Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Prevalence of "shot in the back" claims + apparent autopsy contradictions

I can only recall ever hearing one interview (one of the ones with Dorian Johnson) stating that Brown was shot "in the back". What people have been saying, what Johnson has said in all other accounts, is that Brown was shot at and hit "from behind", a possibility which is not contradicted by any autopsy. The statement that "some witnesses" reported he was hit in the back is rather misleading in light of how often that claim seems to have actually occurred. I also think the line in Johnson's section implies that that being shot in the back is a core and consistent part of Johnson's testimony, rather than a one-time claim that is easily explainable by him making a (natural, if not unconscious) assumption arising from seeing Brown being shot at from behind and then reacting as if hit. Unless anyone has more sources of eyewitnesses claiming Brown was shot in the back, I propose the following changes (or similar) be made to paint a more accurate picture:

  • Some witnesses reported that Brown was shot several times in the back although all three autopsies showed that Brown was not shot in the back. -> Some witnesses reported that Brown was hit with several shots from behind. All three autopsies showed that no shots hit him in the back, though at least one of the shots in his arm may have come from behind.
  • Wilson exited the vehicle, after which he fired several rounds at the fleeing Brown, hitting him once in the back. -> Wilson exited the vehicle, after which he fired several rounds at the fleeing Brown, hitting him once. In one interview, Johnson claims Brown was hit in the back.
  • At least two commentators have noted that the autopsy contradicts some aspects of some eyewitness accounts, including that Wilson shot Brown in the back and that Wilson shot Brown while holding Brown's neck. -> At least two commentators have noted that the autopsy contradicts some aspects of some eyewitness accounts, including one account by Dorian Johnson that Wilson shot Brown in the back, though in all other accounts Johnson simply says Brown was hit by a shot from behind.

As for the part about the autopsy findings apparently contradicting reports that Wilson was holding Brown around the neck when he first shot him, that can simply be removed. The [Washington Post source] makes this claim, but says nothing about these lines in [the very article it links to]:

The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body. However, that determination could change if it turns out that there is gunshot residue on Mr. Brown’s clothing, to which Dr. Baden did not have access.
...
“We need more information; for example, the police should be examining the automobile to see if there is gunshot residue in the police car,” he said.

It's clear Dr. Baden still considered it very possible that Brown was shot at close range inside the police car. The WashPo claim is outright contradicted by information in the NYTimes article they link to, information that is actually stated earlier in the paragraph on this very wiki page. There's no excuse for referencing it. Sxizzor (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

According to the present news reports, a number of people apparently changed their claims about what happened or said that they didn't even witness the incident, which is a bit problematic. I think at this point we should probably try and get organized and figure out what we're going to be doing with this article in the long run, as we're likely going to be editing it pretty heavily and trying to get it to be more coherent now that we know more about what happened, what with all this evidence being thrown out at the press and the general public. We should try and work on including factual information, and probably condensing down the eyewitness stuff, especially given just how many of them there were - we've got the ones in the media, and the ones who testified to the grand jury, and because the names of the witnesses in the grand jury stuff have been redacted we don't even know if there is overlap. There's some amount of WP:UNDUE at work here.
I'm quite concerned about the eyewitness testimony section in general. As was noted here:
Many of the witness statements — some shared with the media — were contradictory, and during the grand jury process, many witnesses admitted they didn’t see the shooting or heard about it from others, McCulloch said. There were also conflicting witness accounts of whether Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot, the prosecuting attorney said.
After the autopsy of Michael Brown was released, no additional witnesses came forward to say Brown was shot in the back as he ran, and “several witnesses” who claimed this version adjusted their story in subsequent statements, McCulloch said.
Italics are my own. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. This article should move from a play-by-play of media reports that documented speculation or falsehoods to more factual details from the published grand jury evidence.68.39.32.188 (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I generally agree. I think most of the witness accounts should be removed and the speculative material should be condensed. We should remove these sections as WP:UNDUE: Michael Brady, Piaget Crenshaw, Tiffany Mitchell, James McKnight, Phillip Walker, Emanuel Freeman, (anonymous) Grand jury witnesses and Bystander heard on video.- MrX 14:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The amount of witness accounts that claim Michael was shot in the back while running away seem to bias the whole article and mislead the reader. 1ragincajun (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)1ragincajun

Wilson didn't know Brown was involved In the robbery

I want to clear up a dispute that I've had with Titanium dragon. He says that's now clear that Wilson knew Brown was a suspect in the robbery. I say this is false because Wilson did not claim this until he spoke to the grand jury, which was well after the shooting and after the police chief said the robbery had nothing to do with the shooting.

I present into evidence this VOX article by Ezra Klein http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side. In the article there's a link to an interview Wilson did with the police on August 10, the day after the shooting. While Wilson was aware of the robbery, no where in the interview does he state that he realized Brown matched the description of the suspect, much less say he saw a case of cigars sticking out of his pocket. So the claim that Wilson was a aware that Brown was a robber is at best dubious and at worse outright false.

I really hate getting involved in long edit wars and therefore am not interested in a long back in forth with Titanium Dragon. I hope that other editors will take the information I've provided and use it to improve the article.annoynmous 19:41, 25 November


I've looked at the interview at appears that Wilson did mention the cigarillos. However this is after the confrontation had already begun. Wilson claims that he told Brown and Dorian Johnson to get on the sidewalk and after that Brown got defensive and began yelling obscenities at him and that's when the struggle started. Wilson claims he didn't notice the cigarillos until after brown had already hit him and then handed them to Dorian Johnson. Also Wilson says he called for backup because of Browns behavior, not because he matched the description of a suspect. This doesn't mean that Wilson's version of events is true. The conflict could have still been started by him and only during there initial confrontation did Wilson suspect Brown was the robber. Wilson certainly didn't stop them because he thought they were robbers and didn't call for help because of that either.annoynmous 20:20, 25 November

Actually, if you go to page 14 of the interview[1], where the interviewer does a re-sweep of the story to include intention and thoughts (not just actions), D. Wilson says: "...then after he made his comments I realized cigarillos ya know, then I was like well I gotta stop and talk to the guy."71.185.69.178 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

He's asked by the interviewer to say that again and Wilson then says that he stopped to confront Brown because of Brown's comments, "and" the cigarillos "as well". The cigarillos are thus tacked on as a reason for confronting Brown, and they are not tacked on until late in the interview when Wilson is reaching for reasons to justify the confrontation. Just before what you quote there Wilson is practically pleading, "I downplayed the whole issue because I didn't want a confrontation." If Wilson had truly recognized Brown as the thief before the altercation began, he'd be leading with that reason from the beginning since that's easily the best argument. There's be no need to talk about how "very non-confrontational" the situation ever was if he'd IDed Brown as the suspect early on since he would not be doing his job if he did not confront in that case.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he said that towards the end of the interview, but that doesn't change the fact that he initially stopped them because they were walking in the street and because of Browns alleged comments. It also contradicts his grand jury testimony where he said that he realized that Brown matched the description of the suspect physically after Brown made his comments which he doesn't mention at all in the original police interview. This says to me that the question of whether or not he initially knew brown is a suspect is still an open question.annoynmous 22:12, 25 November 2014 (UTVC)

under your scenario, why did he call for backup for a guy Jaywalking? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Because he knew that he was about to physically confront the guy who had just showed him some verbal attitude and that might possibly escalate. Readers would know that WIlson isn't afraid to get tough from the October 2013 incident (and then write up a report making him sound like he was a lot more polite than he really was) if you weren't deleting that incident from the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe he didn't like Browns attitude and wanted to teach him a lesson. All I know is that in the initial run through of the interview he doesn't mention suspecting Brown was a robber, only later when he's asked to clarify. annoynmous 22:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

6-foot-4 300-lb guy mouthing off while black. I saw police racism up close and personal just once, almost 40 years ago, and that was enough to change my perspective. Not that much has changed in 40 years, except superficial things. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that Wilson said that he had "heard a brief description of a black male with a black t-shirt." In fact, the dispatcher had described someone with a WHITE t-shirt. Wilson then says "I said, 'Okay, but what's wrong with the sidewalk.' ... as they were passing my window the second subject said, 'Fuck what you have to say.' And, then after that I put the vehicle in reverse, backed up.... Prior to backing up I did call out on the radio. I said '...send me another car.'" I'd say it's pretty clear from this that Wilson called for backup because he knew there would be a confrontation, NOT because he recognized Brown as a suspect prior to that call. Had he truly recognized Brown before making that radio call, he surely would have identified that in his day-after interview as being a greater issue than Brown telling him off.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370766-interview-po-darren-wilson.html

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2014

Just a question. How big is Wilson?

