Talk:Killing of Michael Brown

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 [1] - 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 [2] - 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 [3]. - 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 [4] - 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. [5] - 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)

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. [6] Gaijin42 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 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)

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)

From a strict stylistic standpoint, it'd probably be good to use BOTH terms in the same passage, as elegant variation (while our article on elegant variation disparages the practice - contrary to what I and other students in my technical writing degree program were taught - in this case it wouldn't be unnecessary, but would serve the purpose of placating people on each side of the "black"/"African-American" controversy). loupgarous (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It may seem unnecessarily contentious to some, but I'm not interested in placating editors who misinterpret Wikipedia's mission as moving social trends rather than documenting them. These editors are simply wrong, and we follow the collective sources. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:06, 6 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)

Navel gazing is where you are desperate to find some major significance in a hopelessly insignificant detail of life. Imagine staring intently into your navel, and then you find a piece of lint and want to show your special insight to the world. That was an apt metaphor for your silly comment, in which you made an observation about extremely reasonable & accurate use of language & wondered aloud whether it wasn't actually the reasonableness or accuracy, but NAY SIRS, HIDDEN RACISM, that made us decide to be reasonable and accurate. If you don't see how that is at once both unconstructive & essentially impossible to discuss in connection with this WP article & insulting to other editors, and thus that there was no good reason to put it on the talk page, then I'm not sure what else to say. Then again, judging by your username and userpage — and the comment "Racism is a core element of this issue" — it's pretty clear you are just trolling. So I guess the joke's on me.

P.S. it appears you don't know what "cussing someone out" means. Probably because of your unconscious racism. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That someone failed to call an eighteen-year old man a "man" in Columbine, Colorado doesn't excuse repeating the error. We're not responsible for the press's errors nor obliged to repeat then in our articles. Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and Michael Brown were all eighteen years old at the time they become notable. That made them eligible for the military draft, capable of making valid legal contracts, and immune to curfews - in short, "men." "Young men," if you want to drive the point home that they couldn't legally buy alcohol in many jurisdictions. loupgarous (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction... Dylan Klebold was 17. And if I recall, some of the instances of the word "boys" referred to events that happened before they turned 18. (Eric Harris turned 18 just before the shooting) – JBarta (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The OP's opening strategy is not meaningful. For any question, you can find other articles to support either of two opposing answers. This is the spirit of the essay, Other stuff exists. We should confine ourselves to what is appropriate for this article, without cherry-picking other articles that support our point of view. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but no article exists in a vacuum. To completely disregard similar articles is not wise approach either. A certain amount of consistency is a good thing. Even the essay you mention has a section Precedent_in_usage. – JBarta (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) has engaged in one too many personal attacks. Editors were trying to reason with him on his userpage and I was being discussed and attacked perosnally. I attempted to end the matter peacefully on his userpage but his repeated personal attacks resulted in me snapping and violating WP:CIVIL. Therefore, I will not be editing this page if this person is involved as well. I have had enough of his bullshit. -Myopia123 (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You have made a grand total of zero constructive contributions to this article or Talk page, again it seems like you're just trying to bait negative responses, AKA trolling. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

At least one other editor disagrees with your premise, and Myopia123's constructive contributions to this page (including one section they started) are evident. In any case, it is not your place to determine the worthiness of other editors. Since the editor has drawn a line, kindly let them go on their way instead of goading them to cross it. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Back to the original question, while some of this can certainly be explained by the bias, or narrative the authors (of the RSs) wishes to tell, or political correctness, one must also remember that Columbine happened in school by and at attendees of that school, which makes the "boy" appellation a bit more contextual.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:12, 7 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 [7].

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 [8]),

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

From his Sep 23 grand jury testimony (see p197 line 15 at [9])

”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.[10]

"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 [11] - 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.[12]

- 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 [13]. 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, …"[14] 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 [15] 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.[16]

"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.[17]"

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.[18]"

And from the reliable source that is used in the above,[19]

"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.[20] --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."[21]

- 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 [22] - 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. [23] [24][25] [26][27][28] 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)

I don't have an agenda where I want to introduce an alternative theory. I guess the talk page comment was forceful. What I wanted to happen in the article was for someone who had more knowledge about the location of the casings to add detail. As I say below, I didn't want to say "The placement of the casings is unexplained" because it's not unexplained. It's probably explained in detail in the grand jury evidence. I don't have to be the one to find the evidence; this being a collaborative effort, I wanted the statement that there was something unusual about the placement of the casings to be a call for collaboration. Roches (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Having spent quite a bit of time working on the diagram, I can say that I was confused by the casings as well. Nothing nefarious, there though. What struck me is that Wilson pursued Brown for more than 150 yards, before shooting 10 times toward him. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

He didn't shoot while running the distance. He pursued, then stopped. There was a burst of a few shots, then as he backed up, a burst of a few more shots. According to Wilson's testimony, the casings are exactly where one would expect. And if editors haven't heard it yet, here is apparent audio of the shots. – JBarta (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean. Wilson pursued Brown for 150 yards before shooting, which begs many questions that I will keep to myself. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of those questions might be answered by reading Wilson's testimony to the grand jury (if you haven't already). And it was 150 feet, not yards. Big difference. 150 feet is not that far a distance at all. – JBarta (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think what Cwobeel is saying is that Wilson didn't shoot until Brown turned around and became threatening. And now for your listening and viewing pleasure is a music video by Queen.[29] --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It's official... I'm completely confused. No worries though... isn't the first time and won't be the last. If anyone wants to explain the last few posts of this thread to me using small words and short clear sentences, you know where to find me. – JBarta (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for not just reverting the whole edit. I'll explain:

This placement of casings supports the claim that shots were fired in close proximity to Brown.

