Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shooting scene

I made some edits to the shooting scene section. It's longer.

I expanded the description of the street and indicated the directions in which the people involved were traveling. I added "left side" for those in right hand drive countries. I reorganized the evidence from three groups to two, anchoring the groups around the SUV and Brown's body, because the center group consists of one sandal.

The contentious part of my edit is those ten shell casings. I didn't know they were there until I saw the diagram. At first I thought it had to be a mistake. I tried to be NPOV about it, but I don't have a good reference about those casings. It has to be mentioned, though.

People (bystanders, parties involved, responders, investigators, etc.) move casings around crime scenes often, apparently. Sometimes it's inadvertent, or people take them as a souvenir, but sometimes people take them or move them simply to make things difficult for investigators, or in the worst case people might move them to make it look like a gun was fired in a different place. So, it's possible that the ten casings near Brown were put there to make it look like Wilson had shot Brown at close range.

Please don't reply with wikilawyering, fellow editors. Change whatever you want, add references, but this is not original research or speculation or whatever. The article needs a diagram. The diagram shows 10 casings in an unusual place. Those 10 casings have to be explained, and the only way to explain them without invoking a conspiracy theory is that they were moved. We can't say how, we can't say when, we can't say by whom, but they must have been moved because all the other evidence points that way. Somewhere in the transcripts or in some article I haven't read there is a clear, solid explanation of how they got there. Roches (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? They are there because they are near where wilson was standing at the time those shots were fired (plus random physics bounces and the like). There were other cops and media on the scene within seconds/minutes. When exactly do you think things were tampered with? What specifically do you think is proof that that cannot be the natural position of the casings? Where do you think those casings "really belong"?Gaijin42 (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Presumably from the blood stain at the far right, at some point Brown was standing near there during some of the shots. (with a fudge factor for how far blood may fly from being hit). Most of the witnesses, and Wilson say that they were about 20ft apart at that point. Wilson and some witnesses say that Brown moved forward, and Wilson says he was trying to backpedal to keep distance (while firing). . That explains the pattern of casings and blood fairly well to me, and more importantly, its all covered by reliable sources. [1] [2][3] [4][5][6] Saying "speculation" and "original research" is not wikilawyering, its the foundation of the way the wiki works. Find a reliable source that discusses some alternative theory, and we can talk about adding it in. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Roches, unless you can find reliable sources supporting this speculation it cannot go into the article. – JBarta (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I think what Cwobeel is saying is that Wilson didn't shoot until Brown turned around and became threatening. And now for your listening and viewing pleasure is a music video by Queen.[7] --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is an NIST report titled "Shelling Out Evidence: NIST Ballistic Standard Helps Tie Guns to Criminals". It provides this definition: "Cartridge cases—the empty shells left behind after a gun is fired...". At some point in my firearms instructor coursework, "case" had been promulgated as the right term to use, "casings are for sausage" being a common mnemonic which you can see in this comment on an urban shooting [8]. But on further research the NRA glossary says they are interchangeable. Perhaps a readjustment to the realities popular usage. Bottom line: request for change is withdrawn. — Brianhe (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Offensive Phrasing -- Style Question

Under the section Grand Jury Hearing (which should be capitalized, but I don't have editing privileges), it refers to the grand jury's makeup as "three blacks". This usage of black as a noun is not considered acceptable any longer in American English and is specifically prohibited in most style guides (I don't know if this is covered in wikipedia's). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.125.200 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't offensive and is frequently used in American English. Google shows how many people use it to this very day, including places like the Huffington Post. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked the source used for that sentence, and the source uses the terms "blacks" and "whites" in relation to the race of the grand jury members. Based on that source, I don't see a problem. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Isaidnoway is correct, but there is no requirement to match the specific source on something like this, which is not within a quotation. We paraphrase all the time, and what matters is that the world of reliable sources frequently uses "blacks" as a noun. Here's an example from the New York Times, who are known for close attention to such details. Incidentally, the "Grand jury hearing" is correct; Wikipedia uses "sentence case" in section titles. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This black/African-American question is not going to be solved in general anytime soon around here. Sources generally use a mix of "black" and "African-American" and so should we. Sources however do NOT generally use the word "Caucasian" when describing Wilson, so that has little place in this article. We're not here to worry about what is offensive to this person or that... we're here to reflect the sources in a neutral and balanced manner. – JBarta (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

It may seem unnecessarily contentious to some, but I'm not interested in placating editors who misinterpret Wikipedia's mission as moving social trends rather than documenting them. These editors are simply wrong, and we follow the collective sources. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Release of video in lead & dispatch

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

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

Wholesale deletion of relevant material

@Roches: Why are you deleting perfectly good material without any discussion[9]. I welcome your contributions, but you need to show some respect to the hard work from others. Deleting material that has been in the article for quite a while, and which represents an existing consensus is not acceptable - Cwobeel (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And when you are it, explain this edit [10] in which you removed several key pieces of reporting. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, but this article is not just about the testimony to the grand jury. This and other witnesses provided their accounts before that, such as in here [11], the source used in that section. You are welcome to add his testimony to the grand jury for completeness. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

RFC: Alleged theft of cigars from convenience store?

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.

---

In references here to the theft and/or strong-arm robbery of cigars from a convenience store prior to the shooting of the decedent, should this article use the term alleged or allegedly before any such claims since the decedent was never and will never be charged or convicted of theft or robbery? Dwpaul ^Talk 02:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

survey

• (As nom) Yes, as that is Wikipedia's standard practice when a criminal act is alleged but will never be prosecuted. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• no There is video of the event. An admission from his friend who was present, and admission from the Brown family. We actually have numerous opposite examples of non-convicted persons who are described as having done certain illegal actions, and we have hundreds of reliable sources saying without qualification that brown took the Cigars without paying. However, describing that theft in a specific legal crime term should not be done as we do not have sufficient proof that all elements of a crime were done, it is enough to say "stole cigars" or "took cigars without paying" but not "committed robbery" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In regard to the question whether there is "sufficient proof that all elements of a crime were done", we just need to follow the MO law. It says, "A person commits the crime of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property." Did he steal the items? Did he use force when confronted by the clerk? If you say yes to both questions, then all elements of the crime were done and the act is called robbery in the second degree. Z22 (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No per Gaijin42 above and also see Columbine Shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting,, Isla Vista Killings and numerous other articles here on WP where a crime has been committed with the individual being killed and/or suicide with no prosecution and/or conviction and the word alleged is not used in those articles. I would also note that the police have classified this case as being "exceptionally cleared", a stringent standard to meet in a case when there will be no prosecution or conviction. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• No - Alleged refers to something that is said, without proof, to have taken place or done. Also, by the same logic of Dwpaul, you cannot identify someone for a criminal act if they are incapable of being tried. Glad to know that despite the Columbine Shooting evidence that you are content to put "alleged", again a reference to "unproven", in front of any act or attribution of the killers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Didn't say you "cannot identify someone for a criminal act"; simply said you should make clear you are not claiming they have been convicted of it, if only for your own protection (in this case, for the protection of the project). That is all allegedly does. Dwpaul ^Talk 06:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

