This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Law Enforcement C‑class This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Missouri C‑class Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Politics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Currently the article includes: "the South Carolina-based New Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan said that its Missouri chapter is setting up a fund to support the police officer who killed Brown"

Looks like the official KKK is disavowing this endeavor:

SOURCE: TheWire.com: KKK Disowns KKK Fundraiser for Darren Wilson - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be setting a very low bar to inclusion. Is it really noteworthy to include that attention-seekers in a different state agreed to accept donations on behalf of someone who does not want their support? This seems WP:UNDUE. --Darmokand (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. It doesn't seem that the mainstream media is really taking note. I won't object if someone wants to remove it.- MrX 14:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is supported by a WP:RS and should remain as part of the reactions to the shooting. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it should be deleted. There is no evidence that Wilson authorized such fund raising or would accept funds from the KKK. Scam artists shouldn't be mentioned especially given BLP concerns. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not include its purpose for inclusion is to inflame the racial tension aspect of the incident. This is a non notable group comploetely unrelated to the incident, picked up by one source, and that source explicitly says they were doing it for attention. WP:WEIGHT Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Should the statement that the a single chapter of the KKK from a different state (Missouri) claimed its intention to raise funds be included in the article? update : The sources were written confusingly/have been updated. This is the missouri chapter of the KKK, which is headquartered in south carolina.

Survey

• not include WP:WEIGHT WP:NPOV WP:BLP many groups say many things. This group has no relationship to any of the participants, organizations, city, etc at all. Its inclusion is obviously meant to be salacious and create a guilt by association (when there is no actual association) thats a clear WP:BLP issue. Yes, it is sourced, but everything which is sourced is not necessarily included. This is not a significant part of the story, and it has not gained any traction in the many many sources which are covering this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Include Per Gaijin42. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article. Having watched a few hours of news coverage, this didn't get mentioned once. It seems WP:UNDUE to include this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't include per AQFK, unless it becomes some big deal, or there is more too it. --Malerooster (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't include I cannot even believe this is an RFC.Whatzinaname (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't include Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean we have to include it. There is nothing notable or relevant about this content. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude as being inflammatory with no basis for any claim that the police officers support such a KKK action at all - thus it is a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP and the onus is on those wishing to include those allegations to demonstrate that they comport with the policy. Collect (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• of course include' - This is part of the record of this event, and reported by several reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude Zero relevance to the incident. Arzel (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include It happened. It is connected to the event. People want to know about it. 174.63.103.38 (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't include For the reasons I've given above. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak include It's reliably sourced and related to the incident. That said, it's not terribly noteworthy in the context of the incident. I'd say include it for now, though I note that there are legitimate concerns about undue weight. Dyrnych (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not include Undue weight, we have WP:IINFO. It doesn't sound like what I want to know when clicking in as well.Forbidden User (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not include A controversial inclusion to a WP:RECENT article with not enough WP:WEIGHT and raises concerns of WP:NPOV. Johnfancy (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course not Joefromrandb (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude based on current information; this being a recent event, the KKK might hit the news tomorrow. I believe I did see something about them raising money for Wilson, but it has not had significant coverage yet. If it does get more coverage, the situation is different. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2014

(UTC)

• Include This information is highly relevant to the racial elements of the event. While various partisan groups have an interest in painting the event as related or unrelated to race as suits their respective agendas, the fact remains that race is a factor in this event. The presence of a nationally significant, race-centric organization is notable and important in the pursuit of impartially documenting it. 75.119.90.35 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude per WP:NOTPROMO, although the fundraising can be verified the fact that an organization is fundraising based on the event should be excluded, otherwise all the organizations that have fundraised for the event would have to be given equal weight for balance sake.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

