Talk:Atlanta Eagle police raid

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Atlanta Eagle police raid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 03:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• "due to anonymous tips alleging that illegal drug use and sex was occurring at the bar" — Is this not disputed? What about the concealed weapons allegation?
  • From what I understand, the discussion of concealed weapons was brought up by police following the raid. In the section "Citizen review board", the concealed weapons allegations were given to explain why the patrons were searched, but not why the police were there in the first place.
• "These employees were later released and either had their cases dismissed or were found not guilty." — What about the no-show/bench warrant?
  • Added information on the eighth employee to the lede.
• "In 2015, the city was subject to another lawsuit" — Was this a new lawsuit, or a continuation of the earlier one?
  • Rephrased this section of the lede.
• "The raid is one of several police raids on LGBT venues and has drawn comparisons to the 1969 police raid on the Stonewall Inn which caused the Stonewall riots, a pivotal moment in LGBT history." — Same comment as at the very end ("Overall"). This sounds like a bit of an academic analysis, but what is the raid's cultural significance?
  • I'm not sure of the lasting cultural significance of the raid, I just saw that several sources compared the raid to the Stonewall riots.

Atlanta Eagle

• "The bar was notable ... it was the only" — was or is?
  • I found several articles from October of last year stating that the Eagle was closing by that year's end and would relocate, though unfortunately I haven't been able to find too much additional information on its operational status as of now. I used the past tense throughout the first section, but if you feel I should change that, please let me know.
• "In 2020, the Georgia Trust placed the Eagle and Kodak buildings on its annual list of Places in Peril." — Why?
  • Added additional information on why the buildings were added to the list.
• What's the status of the bar as of 2021?
  • As stated earlier, unfortunately I haven't been able to find reliable reporting on the status of the Eagle at the current time.

Police raid

• "According to the Atlanta Police Department, the "idea was to pressure drug dealers, users and criminals associated with drug violence"." — Quotation needs an inline citation.
  • Added inline citation.
• "The Red Dog Unit had been called in as backup after the raid started." — Any idea why?
  • Added information where the lead investigator stated the unit was called in for safety reasons.
• "while they were leaving the parking lot" — Does "they" mean the patrons, or the police?
  • The source is a bit ambiguous, with the full quote from that source stating, One police officer stated, as he and others left the parking lot, “This is gonna keep happening if we keep getting complaints from the community.” The officer did not specify what complaints he was referring to. As a result, I did not feel comfortable enough saying exactly who the "they" was referring to.
• "At the time of the raid, there were 62 patrons at the bar." — This might be better at the top, where the article discusses the number of officers.
  • Moved sentence to top of the section.
• "Shortly after the raid, sources varied ..." — Ditto.
  • Turned this sentence into a footnote near the top of the section.

Cause of the raid

• "A day following the raid, an article in the alternative newspaper The Stranger reported" — Assuming the link is correct, this is a Seattle paper? I would add that to the article, otherwise the natural reading is that it's an Atlanta (or nearby) paper.
  • Done.
• "Several days later ... According to the article ..." — These sentences cover the same ground and could probably be trimmed and combined.
  • Merged sentences.
• Any word on who lodged the complaints?
  • Added information on how the complaints were lodged anonymously.
• Some of the details are hazy (number of officers, reason for the raid, etc.). Was there ever an "official" report which put any of those issues to rest? (Of course, "official" reports can themselves be suspect.)
  • Unfortunately, many of the sources I found are hazy on the details, and I don't believe I was able to find an official report on the raid.

Aftermath

• "two city councilmembers contacted a judge who set bail for them, sparing them from spending a weekend in jail" — Any more details on this? The pre-weekend political involvement here seems somewhat fast, given that the raid was on Thursday night, and the protests began on Sunday.
  • Unfortunately, I think only the source I have there talks about the two city council candidates, and unfortunately it does not give their names or any further information.