We are not "convicting" anyone. Your understanding of "alleged"'s use is wrong according to the dictionary. Allegations in a legal sense are no different, but you should be aware of that process. Since this is not a pending court matter so kindly take your armchair lawyering off this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• No. According to WP:ALLEGED, alleged is "appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial." In this case, Brown will never go to trial so the issue won't be determined that way. However, we are not entirely without the ability to make an editorial determination here. We have a published security video showing what certainly appears to be a theft (or more accurately strong arm robbery) and there is the published testimony of Brown's friend Johnson describing the events in the store. That description supports that it was in fact a strong arm robbery. In addition, many (though not all) sources refer to the event as a theft and do not use the term "alleged". Taking all this into consideration, I think it's perfectly reasonable, neutral and accurate to treat it as an actual crime and leave out he word "alleged".

There have been theories suggesting that maybe Brown did pay for the cigars and the clerk just wanted an ID. This is an interesting theory, but entirely unsupported by anything. Others note that no store employee contacted the police (a customer did). In no way does this cause other evidence to vanish. Again, taking ALL things into consideration from what is available to us, it is reasonable to say that a crime was committed and there is nothing "alleged" about it. – JBarta (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That actually brings up an interesting question. Let's suppose Brown (who is of age) wants to buy cigars and the clerk wants to see an ID. Let's further suppose Brown throws down the money and says "screw the ID, here's the money" then grabs the cigars and leaves. The clerk tries to stop him still wanting to see the ID. Brown pushes past and exits the store (we'll forget about the hard shoving). Has a crime been committed? Or more specifically, is it theft? – JBarta (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If for some reasons you put a million dollars cash on the counter but the clerk refuses to "sell" an inexpensive product (no matter what it is) and you take that product anyway, then you use force to clear your way out of the store, you will still be charged with robbery in the second degree as per MO law. Even when give a correct amount of money to the clerk for the cigar, but the clerk refuses to sell that to you. The transaction does not take place. When you take valuable propety from that store when you have not been the owner of that property yet, it is stealing. To add to that, you use force, it's a robbery of the second degree. Z22 (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

What a poor example - the discussion below shows it is closed and why. Original research or other accusations carry no real weight because the official report is our proper source. As a result, no matter what excuses or theoretical case you come up with, it does not apply to this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No – In prior weeks there was some question from news sources whether Brown might have actually paid for the cigarillos, that analysis seems to have disappeared even in Brown-friendly news outlets as more information has come out. Also, John Wilkes Booth did not "allegedly" assassinate Abraham Lincoln, even though he was never convicted of it. —Megiddo1013 01:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No - In the absence of any other reasonable explanations for what can be seen in the footage and testimonies, it seems safe to go with what the recently written RSs say on this one. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No - There's really no question at this point of what happened, and Brown is very much dead and thus we have no reason to worry about prejudicing a jury against him. It is safe to not use "alleged" here as we have video, testimony from his friend, RSs which don't use "alleged", and standard Wiki policy that in cases like this that we don't use it (John Wilkes Booth, Columbine shooting, ect.). Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• COMMENT Due to the apparent WP:SNOW above, I am going to remove the "allege"s that are referring to the robbery. However, the RFC remains open, and consensus could certainly swing the other way over the next days/weeks. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No - Per the users above. There is no question as to the factual nature of the crime.--TMD Talk Page. 16:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No Per AdventurousSquirrel. We should be going with what the recent WP:RS are saying. Rmosler | ● 16:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Can you include a source for the "exceptionally cleared" classification being applied to this case and its meaningsignificance, since this information (not there now) would be useful to include in the article? I can find references to the police report including this notation, but none that say it gives it some special degree of "truthiness".Dwpaul ^Talk 03:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Exceptionally cleared is a Uniform Crime Reports term. It means "solved" by "exception" not the "awesome" meaning of exceptional http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances NPR is one of many many sources saying that the case was closed with this status, but they appear to be doing so based on just viewing the police report. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/15/340594634/ferguson-police-release-name-of-officer-who-shot-michael-brown Gaijin42 (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I was about to point out the same finding to Isaidnoway, with a caution against using it to suggest some special quality of the investigation. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Its not some special quality, but it does indicate that the case was formally solved including identifying the perp sufficient for FBI reporting purposes. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is one interpretation; I would tend to go with your suggestion above that the case was said to have been resolved "by exception", in this case by the death of the only suspect at the time rather than by diligent and detailed police work that would have achieved a conviction. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

From the Missouri Uniform Crime Reporting Program (Missouri State Highway Patrol):

Exceptional Clearance - If all four of the following questions can be answered 'Yes' the offense can be cleared “exceptionally”.

1. Do you know who the offender is?
2. Has the investigation determined there is enough information to support an arrest/charge of a specific individual?
3. Is the location of this individual known so the subject could by taken into custody now?
4. Is there some reason outside law enforcement‟s control that precludes arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender?

Examples of exceptional clearances include: death (suicide or justifiable homicide where the offender is killed by a police officers or citizen). This case meets all the above criteria for the case to be closed as "exceptionally cleared". Isaidnoway (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The police report (external links) says that it has been exceptionally cleared and if you search the archives of this talk page, you will see that this very same discussion has been had before about using the word alleged in relation to this strong-arm robbery committed by Brown. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see this previous discussion from August, and I see you making the same arguments you're making now, but I don't see that any consensus evolved in support of them. In fact, I see quite a lot of dissent on the question. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the RfC, maybe we can put these unsourced conspiracy theories to rest once and for all.

• Michael Brown Robbed Convenience Store, Stole Cigarillos Before Darren Wilson Shooting, Dorian Johnson Says
• Dorian Johnson told the grand jury he was stunned when Brown stole cigarillos from the convenience store
• The attorney for Dorian Johnson, the man who was with Michael Brown when he was shot, says it was Brown who stole the cigars from the store where police say the two were filmed before Brown’s death, and that the FBI is aware of it. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Also... "Brown was a suspect in an alleged robbery" is horrendous writing because you cannot "allege a robbery" and the nature of the matter requires "alleged" be dropped. Either a robbery took place or it didn't; it is mutually exclusive here, just as you cannot be an "alleged suspect" in the case. One alleged needs to remain in the article: "Brown then allegedly attempted to seize Wilson's gun..." which has not been conclusively proven. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Dwpaul, I ended up as a main dissenter in that August discussion, based on the use of reliable sources available at that time. However, more information has been published since then, notably Dorian Johnson's testimony under oath, and I have more carefully reviewed the video, and I don't think that using allege is appropriate. It gives the impression that there is a reasonable doubt that Brown stole the cigars, which isn't the case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether to use the word "alleged" or not, one thing clear is that we should not misrepresent the act as a theft or stealing. It should either be called "forcibly steal" or "robbery". Apparently, the force was involved. The first mentioning of the act as just stealing in the lead is actually misleading. See definitions here: [12] [13]. Z22 (talk) 18:58, 29 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.