72.47.182.59 (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: No request. Interesting question though. If you have a reliable source that does describe his size, it could be worth discussing that addition - Brown's size is in the article. Cannolis (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Why and when did this get semied and for how long?. That it will likely need such protection soon is irrelevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 05:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
See [1]. These logs are easily accessible. Cannolis (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

[2] I know this is daily mail and we can't use it but unless everyone else in that picture is abnormally short, Darren Wilson is a definitely a big guy. -Myopia123 (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Some from NBC. [3]. I don't know what the point is of NBC just posting pictures without any other info. I'm surprised no news outlet has found this out because it's clear he's no midget. -Myopia123 (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

From the grand jury testimony, Wilson is about 6'4", weighs 210 or 220 (I forget which). So he's a pretty big guy, but Brown had 60-80 pounds on him. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why this would matter in the case. Even if they were the same size, or Brown was smaller, the grand jury evidence indicates that Wilson claimed he feared for his safety, and credible witnesses indicated that Brown was moving towards and possibly charging at Wilson. That's the key element here and is what reliable sources are reporting.68.39.32.188 (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It matters because if the two are of comparable size, then the fact that a lot of sources play up Brown's physical advantage is rather POV pushing. It comes of as a David vs Goliath kind of thing, with language like Brown being a "Gentle Giant" and shit like that. [4] Wilson addresses it directly in this interview on the BBC. -Myopia123 (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Extent of damage

Have any reliable sources indicated a dollar value estimate as to the damage caused by the riots, looting, vandalism, etc.? If so, it should be included. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful in 2014 Ferguson unrest. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course. It would also be useful here. Since the damage directly flowed from the "shooting of Michael Brown". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown

or Fatal shooting of Michael Brown ? Thank you for your opinion. Trackteur (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to mind is looking at Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States shows the vast majority simply title the article with the person's name. A very few, such as as ours here, begin the name with "Shooting of" or "Death of". I see none that use "Fatal shooting of". I have to ask, why do you believe this article in particular warrants such unusual treatment? – JBarta (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Between a simple shooting and a fatal shooting, I think the difference is very important and should be reported. Trackteur (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It is reported, beginning in the first sentence of the article. How many readers are going to read the title but not the first sentence? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
In the category I mention they were ALL fatal shootings. – JBarta (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

grand jury vote

Is the number of votes by the grand jury public record or withheld? If it is withheld, this should be noted. If ti is public, then the numbers should be given.211.225.33.104 (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe the voting specifics are withheld. And I don't think that necessarily needs to be mentioned in this article. I'd imagine our grand jury article covers the specifics of how grand juries work. – JBarta (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight on grand juries

The statement from FiveThirtyEight about the tendencies of grand juries is way off topic - this isn't about the grand jury process. Worse, it smacks of POV hinting that grand jury processes in general are flawed/biased towards cops. It needs to go. The Dissident Aggressor 12:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You should offer a diff so others can see what you're talking about without hunting. On the statement you dislike, I've read that sort of thing as well. Maybe the wording can be tweaked? Well sourced I see no problem including it. And while you can say it's part of grand juries in general, that aspect specifically is quite germane here. – JBarta (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course it is POV, duh; all opinions are. This is an opinion made by a reliable source, and we are attributing the opinion fully. Read WP:NPOV which states that we report significant opinions about a subject as described in reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk)

{request edit} re darren wilson background

From the article:

He was 28 years old at the time of his fatal shooting.[22][23]


Darren wilson was not fatally shot

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Rewording -->at the time of the fatal shooting in which he killed Brown. Trackteur (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The context is already quite clear. using the anvil to repeat it is not needed. (and besides its clunky) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Darren Wilson, is the only participant in this fatal shooting, this dramatic event it's not an exchange of gunfire between DW et MB. Trackteur (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody reading the sentence about "at the time of the shooting" is going to wonder who was shot and who did the shooting. That is the purpose of this entire article.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
More simple; --> ...at the time where Michael Brown is killed. Trackteur (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The time where? When place did its happening in? ... Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Grand jury controversy

As the evidence and testimony released by the prosecutor is being studied by media and legal analysts, a substantial amount of sources are now covering what is being described as a controversy related to the presentation of the evidence and the unusual manner the grand jury process was managed. I intend to develop an entire sub section with these sources which I am currently compiling. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be a controversy section. I've read several articles where the evidence has shown a lot of 'eyewitness' testimony to be incorrect or downright misleading, I read that during the grand jury Johnson recanted his story and said that Brown had attacked the cop. There was also an issue where a few news outlets printed the actual address of where the cop lives. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I also read the Johnson recant rumor, but it was just a rumor. His grand jury testimony is available http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2014/11/24/dorian-johnsons-testimony-before-the-grand-jury.html Gaijin42 (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have started that section, but there is more to add. Will resume working on this later, but feel free to expand. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I added a paragraph to the end of the physical evidence section to cover the crime scene details that were presented to the grand jury. Not sure if that should be integrated into your efforts, but where it is now is appropriate to the current shape of the article since there are already other discussions about the physical evidence based on other accounts. Z22 (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: This deletion [5] was unnecessary and disruptive; it is from impeccable sources and highly relevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Fatal

is not the main signification of the death ? Trackteur (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed one instance of "fatal shooting" to simply "shooting" because I thought it read better. I agree that there is no reason to keep mentioning "fatal" or "killed" as if trying to hammer an elusive point home. The shooting was a relatively simple affair with the main points (that it was a fatal shooting being one of them) understood quickly by the reader. Reading through, I don't think we've quite reached a point of excess, but editors should keep in mind that it could get excessive if we don't exercise some restraint and judgement. – JBarta (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the fatality is the most significant aspect of the story. But that fact does not need to be repeated again and again, wherever the word "shooting" occurs. To say "shooting" without saying "fatal" does not imply that the shooting was not fatal. The word "fatal" is significant in some places, such as when discussing that the final shot was the fatal one. It need not and should not be included where it is not pertinent to the context. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see Trayvon Martin. The first sentence states that the shooting was fatal. The word "shooting" then occurs 13 times in the article, and none of those are preceded by the word "fatal". The fatality is already stated and is known by the reader, so it is not necessary to repeat it. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2014

There is punctuation adjustments with quotations necessary under the 5.1 Controversy section.

The first line currently reads: Legal experts asserted that McCulloch deflected responsibility for failing to indict Wilson, and created conditions in which the grand jury would not indict him either. Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard University, said that "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result, and called the case "the most unusual marshaling of a grand jury's resources I've seen in my 25 years as a lawyer and scholar."

Though, it should be: Legal experts asserted that McCulloch deflected responsibility for failing to indict Wilson, and created conditions in which the grand jury would not indict him either. Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard University, said that "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result," and called the case "the most unusual marshaling of a grand jury's resources I've seen in my 25 years as a lawyer and scholar."

There should be an end-quote after 'result,' and before 'and called the case'. Tai.nalewajko (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Done.--Hinmatóowyalahtqit (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Trackteur is disrupting editing by edit warring and adding unnecessary wiki-links, as well as modifiyng content that took a lot of effort to arrive to consensus. Please stop the nonsense, and engage in discussions. Note that you have breached 3RR already. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Already warned multiple times on their user talk page today alone, disruptive editing continues. Long history of disruptive editing and edit warring. Added this article to See also in Shooting, ignoring the fact that there are no other articles like this listed there. Confidence greatly exceeds judgment. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it as necessarily disruptive, just energetic and sometimes a little misguided. To Trackteur I would suggest slow down a bit and review some of the Wiki guidelines that have been pointed out to you recently. – JBarta (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Repeated reverts contrary to talk page consensus, ignoring repeated user talk page warnings by multiple editors, is the definition of disruptive editing. As evident on their user talk page, this user has had ample time to learn how to be a collaborative editor, so the inescapable conclusion is that they just don't care to. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the edit-warring, but I agree there is excessive wiki-linking, I don't think "black student" or "white police officer" should be wl'ed. I'm going to remove at least those two instances of wiki-links. If someone wants to revert it back, I won't challenge it. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I agree. I earlier reverted the first link you mention above, saying (in what I thought would be understood to be an ironic comment) that it shouldn't be there unless "white police officer" was also linked to White people. The editor proceeded to replace the link I reverted and also to do exactly that. ::sigh:: Dwpaul Talk 23:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the description of Officer Wilson's weapon and number of rounds?

It seems odd that in all of the article, there's no mention of what weapon the officer used. According to CNN, twelve shots were fired - all but one in Wilson's weapon - so shouldn't that be mentioned in the shooting? http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-documents/index.html There's obviously seven that intersected or found in Brown; that leaves five shots not in the wiki article as currently written. 174.62.68.53 (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Among the documents presented to the grand jury and available via the link you provided is the "Crime Lab Firearm Evidence". The weapon was a .40 caliber SIG Sauer P229 with a capacity of 13 rounds, including 12 in the magazine. Five bullets were recovered, 3 from Brown's body. Twelve casings found at the scene were analyzed. Page 2 of the weapon report (page 3 of the PDF) lists the location from which each bullet and cartridge was recovered. I'm not sure why you think this information is important to include in this article. There is no controversy about whether Officer Wilson was the shooter. Dwpaul Talk 04:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Leaked testimony from Darren Wilson

Am I missing something, or are we still relying on "anonymous sources" and "leaks" for Wilson's version of the shooting. Now that we have his testimony to the grand jury and his interview, shouldn't we be eliminating this "leaked section" and replacing it with "his version of the shooting". I guess we could leave a synopsis of the leak and the reaction, but does anyone object to a sub-section under accounts with his version. Just wanted to ask before I started on a bold endeavor here.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have one narrow comment/suggestion... the fact that Wilson's testimony at some point was "leaked" should remain in the article. – JBarta (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It's worth a mention but no more than that. I don't see the point of relying on the leaked testimony if the full testimony is freely available. -Myopia123 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That the testimony was leaked is part of the narrative. Certainly the published testimony should be used when referencing the testimony. Another potential issue might be differences (if any) between the leaked version(s) and the published version. Of course we wouldn't wish to do our own research on that, but if sources at some point mention notable differences, that might be appropriate here as well. – JBarta (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Another comment regarding the published testimony... it will be tempting for editors to comb through it looking for tidbits to enhance this article. That gets painfully close to original research (if not outright OR). The testimony itself is a primary source. (and for any inexperienced editors reading this, a primary source is not the best source and should be used with caution) What we should really be doing is looking for secondary reliable sources' analysis of the testimony. We are not detectives, we simply report what others have detected. – JBarta (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Only secondary sources, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree with secondary sourcing, the draft I'm working on incorporates his version of the shooting as told to a detective back in August immediately following the incident, and then his testimony before the grand jury. I'm noticing some differences in the two versions he told, so we'll have to find secondary sourcing, if there is any, discussing the discrepancies. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Added Wilson's account of events. Feel free to trim, summarize, copy-edit or whatever. I didn't do anything with the "leaked testimony", maybe someone could tackle that. I also moved the "interview" down to that section and it might need some expansion. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

high level grand jury testimony summary from AP

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies

The "money shot" summary from them is :

An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown wasn't struck by any bullets in his back.

