabloid with a poor record for fact-checking. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

More problematic is that we have evidence in the form of police radio transcripts which indicate that Wilson not only knew about the stealing prior to the shooting, but actually asked the officers who were responding to the stealing if they needed his help with it. The descriptions of the suspects were given to Wilson over the radio prior to the events taking place. See this article which talks about this. The most likely scenario here is that someone was simply confused or misremembering what happened and/or the Daily Mail is spouting nonsense or misrepresenting what was said, because there are records of police transmissions which indicate both that Wilson was aware of the robbery and that he had heard the descriptions of the suspects at the time of the shooting. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, Wilson in his ABC interview and grand jury testimony said he looked back and noticed black shirt and cigarillos and that's where he made the connection that these were the guys who stole from the store. However, the dispatch that went out said it was a black male in a WHITE shirt. In his earliest interview given the day after the shooting, he doesn't even mention the "ah-ha moment" at all. [Correction... he does mention it later in the interview] I don't know if sources have picked up on these discrepancies or if they've been simply dismissed as "misspeak", but to me it suggests that maybe Wilson did NOT make the connection as he said he did. – JBarta (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The dispatch said a black male in a white shirt, and gave (Track 358) a detailed description that said he was with another male. The initial interviewer didn't ask many questions about what made Wilson stop the two men -- it's more of a blow-by-blow, detailed account of how Brown tried to grab Wilson's gun. I think the best explanation is that Wilson had a description of both men, including Johnson's black shirt, from another source, probably the 911 operator who took the robbery call. In the grand jury testimony, vol. 5 p. 259, Wilson is specifically being questioned about Johnson, and he says he checked that it was a black shirt, confirming that the two men match the description of the robbery suspects.

Also, Swishers ("cigarillos" that people add marijuana to) are usually sold out of boxes a few at a time. The boxes are often on the counter where someone could grab them, so someone carrying a whole box is suspicious. The story is simple if you strip away the politics. Check out some of the witness accounts that don't agree with Wilson's testimony. Use your common sense, and remember that Wilson was driving a Tahoe SUV. Roches (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"The story is simple if you strip away the politics" - I disagree. The story is simple WITH politics. – JBarta (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There are other sources other than the Daily Mail highlighting the discrepancies of Wilson's first interview and the testimony he gave to the grand jury. I will be adding these later on. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail is a perfectly good source IMO. Attribute it, people aren't idiots and they know to be a little extra cautious with tabloids. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't know Daily Mail was a tabloid until about a year ago, when I was exposed to them as a Wikipedia editor for the first time (they were one of the sources who took the information that cops removed a machete from Elliot Rodger's apartment and turned it into the screaming headline that Rodger was turning his apartment into a "killing chamber", planning to hack people to death, with no factual support for that conclusion). I guess I was an idiot until then. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for putting in the extra effort to find them. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The following is from the transcript of Wilson's interview the day after the shooting.

D. Wilson:

How do I survive. I mean it was, the whole time it was non…it started was a very con-confrontational “can you just walk on the sidewalk?” Um, I downplayed the whole issue because I didn’t want a confrontation. Y know, then after he made his comments I realized cigarillos ya know. then I was like well I gotta stop and talk to the guy.

DET. :

I-I-I’m sorry. Say that part again.

D. WILSON:

I have to stop and talk to the guy.

DET. :

Because…?

D. WILSON:

The comments he said and the cigarillos in his hands judging by the call we just had as well.

From Aug 10 interview p. 14

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That is from the second interview, after Wilson had a chance to talk to his lawyer. I think the discrepancy is from his first interview and the subsequent ones including this one.

DET: And you, yesterday had previously had a conversation with a Detective is that correct?

WILSON: Correct

- Cwobeel (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source:

7. Wilson’s initial interview with the detective conflicts with information given in later testimony.

In his first interview with the detective, just hours after Brown’s death, Wilson didn’t claim to have any knowledge that Brown was suspected of stealing cigarillos from a nearby convenience store. The only mention of cigarillos he made to the detective was a recollection of the call about the theft that had come across his radio and that provided a description of the suspect.