Why are you calling Michael Brown a man when being eighteen did not qualify Eric David Harris a man?????

If Eric Harris can be called a boy when he was also 18 yrs old when the shootings took place a Columbine High School, I believe we can come to the conclusion that Michael Brown was just a boy also. Stop making him out to be something another was not....... I do not know him personally, but you are adding to a problem that will not cease because of status that is not really true. He was only a boy!

Butterflygem (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's true that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Columbine High School massacre use the term "boys" in a few instances. That may or may not reflect source's descriptions of them. You would have to bring that up on those article's respective talk pages. Regarding this article, can you point out the specific part of the article you wish to change and what you'd like to see it changed to? Be prepared (if challenged) to back up your suggested edit with sourcing and a rationale that supports it following Wikipedia policies of verifiability, neutral point of view, and due weight. I'm not trying to make it hard on you, I'm just trying to show you that editing this encyclopedia is more than simply inserting one's opinion. – JBarta (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I am starting to see some unconscious racism creep in this manner in articles on wikipedia. Two white guys who shot up a school are boys but an unarmed black guy is a man. Just like missing white girl syndrome -Myopia123 (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with "unconscious racism". It's hard to visualize, much less describe, anyone who is 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m) tall, weighs 292 lb (132 kg) and smokes cigars as a "boy". In every one of these cases, if the subjects are over 18, they should probably be described as "young men", but I think it's easy to see why the term "man" was used here instead of "boy". It's a bit too convenient to invoke the racism card when a simpler explanation will suffice. Dwpaul ^Talk 13:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I also don't think the "unconscious racisim" comment is helpful, it could be seen as casting aspersions and is not WP:AGF. If you believe that an editor is not following policies or POV pushing, discuss it here or their talk page with diffs. Man, boy, teenager, the choice of nouns should be by consensus and backed by WP:RS. If you have sources that would back a change, then please share them, and the proposed change. Rmosler | ● 14:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not accusing any individual editors. I'm saying that RS's and all the editors as a whole(including me) are giving in to a very human tendency to judge on a class basis. -Myopia123 (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that, if not for the POV implications in this case and a desire for him to be perceived as the victim, we'd just as likely be criticized for calling Brown a "boy" because of the connotations that term has had when applied to young black men in the past. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Myopia, I believe that your comments on "unconscious racism" amount to silly navel-gazing. Also a more fit subject for your talk page than here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it was a constructive contribution, if only because it allowed us to address this aspect of the question from a perspective others may have had or will have in mind, even if they didn't frame their arguments in those terms. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Empathize with stupidity and you're half way to thinking like an idiot. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes that's a creative and useful method of problem solving. Think we're done here. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear @Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS), I don't know what navel gazing is but if you want to cuss me out you might as well accept that you're going to violate WP:CIVIL anyway and do it properly. I disagree with your suggestion that it's more fit for my talk page. Racism is a core element of this issue and the deaths of black men at the hands of police in general. As far as you calling me stupid, that was a comment for my talk page. -Myopia123 (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not sure why you find the suggestion that hidden racism could possibly explain the most innocuous and obviously correct editorial decisions, and yet you don't find helpful the suggestion that such an idea possibly reflects irrational hysteria. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Back to the original question, while some of this can certainly be explained by the bias, or narrative the authors (of the RSs) wishes to tell, or political correctness, one must also remember that Columbine happened in school by and at attendees of that school, which makes the "boy" appellation a bit more contextual.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Two witnesses found dead?

According to this source, two witnesses, Shawn Gray, and DeAndre Joshua were found dead under suspicious circumstance. No idea if the source is reliable, but I doubt this is a made up story. [14]. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

After digging in a bit, it seems that there is a conspiracy theory garnering steam on the interwebs, that witnesses are being targeted. But reports I am seeing about the death of Shawn Gray, do not say anything about him being an witness in Brown's case. [15] - Cwobeel (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Joshua was the one found in the burned car. We have him in the unrest article with no connection to this case other than location. I don't see any reason to include random Internet conspiracy theories. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither do I. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous released wrong name

All right, here's a tricky issue.

I went and tracked down the purportedly-Anonymous (group)-affiliated Twitter account's release of a police officer's name mentioned in the article, no doubt getting myself on all kinds of governmental watchlists in the process. It's not easy to find, but the name they released was not that of Darren Wilson. (Nobody type it here!) This fact seems inclusion-worthy despite (or, per WP:Recent, particularly because) being out of the headlines, but the only RS I can find who have reported on this error mention the released incorrect name themselves, and it would be unethical and probably prohibited by WP:BLP to link to them.

Should we just let this info fade into the Net? People will want to check the record next time Anonymous doxes someone in a high-profile situation like this, but maybe that's not our problem.

Apologies for not posting links to what I'm talking about, but I shouldn't for obvious reasons. FourViolas (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about this (fifth bullet, next-to-last sentence)? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That's the section I'm talking about, but not the citation. That one is from before Wilson's name was released, so all it says is that the police denied the allegation. It might be good enough for this article, though, as it allows readers to infer from the absence of an update saying "...but the police were lying, and it was Officer [redacted] after all." FourViolas (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I get you now. And you haven't found a source that says the Anonymous ID was wrong, without reporting the name of the innocent party. In that case, I agree with leaving it at is. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

New documents released

New material has been released by the prosecutor's office. As I will not have much time today to work on this, maybe others can take a look. [16] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

So far the docs seem all over the place. A few supporting brown, a few supporting wilson, one completely off the wall "walk out" one that claimed to personally see Brown on his knees and Wilson shoot him in the head point blank, and then saw/heard 8 more shots into Brown while he was face down, who then stopped the interview when they were told what they were saying didn't match the evidence. Mostly they seem to be all followup interviews asking specific questions after the local interviews. On from the guy Brown was living with that week.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Added above source as LATimes.Documents. It includes a link to the federal autopsy report, and I added that report separately as LATimes.FederalAutopsy. Added mention of the release of the federal autopsy report. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"baseline position" on diagram

Cwobeel I think it may be helpful to include a spot on the diagram for the "baseline" position where all the measurements are from. Note that this point is not a WP:SYNTH issue derived by us from the witness testimony/sources, this is the "zero" point for the diagram measurements, per the crime scene photographers/investigators, and that point is explicitly marked on the original diagram.