• I don't have much of an opinion on this either way and I tend to agree that giving the KKK any attention is counterproductive. I did notice that there is some coverage now in the media: [1][2][3][4], FWIW.- MrX 19:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that giving the KKK any attention is counterproductive, it's more a question does this "material" rise to the level of relavence and noteworthyness that it merits inclusion? At this point, no. As I said above, IF it becomes some huge deal, then yes, reconsider inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I disregard the attention getting part of my argument and focus on WP:DUE weight, that puts me on the fence leaning toward include. So far, we have at least four good sources, and quite a few weaker sources. If coverage of this increases in the media the next couple of days, then I would likely !vote to include the material.- MrX 20:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPOV we report what reliable sources say about the subject without bias. This is a valid and interesting point regardless of how we may feel about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• When a highly controversial organization makes a statement like this during a national story, we should not be surprised that it would receive some attention in the media. However, WP is not a place to try and sell newspapers or get internet clicks. It serves no purpose to use WP to further inflame the situation and play towards the goals of the KKK, especially when their supposed support of the officer has no relevance to this event. Arzel (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether it is controversial or salacious or gives someone we don't like attention. If it is part of the facts of the story, it should be included. The Michael Brown story is extremely racial, so there will be extremists on either side and people in the middle reacting to the incident. It should all be reported if it is part of the story. The only question we should be asking is: Is it a significant part of the story. People who read WP want all the facts. They don't want other people to make up their minds for them. They want to read the facts and make up their own minds. There are people who see the story as Oppressors/Oppressed. There are others who see the story as Chaos vs. the Rule of Law. There are others who see it as Freedom vs. Police State. Everyone would like the slant the story toward their own particular viewpoint. But the best article will just tell the facts and let each person make up their own mind.174.63.103.38 (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ths is widely reported, including international press:

• The Independent (UK): [5]
• UPI [6]
• RT (Spain) [7]
• Prensa Latina [8]
• International Business Times [9]
• Salon [10]
• Liberty voice [11]
• Uptown Magazine [12]
• The Real News Network [13]
• MintPress News [14]
• The Inquistr [15]
• Brasil Post [16]
• El Mundo [17]

So, regardless of our opinions, per WP:NPOV we should report all significant viewpoints per reliable sources, and not including this violates NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of now the shooting incident has about 500,000 news hits on google. The KKK angle has less than 5,000. This is not a significant viewpoint. It doesn't help that most of your sources above are fringe. Arzel (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe? The Independent? UPI? Prensa Latina? Brasil Post, El Mundo? What are you talking about? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

• RAI News (Italy) [18]
• Univision [19]
• Stern (Germany) [20]
• El Comercio (Peru) [21]

We have reported material sourced to just a few sources (The Daily Caller and Breitbart), and we are not reporting this? How come? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list of sources was placed after the RFC started and I have yet to see arguments that respond to this. Given these sources it is not a insignificant view anymore. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the official KKK is disavowing this endeavor:

SOURCE: TheWire.com: KKK Disowns KKK Fundraiser for Darren Wilson - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to boldly begin converting this article to use list-defined references, since I believe its benefits greatly outweigh its costs when it comes to ease of editing.

The benefits: For an example of the end result, edit 2014 Isla Vista killings and note how much less cluttered the body of the article is. Then look at the References section and note how it's so much easier to read the refs. Anything you need to do to a large number of existing refs, such as adding archive parameters, making the format of author names consistent, etc., is vastly easier when they are together in one place and well organized.

The costs:

• Every ref needs a refname.
• Every new ref requires (1) a change to the References section, to add the ref, and (2) a change to the body where you want to invoke the ref, as <ref name=refname/>. In a busy article like this one, where edit conflicts are more common, I do this by editing sections rather than the entire article. I update the References section first, which creates a red error due to the unused ref, and then do the body edit(s), which eliminates the error. In some cases the ref you need will already exist in the References section, so you can skip that step.

LDR isn't an all-or-none deal. Putting a ref in the body won't break the article. If doing refs this new way is too much to handle, then don't. Someone else will come along and move any body refs to the References section.