I wanted to remind the reader of the early accounts that have Wilson walking up to Brown as he's laying on the pavement and shooting him. I wanted to say that in a neutral way. It's not really disputed that shots were fired in fairly close proximity, so I worded it that way.

However, shell casings can be moved either inadvertently or in a deliberate attempt to confound or manipulate the investigation of a crime scene.

This does not require a reference, and it's naive to think the presence of police or media makes a difference, especially considering there were specific requests for assistance regarding the crowd of people who gathered at the scene.

The grand jury's interpretation cannot be known, but their decision not to indict Wilson suggests they concluded that the casings had been moved.

I didn't want to say that the position of the casings was "unexplained," because I know there's an explanation, and I was sort of hoping someone would find that explanation and put it in the article. What I meant to say is that their decision not to indict does mean that they were convinced that Wilson did not execute Brown at close range. (The "without invoking a conspiracy theory" above means that we assume the jury decided in accordance with the evidence.) "They concluded the casings had been moved" was a plainly a bad choice of wording on my part. It's totally impossible to be objective, neutral and concise if people assume content is politically charged, but what I meant is "the decision not to indict Wilson means that they did not think he shot Brown multiple times while he was lying on the ground."

I should apologize for the above assertion that the casings must have been moved. However, the shell casings shouldn't be used to establish the locations where shots were fired.

Some of the casings directly south of the body are where they should be, but the ones to the east are up to 20 feet from what I take to be Wilson's easternmost point. Casings from a .40 cal SIG Sauer P229 are ejected to the right and go slightly forwards or backwards. There are no casings in the area the west of the body, and there probably should be.

Last thing: My interpretation of "reliable source" forbids me from citing a politically biased journalist that interprets a primary source for me. Objective facts from a primary source are not original research, and synthesis of objective facts when only one conclusion is possible is not speculation. It's badly worded, but the decision not to indict means the jury believed that Wilson accurately described where he shot from. Roches (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have a non-reliable source that discusses a theory, you can bring it up here. We can't use it in the article, but it can certainly be a launching point for finding better sources.

Assuming any particular scenario, particularly one that involves tampering with the scene when there were dozens of eyewitnesses, media, and additional cops (not to mention Wilson himself) within seconds/minutes and nobody mentions anything close to that, on any side of the issue, is absolutely something that requires sourcing

While your conjecture that ""the decision not to indict Wilson means that they did not think he shot Brown multiple times while he was lying on the ground." is true, it is absolutely the type of thing that requires sourcing. We do not put thoughts/words into living people's heads. Ever.

• You say "where only one conclusion is possible" but there are MANY possible conclusions.Here are a few I can think of in just a few minutes. I'm sure they are many more others could come up with. None of them should be discussed or hinted at without reliable sourcing.
  • Wilson could have been that far and moved backwards. (Wilson and witnesses testify to this one)
  • Brown could have had significant forward momentum as he fell putting his body in front of the casings
  • Wilson could have been further to the right side of the road (down on the diagram) so was shooting at an angle and not parallel to the road. Therefore "ejection to the right" would be further down the road
  • MOST guns eject back and to the right, but 20-30% of bullet cases even from those guns go somewhere else, and in a particular gun if the ejector has been modified or bent or something could be consistently sending cases in a different direction
  • If Wilson was Limp wristing, or shooting with the gun tilted (either gangsta style, or canted up or down), or one handed, or any one of infinite shooting positions, it could have significantly affected the trajectory

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, if and when the graphic is updated, could the caption be corrected from "shell casings" to the correct terminology "shell cases"? The press pretty frequently misuses the term but Wikipedia has it right, here: Cartridge (firearms)#Materials. Here's another example (NIST). — Brianhe (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Meh, I've known my way around guns for almost 30 years and I've never heard the term used that way. Our sources say "shell casings" and I imagine that is what just about everybody says. WP is not a source, and the source you did provide appears to be a deadlink. What is it? It won't load but I notice that the URL includes the word "casing", not "case" or "cases" Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It is an NIST report titled "Shelling Out Evidence: NIST Ballistic Standard Helps Tie Guns to Criminals". It provides this definition: "Cartridge cases—the empty shells left behind after a gun is fired...". At some point in my firearms instructor coursework, "case" had been promulgated as the right term to use, "casings are for sausage" being a common mnemonic which you can see in this comment on an urban shooting [30]. But on further research the NRA glossary says they are interchangeable. Perhaps a readjustment to the realities popular usage. Bottom line: request for change is withdrawn. — Brianhe (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown's Parents

Wanted to use talk page before starting section: Michael Brown's parents are starting to develop a presence in the news: they rejected Darren Wilson's version of events, they addressed the UN, the father is being investigated, they are being urged to file civil lawsuits for his role in the riots and that investigation in turn is being investigated. I think they are notable enough to have a detailed section within the reactions section. Comments? -Myopia123 (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. A short mention of these aspects should be added to the reaction section. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Myopia123. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think maybe a top level section "Aftermath for Michael Brown's parents" would be better. It can be placed before or after 'Aftermath for Darren Wilson'. – JBarta (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The only "aftermath" of the shooting for them is that their son is dead. The rest of the things may be notable and fit for inclusion, but those are "Activities after" or "responses" or "further developments" not really "aftermath". (IE, those things are not an inevitable cause/effect result of the shooting. They involve deliberate action and choices by the family deciding what they want to do). Gaijin42 (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting scene diagram