(Note: The fact that no shots hit Brown in the back is not evidence that the officer did not fire at Brown's back; it's evidence that none of the shot shots him in the back. Shots can and do miss.) 174.62.68.53 (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Although it is itself an item of some note (I believe already in the article) that the prosecutor was pointing out these flaws in their own "case". Gaijin42 (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I spend several hours today poring over reports as well as the evidence itself, and there are contradictions across the board, including from Wilson himself. Pity this was not an adversarial process in which defense and prosecution could cross examine witnesses. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Why pity? That's exactly what a grand jury is supposed to do. (And this side-note has nothing to do with the editing of the article.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
No, the prosecutor is supposed to only supply the information that they think will get a case; the case itself is not supposed to be tried. It's highly unusual to have the defendant even present at these hearings. http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/whats-different-about-grand-jury-process-darren-wilson-case 174.62.68.53 (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
May be you need to lawyer up a bit. Grand jury proceedings are very different than trial proceedings as there is no cross-examination. Henceforth, none of the witness are supposed to be challenged, although it seems that the only one left unchallenged was Wilson's, according to what is emerging from the documents released and reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@Cwobeel: With all due respect, I find it quite ironic and hypocritical that you posted this comment immediately above. Which is a "forum" comment and has absolutely nothing to do with the editing of this article. And, in the very same breath, you delete my comment above, which is not a forum comment and which does relate to the editing of this article. Would you care to explain? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
For example witness #10, the only one that seems to agree with Wilson about Brown charging him, said first that he was 100ft away (the length of a football field), only to change his tune in front of the grand jury, saying he was 50 ft away. There is a lot that will be uncovered as media scrutinize the evidence. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I have not pored over the reports. I am sure it is safe to say that there are inconsistencies on both sides. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, I feel he need to point out we are not detectives. Note my comment in the above section regarding the published testimony. – JBarta (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. There are several reports coming out highlighting the inconsistencies. We will use that. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown committed Robbery 2nd Degree (Strong-Arm Robbery), not simple theft/stealing/shoplifting

Brown was caught on video not only taking an item from a store without paying for it, which by itself would simply be a low-grade Misdemeanor at the price/value level of the item in question (some cigarillos), but when you intimidate & push the clerk around when confronted, you are then taking the item not quietly & passively like a typical thief or shoplifter, but by the use of force, and that act then becomes Robbery 2nd Degree (a "strong-arm" robbery), that per the Missouri statutes at this link. It would have been Robbery 1st Degree if he had beaten the man up or threatened him with an object or weapon. Robbery 2nd Degree carries a sentence of 5 to 15 years. This is not my opinion --- it's a fact as proven by the excellent Missouri State Government citation I provided. So at every place in the article when it refers to the criminal act in question, it should be updated to say "Strong-Arm Robbery suspect", or a "Robbery suspect", not that he was "stealing" or a "thief" or a "shoplifter" & you should use that link as a citation. So the police weren't hunting for a thief/shoplifting suspect --- they were hunting a STRONG-ARM ROBBERY suspect. The NY Times did a great job of laying out the entire case evidence and all the witness accounts at this link.PhilOSophocle (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Your concern is misplaced. The article unequivocally refers to the event as a robbery except when tracking sources that refer to "stealing" or "thieves." There's little point in repeatedly referring to the event as a "strong-arm robbery," because it's a subset of robbery that specifically means larceny + force (robbery) without the use of a weapon (i.e., not "armed robbery"). Perhaps you could point out the particular passages you're objecting to? Dyrnych (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Try the second paragraph: "Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of the street, shortly after stealing a box of cigarillos from a convenience store..." He didn't steal them. He robbed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.10.7.131 (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Washington Post: Unorthodox police procedures emerge in grand jury documents

Unorthodox police procedures emerge in grand jury documents Notable information, in my opinion. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That source is already used in the Controversy section. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson's account of events

Do we need such an expansive section on his account? Are we going to expand on each one of the 60 odd witnesses as well? I would argue that we have to attempt to summarize the reports, to keep the article manageable and avoid WP:UNDUE, which may be the case with this very lengthy description. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that there is a big section for each testimony because there is some discrepancy between the two and editors hope readers will see that. Quite honestly that's an end run around WP:OR in my view. That whole mess should be trimmed down and broken into a few managable paragraphs reflecting the general gist of Wilson's statements all in one shot. If a source notes differences, we can add that too after his statement, but there's no need to overwhelm the reader in an attempt to manhandle him into seeing any particular editor's idea of the "real truth". – JBarta (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any value in duplicating the account as reported by RS, at pretty much the same level of detail. We don't just do it once, but in three separate subsections, each much larger than any of the eyewitness accounts. For those who like numbers, we currently have 335 words for the largest eyewitness account, Johnson's, and 2,139 words on Wilson's account, a difference of more than 6-to-1. Per OP, this is undue weight in spades. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 09:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I created the section for his account of the events because all we had was his "leaked testimony" for his version of the events. Like I clearly stated above (see Leaked testimony from Darren Wilson) after creating the section - Feel free to trim, summarize, copy-edit or whatever. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
No matter what, it is still WP:UNDUE. You can create Testimony of Darren Wilson, move everything there and add a summary here per WP:SUMMARY. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to create a separate article for just his testimony. I will summarize it accordingly. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you - Cwobeel (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your edit summary that it is still too long. Besides Brown and Johnson, Wilson is the other major actor in this incident, and therefore should be accorded an adequate section to detail the explanation as to how and why he killed this young man. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that all of the eyewitness sections are too long; as I've noted, we really need to cut down on them and chop out most of them. The reality is that it was all Rashomon Effect - eyewitness accounts were very heavily contradictory, and as it came out at the grand jury, some of them were given by people who weren't even there, while a number of accounts were directly contradicted by the actual physical evidence on the scene, meaning that they had either inaccurate recollections of the events or outright lied about them. What we should probably do in the long term is rearrange the article, putting the sequence of events as demonstrated by the physical evidence up on top, and then have the unreliable eyewitness accounts below that, and not really break them out but basically just kind of lump them all in and describe how they are contradictory, with different people saying different things about what happened. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Criminal justice critique

Some of the WP:RSs are addressing the question of whether Wilson "followed the book" or followed the best procedures from a criminal justice perspective. He had many ways of approaching the situation that were within the law, but some approaches would have avoided a killing. Most criminal justice experts didn't think that "Get the fuck on the sidewalk," if Wilson said that, is a good way to start a contact with the public. For example:

Experts Weigh Officer’s Decisions Leading to Fatal Shooting of Michael Brown
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
New York Times
NOV. 26, 2014
“The notion of riding through neighborhoods yelling, ‘Get up on the curb’ or ‘Get out of the street,’ is not where you want your officers to be,” Mr. Bealefeld said. “You want them out of their cars, engaging the public and explaining to people what it is you are trying to do. Drive-by policing is not good for any community.”

I don't see this perspective in the article. --Nbauman (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a great quote which gets to the avoidableness of this tragedy. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's place to stick "what ifs" into the article. We are WP:IMPARTIAL. The whole thing could have been avoided by Brown not being a criminal as well, or not attacking Officer Wilson, or not going for Wilson's gun, or not turning and charging at Officer Wilson at the end according to several eyewitnesses. This is all factually accurate, but it isn't our job to speculate on what might have been, but to report on reality. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Amen! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2014

Spelling/grammar. "strains" -> "stains" in two instances. Also "roadway" -> "the roadway".

In the section "Physical evidence".

Original:

There are also two groups of red strains on driver side of the vehicle. The center area, which is approximately 44 feet (13 m) east of the western area, contains the right sandal. The eastern area, which is approximately 80 feet (24 m) east from the center area, comprises Brown’s body, many casings and one apparent projectile. Within this 29 feet (8.8 m) area, Brown’s body is located in the western half with his head in the direction toward the west. There are also seven casings and one apparent projectile in the western half. The eastern half includes two groups of red strains in roadway and three casings.