If anyone strongly objects, I will immediately cease being bold and we can discuss it. Fair?   Mandruss |talk  17:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Great! I strongly support that (and wish you luck). It makes editing text much easier. It will result in orphaned refs, but fortunately a bot comes around pretty frequently to clean them up. I would only ask that you do not use (deprecated) quotation marks around ref names unless they have a space (or better yet, just don't use a space) and that the ref names be descriptive (not ref1, ref 2, ref3).- MrX 17:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, the naming convention that I'm bringing over from 2014 IVK provides for no spaces and no quotation marks. As for your orphaned refs comment, I don't think they're inevitable and I'll do my best to avoid them! If I create any, I'll fix them in short order. Re the deprecated quotation marks, is that deprecation in writing somewhere? I had an editor who tried to mass change 2014 IVK to use quotes and spaces because he thought they were more user-friendly. I'd like to have something to point to.   Mandruss |talk  18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it now, but I'll keep trying.- MrX 18:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also not that I greatly appreciate this as well. Thanks! Dyrnych (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(dummy activity to prevent archive for 48 hours, as that would break all of my related editsums)   Mandruss |talk  15:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to combine these edits so that the article history isn't so cluttered? Going back to yesterday is literally hundreds of edits due to this. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean combine the history for the edits already done? If so, I don't know of any way to do that. If you're talking about doing more than one ref in each edit, I can do that when I'm working on it while everyone else is sleeping. Otherwise there would be too many edit conflicts.   Mandruss |talk  23:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the latter, combining the edits so there weren't so many in the history, moving forward. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beginning refs cleanup.   Mandruss |talk  07:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/ChristineDByers/statuses/501556693382094848

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/boom-reporter-a-dozen-witnesses-confirm-ferguson-cops-version-of-brown-shooting/

173.75.159.115 (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Blaze and The Daily Caller and Breitbart are all running this story as well. It shouldn't be long till Fox News picks it up. Curious though, I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere on the STLP website anywhere. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this were true, would they really let her tweet it out to the world? In a neighborhood where people graffitied the Quik Trip with the expression "Snitches Get Stitches," the same night it was gutted by fire, in a neighborhood where the Ferguson Market and Liquor got ransacked and emptied the night after the surveillance tape from that store was publicized, giving testimony that could help clear Officer Wilson could result in similar retaliation or worse. It's not every day you see witnesses for the defendant put into a witness protection program, you know? But would they have any other choice? - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t know what kind of journalism is that. We don't have yet Wilson's testimony or the police report he filed on the shooting, and we have sources that say "Over A Dozen Witnesses Back Darren Wilson’s Story", when all they have is hearsay from a person that called into a radio station saying that she hear from Wilson's wife. Unbelievable they call themselves journalists. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She isn't reporting it as fact - she is quoting unnamed "police sources." I shouldn't have to explain why that's problematic. This amounts to "police say police officer did nothing wrong." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Until this develops into something, it isn't something. (Note, I was listening to the local news reporters giving live coverage in St Louis last night talk at length about how they have longstanding relationships with the police officers in this region and hearing that got me thinking about how their friendships with the police might color subtle biases as they report this story. St Louis is one of those "if it bleeds it leads" kinds of markets where tragic killings, mostly in more "inner city" parts of the region are an almost daily occurrence. These police officers are their sources for much of the work that they do which earns them their livelihood. I think that should be borne in mind as one assesses whether there is any truth to the statement purportedly made by a police department employee who probably isn't someone she had never met before, but rather a department employee who has been a source for her for a very long time now.) - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To further update this, per the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Christine Byers has been on FMLA leave since March and the paper has essentially disavowed any connection to her tweet, describing them as "personal." Byers herself stated that her earlier tweet does not meet the standard for publication. Dyrnych (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you go. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead states that the officer shoots Brown. The very next words say "Brown was unarmed and he has no criminal record." Then, it says some other stuff. Then it gives the officer's brief history. Why doesn't the lead state that the officer shoots Brown. Then, immediately, state the officer's clean history and the fact that he won an award and the fact that he sustained an injury. And then mention that Brown was unarmed and has no record. It is very biased, either way. It needs some cleaning up. Right now, the clear implication is that Brown was unjustifiably shot. As soon as we read that there was a shooting, the very next statement says "Brown is unarmed and has no criminal record". Why is Brown's good, clean record listed first? Why not the officer's good, clean record first? Either way, it's biased and needs some fix. Perhaps give a few more neutral facts. And then state the clean records of both parties. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would revert you if you did as you suggest, provided the "neutral facts" are suitable for the lead.   Mandruss |talk  21:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't have any proposed text. I am not that involved with this article. I am suggesting the idea, not the specific text. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brown is the one who is dead and is not here to defend himself. The article is about Brown, not Wilson. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is most certainly not about Brown. It's about a shooting that occurred. Furthermore, his being dead and unable to defend himself is relevant (to this discussion) how exactly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

