Talk:Shooting of Daniel Rocha

Research needed

This article could use some research, if it is to survive. Readers stumbling across it are left to wonder whether or not Mr. Rocha struggled with the officer on duty, and as written, the article hints that he was executed because of his race.

The article is not ready for the wordwide web, has no external links for the said incident or for the alleged related incidents, and only identifies the incident as taking place in "Austin." U.S. readers may assume the state capitol of TX, but even that is conjecture.

Also, the racially-pregnant phrase "people of color" is not a universally-used term, nor is it obvious that other races are welcomed to use it by the African American culture; nor does it promote a sense of a nationwide or a worldwide common destiny for all mankind, but one used in African American circles to spotlight the collective culture of its own people with the rest of the world's peoples serving as an adversarial backdrop.

Hence, while specific dates & names are mentioned, the article as written is very vague on any points which might actually accuse or excuse the officer of excessive use of force or bring the deceased vindication or otherwise in the mind of the reader. With the subtly defensive closing words, the wordwide reader is left to ponder more what was NOT said, unless they feel personally included in the phrase "people of color."

-A reader in North Carolina— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.146.82 (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Untitled

Although I did expand this article, it may better be used in our sister project wikinews rather than here. Not sure so i'll leave it up to some else to decide. --Mr. Dude ^{†@£К ║ Çøת†яĭβü†ĬŎИ} 03:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

Is the consnsus that the following lines are NPOV?

Every tests done determined that there was no trace until the investigators found one that did.

This was the 11th police related death in Austin since 1998. All the victims have been people of color.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RJFJR (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've fleshed out and sourced this article with the intention of having the NPOV tag removed (e.g. the above mentioned lines were modified). Let me know your thoughts on the article as it now stands. jareha 19:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks much better to me with regards to NPOV and also it is easier to read and more complete. Thank you. RJFJR 05:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tag as RJFJR originally added it. jareha 17:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Commentary

I've removed the following from the article, as it doesn't read as encyclopedic but instead as commentary:

It is obvious that the writer is either anti police or misguided. Let me at least clear up that there is no law that requires a traffic stop be taped however various police departmenst may have policies that require them to have the cameras on during such stops. this is the type of writings that spew mis-truths and dis-trust.

jareha ^(comments) 03:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-Caucasian?

Probably an inaccurate term. Consider paragraph 2 & 3 here; http://www.jsri.msu.edu/museum/pubs/MexAmHist/chapter2.html

Was it intentionally inappropriately applied here to exacerbate and prolong animus? Quillman 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)