Fixed:

There are also two groups of red stains on driver side of the vehicle. The center area, which is approximately 44 feet (13 m) east of the western area, contains the right sandal. The eastern area, which is approximately 80 feet (24 m) east from the center area, comprises Brown’s body, many casings and one apparent projectile. Within this 29 feet (8.8 m) area, Brown’s body is located in the western half with his head in the direction toward the west. There are also seven casings and one apparent projectile in the western half. The eastern half includes two groups of red stains in the roadway and three casings.


Tyler wpda (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Violence after the grand jury decision

After the grand jury decision, there was a certain amount of violence, arson, looting, etc., that ensued. I read that some male relative (step-father? or uncle?) of Michael Brown told a crowd of protesters something to the effect of "Let's all burn this city down!" Is that mentioned in this article? I didn't see it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A source from CNN: Michael Brown's stepfather at rally: 'Burn this bitch down!'. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
See companion article 2014 Ferguson unrest. Dwpaul Talk 23:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I am referring to this article. Not the Ferguson unrest article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand. The stepfather's statement ("Burn this b*tch down!") that (some say) provoked the crowd to engage in violence is already discussed at that article, so it is unnecessary to also discuss it here, where the focus is on the events immediately before and after the shooting. Dwpaul Talk 23:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree 100%. It is clearly relevant to the shooting of Michael Brown. One of the critical events related to this article is (clearly) the grand jury process and, by extension, its "verdict" (so to speak) and the reaction to that verdict. Why are you suggesting that it's not relevant to this article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The grand jury process is already covered here, along with its verdict and reactions to it. The stepfather's statement to the crowd assembled in the street in front of the Police Department was part of the aftermath of the grand jury's decision, more than three months after the shooting, and should be covered in the article that is the primary venue for discussion of that topic. It is not essential to understanding any aspect of the shooting or the grand jury's decision. Why would you duplicate it here? Dwpaul Talk 23:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Everything that happened after the verdict occurred more than three months after the shooting. So, that argument makes no sense. Are you suggesting we excise all of that stuff, also (i.e., all of the events that happened three months after the shooting incident)? This event (about the step father promoting arson and violence) is particularly relevant because it is the reaction of a member of the Brown family. Not just some random politician or talking head or legal analyst or whatever. It smacks of POV to specifically leave it out. Also, whether or not it duplicates material in the "generic" 2014 Ferguson unrest article is not relevant. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
If you're saying you don't see any mention of the violence and unrest after the grand jury verdict here, see the end of the section Grand jury hearing. Dwpaul Talk 23:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not referring to arson and violence in general. I am referring specifically to the Brown family promoting violence (on live TV, no less). How is that not relevant to this article? The reaction of the Brown family to the verdict in a case in which their son was killed is not relevant to an article specifically about the killing of their son? Really? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
And, by the way, I noticed how it was so delicately worded in the "unrest" article. It couldn't get "cleaned up" (sanitized) any more than that! And I noticed it's "buried" in a long sentence describing the mother's grief. This is 100% POV. This is the statement verbatim: A member of the Brown family released a statement saying that "the stealing and breaking in stores is not what Mike will want, it is very upsetting to me and my family." The statement also said, "Our family didn't ask for this but for justice and peace." On the night of the grand jury decision of a 'no true bill' the mother speaking to the crowd expressed disbelief and innocence, but after a brief silence and then sobbing was embraced by the step-father who promoted arson. That is truly laughable. And a clear attempt to sanitize (and skew) the actions of the step father. And, try to bury it, as well. We give a 32-word direct quote about the positive comments from the Brown family. And, in three clinically sanitized words, bury the negative actions. Why not use the direct quote "Hey, we need to burn this bitch down"? Indeed, I wonder why not. This is 100% POV. As is the attempt to not allow such information into this article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)
The unrest article says Michael Brown's stepfather Louis Head yelled to the crowd of protesters in front of the police department:"Burn this bitch down!". That doesn't seem sanitized to me. Am I mising something? – JBarta (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, now I see the sanitized part. The item is mentioned twice, and yes, "promoted arson" is certainly a nice way to interpret "Burn this bitch down!". That said, I don't think it's necessarily an attempt to "sanitize" anything. maybe that's just how the editor chose to add it. At any rate, I don't think it's all that big of a deal because the actual quote is in fact mentioned in the unrest article.– JBarta (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not it was an attempt to sanitize is not the issue. The fact that indeed it is a sanitized statement is the issue. The sentences I cited above go on and on and on and on and on (let's say, 50-75 words, as I did not count) all describing the positive words of the family and describing their pain and grief. And, as a tiny after thought (asterisk), we bury three sanitized words to describe a highly inflammatory negative action of the family. You don't see a disparity? Honestly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you're making much out of nothing. My opinion. You asked. – JBarta (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I also think we are trying to follow the lead of most of our sources in not attributing a specific motive to the stepfather. Few of us can predict exactly how we would react if we had been through as much as this family has been through, and when they just received what they regard as highly unwelcome news. Dwpaul Talk 01:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What you say is true. But not relevant to the editing of this article. I am sure you would agree with that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Meaning you think the "burn this bitch down" quote should be in this article too? – JBarta (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I have not crafted the language of the edit. My initial proposal (met with resistance, which dumb founded me) was that the incident belonged in this article proper. I had not proposed any specific wording. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
A tangential side note. The father said, quote, "the stealing and breaking in stores is not what Mike will want". Didn't Mike himself just steal from the store only moments prior to the shooting? That tremendous irony just hit me. I am curious if any reliable sources commented on that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I tend to think the incident belongs in the unrest article, but this is not an exact science... editors will disagree. I will say it's probably not a good idea to think in terms of "POV pushing" or "sanitizing" on this issue. To me it seems merely an editorial difference. – JBarta (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
OK. So, I did an exact count. A member of the Brown family released a statement saying that "the stealing and breaking in stores is not what Mike will want, it is very upsetting to me and my family." The statement also said, "Our family didn't ask for this but for justice and peace." On the night of the grand jury decision of a 'no true bill' the mother speaking to the crowd expressed disbelief and innocence, but after a brief silence and then sobbing was embraced by the step-father who promoted arson. A total of 86 words. Exactly 80 (which is 93%) describing in sentimental detail the positive words and actions of the family and describing their grief and pain. Exactly 6 words (which is 7%) (extremely clinical and sanitized) describing the family's promotion of violence (i.e., "step-father who promoted arson"). This is the very definition of POV and the very definition of sanitizing. How about we devote 80 words describing the step-father's inciting of arson and rioting and go on and on and on and on about that (for 80 words); and in 6 words clinically say "the parents also made a statement at the demonstration" ... ? Does that work just as well? That, also, would be a simple matter of "editorial difference", correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
No one else seems to feel as strongly about this as you do. If you want to draft the 80 words or more to correct what you see as an imbalance, go for it, but make sure you get it right, meaning that it reflects NPOV, does not give this aspect undue weight and is fully sourced. Dwpaul Talk 05:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by "no one"? You will notice that this thread was only posted a few short hours ago. And a grand total of three people have participated in the discussion as of yet. Am I incorrect? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not intentionally delete your post; that is what is called an "edit conflict". It happens sometimes; we deal with it. And (I would have thought obviously) what I meant was no one among those who have responded thus far in this section. I suppose if you want to poll the rest of Wikipedia, or wait a few days, the ratio may change. In the mean time, my suggestion remains the same. Dwpaul Talk 05:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining that your deletion of my post was unintentional. I did not know that edit conflicts cause that type of thing to happen. I apologize for accusing you of intentionally deleting my post. I was wrong to do so. Thanks for understanding. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It happens if you inadvertently click the Save button a second time after an edit conflict causes your edit to be unsaved, effectively re-saving an older edition of the page (the version without your attempted change and prior to the one that it conflicted with) and effectively "deleting" the change that conflicted with your edit. That was my error, but was not an intentional deletion. Dwpaul Talk 06:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand. And thanks for the explanation. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Joseph, if you wish to discuss the wording of a passage in the unrest article, then it would best be discussed at that talk page. The other part of your comment was that you feel it should be mentioned in this article as well. That of course can be discussed here. For my view on that subject, I lean towards leaving it there and not duplicating it here. This article is already huge and it's geting huger (yes, in my world huger is a word). As articles expand an attempt can be made to divide them up into related articles. This is not an effort to hide anything from anyone, it's just a logical way to organize large amounts of information. – JBarta (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I have no interest whatsoever in that "generic" Ferguson unrest article. I have never even looked at it before (i.e., before this discussion above). I am only discussing this article. Obviously, to keep the article of manageable size, some information needs to stay and some needs to go. What I am opining is that the father's call to "burn the city down" is important enough to be among the information that "stays". To opine otherwise is POV. Or – at the very least – can appear to be POV. Once again, this is the chain: (a) this is an article very specifically about the shooting of a man; (b) a verdict is rendered about the shooting of that man; (c) that man's family reacts to the verdict about the shooting of that man. Not a stretch to understand that it is relevant and important. And belongs here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You can always edit this article as you see fit and see if it stands. Might be a better approach than simply stating an objection. Contributions from you are as welome as contributions from anyone else. If another editor has an issue with your edit he may change it or even remove it entirely. Then you come back here and hash out your arguments until hopefully some sort of consensus is reached (or at least that's the theory). – JBarta (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I was attempting to be proactive. This issue/proposal seemed obvious to me. I was rather dumbfounded when it met with resistance. When I get time, I will craft some language. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The races of both Michael Brown and Darren Wilson are not relevant and should not be mentioned in the first paragraph.

