Jump to content

Talk:Maurice Clemmons/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Death details

So where did the final bullet(s) that killed Clemmons hit? In the head? In the gut? The chest? I'm hoping it was the head. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.16.201 (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Hope for the gut...a slower death... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.166 (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate Maurice Clemmons page

Although there is already a Lakewood police officer shooting page, I've started a separate one for Maurice Clemmons. (Previously there was a redirect here to that page.) Normally I would probably condone one for just the event, but there is clearly already enough in Clemmons' past to establish notability prior to the shooting. Specifically, his many crimes prior to the shooting, and the commuted sentence by Mike Huckabee. — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, just about everyone in any prison has "many prior crimes" and being pardoned by a governor alone doesn't mean someone is notable. I don't see any notability here outside of the police officer shootings, so I'd think a merge would be in order eventually. But I'm all for letting the dust settle before trying to do anything... this is still breaking news. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, this page is now linked to on the front page of Google news. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hunter Kahn, you have done so much wonderful work on this - of course it's OK as its own article. I created the redirect because I saw his name in the news, but your awesome work definitely justifies this as its own article. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! Grundle2600 (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I love you! ... do I get a thank you too? Anyways. Depends. His previous crimes aren't too run-of-the-mill, so he might deserve his own page. Depends on what conforms during this investigation for Clemmens. Leonnatus (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If anything, I would actually vote to merge the police shooting article into this one, or leave them separate. Argel1200 (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • The more I work on this page, the more I'm convicted that Clemmons warrants his own article. However, I'm not at all opposed to having a separate article about the shooting. While the scope of this page is simply Clemmons, the shooting article can cover other aspects such as the victims, the manhunt, the political ramifications, the Huckabee thing, etc. If we try to merge them, I think the one combined article would get weighed down and the scope would be messed up. — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent mugshot

You may add this to the page if you wish, it is the most recent mugshot I could find of him. http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/11/29/image5828938x.jpg Dbrown1986 (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Detailed criminal history in Washington state since May 2009

A detailed criminal history in Washington state since May 2009 is articulated in this article from The Seattle Times: Four days in May set stage for Sunday's tragedy. Includes some of the Arkansas history also. N2e (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • This article was extremely helpful, thanks for pointing it out. The Seattle Times has had the best coverage by far of the shooting and of Clemmons, so it will be a good first point of reference as progress on this article continues... — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Condition of parole

Does anybody know that a condition of parole for Maurice Clemmons was that he had to leave the state? This is what happened in Wayne Dumond's case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.211.137 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a page for the victims?

I see this massive page about the despicable life of Maurice Clemmons, and I feel like we ought to write something about the officers who were killed as well. I'm not saying a lot, maybe just a stub about their lives, the fact that they died in this murder, and a few comments by their family members from various press articles. I know it is standard fare in the media to sensationalize the murderer and ignore the victims, but Wikipedia is better than that. In any case, I feel if the upstanding lives of these officers are not notable enough to warrant an article, the disgusting history of Clemmons is also not notable and should be merged with the article about the murders. Wikilost (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I would suggest rather than making a separate page about them, you expand the information about them at the Victims section of the Lakewood police officer shooting page. (I had actually been planning on doing the same myself down the road.) You could try to make individual pages about each of the four, but I have a feel they would be challenged on notability and WP:NOTMEMORIAL grounds, as sad as that is. (Personally, I would support those articles, not challenge them, but I'm only one Wikipedian.) And in any event, you're more likely to get visitor traffic at the "Lakewood police officer shooting" page anyway. (By the way, I can direct you to a few sources I've seen about Mark Renninger: here, here and here.) — Hunter Kahn (c) 07:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, regarding your statements about Clemmons, rather than viewing it as sensationalizing a murderer, I prefer to see it is as documenting the actions of a horrible and sick individual so that society might learn from his mistakes. Like George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." — Hunter Kahn (c) 07:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kahn. This isn't about sensationalism at all - this is a disturbing event from a deranged man that, like it or not, deserves attention. For sensationalism, go see Nancy Grace. Surfbruddah (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree on two points. Clemmons is notable in the shooting of the officers and the fact that he was granted clemency by Huckabee. But the article has several long, detailed sections about his high school career, family, and later crimes. Just because the RS's are digging all this crap up doesn't mean it needs to be in the article. So I think one of two things ought to happen: drastically cut down or merge this article or add stub pages for the victims. I think it would be tough to make a case for the victim's notability, but it's tough to make one for an article this size about Clemmons. And for the record, the officers names and small snippets about them have been published in multiple primary sources, which I think could be construed as meeting the basic notability requirement. Wikilost (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I'd like to hear what other Wikipedians have to say on the subject, but I don't think the Clemmons article needs cutting as it is right now. There really isn't a whole lot at all in the way of his high school career and family (in fact, the only mention of his high school career is the name of his high school, and even that's only mentioned in the context of a crime he committed there). Almost the entirety of the article focuses on his crimes, which is appropriate for a criminal biography. Even the information about his family and friends that have been arrested for helping him after the Lakewood shooting is at a minimum right now. Is there anything specific in the article right now that you suggest should be trimmed? — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The main thing I would do is condense. Cut the Early life section down to one or two paragraphs. Is this sentence, for instance, really necessary? "He claimed to be carrying the gun because he was "beaten by dopers", and said he had "something for them" if they attacked him again.[3]" Who cares? I'm sure the media documented this, because when something like this happens they eat that crap up, but do we REALLY need it to advance our understanding of the crimes of Maurice Clemmons? I know this is a fight I'm not going to win though... I defer to your judgment, since you've obviously worked on this article a lot. Wikilost (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
It isn't too long now, and isn't likely to grow much past this point. There are places to cut if it ever reaches significant length. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Clemency proclamation