It's about the shooting of a person named Michael Brown, who was killed. Your attempt to dehumanize the victim is noted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment speaks for itself. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being very harsh there, :NorthBySouthBaranof. The article is about the shooting of Michael Brown, and the shooting of Michael Brown is not a person, but an event. No one is trying to "dehumanize" anyone, as far as I can tell. Popcornduff (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest we all drop this, as it can only escalate from here. There is no need for that. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the assessment that the article's lead is biased. It states facts as reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it states facts as reported. Did you read my post? It's the order of how these facts are delivered that has a POV implication. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a dead person, who was unarmed, shot by a police officer. I don't see the need to "defend" anyone, we let the facts speak for themselves. And if you believe that the order in which this is presented has a POV implication, then you are splitting hairs indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read the lede, and I don't see any issues there. If you think you can do better, then go for it. If your edit is good it will stay, if it is not, it will be deleted; welcome to collaborative editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. It's still the exact same facts as reported. Just in a different order. Which, as you already opined, is not relevant to POV. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undone, per WP:BRD. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please address the issue at hand. You stated that order is not POV. And "it's facts as reported". What changed? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which seems to be not the way you behave, preferring to revert instead of discuss. I'll let others weight in. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? You did the revert. I am the one who brought this to the Talk Page (i.e., to discuss). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BRD. You did a bold edit to a version that was defacto consensus, I reverted. You reverted again instead of discussing. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, your "defacto consensus" has changed, given the activity that this post has generated. And that change is due to me discussing this on the Talk Page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what BRD means, Joseph. Bold edit = defacto consensus UNLESS someone reverts. Then you discuss until consensus is established. Hopefully the point is moot, though. Dyrnych (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can also cite Wikipedia rules, chapter and verse. One of them is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. At the end of the day, what I did here led to the article being improved. You're welcome. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to wikilawyer you here. I'm trying to clarify the rule and saying that, in the future, BRD is the appropriate thing to do. It looks like my edit is consensus at the moment, but I actually should have discussed it here before making it given that there was dispute. So I handled that inappropriately too. And citing "ignore all rules" to justify a handling a content dispute inappropriately isn't going to get you much of anywhere. It's not a trump card. Dyrnych (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. No one is asking for – or claiming – a "trump card". Some editors want to get "bogged down" in the minutiae of a million different – often, contradictory – rules. And, of course, they pick a rule that is self-serving to their interest at the moment. And they miss the big picture of the main objective: improving the article. Some other editor wanted to cite a bunch of rules and keep the article in an "unimproved" state (i.e., which he referred to as "defacto consensus") by citing some rules. Not to mention, in the next breath, he cites the "but he can be BOLD about making his change" rule. So, once again: At the end of the day, what I did here led to the article being improved. And, once again: You're welcome. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joseph, it's biased towards Brown by immediately stating that Brown was unarmed and had no criminal convictions. The first paragraph, second sentence should state that the shooting sparked protests and riots and the civil unrest we are still seeing to this day. That's certainly more notable and relevant than detailing their past actions - good or bad. The rest can be moved down to the second paragraph. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The riots more relevant? This is an article about the shooting of Michael Brown, and we have a separate article for the civil unrest, linked at the top. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the lead in a way that I hope resolves this conflict. I moved "unarmed" to the first sentence and the material about Brown's criminal history immediately before the information about Wilson. Dyrnych (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/