The races of both Michael Brown and Darren Wilson are not relevant to what actually happened and should not be mentioned in the first paragraph. Their races are relevant only in the sense that this event is causing racial tension, so they should only be mentioned in the paragraph about reactions to the shooting.

Sure. Thanks for your opinion. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have a warning template for being a troll. Myopia123 (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that suggestion. I don't believe that the ethnicity of Michael Brown or Darren Wilson played any role in the incident. It played a role in discussions of the aftermath, but there is no evidence at all that Michael Brown's ethnicity influenced Darren Wilson's action leading up to the fatal shooting. 76.78.3.93 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: black or African-American?

This RfC was closed by the requester because the response was overwhelmingly "black" and another consensus (removing the infoboxes altogether) had emerged. – JBarta (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

.... here is the entire RfC discussion...

Should Michael Brown's ethnicity in his infobox be listed as black or African-American?
(Note: This RfC stemmed from a discussion above.)

black per arguments in the other discussion, and it doesn't seem particularly kosher to open an RfC only when the discussion doesn't seem to be going your way. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I opened it because you said you didn't want to compromise, and you wanted more opinions. Now we'll get more opinions as you wish. – JBarta (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

He's black. The standard appellation for such people is black. The RSs say that he is black. We use "black" and "African American" interchangeably on Wikipedia. Black people is an article on Wikipedia, as is African American. I tend to find black preferable, because someone from Egypt or an Afrikaner from South Africa would be "African American" (in the sense that they were an African immigrant to America) even though they would not be classified as black. There is no particular reason to deviate from what the reliable sources are describing him as being, so there's no reason to use "African American" instead of "black". Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The question is not about the use of black or African-American in general. We're not talking about someone from Egypt or South Africa. And we're not talking about purging the adjective "black" from articles. We're talking about one person (Michael Brown) in one location (his infobox under ethnicity). And we're talking about this as a compromise to those who favor the term African-American and acknowledging that the term is quite represented in sources. – JBarta (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Black. This is not an article about anthropology. The commonly accepted term in the U.S. for people of African American ethnicity is black, and that term is preferred not only by journalistic sources but generally by the population being described. There is no reason for us to use the more academic term here. The chemical name for table salt is sodium chloride, but we generally call it salt. Dwpaul Talk 03:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Both are acceptable... But it is never wrong to follow sources, so I would suggest you simply look at the various reliable sources that discuss him... see which term they use most often when describing him, and use that. Blueboar (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Would you say that a source saying something like "Michael Brown, who is black" is the equivalent of listing his ethnicity as black? In other words, is the use of a colloquial descriptor the same as an ethnicity classification? Because if you went by sheer numbers as you suggest, you'd probably find the word "black" used more often simply because it's the most common way to differentiate a black person from a white person. But to really compare apples to apples, you'd have to find sources that refer to his ethnicity specifically as "black". That might be a little harder. Given that, I think judgement takes over rather than just looking at numbers, and the phrase "African-American" in his infobox under ethnicity is a perfectly reasonable balance given the sources. – JBarta (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Black. Also, he's referred to as black by major news sources:

A small sampling of articles concerning notable black persons do not contain an element for Ethnicity in the infobox or otherwise mention the subject's race there. They mention the subject's ethnicity in the body. I'm not sure it's really necessary here either. Clearly the difference in ethnicity between the victim and his killer is a notable factor in the case, but that cannot actually be conveyed by infoboxes anyway. I think it is enough to mention his ethnicity in the lead (using the common term) and discuss this aspect in the body, rather than try to expose this issue in the infoboxes which are ill-suited for the purpose. Dwpaul Talk 04:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, that brings up an interesting notion... lose those infoboxes altogether. They don't really contain anything all that useful and certainly nothing that isn't covered in the article. Anyone else think those two infoboxes can go? – JBarta (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • black but I note that I do not think there is a strong policy based argument that would control which way to go beyond WP:STICKTOTHESORUCE. It does appear that the majority of sources in this case use black, but I feel this is something that falls clearly in the arena of editorial discretion and the correct answer is "whatever consensus decides". Agree with arguments abovethat race is the notable component of this incident, not ethnicity (nobody cares if Wilson is polish, or sweedish, or whatever. Nor do they care about the specifics of Browns ethnicity other than it falls into the black/AA/colored/negro/pickthetermfortherelevantdecade group Gaijin42 (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Black - Mr. Brown did not immigrate to the USA from an African nation. A born and raised American should not have a place of genetic ancestry attached to their identity or in place of any other. You do not see Italian-American or Irish-American attached on by those who say "White". Those arguing political correctness are continuing to promote the distancing of the black community by identifying said community as anything else than Americans, first and foremost. We should strive to be respectful and equal at all times. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Side question... why do we list anyone's ethnicity/race in an info box? I can understand mentioning the issue of race in the article text, since that became an important factor in the events that followed the shooting... but is there really a need to list ethnicity/race in an info box? Why not simply omit. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • black. Most accurate, most used by RS. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • African-American - However, my 1st choice would be to eliminate the infoboxes as being redundant because they only mirror what is in the opening paragraphs of each individual's bio (unless we get photos, see section below). 2nd choice would be to eliminate "ethnicity" from the infobox as the first sentence in the lead of the article makes it clear that Brown was a black man and Wilson was a white police officer. 3rd choice is African-American as that seems to be the trend here on WP. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would support dropping the infoboxes.
    • No real reader value, beyond the aesthetic benefit of providing something besides consecutive screens worth of body text.
    • Due to their high visibility, they are magnets for conflict. Even if we eliminated Ethnicity, we'd soon be fighting over Height and Weight. More than once, probably. I'm not saying we should avoid anything controversial, only that things should be worth the controversy. See preceding bullet.
    • But it begs the question: Aside from the lead infobox in a biography article, when would {{Infobox person}} be needed/justified/appropriate? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • African American - Black is too general and can be applied to any dark skinned person internationally. Brown's ethnicity was particularly African American, which may have played a role in the incident and the aftermath, in the context of American culture. Black is not an ethnicity, and is not an informative category in this case. Other than this, I would also support dropping the infobox as it doesn't supply the article with any additional value. 76.78.3.93 (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General Clean-up Note.

With the release of the Medical Examiner's Autopsy Report and Summary of Michael Brown's injuries, any reference to the number of gun-shot 'hits' Brown received should be updated/corrected (particularly in light of their sourced information coming form media outlets).

For example, second para, fourth sentence at the top of the article immediately jumped out at me. It states Brown was shot six times while the Medical Examiner's Summary Sheet (Findings) records six gunshot entry wounds and two grazing wounds, implying Brown was 'hit' eight times, not six. Any references to news reports relating to this should also be updated, referring instead to the ME's reports (which hold more credibility IMHO).

Just my 0.02$. MelioraCogito (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

timeline of events

I'm a little surprised that important details of the timeline of events seem missing. From a forensics view, the timeline is one of the best ways to organize the critical steps to understand a fast moving chain reaction like this. For example, what is now generally being described as the whole event is a period of: -"90 seconds" from the altercation at the car window to the last bullets being fired.

I'm quite sure that wasn't the whole event. Wasn't there at least a prior ~30 to ~60 seconds that set up the disastrous escalating confrontation the followed?

Please correct me, but just from recalling early news reports it seems the officer had an altercation with Brown and a friend first, and then drove off as if having settled it. He then stopped his car and put it in reverse, backing up at high speed to reinitiate the altercation, right? That he backed up at high speed to confront Brown again, and in some reports hit brown with the door of the moving car (that would have left marks), then started an argument through the open window is what I think needs to be examined closely.

That is what appeared to trigger the final altercation, during which the officer got out of the car to shoot Brown who was trying at first to get away. The officer may have been trying to make an arrest, having seen possibly stolen cigars in Brown's pocket or recognizing his face, but it seems much more likely he was just responding to Brown's parting epithets, and acting in a rage irrationally. He appears when he backed up he pulled up along side Brown to argue rather than getting out at a safe distance to make an arrest...

If generally true, both parties would seem to have been exchanging escalating insults, the whole time. The officer then let his emotions get out of control, and instigated a confrontation with Brown at the open car window in a way that would get out of control.

Escalating an altercation that way is as dumb as you can possibly get, for either side of course. Doesn't it still mean that the officer willfully engaged in a manner of confrontation that got way out of control, and needlessly killed someone?

So I think the article should go into more detail on what's known about the timeline.Jlhenshaw (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that once the grand jury testimony is examined by more RSes we will be able to expand and detail a better timeline. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me the grand jury was steered away from discussing it, and the media certainly has been. There's been no word of it on the "thorough" discussions I've heard...Jlhenshaw (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Mike brown did not steal cigarillos.