As an aside, the quotes below has bearing on the "Crime Scene" discussion above, as we have the police specifically referring to this location as a crime scene.

• [17] (See figure 2 cone photo)

• https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1370513/grand-jury-volume-24.txt
  • And why is it that this cone was placed at that location on Canfield Drive? A As best we could tell based off of witness accounts, that would have been the furthest point east that Michael Brown would have went to. So that intersection of roughly Coppercreek Court and Canfield Drive. or Canfield Road? [...]That was the point that they had made reference to and so we used that as the furthest eastern point to go to.
  • In terms of on August 9th, one of our crime scene detective's jobs was to take various measurements of items of evidence at the scene. And he used what starts as a baseline at Coppercreek Court and Canfield Court, and used this baseline here and measured items during the entire, I should say, within the entire crime scene and those items were documented in a diagram that he completed with specific measurements, feet down to inches. So when we went back out there to take those 360 degree panoramic shots, we based, obviously, Coppercreek Court and Canfield Drive is subjective in the sense that we are basing that off of where, again, witnesses were telling us is the furthest point east that Michael Brown would have went So that is a subjective point that we use that intersection, northwest corner of that intersection right there.
• Witness 14 http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-evidence/assets/interviews/interview-witness-14-01.pdf
  • "the boy was still standing on the, on the, on the partially on the parking lot and on the grass. 'Cause he had ran that way. The officer came out came around got into his stance. And he said ?stop.? Because the boy looked up at him and he took two steps, about two or three steps.
  • When [Brown] turned around he had about one foot on the grass and one on the driveway.
• Dorian
  • [Brown] was barely on the sidewalk, he was barely on the sidewalk to the parking lot. He was going towards this building. I presume that’s the way he was running. He wasn’t really all the way on the driveway when the . . . shot went off, and he turned around, and he was in the street

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we have the exact position of the baseline cone? I don't see it on the police report diagram. Is it on the legend list? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel It is at 0 feet 0 inches for both directions. on the diagram (text at bottom right corner saying "Baseline starting at 0'0" ) with a line pointing to the corner. On the legend the very bottom says "baseline runs east to west on north side of canfield with 0'0" starting at copper creek ct." The testimony indicates why they chose that spot as the baseline, and that the cone in the photograph is that point. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Added baseline as suggested. Also added the cross street Copper Creek Ct. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice. Suggestions: 1. Extend the bottom curb to the right edge of the image, to show that Copper Creek does not cross Canfield. 2. Is there a little too much space between the C and T in CT., or is that just more flaky rendering? 3. If there is any way to establish the distance between the left edge and the baseline, I can use that to fine-tune our coordinates, using the distance measuring tool in Google Maps. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done . Thanks for the feedback. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mandruss The legend of the original diagram includes the exact distance in feet and inches to every other item from the baseline, so just pick the furthest left item? (looks like its one of the casings by the car) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I tweaked the coords to a position halfway between items 4 and 20, or about 105 ft NW of the baseline (they moved about 20 ft SE). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Obsessively checking my work, I came up with 118 ft NW of the baseline, and the coords were already correct. I could be taking this accuracy thing too far, or perhaps someone as anal as I am would care to check my work. Item 4: 210' from baseline. Item 20: 26'7" from baseline. 26'7" = roughly 26.6 ft. ((210 - 26.6) / 2)) + 26.6 = 118.3. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I vote accuracy too far. A few feet certainly won't matter for the purposes of the infobox. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thought so. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the other witnesses narratives, that would be a good addition, as it explains the position of the casings and other evidence when the final shots were fired. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel How are you making the SVG? Are you just eyeballing positions, or do you have it gridded out so you can convert from the actual feet/inches to the right pixels in some deterministic way? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither. I used the diagram of one of the media sources as an underlay, and positioned the evidence items accordingly. As the media sources did not have the baseline cone, that one I added by eyeballing. If we want to be scientific about it, I will have to re-do the position of each item using the measurements and converting the positions to the XY grid in Omnigraffle. Pretty laborious I'd say. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain how this is not original research or synthesis? You're converting a not-to-scale diagram to a scale diagram using information from two different primary sources. The article is in poor condition, with many outdated sections, far too many references, and duplicate information in several places. There are also far, far too many statements of the type "A B of XYZ News stated on August 21 that..."

For comparison, 2014 Grozny clashes has a better balance of opinion and fact, and an appropriate use of citations. That's just a random news article that I like the style of.

Does this article require mediation? I haven't done that before, but I think there are issues that need to be addressed. I mean ownership, if it's not clear. Roches (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

From WP:Citing sources: Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. However, editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any unsourced material risks being unexpectedly challenged or eventually removed.

Based on the above, your concerns about too many references are unfounded and clearly unsupported by WP content guidelines.

I honestly don't see where you're getting the ownership claim, but please be specific and back it up.

I'll let others respond to your concerns about the diagram. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 05:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Roches was referring to there being too many citations, but rather too many in-text attributions.

Regarding ownership, I think it's more a matter of there being some very active editors. This can result in there being misinformation and bias that would take more time than most have to correct it, but I don't see how that can be avoided, considering there is open editing. All I can say is to hang in there and do what you can.

Regarding the scale of the diagram, it looks like the same scale as the diagram in this source [18]. In fact, the identifications and placement of the individual pieces of evidence look about the same too. If something is added to the diagram that is not supported by a reliable source, or it highlights something that is not specifically mentioned in a reliable source, then that might be a problem. So far I don't know of that happening here. Items that are the result of calculations can be questioned, but then there is the policy WP:CALC that allows some, and whether or not it is suitable for an article can be determined by consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

On second thought it doesn't look like the same scale. our article source Maybe we need take out a ruler and check it and then add a note to the diagram, "not to scale", or redraw the diagram, using the source's diagram as a model for the scale. I notice that the source's diagram uses an actual picture of the street and surroundings on which it overlays the items in the crime scene. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: I just now added the above source to the diagram. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the plotting of all points in the diagram used in the article was down to the inches from the baseline point based on the data published in that measurement table. If the scale in the diagram is questionable, it may be good for us to add a scale bar with 10-foot increment along the bottom part of the diagram. Z22 (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob, I disagree that we need to inform the reader that the scale of our diagram is a little different from that of the source, for the sake of improved readability. All that matters is that the distance proportions are the same, and a "not to scale" statement could easily be interpreted as meaning that they are not. I think we're better off without it. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