Obvious OR diagram by Cwobeel removed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It won't stay out long. Everything on it was taken directly (and accurately, as far as I can tell) from a grand jury exhibit diagram. No SYNTH occurred. For another example, see the map in Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109, which I had another user create from an equivalent map produced by National Geographic. It has stood for close to a year I guess. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Factchecker_atyourservice The diagram is not OR. per WP:OI "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" There are multiple RS that have produced virtually identical images, based directly off of the image used by the grand jury

• http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-evidence/assets/ferguson/photos/2014-43984/photos-7/capture.png
• http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/08/13/ferguson-qa/2e754ae76c10ce9a0ea2e1dc9166a341312be797/testimony-Artboard_1.jpg
• http://graphics.stltoday.com/img/grmp-brown_shooting_scene.png
• http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/79290000/jpg/_79290150_ferguson_diagram_20142611_624_v3.jpg

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it would be incredibly rude of me to ask about sourcing for the additional data points added to Cwobeel's diagram that do not appear to be in any of the other diagrams? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Which are? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

e.g. location of "interior side front door blood stains", 21'7" "distance from feet to farthest red stain". Just a suggestion — pick one of the published graphs and copy it exactly, don't try to "amplify" or "improve upon" it with your own research. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Distance to the furthest stain is covered by WP:CALC because the legend that goes with the original grand jury diagram explicitly includes locations with distances. [31] The word "Interior" could possibly be removed, but since there are a bazzilion sources saying there were stains on the interior doors, its really not an issue IMO. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." Could anyone hazard an explanation of where that number comes from and why it is significant? Also I don't recall anything from any source giving us the location of interior bloodstains. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The source for that number comes directly from the legend of the original grand jury diagram, as I said in my previous comment where I gave you a link directly to that legend. It was added by Cwobeel at my request. Since there are witnesses that state that brown moved forward or charged, and there is blood at the furthest most point, I thought it would be a useful addition to give an indication of how far Brown may have moved (although such must be an inference by the reader, since all we know for sure is the distance to the blood, and not how the blood actually got there). At a minimum even without the inerence, it gives the reader the ability to tell the total size of the scene. There are numerous sources describing blood on the "interior left front door handle" and other locations of the car [32] [33] For the scale of the diagram we are will within "accurate" imo. But if you insist on having the word "interior" removed you are free to argue that. BTW, all of this stuff was discussed in quite a bit of detail towards the top of this page, where your suggestions would have been more than welcome, and where you can see the consensus for the image, rather than just charging in blindly and accusing people of breaking policy and deleting the image without discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no 21 foot 7 inch figure in that jury page, it looks like you're still not done explaining the origin of the figure, and I confess I'm a bit hazy as to your rationale for having our WP article give an emphasis that the published sources didn't find necessary or relevant. Shall we also try to deduce how many feet or inches Brown would have had to walk to get off the street and onto the sidewalk in order to comply with Wilson's order? That would also help readers understand the total size of the scene. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The legend has the position of Browns feet. The legend has the position of the stain. WP:CALC certainly allows simple vector subtraction. If you think it should be removed, build consensus for it, but since we have been discussing the diagram for 2 days now, and nobody else complained I think you are in the minority so far. Cwobeel has been quite compliant so far with changes to the diagram. If you can build a consensus for a change, I'm sure he would be happy to assist. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that Centrify's concern about us picking that distance to highlight is a reasonable one, and can be addressed with a reliable source that specifically mentions that distance, or one similar. I seem to recall there is such a source, but offhand I don't have a link to it.

Re the 2 red dots next to the car and their identification, “Red stains driver’s side front door exterior and interior” — When I looked at the diagram for the first time, I thought the red dots indicated red stains on the ground, which they weren't. I would suggest removing the red dots and extending the blue arrow so that the arrowhead just touches the car. Also, I would suggest changing the identification to "Blood on the exterior and interior of the driver’s side front door", and we should include a reliable source for the blood on the car door. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The exhibits says "red stains", not blood stains, so I used the former. The exhibit also says interior and exterior. If you want to check the sources I used see the File page (also below for your convenience):

* 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

Other sources used: NYT [34], WaPo [35], and another one from St Louis Post Dispatch (which I can't locate now, but was very similar to the others. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I also wanted "blood" but thought it got too deep into WP:SYNTH. There are numerous sources calling out the distance from the blood at marker 19/20 to browns body. The NYTimes in particular called it out, and since THAT ARTICLE is the source for one of the diagrams that completely takes care of SYNTH in my mind "Mr. Brown’s body was about 153 feet east of Officer Wilson’s car. Mr. Brown’s blood was about 25 feet east of his body. This evidence supports statements that Mr. Brown continued to move closer to the officer after being hit by an initial string of bullets."[36] However, there are more. [37] [38] (convenience link to video of previous transcript [39]) [40][41]Gaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If there are changes to be made, I will most certainly comply with requests that have consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, to avoid re-litigating this issue in the future, we should add a commented section with the sources used to create the diagram. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Or, even better, figure out a way to show normal citations there. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