This has been proven as false. Full convenience store camera video — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.61.179 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is proven at that link. Americans Against the Tea Party's Web outlet aattp.org is not a credible, reliable source. The article at the link says (emphasis added): "While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video appears to show Brown purchasing some cigars ...". Therefore it is clear that it is the writer's interpretation of the video, not the only one. If a credible independent source discusses that interpretation, it could be linked – described as an alternative interpretation, not as fact – in the article. Dwpaul Talk 18:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to keep asking for "credible" sources, like news outlets that are not allowing genuine information to pour through to smudge over global protesting against a thrown murder case? The video clearly shows that Mike Brown paid for the cigarillos he supposedly "stole". Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.61.179 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The video doesn't show that Brown is paying for anything. He doesn't have anything in his hands at the beginning of the video and he never reaches into his pocket to get anything to pay with. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we are going to keep asking for credible sources. Especially since we have johnson admitting to what happened multiple times. In any case, at what point do you see payment in that video?Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gaijin42, you say above that "we have Johnson admitting to what happened multiple times"... "what happened" implied to be "stealing cigarillos". I've seen in sources Johnson admiting it was them in the store with Brown, but not necessarily admitting they actually stole anything. Could you point out a couple of these sources you mention? – JBarta (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Jbarta The most important one is his grand jury testimony http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2014/11/24/dorian-johnsons-testimony-before-the-grand-jury.html but secondary interview based ones are easy to find http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/attorney-dorian-johnson-michael-brown-robbery/14118769/ http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/15/isnt-that-lying-by-omission-don-lemon-asks-why-dorrian-johnson-didnt-initially-mention-the-convenience-store-robbery/ Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The testimony of Johnson pretty clearly has Johnson describing a theft. (I suppose I should have read that earlier) Thank-you and thank-you for your patience. – JBarta (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Ignoring your obvious lack of neutral point of view: Yes, we are going to continue to ask for credible sources. See reliable sources. And the video doesn't clearly show anything, other than the subject reaching across the counter for what we understand are cigars. Dwpaul Talk 19:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2014

In the beginning of paragraph two the first passage states 'Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of the street, shortly after Brown stole a box of cigarillos from a convenience store, when Wilson drove up and told them to move to the sidewalk.' Please edit this as it was only speculation that Michael Brown stole cigars, and instead new evidence has come out that he had purchased them. Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/19/1323057/-Crooks-and-Liars-Brown-appears-to-have-paid-for-those-cigars#

Please take out this part of the section 'shortly after brown stole a box of cigarillos from a convenience store' either entirely or change it to allegedly.

Thank You. Whattheheckareyouposting (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has been changed to say that he allegedly stole the cigarillos, and that the cigarillos were allegedly stolen. (Change was already made in response to previous comments above.) Dwpaul Talk 01:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Also please note that the video you included a link to is not "evidence that [Brown] had purchased [the cigars]." The article at the link speculates that that is shown in the video, when the video does not show that conclusively (nor does it show conclusively that he didn't). Dwpaul Talk 01:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Force Escalation

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

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

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

Use of force continuum

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

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

Wilson personal life details

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

This is as relevant to the shooting of Michael Brown as the incident about the citizen taking video of Wilson. Which is to say, not at all. What negative things are we saying about Brown for which the best RS validation we can find are The Telegraph and The Daily Mail? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Mandruss. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
the secret marriage may be relevant. I'm fairly confident the domestic incident is not, particularly since the violence was directed against Wilson and not by wilson. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on the possible relevance of the secret marriage? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Its weak certainly. However, its fairly obvious the reason it was secret was due to the issues surrounding the shooting. Its not negative, so I see no harm in it as part of him mini BLP.I also see his presumed retirement as relevant to his BLP once that is finalized. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not Wilson was or is married has no relevance to this article. Therefore, how and when he became married, and whether the ceremony was public or private, has no relevance. Dwpaul Talk 19:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42, Re your comment "its fairly obvious the reason it was secret was due to the issues surrounding the shooting." — It's possible but not obvious. Another possibility is that Wilson is a private type of person and may have been married quietly in any case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I see no harm in mentioning he's married, details about the marriage aren't relevant. I agree with other users about the domestic incident in leaving it out, if he does retire, that's certainly worth a mention. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it would only be worth a mention if this article was Darren Wilson instead of Shooting of Michael Brown. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Still opposed to the marriage. "Does no harm" is not a high enough bar for a BLP, imo. Same rationale as the removal of his city of residence. Agreed that the retirement is relevant. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see the city is still there. I thought it had been removed, and I think it should be. No personal details about a living person should be included unless relevance is shown, especially in a story like this one, where a lot of people would take a shot at Wilson if they thought they could get away with it. Neither city of residence nor marital status is relevant. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

See my comments. This is not just any BLP. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
This article isn't a BLP, biography of a living person, it's an article about a shooting and Wilson wasn't married at the time of the shooting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLP applies to any article or portion of an article that presents detailed biographical information about a living person. The references above were to the "mini-BLP" for Wilson contained within this article. Dwpaul Talk 19:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I was responding to Isaidnoway's comment, "Mentioning one's marital status in a BLP is pretty standard info " which isn't a WP:BLP issue. Here again is what I wrote, "This article isn't a BLP, biography of a living person, it's an article about a shooting and Wilson wasn't married at the time of the shooting." Regarding your point that WP:BLP applies to mini-BLPs, I agree but again that wasn't the issue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Note that the if there is a civil suit filed against him, his new wife would not be able to be called as a witness. Let's be clear: Wilson has had the opportunity to get good lawyers that have advised him not only on what to say in his testimony to claim self-defense ("Brown had his right hand on his belt below the shirt", which only Wilson testifying on that, no other witnesses) but also on how to manage his personal affairs. Nothing wrong with it, but relevant indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Your line of reasoning assumes that Wilson's lawyers believe that his now-wife possesses some knowledge that could be damaging to Wilson in court. I see no way to introduce this information to the article without engaging in speculation or synthesis and creating that implication when currently no evidence for it has been presented. We should not include it just because someone somewhere might suspect that she could be called some day as a witness. Dwpaul Talk 20:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Speculation aside, it is being reported and for a reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Whatever the reason, the above discussion indicates that the item isn't appropriate for the article, based on information available so far. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel, this is precisely the type of novel synthesis of published material that I have warned you against countless times, do you even care? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, "The communications privilege begins on marriage, and cannot be invoked to protect confidential communications between now-married spouses that occurred prior to their marriage."[6] So according to this, getting married wouldn't have helped Wilson if there was something incriminating that he had told his wife before they were married. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's info from a collateral source, "For the privilege to attach, the communication must have been made during a valid marriage."[7] --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
He didn't "get involved with" he was assaulted. And he apparently was seeing the woman for at least 8 months, we have no idea when they got engaged, or when their wedding was originally scheduled for. This info tells us nothing about him, and certainly doesn't tell us what you wrote in your original edit. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. We are not here to speculate just to describe facts as reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Shall we report the mean annual precipitation in Luxembourg, too? No, because it's not relevant. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Page unprotection requests at Wikipedia:Help Desk

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

From what I can see, responding editors chose to waste their own time. The responses could have been shorter and easier, and could have been copied-and-pasted from one section to the next:
This is the Wikipedia Help desk, which is for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. Issues such as yours should be discussed on the article's talk page. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

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

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

Follow up to the RfC - the infoboxes

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

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

I agree that they did not offer anything of serious value to the article, especially considering the length of the sections for each. However, if there are fair use pictures of both I think this discussion should be revisited. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. After this discussion and RfC I noticed the pair of infoboxes in Shooting of Trayvon Martin. That would be a good model for this article as well. – JBarta (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes for guidance. Here's the first sentence from that guideline.
"An infobox template is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section, (in the desktop view) or at the very top of an article (in mobile view), that summarizes key features of the page's subject."
It looks like an infobox is meant to be used for an article, rather than a section in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Correction... usually meant. – JBarta (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The "usually" in the sentence was referring to the position of the infobox, not its content, which is described at the end of the sentence, "summarizes key features of the page's subject". --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

In case anyone missed it, a user Bdel555 added that about 13 hours after your comments. Some time after that, I removed it on NPOV grounds. If RS reported an incident two years ago when Brown shoved a girl, I would oppose inclusion of that for the same reason. I'm not 100% confident on this, which is why I encouraged the user to take it to talk. Btw, I don't see any reason why an exclusive from a reliable source would be prohibited, that fact wouldn't make it any less reliable. Btw #2, I note that the home page of thefreethoughtproject.com includes a convenient index to all their articles that have negative things to say about cops. "Police Throw 3-Year-Old in Jail Cell After Arresting Mother." Very impressive. I wouldn't want them and The Guardian to be my only sources for something like this. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it should stay out. The facts about that earlier arrest are unclear (What was the cause of the incident? Are we sure the "failure to comply" was about filming as opposed to a lawful order?), and in any event, I don't see the relevance to the Michael Brown shooting or the question of whether Wilson was justified in using lethal force. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that it should be left out. Has nothing to do with the shooting and whether it was justified or not. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