About the diagram, as per WP:OI, "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." This diagram was created from published data here and here, same document. There is no unpublished ideas or arguments included in the diagram, so it is not an original research, but it is just an original image. Also it is not synthesis because it is largely based on that same source. Other references listed next to the diagram were to show that same idea/argument has been published by multiple reliable sources. Z22 (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the arguments above by Z22 and others, the diagram is not OR. Can it be improved? Sure, there is always that possibility. As for the state of the article referred to by Roches, same applies. It can always be improved, but generalizations don't help here. If there are specific things that you want addressed, join in and do the hard work. You may get reverted and challenged, but that is the way of this land. Collaborative editing is hard work and requires patience. - Cwobeel (talk) 8:39 am, Today (UTC−6)

More terse summaries in the witness accounts

As there are now a massive amount of witness statements available, I think we need to change how we are doing things in the accounts section. Obviously covering each account in the level of detail we currently have for dozens of additional accounts, and then criticisms of those accounts, would not be viable - it would be multiple standalone articles worth of content. Keeping things the way it is now represents an WP:NPOV issue as well. I suggest we move to a more WP:SUMMARY style overall bringing all of the media witnesses together under a WP:SUMMARY section (as they are mostly saying the same thing), and then a Grand Jury section that discusses the various testimonies again at a high level - Using sources such as the PBS comparison (even with its well known flaws) or the links that TParis pointed out in ANI.

Perhaps the Police/Wilson and Johnson should keep standalone sections, as they are directly involved and therefore their statements have more importance, and have been scrutinized more carefully by the media and other analysts. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I was saying this, thinking this, and in one case tried doing this, for several days before taking it to ANI. I don't like that I had to take it to ANI because of objections that it would destroy people's work or might constitute original research. There was no critical discussion of any witness that opposed Wilson, and much discussion of discrepancies and flaws in the few accounts that supported it.

I've always thought there should be a section on Wilson's story and a section about the opposing views; I typed that a few days ago, though I'm not sure I posted it. I still think it's the best way to move forward. Roches (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

On the issues raised on ANI

I've posted replies under three sections that dealt with issues raised in the ANI discussion. Now, I'm going to voluntarily avoid this article and talk page for 48 hours, and after that I'll respond to any outstanding issues.

For the editors who have worked on this article and who will be working on it, try to remember that this is one of the increasingly small number of places that people can go to even get a chance at not seeing news presented in the form of a top ten list. Your work is important, people read it, and it needs to be the best it can be. Roches (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of See also

Resolution of my edit and its revert by Likeminas. Reason for revert was All these killings have been discussed as an overall recent trend in news articles. I don't think that justifies the revert. The killings are included in the umbrella list article. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of the Travon Martin shooting, all these cases are discussed in news articles as a recent trend of police abuse of force. i.e. Police officers killing people under questionable circumstances. In fact, there's a good amount of sources that mention them all in the same article.

The killings in the List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States does not single out cases that have produced extensive news coverage and massive national outcry.

These cases are related and should be listed under 'See also' for readers that are interested in reading the most notorious cases in recent history. Likeminas (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Garner, Rice and Gurley are at least related by timing. Martin and Diallo less so, since they aren't part of this recent chain of events. --RAN1 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to remove them, if chose to. Thanks Likeminas (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done. Btw, should we keep the "hands up, don't shoot" in see also? We already have it in the navbox, having it in see also seems superfluous. --RAN1 (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has multiple articles addressing that topic, including Police brutality in the United States and Police misconduct. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

True, but the three deaths that are still in there are related by timing: The grand jury trial against the officer who killed Garner ended in non-indictment last week, and Rice and Gurley's deaths coincided with the grand jury case against Wilson. Brown's shooting at the very least had an influence on the reactions to these, so including them in 'see also' wouldn't be a bad idea. --RAN1 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Common sense (wiki-linking Ferguson, Missouri)

In the opening sentence, I linked Missouri, and unlinked "suburb" (edit summary: "some of us don't know where Missouri is; everyone knows what a suburb is"). I was reverted (twice), and instructed to "talk it to talk and stop edit warring". So, I leave it here for others to consider. Thanks. zzz (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is two separate issues, which I will address separately. First, the Missouri linking. I don't know of a policy or guideline about this, but there is this essay by an editor very experienced with linking. I would encourage any editor to read all of it before becoming involved in any disputes about linking. It says, Uniqueness: Is the linked topic reachable—directly or indirectly—through another link in the vicinity? (If so, consider not linking.) In other words, Missouri is easily reachable via Ferguson, Missouri, so it probably doesn't need to be linked here. The general idea is the concept of overlinking, which says that having fewer links increases the value of the remaining ones. That concept is covered in the essay as well as guidelines.

As to "suburb", I don't think it's all that clear that everyone knows what a suburb is, but I feel less strongly about that. I might even support unlinking suburb on overlinking grounds. Frankly I didn't even notice that was part of what I was reverting. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The idea that it's "overlinking" because the link is available on another article is clearly wrong. (Incidentally, it's only available there because I just added it.) You should always check what your reverting, before accusing editors of edit-warring, (and quoting irrelevant essays and policies). zzz (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make statements about what's "clearly wrong" without some kind of backup; i.e., no matter how emphatically you present something as truth, that doesn't make it true. That's fundamental Wikipedia. And please don't lecture me about proper editing procedure while demonstrating complete ignorance of WP:BRD. The correct procedure was demonstrated in the dispute preceding this one. I was reverted once and I opened a talk discussion about it. You did not do that, instead re-reverting the revert, thereby starting an edit war. There is nothing gray or fuzzy about this area. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I started this discussion, not you!

Secondly, "overlinking" is best avoided for the reason that it draws attention away from the text. In this case, Ferguson, Missouri appeared entirely in blue, ie. identically to my edit, so this reason does not apply. And you apparently agree about "suburb". So, we are in agreement, then. zzz (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

And thirdly, to reiterate, you should always check what you're reverting ("fundamental Wikipedia"). zzz (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Ferguson, Missouri is fine. No need to link the city and state separately. Regarding suburb, I could go either way. I lean towards not linking it as relatively common knowledge. Then again, I'm from the U.S. If '"suburb" is not a commonly used term in oher English speaking countries then wikilink it. – JBarta (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This will be my last comment. You failed to mention any reason why Ferguson, Missouri is better than Ferguson, Missouri. zzz (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

First, never say "this is my last comment" because it rarely is. There's really no need to... if you're done commenting, just don't comment any more. No need for a parting shot. And if (like so many do) you re-enter the discussion, you re-enter it looking a little silly. We all look silly sometimes accidentally. There's really no need to do it on purpose. At any rate, to answer your question, while I know of no policy that prefers one way or another, I see no need to offer two links where one will do. – JBarta (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

What gun was used?