We could add a caption to the image, and attach the refs to the caption. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a first shot at it, which can be cleaned up considerably. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Are the two NYT images in a NYT article? It's much easier to cite an article than an image. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The image created BY the NYT is in my comment just above. The official GJ images just hosted by the times I cant find where the times used them, but other sources do have the same image embedded too [42] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be great if we could find them in sources we're already using. We're suffering from ref bloat with a ton of redundant source overlap. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

They are in both GJ evidence links in the external links section, but those may not count as "refs".[43][44] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No I can't reuse those in a citation, and it would be too hard to find what's being cited in those anyway. I'll figure something out, adding new sources if necessary. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The "red stains" at the scene were confirmed to be blood by the crime lab. It's not original research to synthesize those pieces of information. Please do not refer to publicly available information that was presented to the grand jury as "grand jury evidence." Only the transcripts of the hearing have been released, and nothing else can be released. Much of the evidence, such as photographs and audio recordings, is not public. The original map, if I remember correctly, was part of the medical examiner's office report. Roches (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cwobeel and Gaijin42 for the links, which were very helpful.

• Regarding the distance discussed previously — Here’s a source and excerpts that refer to the grand jury proceedings, which I think would justify our highlighting the distance from the blood to the body by showing it in the diagram.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1411/25/ath.01.html :

"They asked in great detail about the blood spatter evidence, which indicated that Michael Brown walked -- or may have indicated -- that walked back or ran back. There was blood further on down the line. His body ended up being 20 feet closer to Officer Wilson.”

"But it was the questions on pages 87 and 88 -- and I'm sure you can find these on CNN.com if you want to pore through them yourselves -- the grand juror asks questions of the detective trying to nail down what Mark and Sunny and you guys were just talking about: This physical evidence of blood and the blood pattern and whether or not this blood pattern establishes the distance that Michael Brown traveled when he charged at the officer. And so the grand juror asked this, 'So as far as physical evidence, we have the blood on the ground. That was about 21 or 22 feet from where Michael ground ended up.’ “

So I think the diagram is OK indicating this distance because it’s a notable distance.

• Regarding the red stains on the car I suggest,

1. moving the red dots that are for the red stains on the car, to halfway overlap the car boundary, so as not to appear that they are on the ground. (Note this is the style used in this source [45].)

2. adding to the identification, the red stain on the exterior of the driver-side rear door[46]

3. adding the following sources for the red stains on the car [47] [48]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Updated the infographic as requested. Pls check and let me know if understood you correctly. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. There's a few things I'm thinking about but haven't decided whether to suggest anything, e.g. "red stains" vs "blood stains", interior and exterior of front door, and using the word "feet" in the phrase "distance from feet to farthest red stain" doesn't read well for me. In any case, I consider all your work on the diagram a good job with a good spirit of collaboration. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please propose alternative wording, as we can always improve. Your feedback is welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Grand jury hearing section

The grand jury hearing section has, as far as I can tell, only one statement by a law professor in MO. To get an accurate idea of whether the hearing was out-of-the-ordinary, it's got to be compared to other police-involved-shooting cases in the same state.

I made some changes to the table. I know this makes it different than the Times' table, and it incorporates facts about grand juries from Grand juries in the United States. According to this page from the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney, "a little less than half" of the felony cases in the county result in a grand jury hearing and the others go to a judge for a preliminary examination. So this is not a "typical" MO grand jury case.

I also removed a statement about witnesses being repeatedly asked about whether Brown appeared to reached for a gun "despite the fact that it was known he was unarmed." The Times has legitimate concerns about the grand jury hearing which are in the article, but this claim is faulty. In the last seconds of Brown's life, he knew he didn't have a gun, but nobody else did. That emerged later.

Disclaimer: I hope that Wilson went through essentially the same process as any other officer, and I hope he had faced the same likelihood of being prosecuted. I deplore abuse of power, whether it's a court making an example of a person or a police officer using excessive force. But if the people of MO feel there is a need for change, it's a matter for the legislature, not the criminal courts. Roches (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Look I am trying to AGF here, but you can't just make changes to a table sourced to a an RS and add whatever you want from material from other sources that it is not related to this incident. That is a violation of WP:OR. As for the "faulty" claim of the NYT, that is none of your business to assess. We need to stay close to the sources, regardless if we believe the source is wrong. See WP:V 15:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I also warn you again, that this page is not a forum, so please keep your opinions out of it. It does not help. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No troubles whatsoever AGF'ing, his good faith seems pretty obvious to me. Also he is correctly pointing out source misrepresentation. The NYT article does not say "it was known he was unarmed" and neither should. Of course, I am shocked, shocked, shocked that it was Cwobeel who edit warred to defend the source misrepresentation which was intended to wrongly defame a living person, because that's not like his MO or anything. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you stop characterizations? It is becoming insufferable. If you wanted to restore that portion you could have done it. But instead you reverted everything back to OR. Stop the nonsense!!!! - Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Try making objectionable edits all by themselves so that your other work won't be touched when the objectionable edits are reverted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is what the source says

Over the months, the jurors seemed to focus intently on the final movement that Mr. Brown may have made toward Officer Wilson, after a brief chase. The prosecutor asked witness after witness if it seemed as if Mr. Brown were reaching for a weapon, though few said they saw anything like that. Mr. Brown was found to be unarmed.

I am restorring the material with some tweaks. Next time, please read the source. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

'Yes, that is precisely the source text which failed to substantiate your WP prose claim that "prosecutors ask[ed] witness after witness if Brown was appearing to be reaching for a weapon when confronting Wilson, while it was known that Brown was unarmed". You ought to be thanking me for removing that fact-falsifying, source-misrepresenting prose, and yup you do this all the time, it's super annoying. Now you have gotten all mad & chided me angrily for reading correctly & reverting you correctly.