@Bdell555: So fix it. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I was not about to add back material with three clear "votes" against, but I'm going to read your take, and that of the original poster, as partial to inclusion, so together with my own view (by the way, I'm the one who added Brown's theft to the "Shooting" section, so it's not like I think only one party's history here is notable) I take it as reasonable to re-add until there is another comment here addressing 1) exclusively having the "commendation" stuff and 2) the relevance of the question of how accurate Wilson's report about the video-ed incident was.
I'll add here that there's a lot more about Wilson that is still left unsaid, e.g. had an unstable childhood with his mother remarrying 3 times (and her being convicted of financial crimes), himself divorced last year, his former department, Jennings, was disbanded over race relations problems and a corruption scandal, many accusing felons are now walking right back into the community because Wilson has been a no show at any of their court appearances since the shooting, etc. Yet the Washington Post is reporting this stuff... and "old video surfaced of an officer who looked like Wilson threatening to arrest a man who was videotaping him" as well.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It's called NPOV. You'll also note that we report that someone said Brown "didn't cause trouble" and was "a gentle giant", and that he was scheduled to start trade school in a few days, things that could also be called "fluff". There's a balance already there, and you don't balance a brief mention of a commendation with a 116-word paragraph on an unrelated incident from 2013. Your POV is showing here, clearly evident in your final paragraph, and you go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize adding the paragraph back (for example, "So fix it", without an accompanying argument, doesn't count for much, but you gave it full weight). Even after your rationalization, you still only have a 3-3 tie, which is not a consensus for change, and thus you rationalize twice. Frankly, it's stunning from someone at your level of experience. I'm not going to edit war with you, so I ask that you please remove this content again. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Usually I would have more patience on something like this. But I think it will be especially important to be as neutral as possible just after the no bill is announced. If I'm awake and around when that happens (I have irregular sleep hours), I will remove this content if it's still there. I hope Bdel555 does the responsible thing before then. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Noting consensus or the absence thereof is not "rationalization" in the pejorative way you use that term, it's a reason why it is unreasonable to take a "my way or the highway" take on this and imply another editor is being disruptive (or ir"responsible") by adding back well sourced material you deleted. Reasonable people can disagree about this, which is why I have given time for more community input. Reasonable people, however, provide reasons, not just opinions. I am not calling here for the inclusion of "gentle giant". That is not the issue here. The issue here is the continued lack of any substantive argument for suppressing material that the Guardian, the Washington Post, and others have found notable besides that it doesn't flatter the shooter in this incident as if that automatically means a NPOV violation. I should note that the other opinions calling for deletion are equally poorly substantiated in terms of actual argument as opposed to hand waving about "NPOV" where NPOV is defined to be whatever the hand waver claims it to be. To quote policy (always a good idea when there is a disagreement), "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments".
NPOV means we do not try to push any particular POV on the reader about this subject. We instead follow the lead of the Guardian and WaPo and we present the facts, and do not spin them because you perceive them as negative or unflattering. Wikipedia is not a public relations platform. I will now ask you again to address my concern that we have possible reason here to question Wilson's reliability and thus readers should be informed of that so that they can draw their own conclusions instead of Wikipedia editors deciding for them that Wilson's account should be presented very extensively (ie a LOT more than the 116 word limit you seem to see as a trigger threshold for excessive) without any hint that RS like the Guardian have questioned his credibility. Our job is provide accurate information to readers, not spin it, and to anyone arguing WP:RS to call for deletion, I would say it is unreasonable to contend that the scans of Wilson's report, or the video, are faked. You say this incident is "unrelated". No, it is not. It goes to both Wilson's credibility and how he reacts. It's certainly more related than how many people live in Crestwood, yet I don't see you complaining about that. If you want this material excluded, then explain just why it is that something deemed unflattering should be excluded instead of just defining NPOV as the inclusion of unflattering material. If the article was a giant hit piece against Wilson, we'd have a NPOV problem. We'd also have a NPOV problem if all reliably sourced material that Wilson would presumably want excluded was excluded. Is there anything else in this article Wilson would want removed? Unflattering material about Brown ("robbery" is mentioned 19 times in the article) is certainly not being excluded. Calling for the exclusion of negative material (by implying that having even just this 1.2% of the article referring to negative material about the shooter would be WP:UNDUE) is, in fact, the exact opposite of maintaining neutrality.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
From the police report, here is what the Failure to Comply was about.[8]
”Arman was then escorted to my patrol vehicle, #108, where he was seated in the rear seat. I then advised Arman that he was under arrest for Failure to Comply, as he refused to comply with all the requests needed in order to complete the summons process.”
--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
And whether this is true or not is disputed since there is reason to believe that the "request" was to stop recording and that stopping recording was not, in fact, "needed in order to complete the summons process.” One can deliver a summons while being recorded. But no one associated with Wikipedia need to come to a conclusion one way or another about that as readers inclined to take Wilson's claim at face value are free to do so. We should not be denying readers not inclined to take Wilson's claim at face value the opportunity to become skeptical. Skepticism about Wilson's claims would not be an issue if Wilson's claims about another event were not being repeated in the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears that The Guardian article is getting from the police report the information about what Arman was charged with. The article says, "Arman, 30, was charged with failing to comply with Wilson’s orders." It is consistent with what was in the police report, "I then advised Arman that he was under arrest for Failure to Comply, as he refused to comply with all the requests needed in order to complete the summons process." --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

We were discussing what Arman was charged with. Let's try to finish that before continuing on another aspect. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Brian Dell, Just a reminder of my above response to you. Did you want to continue our discussion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure. What question would you like me to answer? May I first ask just what edit to the article you would like to see? "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shooting of Michael Brown article." Is it not a waste of time to talk about Arman being charged with "failure to comply" with when nobody has introduced into the article, or has proposed introducing, any particular claim about what Arman was charged with?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Re your comment "Is it not a waste of time to talk about Arman being charged with "failure to comply" with when nobody has introduced into the article, or has proposed introducing, any particular claim about what Arman was charged with?” — No because your edit implied that Arman was charged with failure to comply for not stopping his video recording. Here's the excerpt from your edit:[9] "A video later emerged of Wilson standing near his vehicle telling the resident on his front porch, 'If you wanna take a picture of me one more time, I’m gonna lock your ass up.' Wilson subsequently advanced to the porch to arrest the resident while insisting that the resident did not have a right to record.” --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
No, it does not necessarily imply that. Wilson could be of the view that there was a "failure to comply" with some other instruction of his that was off camera. The edit does not rule out this possibility so why are you? If, in your view, something between those quotes must, as matter of logical necessity, be factually false because something is necessarily implied that is indisputably false, please spell out for us just what it is that is indisputably false. If your contention is rather (the more comprehensible objection) that I am misrepresenting the Guardian by creating an implication the Guardian did not, I already addressed that above (but you called that off topic).--Brian Dell (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I oppose your edit because it has a false implication per my previous remarks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You're saying, if A then B, but not B, therefore not A, right? First of all, where's your proof of "not B"? I would advise you to keep WP:NOR in mind when attempting to assemble that proof. Secondly, it isn't necessarily an if A then B situation anyway, because if could be if A then C.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Your accusation of bad faith on my part is completely bogus. You reverted me and declined to raise the matter on the Talk page for discussion before you reverted me. It is not true that I was editing against consensus while you were editing consistent with consensus. You did not know what consensus was when you reverted me. And consensus remains disputed, in my view. I do have some experience, yes, experience with editors who take a "consensus" of the sort you called a "3-3 tie" and then manipulate that into something they think is solid enough and strong enough to just start shoving on instead of addressing the pros and cons of the edit in question. The ball is in the court of those calling for exclusion, and absent a Talk page response that addresses the specific reasons for inclusion that have been given, editors should not be intimidated into not editing by other editors who are not engaging in discussion. This page is for discussion of the edit, and in your last response here, you've refused to engage in that discussion, or answer the specific points I put to you, instead trying to make this about an editor instead of about the edit in question. if you don't have the time or the inclination to discuss this, then you don't have the time to edit war over it.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you aware of the concept of de facto consensus? De facto consensus before you showed up was without that content. It remained for 6 hours before I removed it, and 6 hours does not establish a new de facto consensus. That's less than a decent night's sleep for most of us. I'm sorry, but you're playing a very weak hand here, Brian. I couldn't count the number of times I've had to just give up on something because I couldn't force anyone to talk to me about it. It sucks, but it's Wikipedia. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I previously complained about your defining NPOV to suit your purposes but the way you've just defined consensus is self-serving in spades. I presume this is why you just now deleted this, yet again, a mere TWO MINUTES after it was added. Because every minute that goes by strengthens the "de facto consensus" in favour of keeping it? And you clearly can't have that! How about giving it a chance to find "de facto consensus" like I've been giving your edits? ie 24 hours. If no one else removes it during that time, maybe Wikipedia doesn't need your deletion services as badly as you think they do. For the record, I'll note that another editor appeared on your user Talk page to question your deletion of this material, an inclusion opinion you have not disclosed here in your claims about what the consensus is.
I take it that "the number of times I've had to just give up on something" doesn't include many cases of edit warring because you don't seem to be at all willing to stop THAT (and instead address, substantively, why we should not include what the WaPo, the Guardian, FOX News,, USA Today, etc all include. What else about Wilson is not notable, in your books? You disagree with Erik Wemple that "That Wilson would be absenting himself from official court testimony while shopping his story around to TV network types is enormous news"? If we can't nention that either just what are we allowed to say about this guy?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
We clearly have very different ideas about what's correct procedure, so I'll bow out and let you resolve this with others. If they feel less strongly about it, fine. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This is the second time you've brought up the fact that Wilson hasn't appeared to testify as the arresting officer in other cases he's been involved with. I don't see how that is relevant in any way to the Michael Brown incident, especially given the facts that Wilson is the subject of a criminal homicide investigation and also some death threats. That and a whole host of really tangential points you mentioned previously, like Wilson's mother's marital status, only serves to question your NPOV further IMHO. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I don't believe that in this case the text (as opposed to one of the citations) was deleted because of a "BLP objection". At least I do not recall BLP being cited as the reason. My comments about BLP were more about a hypothetical than anything.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think this piece should be added back in to maintain a NPOV for the article. It is relevant to the shooter's background and has been reported in the news as a presumably relevant event. Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It's been a few days without comment on this - has this been resolved by the (apparent) removal of the content on Wilson's "commendation"? I don't see the content Bdell555 mentions. I'm not sure the short video clip provides enough context and informational value to be relevant here, but if it's not resolved, and the issue is about the length of the proposed addition and POV concerns based on that, would some more concise version of the addition be more acceptable? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson: "Dorian Johnson was wearing a black shirt"