One of the key missing details is how the police officer's gun was wrested from him. I have tried to find the make and model gun used, as well as the make and model of holster. If this article was merely an overview, I could excuse it, but this article drills down to the level of "$48 worth of cigarillos." Not $47, not $49,but $48. I would like to see the same attention to detail for the gun issue.

Was the gun a Glock, a Smith, etc.? Did the holster have a butt strap, or an internal locking device, etc.?

Thanks for your attention. 50.0.36.243 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Not an answer to your question, but a while back I stumbled on this YouTube video that may be informative, or at the very least, interesting. (I'm not suggesting using it as a source nor suggesting the information contained is unimpeachable) – JBarta (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It was a .40 cal SIG_Sauer_P226#P229. Its a 12+1 gun, and Wilson had several spare mags. To my knowledge we do not know the type of holster he was using, but I don't think its relevant as there is no assertion that Brown went for the gun while it was in the holster - Wilson freely says he drew the gun from the holster himself. We don't talk about the gun much, because it has not been discussed much in reliable sources.

One interesting (to me, not covered in any sources I am aware of) discrepancy is that there were 12 cases found near the scene. Wilson states that after the shooting there was one round left in the magazine, which he removed. If there was a round in the magazine, there should also have been a round chambered. That there wasn't means that either there was a Firearm_malfunction#Failure_to_feed or the remaining bullet was not in the magazine but in the chamber, but wilson explicitly said "I lock the slide back, take the magazine out, take the one round that’s left in it out. I put it all in that bag, seal it with evidence tape and then sign it.".

http://listverse.com/2014/11/25/10-of-the-most-important-pieces-of-evidence-from-darren-wilson-testimony/ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: There are 15 rounds on a P299 magazine, so 12 cases + 1 in the magazine according to Wilson, that leaves two rounds not accounted for? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: The .40 model uses 12-round magazines, it's the 9mm variant that has 15 rounds. --RAN1 (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

CwobeelThere are both 10, 12, and 14 round magazines for a 229.[19] You can see Wilson's specific magazine in the photo at that listverse article I posted, and that it is a 12 round mag. The 14 round mag is longer (duh) so is more difficult to wear while seated. Some cops have the 14 rounders as their backup mags tho since you can move them around more easily than the holstered gun (Wilson said he had 2 additional mags, but their size was not released anywhere)Gaijin42 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In my time in the army (not in the US), we used to chamber an extra round in our small arms in addition to the mag. Is that not a practice in law enforcement the US? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is standard practice here too. Its a 12+1 gun, so the +1 is the "extra". That chambered round would have been the first one fired in the car. Wilson fired 12 times, so the final round should have been chambered in the end, but it could have stayed in the magazine if there was a failure to feed. Per wilson's testimony he also had 2 failure to fires in the car during the time he says Brown's hand was on the gun (see the video posted above for a technical explanation of how his particular gun works in that regard) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Also to add to my discrepancy above "locking the slide back" prior to removing the magazine would have loaded the round from the mag into the chamber. (This is why you ALWAYS REMOVE THE MAG FIRST WHEN UNLOADING A GUN) So my assumption is that what he meant to say was that he ejected the round from the chamber and removed the mag, but it was a sloppy way to talk, and I'm surprised nobody (rs) mentioned it, especially with how some sources (Shaun King etc) were saying he might have reloaded, and therefore exactly what happened to each round would be very relevant. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Grand jury no bill reception

Bob K31416 has started a process of summarizing that section, in a manner that I believe it to be counter productive. We have expert opinions from legal, law enforcement, politicians, and media outlets all of which are notable and informative. Wikipedia is not paper – If the section is too long, the correct process to avoid losing good content that is well sourced, is to create a sub-article with all the detail, and summarize here per WP:SUMMARY. But deleting useful and well sourced material, is not acceptable. We are here to build an encyclopedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Washington Post Reception Source

The Boston Post source that was used in the reception section has a couple of problems. First, it's actually a repost of The Washington Post, but The Washington Post doesn't allow the Internet Archive to preserve it. Should it still be sourced to Boston or to Washington? Second, it seems to be a lot of analysis that can't be summed up easily without trimming it out, and doesn't really fit with the reception section and should probably moved next to Wilson's testimony. Any suggestions? --RAN1 (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Re your first question, assuming you're in fact talking about sourcing rather than attribution, I'd be inclined to go with the one that can be archived, even if it's a repost. Btw, according to our article, The Boston Post folded in 1956. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Differences between typical grand jury proceedings in Missouri and Wilson's case --should be removed or changed to reflect data and not opinion