I was thinking of filing a public information request for the clemency document (can be seen here), scanning it and including in as an image on this article. Would I be able to do that? Is there an image license for including public information that is obtained through an official public info request like that? — Hunter Kahn (c) 07:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Name of officer

According to a Seattle Times law enforcement source the name of the officer is Benjamin L. Kelly. Any reason not to include this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.2.173 (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"The 39-year-old has asked that his name and picture not be publicized" - http://www.king5.com/news/local/Officer-who-shot-Clemmons-hailed-as-a-hero-78291817.html . This is in reference to the officer. You might seriously consider deleting his name from this section and adding a note that the officer wishes that his name and picture not be publicized. ATBS 09:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)ATBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATBS (talk • contribs)

  • I added Benjamin Kelly's name to the article before I saw this on the talk page. I apologize for that, although ultimately, I still think it needs to be included. Kelly may have initially his name not be used, but it's now widely reported public information, and police have been praising him as a hero. The article currently has five sources that identify the name, and there are more than that out there. And even if he still were asking his name not be publicized, Wikipedia has specifically rejected the idea of letting people willingly opt out of Wikipedia coverage of them. Ultimately, he plays an important role in Clemmons' life (and Wikipedia entry) and his name adds significant value to the article. — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Wikpedia does not censor "upon request", directly or indirectly, and if the reliable sources have his name, there's no reason wikipedia shouldn't have include it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
      • A general policy of no censorship at all is irresponsible. I can't speak to whether it's Wikipedia's policy to have no censorship at all. I am not comfortable with each source saying that some other reliable source leaked a certain piece of information - it must have come from somewhere originally. And if Wikipedia is intended to be a force for opening information to the public, then contributing to this kind of communal blame for leaking information would seem to go against that, because it obscures the information of who actually leaked the information. That's my two cents. I have no idea what happened in this specific case. If the information is widely available now, then the point isn't gonna make much difference to this specific case. ATBS 11:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)ATBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATBS (talk • contribs)

here is a source http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412791_kelly01.html 72.155.225.239 (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Maurice Clemmons/Archive 1/GA1

Is the photo of the body necessary?

The picture of his dead body does not seem necessary for wikipedia. It seems to be better suited for the underbelly of the internet.

Will somebody please think of the children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.23.229 (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I can agree, but for some reason I find it funny96.250.83.177 (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

South American reporters expose bodies in the street. Watered down and out of Reality in the U. S. A., censorial claiming reporters are well developed to witness what they edit out, how Healthy did you want you and children to be? -- Thomas D. T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.124.106 (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fugitive Wanted by the United States Category

It was fitting that Clemmons was in that category, but should he still be there now that he has died? Oftentimes when a fugitive dies the authorities call it off. USN1977 (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maurice_Clemmons/Archive_1&oldid=1136255590"