Wilson also told the detective that Brown had passed something off to his friend before punching Wilson in the face. At the time, the detective said, Wilson didn’t know what the item was, referring to it only as “something.” In subsequent interviews and testimony, however, Wilson claimed that he knew Brown’s hands were full of cigarillos and that fact eventually led him to believe Brown may have been a suspect in the theft.[21]

- Cwobeel (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not another source for the contested information we are discussing. See my message below about the Daily Mail source and the item in our Wikipedia article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Another significant discrepancy on Wilson testimony is highlighted here [22]. Wilson mentioned Brown wearing a black T-shirt, and that this fact made him "put one and one together" in identifying the suspects of the robbery. But the suspect that was mentioned in the radio was black male in a white shirt who took a whole box of Swisher brand cigarillos. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

1) The WIBW source in your last message didn’t say that Wilson mentioned Brown wearing a black T-shirt. Here’s what it actually said, "Wilson then looked in his mirror at Brown's friend Dorian Johnson and when he saw he was wearing a black T-shirt, …"[23] It indicates that Wilson thought Dorian Johnson was wearing the black T-shirt, not Brown. So there is no discrepancy in that regard.

2) The Daily Mail article [24] made misleading statements about what conversation the grand jury quotes were about. The quotes were not about an interview the detective had with Wilson the day of the shooting. They were about the detective’s recollection of a phone conversation he had with Wilson 5 or 6 days after the shooting. See p52 of Grand Jury Volume V. The item in our Wikipedia article that is based on the Daily Mail article is also misleading in that regard.

Here's the contested item that is in our article.[25]

"The Daily Mail reviewed Wilson's testimony and highlighted a number of inconsistencies in what they describe as "crucial elements", including Wilson telling his squad supervisor, who questioned him first, that he was not aware of the robbery at the time of the shooting, and later saying to an FBI agent assigned to interview him that he had recognized Brown and Johnson from the description of the wanted suspects.[26]"

Wilson didn't tell his supervisor in his first questioning that he was not aware of the robbery. The "later" characterization is also incorrect. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the section Shooting of our Wikipedia article there is the following item regarding the robbery.

"At noon, Wilson radioed to ask other officers searching for the suspects if they needed him and was told by dispatch that they had disappeared.[27]"

And from the reliable source that is used in the above,[28]

"At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a “stealing in progress” at the Ferguson Market."

"At noon, Wilson reports that he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him."

So it's clear that Wilson knew about the robbery.

Based on the discussion in this section of the talk page, I'm deleting the item.[29] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Other discrepancies

There is also this very significant discrepancy being reported, and surely more will emerge as investigative journalists pour over the material released.

He told the St. Louis County detectives: "During his first stride, he took his right hand put it under his shirt and into his waistband. And I ordered him to stop and get on the ground again. He didn't; I fired, a, multiple shots. After I fired the multiple shots I paused for a second, yelled at him to get on the ground again, he was still in the same state. Still charging, hands still in his waistband, hadn't slowed down. I fired another set of shots. Same thing, still running at me, hadn't slowed down, hands still in his waistband." When Brown was 8 to 10 feet away, Wilson fired at his head -- the fatal shot. And Wilson said the arm had not moved. "When he went down his hand was still under his, his right hand was still under his body looked like it was still in his waistband. I never touched him," he told detectives.

The investigator from the Office of the Medical Examiner sent to the crime scene took no photographs, telling the grand jury later that the battery in his camera had died. And CNN could find no photographs of the body in the materials released by the prosecuting attorney. But the medical investigator did describe how the body was lying. One arm was indeed near Brown's waist. But it was the left, not the right. "The deceased was lying in the prone position. His right arm was extended away from his side. His left arm was next to his side his lower arm was beneath his abdomen and his hand was near the waistband of his shorts."[30]

- Cwobeel (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

For those interested, there is an excellent table summarizing all witnesses statements on key aspects of the shooting, here [31] - Cwobeel (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen that. With the resources they have, I wish they'd checked for some red-flag details. If they say "half the accounts state that X", they need a control or screening variable to make sure the account is credible at all. Some of the witnesses say they say two police officers, or that the vehicle involved was a car rather than an SUV, or that they saw someone walk up to Wilson and shoot him while he was laying on the ground. That probably means the witness either wasn't there or that their statement includes details drawn from Dorian Johnson's account.