It should either compare this case with a low profile case or just give the facts of the case. It is copied almost word for word from the the NYT and is not fact but opinion. As there are no references to real data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanisle2009 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Which NYT source are you suggesting is an opinion piece? Dyrnych (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition, if it reflects an analysis by (hence opinion of) a New York Times columnist or reporter, it should probably be adequate to simply make sure it is identified as such (inline attribution). Even opinion, when properly identified and attributed to a credible source, is fair content here. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problems with attributing the content to the NYT. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that solves that. --RAN1 (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If the text of the table was copied verbatim, is there a problem with copyright infringement? --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It was not copied verbatim. You can check and compare. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the Controversy section that has the table is bloated and could use some summarizing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the table is that it doesn't take into account what grand juries usually do, which is approving felony indictments that a prosecuting attorney's office has already decided to take to trial. The hearing in Wilson's case was intended to determine whether there was sufficient evidence for a trial. (A trial for second degree murder, since it was intentional but unplanned.) Now, I think this is the time when we got into why it's not up to us to decide when journalists are right or wrong. The table compares two very different things, and in so doing it misrepresents the purpose for the hearing in this case. I don't want to deal with opinions to any more of an extent than is absolutely necessary, but it's not right for Wikipedia to contain information that is factually wrong, or misrepresented, up to the point where one journalist discovers the error of another. Roches (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think your difference of purpose is the exact point of the criticism. The grand jury was not normal, and thats what the table points out. The prosecutors job is to prosecute, not decide if there is a crime. There is prosecutorial discretion, but if thats what was at play he should have just said so, and declined to prosecute. Having a show "trial" where he didn't actually prosecute did nothing except waste money and provide room for criticism. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, in this specific instance, this was a "normal" grand jury conducting "normal" grand jury business, it just so happened in August that they were thrust into the spotlight and given an unusual case under unusual circumstances - and the table doesn't point that out. The table is confusing because it seems to imply that some kind of special grand jury was convened to hear this case, and that's not what happened. A typical grand jury had already been convened and were conducting typical grand jury business when they were suddenly tasked with an unusual and controversial case, that's what happened and that's what should be relayed to the reader in prose instead of a generic table that doesn't address the context in which this case was given to them. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from adding other viewpoints about the grand jury process, besides the NYT's opinion and the other opinions already in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the makeup and convening of the GJ was normal. But was the presentation of this case normal? The table is about the GJ proceedings, not the GJ itself. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I read from the bloated opinions in that section, it's the decision and the presentation of the case by the prosecutor McCulloch and the unusual way he used the grand jury - that is the controversy, at least that's what the overwhelming sources indicate and what and who they are specifically criticizing. If anything, there should be a table comparing "Similar cases handled by McCulloch" vs. "Wilsons case". The controversy/criticism revolves around McCulloch and the decisions he made. And I'd also point out that the table says that they met 25 days over 3 months, that was a decision that this specific GJ themselves elected to do, so that is specific to them and therefore makes it about "the GJ itself" and an apparent scheduling decision they made for convenience purposes. Gee, isn't that controversial? And I'd also make note of the fact that a "typical" grand jury does not meet for a day or less, it meets for a specific timeframe decided by a judge, and these grand jurors were originally appointed for a four-month term (and later extended). Isaidnoway (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI grand juries are not the same as trial juries. Trial juries are directed by judges; grand juries are directed by prosecutors. --RAN1 (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Isaidnoway You are completely misinterpreting the criticism Isaidnoway. Yes, the jury was convened for a set amount of time, but the amount of time they spent on a particular case was controlled by the prosecutor. This same GJ dealt with dozens of cases prior to this case, and most of them were less than a day. Probable cause is a really low standard. Did wilson shoot? Yes. Were there witnesses (that passed the initial "not obviously lying" test) that said Brown was surrendering? Yes. Ok, thats probable cause for a trial. Impeaching those witnesses, and showing the defensive evidence is the job of the defense, not the prosecutor. Self defense cases are tougher, because they need to show all the elements of the crime and one of those elements is "it wasn't justified" but its still a really low bar. I think there is no way they could get a conviction, but the criticism that the prosecutor would not be giving the random joe the same level of deference is absolutely correct. He used the GJ for political cover instead of just saying "I don't think there is a case here" Political cover is not one of the appropriate roles for a GJ.McCulloch essentially had a trial, where he was both the prosecution and the defense. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The amount of time spent on a case is not controlled by a prosecutor, the time is controlled by the jurors themselves, as they are certainly allowed to ask questions of the witnesses and to individually examine the evidence as it suits them. And your explanation here on the talk page about how they dealt with dozens of cases with most of them being less than a day is great, but that explanation for the reader is absent from the table. The implication presently in the table is that a "typical" grand jury meets for a day or less, sans any explanation or context. Probable cause was never there for the prosecution, the physical evidence is in line with the officer's version of events. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

" but it's not right for Wikipedia to contain information that is factually wrong" - Actually, the purpose of Wikipedia is to report what reliable sources say about a subject. If reliable source A said X, and X is factually incorrect because B says so, then we report what A said and what B said, and let our readers arrive to their own conclusions. But we can't avoid quoting A just because B said that A is factually incorrect. In addition, we can't use a primary source that contradicts A, unless the primary source refers to A's opinion. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Policy doesn't say that we have to include questionable material. See the policy Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.

There’s a false implication in the NYT table and ours that the prosecutor didn’t provide a range of charges. He provided five, from murder in the first degree to involuntary manslaughter.[20][21]

In any case, I think we should summarize the information in the table with the following:

According to The NY Times, the grand jury proceedings were not typical of such proceedings in Missouri. They lasted much longer, the prosecutor did not recommend that the defendant be indicted, there was much more evidence presented, many more witnesses testified, the defendant testified, and all of the evidence and testimony was released to the public after the defendant was not indicted.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:BRD. I don't see any consensus emerging for this change. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your summary is inaccurate, to say the least. Using generic terms such as "much longer" and "more evidence" when we have hard data that is measurable. I still believe the table is the best and easy to read and appreciate for our readers. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I recently made some edits that were reverted by Cwobeel, as indicated in the history of the article between 07:15, 11 December 2014‎ and 15:58, 11 December 2014‎. I essentially summarized, organized, reduced the wording, and changed the heading from “Reception” to “Discussion”, on the way to getting the section into a more encyclopedic form. Could some editors review and comment on any of the edits, reverts or their edit summaries? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll comment on the heading. It was originally "Controversy" but Cwobeel renamed it to "Reception", saying, This section needs to includes statements of support not just those views critical of the proceedings for NPOV. My reaction at that time was that "Controversy" correctly reflected the two sides to the issue, and there is no controversy on any issue without (at least) two sides. So I couldn't make sense of that editsum and didn't see how renaming to "Reception" was an improvement. Since then, we've been around and around between Reception, Response, and Discussion, when Controversy might have been more acceptable to most involved. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Restoring the heading to "Controversy" is fine with me. Feel free to restore it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with moving the content from the table into a more readable summary of the salient points. Might need a little tweaking on the language, but it's a good start on cleaning up this section. There are also 13 separate paragraphs with varying opinions being offered that should be trimmed back as well, we don't need that many opinions to get the point across that McCulloch's handling of the case was controversial. Weasel phrases like "some legal experts" and "others said" and "legal experts also noted" should be removed entirely, we have plenty of legal/academic experts with names giving legal/academic opinions that suffice instead of generic weasel phrasing. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the agreement regarding replacing the table. Feel free to replace it with any tweaking of my version.

Also I agree with your point about too many opinions and I would add that there is overlap and repetition of their points. Phrases like "various legal experts criticized", "others said", etc. are useful when combining the same or similar sourced opinions from different people. I don't think we need in-text attribution when there is a source for the statement which does that. Any concern that it should be noted that it is an opinion can be done in text without the bulky in-text attribution and a description of who the person is, which hurt the flow and distract from the point that is being made. Using "various legal experts criticized", "others said", etc. is a normal way to summarize, as long as they are substantiated with inline citations. Please see the 1st 2 sentences of this version of the section [22] and you will see that they were. See also WP:WEASEL, which supports the fact that they aren't weasel phrases when they are substantiated with sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the table should be replaced. Granted, the charges row is wrong, but the rest of the information is verifiable and from a (otherwise) reliable source. It's mostly data, and putting that in prose would make the data less presentable. --RAN1 (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2014

Change "The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis. Brown, an 18-year-old black man" To "The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis. Brown, an 18-year-old African-American teen" Jetserf (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed extensively and the current wording reflect editors' consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Incident reports

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

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

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

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

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

According to a spokesman for the St. Louis County police department, it's normal practice not to give out the details and that under the Missouri State “Sunshine” Law, the department was not required to release the information during a pending investigation.[23] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full episode may be on this page, but I am not 100% sure: [24], OTOH, this is a good source that could be used: [25] - Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a relevant excerpt from a Nov 24 Newsweek source.[26]

