Talk:Death of Malice Green

Copyright?

attempt @ new non-infringment page? good enough? I mean, for a stub? zro / 134.215.226.37 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.226.37 (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2005 (UTC)

• I replaced the white nationalist article with a link to the source. Wikipedia is not a soapboax. Sietse 09:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No such thing as routine

As you can clearly see from this article alone anything can happen on a vehicle stop. I don't knw how, but I suggest we remove the word routine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willisjm (talk • contribs) 16:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article's tone seems NPOV, it also needs citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.113.248 (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree. This article fails to mention the subsequent jury convictions of the two officers. It makes it sound like Malice Green's death was of his own making, when we have concrete evidence (ie. the convictions) that it wasn't. It's far from neutral as I see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj watson (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for Not Smoking

I just watched "Thank You for Not Smoking". The end of the movie used news footage from the Malice Green Murder trial to portray the tobacco executives in court, related to their billion dollar settlements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4ever29 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Request for editing

This badly needs to be edited. It's extremely racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.88.22 (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Scope of riot

I'm not so sure where the author got their sources, but the 1967 Detroit riot was actually not the worst riot in American history before the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Additionally, even the 1943 Detroit riots were worse in scale than the 1967 riots. Numerous other race riots supersede the 1967 Detroit riots, including the 1964 Watts riots. We need more confirmation on numbers and facts before sweepingly asserting that the 1967 Detroit riots were the worst in American history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.89.134 (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

mea culpa

I was / am 207.75.224.89. I did this work while a newbie.

I'm the one who moved the tone of the piece from the very racially charged tone to one that was, hopefully, more objective.

The riot scope assertions, as I recall, were already there. I don't think that these are important to the article, and therefore probably can be removed.

Tim Wohlford tim@wohlford.net Twohlford 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

While Dr. Baden is a "paid expert" in the sense that he doesn't work for free, but it seems as though this fact is stated (twice!) to undermine his credibility, along with linking him to OJ Simpson. Also, it is responsible to look beyond the body itself to draw conclusions about the death. For example, the window for the time of death can be narrowed if the deceased was seen alive at some in that window. Does anyone have any suggestions for editing this to be more fair to Dr. Baden?71.63.119.49 21:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This could be taken out of context "Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young came to office shortly after the 1967 Detroit riots" Actually, he became mayor in 1973, which in my definition isn't shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomektampa (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of unsupported crap in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.217.217 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Gomektampa, Care to explain?

Since you're a newb on here, let me explain -- if you see "lots of unsupported crap" then you are the one that changes it. You document as best you can, and others collaborate on the effort.

When I started editing, the article was horrible. For starters, it was horribly slanted -- it might as well have been from a Black Panthers brochure. I re-wrote it, and others chimed in. Together, we thought we had it about right, which is remarkable given all the twists and turns in the case, not to mention the emotions involved.

So, here's my call-out: If you see "crap" then you go ahead and fix stuff. Twohlford 00:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Edited to reflect reality

While it is clear that there were serious questions about the initial convictions of the police officers, they were both convicted in new trials for Green's death. The article was laughably biased with phrases such as "crack head" and statements about "2nd reports" that were intentionally misleading. It has been edited to reflect the controversy more accurately. It was stunning how biased the article was before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraxus rex (talk • contribs) 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would've signed your rant so I could respond to it.Twohlford (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about the "Update" and court documents?

There are two postings of the court opinion from March of 2003 when the conviction of Nevers was originally overturned, however, both appear to be out of place and unnecessary since the overturning of the verdict is mentioned in the Appeals section; in fact, in the second posting of the court's opinion, it is posted in a section that has nothing to do with the appeal. I am not removing the postings since it is obvious Twohlford has done a lot of work on this article and may have posted these for a legitimate reason, however I wanted to point them out in case he did NOT post them, because while informative, as they are currently posted, they do not appear to follow Wiki standards and should be removed. 72.185.43.62 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do it

I didn't add the legal document stuff. I would never add that stuff verbatim like that. In fact, I removed both quotations, which means I've now effectively removed all of the material added by that poster (see earlier deletion). If that person would care to identify themself I'm sure we can discuss ways to make this article better.Twohlford (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Tasers

I removed the reference to Tasers not being available in 1992. They were indeed available and one, in fact, was used on Rodney King in the March, 1991 incident involving him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.83.2 (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dedication from Underground Resistance

Hi, you could mention this release: http://www.discogs.com/Underground-Resistance-Message-To-The-Majors/release/9106 --78.48.34.145 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC) (Gabbahead)

Clarity

First, where are all the citations? Nothing discussing the legal proceedings is cited. Secondly, the reason for the Appeals decision to grant Budzyn a new trial? "Mostly on the grounds of the showing of Malcolm X" is not a legal reason. Did the court find that the officer wasn't given a fair trial? Also, under what circumstances was the jury shown the film Malcolm X? Who exactly "showed" the jury the film? All of this is unclear. Also, the colloquial language in the article should be eliminated, i.e. "the Supreme Court 'let it stand'", and "the jury 'was shown'". Nothing in this article is supported by appropriate citations. --Zdespart (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of blows

Why does the introduction say that he hit him "14 times", when later on it first says that while the coronoer initially claimed 14 wounds, he later reduced it to seven. Did we just pick the bigger number because it sounds better? I would say we should go with the smaller number, since it's more likely accurate. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Death of Malice Green/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==comments by twohlford== This article was a mess when I found it. I made it a lot less biased, and fixed a number of factual errors. I added the epilogue when WDIV did their interview. There are many problems with doing this article: 1. This is still a very controversial event, and it's tough to cover this dispassionately. 2. The facts are still debated 3. The cases were tried separately, and they got lost in a tangle of appeals and intrigues. I welcome help documenting this case. I would love some help from a criminal atty who could help sort these cases out. Twohlford 00:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 12 November 2024

Death of Malice Green → Murder of Malice Green – Per WP:DEATHS: There was conviction for murder. मल्ल (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Killing of Malice Green. Both murder sentences were overturned, therefore "Murder of" doesn't work here. 162 etc. (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Refer to the flowchart in WP:DEATHS, which states a "conviction" of murder to be reason enough to classify the article as the "Murder of Malice Green." 207.172.68.114 (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  You can't be serious. 162 etc. (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  👍 Aidanbuck2 (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per 162 etc. I'm also not fond of "Killing of", since that would imply deliberate killing. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  He died. It was a murder by blunt force. It has been described as a "murder" or a "killing" more often in media than "the death." 207.172.68.114 (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Move to Killing of Malice Green per 162 etc and NCDEATHS. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)