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

While I am not sure if it is relevant or not to your specific question, but it is known that Johnson changed his shirt immediately after the shooting. He mentions this in his testimony, and I believe in some of his media interviews immediately after, you can see him holding the other shirt. It appears to me that he was wearing both a black and a white shirt at some point, but that may or may not be relevant to Wilson's identification. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Johnson is seen wearing a black t-shirt in the surveillance video. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Questionable Content

This was/is being discussed elsewhere on the talk page; let's try not to create multiple sections for it eh? Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The article already has more than 250 citations, and more are being added daily. If there is a specific article or other source you think should be used to add to this article, please mention it here, but this article does not suffer from a lack of citation of a variety of sources, nor have any reliable sources been intentionally excluded from it. Note, however, that Tumblr is not a reliable source. Dwpaul Talk 03:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I think all those folks who "like this" should spend more time actually reading the article and the sources that back it up than what gets passed back and forth on social media. Another source of useful information is the talk page behind the article (not immediately apparent on a mobile device however). Sometimes getting at the "real truth" requires a little more effort than simply re-tweeting something you heard. That said, the bit about time stamps is interesting. I wonder where that came from? – JBarta (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Haven't investigated it, but I wouldn't expect that the inexpensive surveillance systems usually used by this kind of small business are necessarily going to use ntp or some other method of automatically ensuring the internal clock is correct. If time shown for both cameras is consistent, most likely it is VCR syndrome (i.e., the proprietor never set the clock correctly). Dwpaul Talk 03:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
My mistake. I didn't notice the video had a time stamp. It does. The older I get, the more dimwitted I become. – JBarta (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article's claims despite disputes in evidence

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

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

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

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

Johnson himself has stated that Brown robbed the store; we know that this happened. Everyone involved agrees to this - Wilson, Johnson, the physical evidence, the video evidence, the phone call to the police from the store, and the description of the people involved matching Johnson and Brown.
The person who called the police about the strongarm robbery was a customer in the store. The descriptions of the two suspects - which matched Johnson and Brown - went out prior to the shooting.
Conspiracy theories spread by people on social media websites are not reliable sources of information, and indeed, everyone agrees that the footage was of the incident. The footage says 8, not 6.
People whined about the forensics on the crime scene. People always whine about forensics. And the sad reality is that the police screw up forensics all the time - see also the OJ Simpson case. The idea that there was some sort of grand conspiracy is a conspiracy theory with zero evidence behind it. The fact of the matter is that the events took place in a bad part of town, and a "hostile crowd" had gathered after the incident took place. Wilson washed his hands because he was worried that he would get some sort of bloodborne disease from the blood all over his hands. He had never shot anyone on the job before, and it is clear that everyone involved was not really totally on top of things.
Wilson's injuries were sufficiently severe that his supervisor felt it was necessary for him to go to the hospital, and Wilson testified that he felt close to passing out after being punched in the head repeatedly - the only possible source on that is Wilson, but there's not any evidence to the contrary, and the grand jury felt that the preponderance of evidence suggests that Wilson used appropriate force. As does every competent legal analyst. It is basic self-defense law; if someone is beating you to that point, they represent a lethal threat to your well-being.
Brown's hand was within an inch of Wilson's gun, at such an angle that his fingers must have been extremely close to if not actually touching the gun at the time his hand was shot, which is consistent with Brown having gone for Wilson's gun; there is blood on the gun, as well as flesh in the car and gunpowder residue on the wound on Brown's hand. The grand jury agreed. Again, every competent legal analyst has pointed out that the police have wide latitude in use of force, and that the evidence that Brown's hand was within an inch of the gun at the time he his hand was shot, and that his hand was very likely on the gun at the time, not only corroborated Wilson's story, but justified the use of lethal force against Brown. You can't just speculate about other things - you have to prove that Brown didn't do that. That's the standard in court. The most likely cause of Brown's hand being within an inch of Wilson's gun is that he had tried to grab the weapon; any other cause is considerably less likely. It doesn't matter what actually happened - what matters is what can be proved. And the fact of the matter is that the grand jury found that the preponderance of evidence pointed against the idea that Wilson had committed any crime. This was, in fact, exactly why legal analysts said for months that Wilson was not going to be indicted - once the evidence about the hand wound came out, that was pretty much the end of it for them, because they knew that barring evidence that there was not a struggle for his gun and that something else had caused Wilson's hand to be so close to the gun when it was discharged that there was no way that they could come to any other conclusion.
This is Wikipedia. It is our job to report accurate, correct, verifiable information to the public. People on Tumblr are free to lie about what happened. They have the first amendment right to do so, so long as they are not attempting to incite people to commit some crime. But don't trust some guy on Tumblr. IIRC, all the evidence the grand jury got is publicly available at this point. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Titanium Dragon: Amen! Amen! Amen! Thanks for being a voice of reason. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It is our job to report report accurate, correct, verifiable information. Not sure I agree with you, because "correct and accurate" is not what the core content policies of Wikipedia speak about. Our role is to report what reliable sources say in a manner that can be verified, regardless if the source is correct or accurate. It may be counter intuitive, but that is how Wikipedia works. We present facts and opinions as reported by reliable sources, period. - Cwobeel (talk)
I think you're a bit confused about Wikipedia policy, Cwobeel; I'd take another gander at WP:V and WP:RS. The purpose of these policies to try and ensure that information on Wikipedia is verifiable, accurate, and correct as much as possible. Verifiability is the single most important standard because if you can't even do that, then how are you going to gauge its accuracy or correctness? Our goal is to be all three of those things whenever possible. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
On a side note, your comment the fact of the matter is that the grand jury found that the preponderance of evidence pointed against the idea that Wilson had committed any crime means that you are not well versed on how grand juries work, which is very different than in a trial. What the grand jury had to do is just to find probable cause that a crime was committed and that has nothing to do with preponderance of evidence. These are very different standards. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd recommend re-reading the probable cause article, @Cwobeel:; to find probable cause, you must have a preponderance of evidence which suggests that a crime has been committed. Probable cause uses the preponderance of evidence standard. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
the phone call to the police from the store the store owner and his lawyer both have asserted that no member of staff made a phone call to the police from the store after the incident. As a side note, I'm not completely trusting 'evidence' from the Ferguson police, considering they're the ones who are under scrutiny and would wish to protect their image. Another thing, if Micheal Brown's hand touched that gun, why was no fingerprint test run? Wilson's injuries were sufficiently severe that his supervisor felt it was necessary for him to go to the hospital And said hospital claimed there was no evidence of anything to be alarmed about. While there was an altercation, I doubt Wilson's 'injuries' would be so small and light if he had been repeatedly punched in the face by someone 6'4 and much heavier than him.
The fact is, making conclusive statements on the article about allegations which have not been proven concretely is detrimental to its construction and validity. At the very least, it should be said that these are claims with disputing evidence, and not facts. A mention of the opposing evidence in the article would also be important. As Cwobeel said above: Our role is to report what reliable sources say in a manner that can be verified, regardless if the source is correct or accurate. It may be counter intuitive, but that is how Wikipedia works. We present facts and opinions as reported by reliable sources, period. 92.20.206.49 (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thing is, by definition, if a source is presenting factually incorrect information, then it means that the source was poorly fact-checked. Poor fact-checking is a sign that a source isn't reliable. While we may quote sources which contain inaccurate information for their opinions, we don't use them for factual information. This is why the Shape of the Earth article does not indicate that the Earth is flat, and why Evolution is presented as fact - because it is.
As far as assertions - I already noted what happened above. Please read my post. And as for "why was no fingerprint test run" - I know a lot of people don't know anything about fingerprints, but in real life, not fantasyland (i.e. CSI), fingerprints are surprisingly rare. If you touch something, chances are good you aren't going to leave behind useful, usable fingerprints. Also, I'm not sure if I've seen any assertion that a fingerprint test was not run on the gun; it may have been.
As for your doubts - his face was swollen. When I was a kid, I got punched a number of times and never really suffered any visible damage from them at all. Most punches aren't actually going to leave a mark at all; getting hit hard enough to actually show damage indicates that they weren't light punches. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson city of residence

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

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

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

I don't think the location of his residence is relevant or has anything to do with the shooting itself. Inclusion of the location of his residence is an undue weight and not encyclopedic. Therefore, that should be removed. Z22 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Wilson's city of residence is unnecessary information. As editors it's not our job to pack the article with every bit of infomation we can find, but only what is needed for the reader to gain a thorough understanding of the subject. Unless someone can explain why Wilson's city of residence is necessary to understand the Shooting of Michael Brown, it can be left out as unnecessary clutter. – JBarta (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Where Wilson lives is entirely irrelevant to the events here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_18&oldid=1155492073"