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

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

I made some edits involving the second and third sentences of the first paragraph, which currently is:[27]

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

References

The first sentence is not supported by its source. The only thing it adds is the part about the lawyer. The rest is covered in the second sentence. I think we should delete it for now and consider restoring the lawyer info when there is a suitable source for it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Deleted. [28] --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source is no longer online. In any case I think what we have there is covers this quote well. I have re-ordered the sentences for a narrative that makes sense. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that was an improvement. I noticed that another editor reverted the re-ordering. [29] --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The version reverted to does not make sense. It starts by describing the reasons why a report was not filed, only to say in the following paragraphs that reports were indeed filed. when you removed the O'Donnell reference, the section came out of whack. I am still trying to find the original source from O'Donnell. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the lead paragraph is OK and shouldn't be touched for now. I've been working on the rest of the section to get it into better shape. After I complete that, I'll revisit the lead paragraph. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

OK Found it. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We have breaking news tonight in the killing of Michael Brown. St. Louis County prosecutors told NBC News today that the Ferguson Police Department has no incident report of the shooting of Michael Brown. Darren Wilson, the officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, did not write an incident report contrary to standard police procedure. […] Yesterday, in response to a lawsuit from the ACLU, the St. Louis County police released an incident report that says, in effect, nothing other than the time and proximate location of a homicide and the victim`s name, Michael Brown. That incident report indicates that it was not filed until possibly 10 days after the killing of Michael Brown. […] In the decades I`ve been studying these cases, most of them involve incident reports written by the officers involved with the shooting. In recent years, it has become customary for the police lawyer to run in, police union lawyer usually, and prevent the shooter from giving any kind of comment or writing any sort of incident report whatsoever.

References

The excerpt you gave doesn't say that Wilson was advised by a union lawyer not to complete an incident report. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

See my edit, which attributes that opinion to O'Donnell. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I moved it from the article to here for discussion.

"MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell reported on August 21 that St. Louis County prosecutors told NBC News that they do not have an incident report from the shooting, contrary to standard police procedure, and described a pattern in which police union lawyers prevent shooters from commenting to filing incident reports."

References

This Aug 21 item became obsolete when the police interview of Wilson, the day after the shooting, was released to the public. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? Can you provide a source that describes the police interview that was released? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link from a CNN webpage to the interview. [30] --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bob K31416:I see what you mean. But you are confusing two things. What O'Donnell is referring to is an incident report. What you are refrring to is an interview with Wilson. These are two different things. Please restore that edit, as this section is all about incident reports and not interviews. - - Cwobeel (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: - You have to add the ping (yo) and your sig in the same edit, or there is no notification. I learned that the hard way. @Bob K31416: ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

O'Donnell said, "any kind of comment or writing any sort of incident report whatsoever.” --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So what? The fact is that Wilson did not file an incident report. That is undisputed. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Break1 Incident reports

@Bob K31416: I added additional commentary from legal and law enforcement analysts. I also re-ordered the sentences to follow the chronology. I think I got it right, but please change it if it is not correct. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(Here’s a link to the version after Cwobeel's recent edits [31] and a link to the version before [32] .)

Cwobeel, Here’s some comments on your recent edits of the section.

1) The first sentence of your version misstated the source. O'Donnell was referring to only the Ferguson incident report. The info was already in the first sentence that you moved.

2) The second sentence of your version about Lisa Bloom’s opinion misstates the source. Lisa Bloom didn’t say that Wilson refused to file a report.

3) Re the 3rd sentence of your version about Jim Cavanaugh’s comment — The info was already covered in the first and second sentences of the original version.

4) The 4th sentence of your version about the Ferguson police not filing an incident report was the original 1st sentence.

5) The 5th and last sentence of the lead paragraph of your version was about a use-of-force report and was formerly the last sentence of the section. I hadn’t worked on the placement or content of this sentence yet.

6) The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of your version were obtained by switching the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the original version. I hadn’t worked on the content or placement of the material in these paragraphs yet.

7) The 4th and last paragraph of your version was the second sentence of the lead paragraph of the original version.

Before I try to edit the section again, could you list here in our discussion, in chronological order, the events that you are trying to portray in chronological order? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I cheeked again this evening and this is the correct chronology, my last edit was not correct:

• August 19 - (10 days after shooting) incident report filed by St. Louis county police
• August 21 - O'Donnel's reporting, commentary from Lisa Bloom and Jim Cavanaugh
• August 22 - St. Louis County Prosecutor's Office says that Ferguson police did not file a report because the case was assigned to county police
• August 26 - ACLU releases the report they received after their FOIA request
• August 26 - HuffPo reports on commentary by ACLU's Gupta
• Sept 25 - Yahoo News reports that key report does not exist

Regarding Bloom and Cavanaugh:

• Lisa Bloom: And if he refuses to follow standard operating procedure in preparing a report about the taking of the human life, he should be fired."
• Jim Cavanaugh: That is an expert opinion that should be presented.

I will attempt again to correct corrected the chronology. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: feel free to copyedit my rendition of Bloom and Cavanugh's comments, if you can make it better and closer to the source. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, On giving the section another look, I noticed that it is about not releasing information that has now been released. It’s obsolete and a digression from the topic of the article, the shooting of Michael Brown. We could summarize the incident report issue in a couple of sentences and merge it with the Police section. Thoughts? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a thought regarding Laurence O'Donnell's stated opinion - he's a political columnist, not a police beat reporter. Yet, what we have is his opinion regarding police procedural practices. Unless we have some information on O'Donnell's "years of experience" in this area, we have to treat him as a political beat reporter giving opinions on police procedure.

Laurence O'Donnell is well-known to use "The Last Word" not as a factual reporting forum, but as a soapbox to advance very contentious statements such as his opinion that Mitt Romney would not make a good President of the United States because he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and went on to make an extended derogatory and factually incorrect series of statements about the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. [33] O'Donnell was later required to apologize to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for these comments. [34]

When Laurence O'Donnell gives his opinion on political matters, it's notable and a good source. When he holds forth on religion or police procedures, we have to question his credentials and the objectivity of his comments in an MSNBC editorial slot. If we cite him on the incident report on anything but the timing of the report and that alone (not his conjectures about why it may have been delayed) we must emphasize in an inline citation in the article that he is giving his opinion on police procedures and that his specialty is not police reporting, but political reporting, and that his "The Last Word" program on MSNBC is a political editorial slot, not a program in which he is retained by MSNBC for his knowledge of police procedure. I do note now that he's only quotes as mentioning when the incident report was submitted by reference to a third source.

Further, in evaluating his credibility and deciding whether to cite him at all, we have to consider the times Laurence O'Donnell has made disparaging comments about other living persons and had to issue retractions or apologies for false statements he made on that program in the past. loupgarous (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)