In response, you've changed it to "prosecutors ask[ed] witness after witness if Brown was appearing to be reaching for a weapon when confronting Wilson, while none of the witnesses said anything about Brown being armed." Yet another editorial spin that is not found in the cited source. Reverted. You misrepresent sourced facts, you misrepresent sourced opinions, you do it over and over and you do it to further your own hyper-partisan anger and desire to defame people whom you despise. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think ,y last edit is accurate, so instead of endlessly complaining, do the the hard work and make it better. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please explain, as clearly as possible, how you think your last edit was accurate. Or any of them, for that matter. "despite the fact that it was known he was unarmed" wasn't right, "while it was known he was unarmed" wasn't right, and "while none of the witnesses said anything about Brown being armed" is not right. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

despite the fact that it was known he was unarmed" - refers to the prosecutors, not the witnesses. That is the point the source is making, at least that was what I understood. while none of the witnesses said anything about Brown being armed, was my attempts to unpack the statement "The prosecutor asked witness after witness if it seemed as if Mr. Brown were reaching for a weapon, though few said they saw anything like that". I accept that it was not perfect, but still valid. Now, please propose how to include in your own word that last sentence, because you have deleted it and it is a crucial point in that reporting. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the source didn't use those words — and since prosecutors, like Wilson, did not know at the time of the incident that Brown was unarmed — this sounds like obvious BS. Also, "few witnesses said they saw him reaching for a weapon" is not even remotely equivalent to "none of the witnesses said he was armed". So once again it looks like you're adding your own spin, and there is no "validity" to it. Could you please propose content here before adding it to the article so that others can remove the errors and policy violations first? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

. My read is this: The critique is that prosecutors were acting as defense attorneys trying to validate Wilson's testimony regarding his perception that Brown was reaching for a weapon, when actually no witness other than Wilson made that case, and the prosecutors were asking again and again about that, which was very unusual. That is my reading of the source. Please re-read the source in its entirety and propose how to best reflect it. BTW, I intend to add more from that source, currently working on it. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for spelling out your uninformed opinion which does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. I decline the invitation to grind your axe for you. I have already read and re-read the source. You are now on triple-explicit notice that the source does not say any of the things you previously wrote into the article, and thus I humbly request you bring any further material from this source HERE, to the talk page, so it may be vetted by editors who aren't quite so prone to accidentally misrepresenting a source to defame a living person. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for you suggestion, but I have no intentions to refrain from editing. I am working an additional material that I would add in due course. Thankfully, the collaborative process of Wikipedia will, as always, catch any mistake you or I make in our editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Mistakes", mmm, yes, it's quite amazing how your "mistakes" always result in WP prose that misrepresents a source to trash a living person, and it's further amazing how it's invariably, always and without exception, the targets of progressive wrath that get this treatment. What I find remarkable is that you do this deliberately, and repeatedly, and without the slightest hint of remorse and without the slightest hint of apology for those whom you dumbly snark at, threaten and insult, in the process of trying to defend an indefensible anti-policy edit. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

additional sources discussing eyewitness testimony discrepancies from evidence (from a scientific point of view)

• http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam/2014/12/01/what-science-says-about-the-ferguson-case-memory-can-be-hacked/
• http://web.randi.org/swift/eyewitnesses-and-emotion-a-reminder-to-engage-critical-thinking

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a scientist. I like the idea of critical thinking. I like the idea of testing a hypothesis with evidence before making a conclusion, rather than making the evidence fit the conclusion. The Swift article reminds me that the public doesn't have all the evidence (nor should they), that details were presented to the grand jury that we are not privy to. I'm also reminded of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Gaijin42, can you help me avoid attempting to write things I don't need to write, by just saying why you posted this? Do you think Wilson was justified in killing Brown? (I do.) Roches (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

May I remind you of WP:NOTFORUM? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The answer to your larger question I will reply to on your talk to avoid WP:FORUM (as Cwobeel is quite correct to point out). I posted these particular links because they can help to flesh out the "Accounts" section similarly to the existing Rashomon effect paragraph. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Roches: As fascinating as these articles may be, they have no place in this article. Of course, if this is an area of interest you are welcome to edit Eyewitness testimony, Credible witness, and Eyewitness identification- Cwobeel (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, the articles were posted by me (gaijin), not Roches. Why do you think they have no place in this article? They are directly discussing the general testimony issues in the context of this case and the specific witness statements we have in this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. The only thing I see useful in the Forbes article is this passage

Our instincts tell us that honest people remember events correctly and others are lying. Loftus, on reading the AP report, suggested that what witnesses remember is heavily influenced by the way they interpret what they are seeing. Different people heard shots and saw some kind of commotion. Was the victim charging, wobbling, or surrendering? People may have unconsciously filled in gaps in their perception with information based on their past experiences.

... which could be added as the fully attributed opinion of Elizabeth Loftus, and the writer of the piece. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be a fine quote to include since we already mention the AP report in question, that serves as a nice commentary about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Could probably also find sources talking about how the typical unreliability of witness testimony leads prosecutors to rely more heavily on physical evidence, which is what they did in this case. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, go ahead, Gaijin. FCAYS: Just find a source that describes that opinion in the context of this incident and it can be included as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Lazy Saturday, usually when I post about the possible existence of a source it's because I am hoping someone else will go find it. ;) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Summarily inaccurate.