173.75.159.227 (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can wait for a reliable source to publish this, if true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^ Agree. ^^^^ If it's true, RS will be all over it, probably within an hour or two.   Mandruss |talk  21:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that Ferguson police is leaking strategically. I will try to find the article I read in which this asserted. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it would dramatically change the picture in their favor, wouldn't they be "leaking" like a fire hose?   Mandruss |talk  21:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here Holder Criticizes 'Selective' Leaks In Ferguson Shooting Investigation [22]. Indeed they are leaking what they want to be known that would bolster their case... - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Huffington Post, referring to the author of the article referenced by the OP: Hoft is known as the Dumbest Man on the Internet, and for good reason. As Media Matters summed it up: "Hoft runs with (or spawns) almost every inane story that bubbles up in the conservative blogosphere, has proven that he has absolutely no vetting process for the sources he cites, and apparently has a hard time with basic reading comprehension."   Mandruss |talk  21:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gosh. And they carry Press credentials? - Cwobeel (talk)

Lest I be accused of failing to check my liberal bias at the door, Accuracy in Media apparently thinks he's great, as mentioned in the same HuffPost piece. But I'd put serious money on this being another example of Internet trash.   Mandruss |talk  22:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in the "shooting" section of this article, the claim that brown charged the officer is presented as fact. The source cited is breitbart.com, which should not be considered as an unbiased source. Eyewitness accounts are presented as accounts. Thus, someone reading this article and not knowing much about the incident would be lead to believe that the account of brown charging the officer is undisputed, whereas eyewitness accounts, such as Johnson's are treated as merely statements and not fact. Since there are many questions about what happened, there should be some indication that there are varying, contradictory accounts that make it unclear what happened. Azurashe (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart is shaky as someone put it, and the account is sourced by them to a blog that is not an RS. There is no rush, if that comes out in an official report, or if it is confirmed by reputable sources it can then be added. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the "charged" claim. It's not sourced to an RS and the non-RS article source itself is explicitly repeating the accounts of as-yet-unidentified witnesses, which are in turn sourced to a since-disavowed tweet. Just a monumentally problematic claim to include as fact. Dyrnych (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it needs some work, now it sounds as if the police officer was firing his gun while running after the victim. There needs to be some mention that the victim stops running, at which point witness/police statements diverge. Restrictedthoughts (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DRIP. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fox News is reporting on this aspect of the story - Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source Isaidnoway (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to the police account, since the anonymous source in the Fox story is "close to the department's brass." Dyrnych (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt from the Fox story explaining why everything that they're telling us is through unofficial (leaked) (DRIP) (DROP) sources. Why in the world would they not publicize an injury report from day one if they injury had taken place on day one? That's hardly a matter of "testimony" that needs to be sequestered. Sunshine laws should require the same to be made public. Didn't they relase the incident report from the Ferguson Market? Isn't that evidence? I raise all of these questions to point out that the police may be/are playing those who report on these stories. That would include us. We should be extra vigilant about doing what is right in our reporting, rather than just scooping up the bread crumbs and regurgitating them as we get incrementally led away from the gingerbread house.

- - - - - - -

St. Louis County police, who have taken over the investigation, did not return requests

for comment about possible injuries suffered by Wilson.

Edward Magee, spokesman for St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCullough,

said the office will not disclose the nature of the evidence it will reveal to a grand jury.

"We'll present every piece of evidence we have, witness statements, et cetera, to the grand jury,

and we do not release any evidence or talk about evidence on the case."

- - - - - - -

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious what they are doing. Leaking info that will somehow prepare the public on what would be the likely outcome of the grand jury. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A source close to the department's brass" is not verifiable even in principle. We need a name, at least, for this supposed "source" before we repeat anything they say. 107.203.108.56 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum to the above: I request that the statement about Wilson's supposed injury be removed until it can be substantiated by someone who actually exists and will tell us their name. Currently we are publishing gossip. 107.203.108.56 (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have hedged the passage considerably, I think, by explicitly attributing the information to Fox. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABC news is also reporting injuries to Wilson. [23] The use of anonymous sources by reliable sources is justified. Indeed, Watergate relied on a source that was anonymous for decades. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABC has been added. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times reported that a neighbor saw Wilson mowing his lawn three days after the shooting. I have added this as relevant to the injury claims - it demonstrates that Wilson was not hospitalized for an extended period or significantly disabled by whatever injuries he may have suffered. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant to this claim: the alleged "CT scan" touted by the aforementioned blog is a Photoshop job. As this post demonstrates it is a demo picture of an orbital blowout fracture with the words "UNIV OF IOWA" crudely photoshopped out. As if GatewayPundit wasn't questionable enough already, they're passing off a photoshopped picture as evidence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A CNN reporter has tweeted that "a source close to the investigation" denies that Wilson suffered a fractured eye socket - X-rays were negative, according to the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That link is not working. -- Veggies (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now on Vox, a reliable aggregator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is correct, it is quite explosive. Not only leaks, but false leaks? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is consistent with what Thomas Jackson said: “Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said last week that Wilson had a “swollen face” after the altercation and was taken to a hospital for treatment, but he did not provide any other information beyond saying the injuries were not life-threatening.”[24]

- Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another article debunking this claim: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43758_Breaking-_CNN_Reports__Ferguson_PD_Officer_Darren_Wilson_DID_NOT_Suffer_a_Fractured_Eye_Socket Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let the record show that I am the guy who added the word ALLEGEDLY to this section title. Healthy skepticism of police sources was burned into my personal experiences with lying police should anyone want to know where my slight (or not so slight) bias against believing them without verification comes from. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think some are missing the point; Foxnews, amongst other RS are reporting what their unnamed sources have said. We should have no problem in parroting the reports, as long as they are attributed to the unnamed source. We aren't saying the content of the report is true, but rather a RS has verified this is what their source said. We should trust the RS that the sources are "close to the brass", because that's what's the RS is reporting.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This from Reuters, et al: "Mobile phone footage has emerged showing the body of 18-year-old Michael Brown shortly after he was shot lying in the street as two officers pace back and forth in disbelief."

Note that he says that Wilson and his colleague pace back and forth in disbelief, and not that "Wilson holds his severely injured face, writhing in pain, and begging to be transported by ambulance to a local emergency room." I've watched the video. It's like. What have I done? And here I am now in front of all of these witnesses who already don't have a very high opinion of cops like me." So dispatch (yes I listened to the whole two hours) calls for dogs and many many many units -- for crowd control -- not to take away Michael's body, and not to attend to the orbital socket blowout that the 80 percent of Reliable Souroces who believe in lunar green cheese don't seem to buy as real anymore. Thanks, Fox, for trying, though. I mean, you gotta try. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how reliable, may be a biased source,

• Dorian Johnson recants

DRIP.

In case anyone's interested, here's the Facebook page of the cited source, The Viper 101.7 St. Louis on which the claim is made. I've cached it in Diigo just in case it gets deleted at some point.