Lawsuit

• The caption of the image is confusing, in that it doesn't specify what trial Kasim Reed was mayor during
  • Reed was mayor during all subsequent legal occurrences covered in this article. I've edited the caption to clarify.
• "false imprisonment, assault, battery and trespassing" — Quotation needs inline citation
  • Done.
• " 48 other officers who were present during the raid ... of the 20 to 30 officers involved in the raid" — Contradiction.
  • Related to your previous discussion on hazy details, both of these claims come from the same source here, which reads' The suit, filed by the gay-rights group Lambda Legal, names Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington and 48 officers who were at the Atlanta Eagle bar the night of September 10. "The Atlanta Police Department dispatched about 20 to 30 officers to the Atlanta Eagle, including its 'Red Dog' unit dressed in SWAT team gear," according to a statement from Lambda Legal. "But inside the bar, the APD found no public sex, no drugs or illegal weapons." No patrons were charged with any crime, the organization said. I'm not sure the best way to reconcile these somewhat contradictory details, but I'm definitely open to amending that sentence as need be.
    • Perhaps part of it is in the difference between "at the bar" and "dispatched ... to the [bar]" (emphases mine)? It could be a distinction between those who came earlier and those who came later. In any event, I've edited the article to include the word "dispatched" instead of "involved in". --Usernameunique (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• "3 found not guilty and 4 having the charges against them dropped" — Any word on why some had the charges dropped and others didn't? Jury or bench trial?
  • Unfortunately, the sources are unclear as to why there was a difference between the individuals here.
• "One employee was not present at the trial and a bench warrant was issued for him." — Any word on what happened to him?
  • I have been unable to find further information on the individual.

Citizen review board

• What is a citizen review board? What authority does it have?
  • Added footnote describing the board and its authority.
• "and the supervisors who had approved of the raid" — Fragment.
  • Fixed sentence fragment.
• "Additionally, the review board noted that the officers' rationale for searching the bar patrons on the night of the raid was that several undercover officers had previously entered the bar with concealed weapons without being checked by any security at the bar, leading them to believe that it were possible that other people in the bar had weapons on them." — So the purported reason wasn't drug use and/or public sex?
  • I added information given in this sentence to the "Cause of the raid" section. From what I gather, undercover investigators were there already on suspicion of illicit activity, but the suspicion that certain patrons may have had concealed weapons is what lead to the searching of each individual patron.
• "since joining the APD" — When did he join?
  • Added year.

Allegations of withheld information

• It sounds like the judge never ruled on the spoliation issue before the settlement?
  • I don't believe I was able to find any sources aside from the ones included in the article that discuss a ruling on the tampering, unfortunately.

Settlement

• "These changes are primarily concerned with police conduct during raids and detainment of individuals." — This belongs in the next section, no?
  • I included it in this section because the changes themselves were a part of the settlement, but I go into more detail on the specific changes in the next section.
• "filed a complaint with Atlanta's municipal clerk" — A lawsuit, or something else?
  • Unfortunately, again, the source that goes over this information is a bit hazy and only refers to it as a "complaint".

Changes to the police

• "42 violations of police procedures involving 26 officers during the raid ... The city's report found 27 officers involved in 75 violations" — Any word on why the different numbers?
  • Honestly, I don't know why the numbers are different between the two reports, and unfortunately the sources don't discuss the reason(s) for the discrepancy.
• Generally speaking (for the article as a whole), numbers twelve and under should be spelled out.
  • Done.
    • I should have mentioned one abstruse caveat that was recently pointed out to me: "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32." I've changed this in the two places I noticed it, although there may be another example or two still in the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• What's Project Q Atlanta?
  • Added information on Project Q Atlanta

Subsequent lawsuits

• "it was reported" — Passive voice. Who reported it?
  • Fixed.

Overall

• This article is in good shape, and the comments above tend to be minor. Has the raid has taken on particular significance within the Atlanta (or broader) LGBTQ community, in the same way that Stonewall has? If so, that should be added to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Usernameunique, thanks for starting this review and sorry for the late reply, I've been preoccupied irl this past week but should address your concerns and requests over the weekend. Thanks again! -JJonahJackalope (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Usernameunique, terribly sorry for the delay in addressing these concerns, but I believe I have gone through all your requests and have addressed them satisfactorily. Thank you again for starting this review, and if there are any further comments or concerns you have regarding the article, please reach out to me. Thanks, JJonahJackalope (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
    • JJonahJackalope, my time to apologize for the delay in responding! Having finally taken another look, the article looks great; nice work on it. I've left a few very minor comments above, and am passing now. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)