This article posted as a "factual" 'Shooting of Michael Brown" is based on reporting and biased opinions from "news channels". "News channels" that are based more-so upon "political" (Read: Catering to the views of a specific political/ideological audience. Or, Democratic, Republican, or even, Tea Party ideals) views on nationally viewed occurrences.

This article is seen as a defense of one (or both) parties involved, and attempts to push for political rationalization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.131.152 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This statement is not actionable unless you can point at specifics and suggest new sources or alternative ways to interpret existing sources. — Brianhe (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Release of video in lead & dispatch

It seems to me that the fourth paragraph in the lead may be a little incomplete. At some point a dispatch went out mentioning the theft and Wilson claims this dispatch was something he considered before and during the altercation. Yet the only thing mentioned in the fourth paragraph is that some were pissed off about the release of the video and that it may shed light on Brown's state of mind at the time. I think this is an imbalance and should be briefly addressed, though I'm not entirely sure how. Thoughts? – JBarta (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I added a little to that paragraph. – JBarta (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Witness 10 should have a section in "Accounts" considering the way the jury ruled

Because the jury ruled "no bill" to leave the "Accounts" section without a summary of what witness 10 said, sort of leaves the Wiki entry from only eyewitness accounts that wanted to come forward and give public statements. I feel this sort of mirrors what we were hearing in the press & it was not empathetic to Wilson's view, but that of course is my personal opinion. Quisp65 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will oppose such, but need to find WP:SECONDARY sources that discuss that testimony rather than relying on our own WP:OR interpretation of the WP:PRIMARY Gaijin42 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

publisher=

When standardizing refs in this article, I have dropped any |publisher= and replaced it with |website=. While many editors use |publisher=, they generally use it incorrectly per the documentation, which states: The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g., a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website).

While you can code both |website= and |publisher=, I haven't felt that the latter is of enough use to the readers of this type of article to be worth the trouble and space. In many cases it would be a non-trivial task to determine the name of the publisher.

I just noticed that the copy-and-paste "template" we have in the comments at the top of the References section includes |publisher=, and I'm writing this as the explanation for my removal of that. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So if a ref is from www.cnn.com/blah/blah/blah/ you would prefer website=cnn.com rather than publisher=CNN ? – JBarta (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the convention here is to use the website's branding, as |website=CNN or |website=The New York Times. In some cases the website seems to be branded in multiple alternative ways, so we are forced to choose one, but we are consistent with that choice. For local TV and radio stations we ignore branding such as "Fox2Now" and use the call letters, as |website=KTVI. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So if a ref is from www.cnn.com/blah/blah/blah/ you would prefer website=CNN rather than publisher=CNN. Correct? – JBarta (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Or you can code it however you want and I'll convert it as part of standardization, which would probably be needed anyway. I rebuild every ref from scratch, unless it's already perfect per the local convention (hasn't happened yet). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a line from Godfather III.... "Our ships must all sail in the same direction". Forming the refs as you suggest is no problem at all as far as I'm concerned. And I'll assume you are correct in your rationale for doing it that way. – JBarta (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I copy-and-paste an abbreviated "template" from a Notepad document, to save myself the trouble of removing multiple rarely-needed parameters. Then I can insert |location= for local TV and radio, add parameters for additional authors, and/or remove the archive parameters if the source won't archive. This abbreviated "template" is: <ref name= >{{cite web |first= |last= |title= |date= |accessdate= |website= |url= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |deadurl=no}}</ref>. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Crime scene"

We refer to "crime scene" five times. I just wanted to confirm that this is deliberate and that the rationale is that some crime was committed there, the crime and perpetrator undetermined. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