I did go through the three "Did MB reach into the police car?" (45, 46, 57 #2) interviews; 45 and 46 say it was a car, and 57 #2 says "I didn't see the shooting." At this point I have what I think is a good idea of what objectively happened (but I guess so does everybody else), so I might go through more. Not sure if that would be OR or not; if a reliable secondary source has a table, is it original research to look into the primary sources for additional details? I don't think the table could really even be in the article, but there might be some things that can be added. Roches (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, journalists and media outlets are trying to cope with the large amount of material disclosed. Not sure we can use this table at all, as it is just partial info as you said. My guess that we will continue to get more coverage as the material is reviewed, and we should report their analysis and conclusions here if relevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Right. It's sort of frustrating when I could do something in 6 hours and not get paid, but I can't put it here or anywhere because professional journalists haven't written about it yet. The news part of Wikipedia is really annoying that way. Also, I'm not going to type this for the eighth time in full. The police took pictures of Brown. The medicolegal investigator didn't because her job doesn't require that. She spends 16 hours every Saturday and Sunday looking at dead people and has been doing the job for 25 years, but I guess she's incompetent and untrustworthy because she didn't have batteries in her camera. Roches (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that table is full of inaccuracies and is essentially worthless, Cwolbel. There are tons of errors in it, as I pointed out above - it is not "excellent", it is worthless and misleading. Not to mention it doesn't talk about the various other problems with a lot of the testimony - a number of folks outright fabricated their presence, and a number of others reported things such as multiple officers on the scene at the time (there weren't), claimed Brown had been on his knees when he was shot (he wasn't), claimed Brown was shot in the back (again, he wasn't), changed their testimony over time, ect. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, calling that a "very significant" discrepancy is more than a little silly. That's precisely the level of inaccuracy one would expect - if it was, in fact, inaccurate at all (as Wilson noted, that hand thing was at the start of his movement; other witnesses attested to the same thing, though I don't think they specified the hand and they couldn't see too clearly what he was doing). It is possible he moved his hands while moving towards Wilson; it is possible that Wilson was simply wrong about which hand it was. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you were a prosecutor cross examining a witness, these are the type of discrepancies you look for, and in many cases is all you need to discredit a witness. In any case, it does not matter what you or I think, we report what reliable sources say. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

And in this case, the reliable sources say that Wilson was not indicted by a grand jury, so apparently these "significant" discrepancies in his interviews/testimony were not that significant to the jurors. Furthermore, Wilson's claim of self-defense was consistent throughout his interviews and testimony and is supported by the physical evidence. Therefore, the grand jury must have found his self-defense claim to be credible, as they chose not to indict him in spite of these so-called significant discrepancies. And as for your assertion for reporting what reliable sources say, the Daily Mirror is not a reliable source, it's a tabloid. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't describe it as a significant discrepancy, in fact it implies just the opposite. Cwobeel you're not a prosecutor and you're not a source of opinion for Wikipedia, so I suspect if you go digging through sources cherry picking language that you feel shows "significant discrepancies" that you think we must talk about at length in WP prose, it won't be 5 seconds before you're off the WP policy reservation. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of what you or I think, we report what reliable sources say. And the above source is not from the Daily Mirror. I will start adding these viewpoints to the article, as well as others I am researching. Possibly, I would intersperse all opinions (Wilson's testimony and its analysis by legal experts and commentators) rather than segregate material into POV sections. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"we report what reliable sources say" is not an accurate or useful summary of WP policy, but I suppose we can just put a pin in this until/unless you go ahead and violate some more policies. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Your snide comments are getting to be quite disruptive, and despite the many comments in your talk page you continue unabated. Why don't you do so some of the hard work to edit this article instead of just passing judgment on the work of others? Are you here to edit an encyclopedia or are you here just to piss people off for fun? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, Please note that it's not "we report what reliable sources say" but rather what we report is in reliable sources. See the Verifiabilty policy and its section Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, there is nothing disruptive about pointing out policies that you are either actively violating or right on the verge of violating. P.S., preventing people from screwing up articles with anti-policy editing *IS* hard work. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am very well aware of the policies, we need compliance with all core policies, NPOV, V, and NOR (and in this case also BLP). I was using shorthand on my previous comment. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Shorthand for what? And do you now retract your incorrect & uncharitable statement about my editing? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So now we've gone from using tabloids as reliable sources to pointing out in the article how tabloids use weasly language, like "crucial elements" and "holes in the investigation". If these discrepancies were that significant or notable, we would be seeing widespread reporting on this aspect from better quality sources and not have to use a tabloid (Daily Mirror), The HuffPo and WIBW. I think the whole paragraph should be gutted for going out of its way to cherry-pick facts that support a particular bias. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to improve my summary of these sources, all of them are RS: CNN, Huffington Post and WIBW-TV. the Daily Mirror one has been removed (although I still think it is a valid source) - Cwobeel (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually folks, it's the Daily Mail, not the Daily Mirror. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Hands up, don't shoot"