While I think I understand your concern, I think this may be a situation in which the correct term just has unfortunate implications. In any trial in which the defendant is ultimately acquired (or not charged as in this case) those bits of evidence are still from the "crime scene" in general parlance. Charitably one could also interpret these scene as a crime as either Wilson or Browns take your pick depending on POV. But I would also not object to "incident scene" or "shooting scene" or something. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Incident scene" sounds like a form that HR has to fill out after a fight in the break room. "Shooting scene" is not as awkward, but I think we should just track the terminology used by sources and trust that our readers will be discerning. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's a crime scene, then what was the crime and who committed it? That's a pretty sticky question. Shooting scene seems most accurate to me, is well represented in sources and has zero stickiness. – JBarta (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, since crime scene investigators (CSIs) work all homicides, justifiable or not, I'd support the use of the term "crime scene." Apart from that, the testimony of Officer Darren Wilson was that Michael Brown was guilty of initiating an assault on Darren Wilson at that location. At the time that data are recorded from the scene of any homicide, the possibility of a crime having been committed is assumed by first responders and crime scene investigators. Both Darren Wilson and Michael Brown were regarded by press accounts as criminal suspects when that crime was investigated. loupgarous (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Would it be correct to say that a "crime scene" can also refer to an area of investigation where a crime may have been committed? – JBarta (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be common usage, whether or not it's literally correct. Common usage is good enough for me. In any case, I think it's clear enough that at least one crime was committed there, assault on a police officer (aside from conspiracy theory, is there any other plausible explanation for the facial discoloration that persisted for hours?). There may or may not be mitigating circumstances, but it's still a crime AFAIK. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That seems a little loose. We've exposed criticism of the term "crime scene". Is there any direct criticism of the term "shooting scene"? Not asking if you prefer something else, but looking for direct criticism of the term itself such as being inaccurate or problematic in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarta (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating "crime scene" over "shooting scene", but merely saying I'm not opposed to "crime scene". I don't see "shooting scene" as being inaccurate or problematic in any way. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not called a "shooting scene," it's called a "crime scene." Call it what it's called, not what you think it should be called. Roches (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you know it's called a "crime scene"? To you it seems crystal clear. To me it's not. What is it that you know that I don't? – JBarta (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Crime scene says it's called a crime scene. Vfrickey gave a clear explanation of why it's called a crime scene. Roches (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Crime scene says "Crime scenes may or may not be where the crime was committed" which I admit I missed. However, despite explanations, I still find the rationale for calling it a crime scene a little shaky, and as discussed earlier, "shooting scene" isn't shaky at all. My preference (slight as it is) is still for "shooting scene", but it's arguably a minor matter and if a consensus of editors prefer "crime scene", then so be it. At least it was examined and discussed. – JBarta (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is common knowledge what a crime scene is. We all understand that it is a place where police are investigating a possible crime. It does not mean that just because we have labelled it such that we have bypassed judge and jury and want to throw the suspect in prison because, oh yea, we called it a crime scene. I've never heard the terms "shooting scene", "robbery scene", "assault scene", "arson scene", "shoplifting scene", etc. in my entire life. —Megiddo1013 05:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of beating an unconscious horse and just for the sake of argument, I'm really not moved by what you think everybody knows or what you think everybody understands or what you've never heard in your entire life. I was looking for some definitive evidence as to whether a scene that may or may not have been the scene of an actual crime (depending on who you ask) is still called a crime scene. The rest of my comments are above (I hate repeating myself). One more thought that I don't think was brought up... is the Ferguson Police (or State Police or FBI or whoever is investigating there) calling it a "crime scene"? If not, how do they refer to the site? Just a thought. – JBarta (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I see here the grand jury is hearing testimony from a "crime scene investigator" and they do mention the words "crime scene" several times. Other than simply "the scene", they don't really call it anything else. So I suppose if you walked up to the investigator while he was measuring and examining and asked him "Whatcha doin?", he would most likely reply with "Investigatin this here crime scene. Now get back behind that yellow line or someone's gonna shoot you too!" – JBarta (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Incident reports

I changed the incident report section. The complaints are really examples of journalists writing about how they think people should do their jobs; if this incident report isn't different than a normal one about the same thing, then it's not lacking in information.

The reason why the incident reports have very few details is that they are admissible in court. Filling in only basic information is a normal thing to do in a case like this, because the incident report is just the beginning of an investigation. In most cases, such as a collision involving a police vehicle, the incident report is a full description of the event because nothing more ever needs to be said about it. These incident reports are not the official story of the police department, they're the individual account of the person who might have to go to trial. Journalists should have known better than to speculate that details were being omitted improperly.

Something was made of the date of the report (ten days after the shooting); this is the time the report was entered. The date it was submitted isn't there. The times of day must also not mean what they appear to mean, since other accounts have police arriving at the scene in much less than 40 minutes.

Roches (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No, no, and no. You are not here to decide what journalists should do or not do, or what they should report or not report. If you find a source that describes your opinion, by all means add it. But do not delete material just because you think the journalists are doing a poor job. Who cares what you (or I) think? We report what sources say. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

According to a spokesman for the St. Louis County police department, it's normal practice not to give out the details and that under the Missouri State “Sunshine” Law, the department was not required to release the information during a pending investigation.[49] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Then report that, alongside the critique from other media sources, even if unfounded. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't tell me how Wikipedia works, even if it's using WP:article links to things that are not policy. I changed the section to describe the level of detail on the forms, and mentioned that Wilson sought legal advice about completing them. I kept the ACLU statement, because it is important to convey that people objected to the way the forms were completed, but I didn't keep the paraphrased list of things the HuffPo author thought were missing.

Reporting the Huffington Post author's opinion of how police departments should fill out incident reporting forms is not NPOV. That's an opinion of one journalist at one source; the ACLU's public statement is a much better, and entirely sufficient, way to report objections to the way the forms were completed.. See WP:ONUS. Roches (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC) (Added policy link to post at 4:30.)

we report opinions and attribute opinions to those that hold them. That is our work as editors, and not pass judgement. I will remove these edits and expect you to follow WP:BRD, as there is an implicit consensus on material that has been in the article for a while. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If the opinion isn't found anywhere other than HuffPo, it's probably not notable. Notice also this was published in August and never followed up on. Not exactly quality sourcing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I started looking over the current version of the section Incident reporting forms and there was a problem with verifying the first two sentences.

"MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell reported on August 21 that Wilson did not complete an incident report about the shooting, after being advised by a union lawyer not to do so.^[68] According to O'Donnell, Wilson did file a report, but not until ten days after the shooting, and the report contained no information other than his name and the date.^[68]

68. O'Donnell, Lawrence (August 21, 2014). "Ferguson PD didn't file report after shooting". The Last Word. MSNBC. Retrieved August 26, 2014.