I started an article for "Hands up, don't shoot". Feel free to help expand. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In the lead you forgot to mention some pertinent details such as Michael Brown attacking officer Wilson and trying to take his gun. I went ahead and fixed that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes... one more article to battle over and get the truth out... – JBarta (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, are you referring to POV forking, or perhaps to people wanting to spread the "truth" that Michael Brown was just an unarmed person executed by police? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That got reverted. The autopsy proves that Brown's hands weren't raised, but I guess that's also irrelevant. Is there perhaps something where, for example, people who talk to the police about their murdered family members get to say "hands up don't shoot" too? That would be a real positive step forward. It really would. Roches (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldnt say the autopsy "proves" anything about his hand position (in either direction). At most it gives some indication about the likelyness of position at one instant in time, but nothing at all about any other instance, this is doubly true when we don't absolutely know the relative positions of the rest of his body at that instance. it is the absence of proof of both extreme interpretations of what happened (which certainly does not mean that either interpretation is false, just that that one piece of info doesn't inform much by itself). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep the "Hands up, don't shoot" article about "Hands up, don't shoot" and not details of the shooting, please. An article about a gesture should not be so controversial. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the article devotes exactly one word to the fact that the hands position is highly disputed—"assertions" within a quotation. Per NPOV it warrants more weight than that regardless of which article. And I'd think that NPOV on that point would be particularly important in an article about a movement (?) that's based on the notion that his hands were raised. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In this article the social gesture deserves WP:SUMMARY coverage.The reverse is true for the gesture article. In the gesture article, the "truth" is less relevant. Regardless of what his actual hand position was, or what the evidence shows, or what anyone believes, it is an undisputed fact that the social/protest view was that his hands were up and that was the origin of the gesture. If that protest view was ultimately wrong doesn't really change the history/background of the gesture, unless one could show that the people who started the gesture meme were aware of that wrongness and were intentionally lying about it. If this article only has one word about hand position being disputed we should certainly expand that significantly. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well at present the article is a POV fork; it needs material about how the protest gesture is based on a lie. And the lead shouldn't imply, as it currently does, that the killing was illegal or was a murder or an execution of an "unarmed teenager". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed here? There is a talk page on that article for that purpose. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:POVFORK. Thanks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Bloody ridiculous. Even if you believe it is "based on a lie", it does not matter as Gaijin42 has argued so well above. If you believe is a POV fork, make a merge proposal on that article and see if you get consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