The link for the source doesn't go to the page where the info is, so I wasn’t able to verify the material using the citation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Searching for the title of the source in the ref, yields this: http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word-with-lawrence-odonnell/watch/ferguson-pd-didnt-file-report-after-shooting-320755267999 - Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, that link is to a 1:16 clip, apparently the intro to the episode. I can't figure out how to get the whole thing. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So who is correct, the prosecutor's office, O'Donnel, the ACLU? Was or was not an incident report filed? Because they did release the reports when pressed to do so. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, The current issue is verifying those two sentences. The link you just gave is insufficient. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was the when I sourced it, but it seems that it is gone. I will see if I can find it in the wayback machine. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The full episode may be on this page, but I am not 100% sure: [50], OTOH, this is a good source that could be used: [51] - Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a relevant excerpt from a Nov 24 Newsweek source.[52]

"The official incident report filed by St. Louis county police 10 days after the shooting contains few hard details about the encounter, other than the fact that Brown was unarmed."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I made some edits involving the second and third sentences of the first paragraph, which currently is:[53]

"MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell reported on August 21 that Wilson did not complete an incident report about the shooting, after being advised by a union lawyer not to do so. According to the St. Louis County Prosecutor's Office, the Ferguson police didn’t file an incident report on the shooting because the case was turned over to the county police almost immediately. The St. Louis county police filed an incident report 10 days after the shooting with little information about what happened."

The first sentence is not supported by its source. The only thing it adds is the part about the lawyer. The rest is covered in the second sentence. I think we should delete it for now and consider restoring the lawyer info when there is a suitable source for it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of relevant material

@Roches: Why are you deleting perfectly good material without any discussion[54]. I welcome your contributions, but you need to show some respect to the hard work from others. Deleting material that has been in the article for quite a while, and which represents an existing consensus is not acceptable - Cwobeel (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And when you are it, explain this edit [55] in which you removed several key pieces of reporting. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I mean, how blatant can you be? You removed a key piece:

. Brown stumbled, stopped, put his hands up and said "OK, OK, OK, OK, OK." The worker believed Brown had been wounded. With his hands up, Brown began walking toward the officer, at which point Wilson began firing at Brown and backing away.

- Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to contribute anything at all if every aspect of every edit has to be justified. The fact that somebody said that something happened is not necessarily worth reporting here, and it does not remain worth reporting here. Editing material that was written some time ago is not destructive, it's just changing the article to represent the importance of that particular account as of right now.

The construction worker's account describes Brown being hit from behind after being shot by one of three police officers. I thought it was acceptable to keep the broader details of the account. I did not remove all of the details in the "key piece" above. I only removed what the otherwise-unreliable account said Brown was saying. There's a reason for that. If someone reported that Brown said "I'm gonna kill you," then that conveys to readers the idea that Brown may have said that. Similarly, including a quotation from a possibly unreliable account, a quotation that other accounts don't include, can alter the opinions of readers in a different way than a retelling of what the worker said the people did. The edited account still conveys the worker's contention that Brown was trying to surrender, it just doesn't quote Brown in the retelling.

If that content represented an existing consensus between, say, ten editors, it no longer represents a consensus. I'm strongly opposed to it, I think it should be removed, so there isn't a consensus anymore. Roches (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the rest, but I'll go out on a limb and challenge your last sentence based on the second sentence of WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable).... In other words, consensus doesn't vanish the moment someone comes along and disagrees with it. It was rarely unanimous to begin with, as indicated in the quoted passage. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The part about hands up was removed. It was significant because it was supported by the following, which was also removed, "In a cellphone video obtained by CNN on September 11, which captured the reaction of the construction worker and a colleague, one of them can be heard saying, "He had his fuckin' hands up." Does anyone know where the corresponding grand jury testimony is, volume, page number? --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the material that was deleted. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Roches:: It's difficult to contribute anything at all if every aspect of every edit has to be justified. Welcome to editing contentious articles in Wikipedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And a good reminder WP:NOTTRUTH - Cwobeel (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, From the essay WP:NOTTRUTH that you referred to is the following, "The phrase 'the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth' meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough)." --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you in that context. I was referring to this section: WP:!TRUTHFINDERS - Cwobeel (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I don't think that part of the essay means that verifiability guarantees the inclusion of questionable material. Also, please note the statement at the top of that essay's page, "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Wikipedia policy says that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I am fully aware that an essay is not policy. But the point made in that essay is a good one. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And what point is that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, talking about the construction worker's testimony to the grand jury - A landscape worker who lives in Jefferson County gave grand jurors one of the oddest accounts of the moments leading up to Brown's death. The man said he encountered Brown that morning. He was trying to cut through some tree roots and cursing at the difficulties of the job. Brown told him that Jesus would help him with his anger problem. A few minutes later, the man said, he heard gunshots. He looked up and saw Brown running. He said three officers were chasing Brown, but only one of them was shooting. Brown appeared to have been shot as he fled, the worker said. Then Brown turned around, put his hands up and started yelling “OK.” "And within a couple of seconds the three officers came up, and one just pulled up and shot him," the worker said.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but this article is not just about the testimony to the grand jury. This and other witnesses provided their accounts before that, such as in here [56], the source used in that section. You are welcome to add his testimony to the grand jury for completeness. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Restoring the original version reminded me of why I edited it. I'm not going to dissect the content line by line, feign outrage, or welcome you to Wikipedia. I especially do not like the last of these things, and I don't like when you tell me or other editors that we are free to add content to some section of the article, but not to another.

What I tried to do wasn't perfect, but if that content represents the hard work of many individuals working towards a consensus, the result was surprisingly awkward and difficult to read. Roches (talk) 06:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you can improve content by copy editing, that would be most welcome. But there is a difference in making something more readable, and deleting content wholesale as you did. - Cwobeel (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)