WP policy says we do not get to set up alternate articles with alternate realities. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not a POV fork. A POV fork would be about the shooting of Michael brown, from a different point of view. The article in question is another subject altogether. Specific ideas for improving the article should be conducted on the article talk page, not here. Also, when putting a POV tag on an article, editors are expected to discuss the issue and make suggestions for fixing them. on the talk page.- MrX 16:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The gesture is notable. Accurately describing the what people say/believe who do that gesture is not a pov fork. Particularly where there is NOT definitive proof regarding the actual position of browns hands. It may be wise to add into the lede of that article "There is conflicting evidence and witness statements about the position of Brown's hands" or some such, but beyond that would just start rehashing this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about the gesture being "not notable"? Wasn't me. But the article about the gesture, however attuned to the whims and wishes of protesters, cannot misrepresent facts, which is exactly what it does in the state that editors here keep reverting to. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You should really be making this argument on that article's talk page. – JBarta (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Er, no, since the goal is not to start fresh with an entirely new slate of contributors, facts, and editorial judgments, this is actually an eminently appropriate place to discuss a possible POV fork from this article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Witnesses

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the jury concluded that a number of the witnesses who were interviewed by the media lied or gave false testimony? Regards. 88.104.208.205 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We should be adding any reporting about any of the witnesses making conflicting statements during their testimony before the grand jury and during grand jury proceedings. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Alot of the sources already used on this page mention the media witnesses.88.104.208.205 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We cannot say that the grand jury "concluded" that. The grand jury renders a decision but doesn't have to and doesn't state its conclusions about specific items of evidence, or offer opinions of media interviews. It is evident from the evidence presented to the grand jury that this occurred, but we should not make inferences about what the grand jury thought of the evidence or the media coverage. The prosecutor made comments about this aspect, but in doing so the prosecutor was not speaking for the grand jury per se. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Accounts section discusses the discrepancies at a high level. If you want to add something about media interview accuracy in particular, please provide the reliable source that specifically discusses that. Other more detailed analysis of accuracy/discrepancies will be scattered throughout those people's accounts, as Cwobeel said. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting scene

I made some edits to the shooting scene section. It's longer.

I expanded the description of the street and indicated the directions in which the people involved were traveling. I added "left side" for those in right hand drive countries. I reorganized the evidence from three groups to two, anchoring the groups around the SUV and Brown's body, because the center group consists of one sandal.

The contentious part of my edit is those ten shell casings. I didn't know they were there until I saw the diagram. At first I thought it had to be a mistake. I tried to be NPOV about it, but I don't have a good reference about those casings. It has to be mentioned, though.

People (bystanders, parties involved, responders, investigators, etc.) move casings around crime scenes often, apparently. Sometimes it's inadvertent, or people take them as a souvenir, but sometimes people take them or move them simply to make things difficult for investigators, or in the worst case people might move them to make it look like a gun was fired in a different place. So, it's possible that the ten casings near Brown were put there to make it look like Wilson had shot Brown at close range.

Please don't reply with wikilawyering, fellow editors. Change whatever you want, add references, but this is not original research or speculation or whatever. The article needs a diagram. The diagram shows 10 casings in an unusual place. Those 10 casings have to be explained, and the only way to explain them without invoking a conspiracy theory is that they were moved. We can't say how, we can't say when, we can't say by whom, but they must have been moved because all the other evidence points that way. Somewhere in the transcripts or in some article I haven't read there is a clear, solid explanation of how they got there. Roches (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? They are there because they are near where wilson was standing at the time those shots were fired (plus random physics bounces and the like). There were other cops and media on the scene within seconds/minutes. When exactly do you think things were tampered with? What specifically do you think is proof that that cannot be the natural position of the casings? Where do you think those casings "really belong"?Gaijin42 (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Presumably from the blood stain at the far right, at some point Brown was standing near there during some of the shots. (with a fudge factor for how far blood may fly from being hit). Most of the witnesses, and Wilson say that they were about 20ft apart at that point. Wilson and some witnesses say that Brown moved forward, and Wilson says he was trying to backpedal to keep distance (while firing). . That explains the pattern of casings and blood fairly well to me, and more importantly, its all covered by reliable sources. [32] [33][34] [35][36][37] Saying "speculation" and "original research" is not wikilawyering, its the foundation of the way the wiki works. Find a reliable source that discusses some alternative theory, and we can talk about adding it in. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Roches, unless you can find reliable sources supporting this speculation it cannot go into the article. – JBarta (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)