https://www.facebook.com/1007TheViper/timeline?ref=page_internal - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Predictably (given the source), this seems to be inaccurate, per Johnson's attorney. Dyrnych (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's time that we refer to Michael Brown as Michael Brown Junior, at least once. You already have a cite where he's referred to that way. President Obama releases statement on death of Michael Brown, Jr http://www.kmov.com/special-coverage-001/President-Obama-releases-statement-on-death-of-Michael-Brown-270966801.html - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion, but if you do it please refer to this guideline. In other words, we omit the comma unless we can establish that he preferred it. A nit, to be sure, but nits are my specialty. ;) This is talking about article titles, but there's no reason it shouldn't apply everywhere else, too. Btw, you would always end with a period after Jr. Mandruss (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what he preferred. I did notice in one article however showing a picture from a Facebook page that he includes Jr in either his Facebook name or his Facebook URL. Sorry don't know where I'd find that now. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y done. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the comma being repeatedly omitted? Every other article I know doesn't omit it. CitiV (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an inconsistency. Due to inconsistent stylistic rules. The Wikipedia rule is to either keep or omit the comma, according to the individual's own preference. Without any clear preference, the comma is omitted. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline (WP:FULLNAME#Child named for parent or predecessor) states: "Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All because of some Facebook page omitting the comma? Proper usage of commas is underrated nowadays in the age of technology, just like spelling and punctuation. I'm not buying it. Anyone can easily omit a comma when it's necessitated. CitiV (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really because of the Facebook page, but because that was determined to be the Wikipedia policy. The one that I quoted above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CitiV, the comma is traditional, but the modern trend is to omit. While other authoritative sources disagree, The Chicago Manual of Style has recommended omitting since 1993. I agree with them since I care less about tradition than what makes sense. Hardly anyone would write, Michael Brown, II, and yet tradition says we need to add a comma if we change the II to Jr.. Tradition offers no explanation or reasoning for that. In any case, how we feel about it doesn't matter much since the community consensus is as stated in the guideline, but knowing the preceding information might make you feel better about doing so. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Actually, tradition does offer an explanation and reasoning for inclusion of the comma. As far as I understand it, at least. The word "Junior" was considered an appositive. Appositives (describing a noun) are always set off by commas from the noun described. An example might be: John, my neighbor, purchased a new car. The phrase "my neighbor" is an appositive to describe the noun "John". Therefore, the appositive ("my neighbor") is set off by commas. So, under the traditional way of thinking, "Junior" is an appositive to describe (modify) the person's name. Example: Martin Luther King, Jr., was born in 1929. The appositive "Junior" describes (modifies) the noun "Martin Luther King". Thus, the appositive is set off by commas. That is my understanding of the traditional rule. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well blow me down. I sit corrected! :D ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, we're gonna do this according to "the modern trend"? That's complete bull! CitiV (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also dislike the modern trend; I like the traditional inclusion of the comma in the case of "Junior". The article excludes the comma not really due to the modern trend, but due to the Wikipedia policy. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, and that's what I said. But I hope and assume that the guideline stems from the trend. If we clung to tradition despite trend, we would be using words like mayhap, somewhither, and betimes in Wikipedia articles. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to try to change the community consensus. In the meantime, we respect it and don't engage in article activism. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson fired more shots at Brown than British police officers discharged in all of 2013.

THE shooting of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American, by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, is a reminder that civilians—innocent or guilty—are far more likely to be shot by police in America than in any other rich country. In 2012, according to data compiled by the FBI, 410 Americans were “justifiably” killed by police—409 with guns. That figure may well be an underestimate. Not only is it limited to the number of people who were shot while committing a crime, but also, amazingly, reporting the data is voluntary. Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period. [25]

- Cwobeel (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's what I call journalism. Are you suggesting it might be considered for this article, or just passing along information? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is useful for this article, bt a summary could go in the International reaction of the 2014 Ferguson unrest article. The Economist is a British publication. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robbery incident report says police released two reports on the shooting on August 15. This WashPost op-ed, dated yesterday, confirms the report numbers but asks why the reports haven't been released yet. Why the discrepancy? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only reports released are of the robbery. No reports on the shooting have been released, but there have been a number of strategic leaks in past days. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Governor Jay Smith Nixon stated publicly that "we need to have an aggressive prosecution in this case" (or words to that effect). His comments were met with widespread criticism, claiming that he was prejudging, prejudicing, and trying to sway the case by calling for a prosecution in the absence of even an indictment. And it is claimed that he did so simply for political pandering. I can list sources. Does this belong in the article? I believe so. Perhaps one or two sentences. He is the Governor of the state in question. And he is the state's top executive officer. So, clearly, his reaction is relevant. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After the widespread criticism, he tried to back track. He said: Well, I really didn't mean "prosecution". When I used the word "prosecution", I really meant "the process". Or he gave some political rhetoric and BS along those lines. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Jay Nixon, not Jay Smith. That said, it would be nice to have a source for both his initial statement and his later comments. Dyrnych (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It is Nixon. No idea why I typed "Smith". I have corrected that. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for it assuming the sources are good ones. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will find them. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are at two more identified witnesses not included in the page, that might warrant inclusion:

1. James McKnight: "James McKnight, who also said he saw the shooting, said that Mr. Brown’s hands were up right after he turned around to face the officer. “I saw him stumble toward the officer, but not rush at him,” Mr. McKnight said in a brief interview. “The officer was about six or seven feet away from him.” Source: Shooting Accounts Differ as Holder Schedules Visit

2. Emmanuel Freeman, who tweeted about seeing the shooting immediately after it happened. You can see the tweets in question at the source. Source: 5 Eyewitness Accounts of Michael Brown Shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeranv (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added McKnight, since your source for him is a New York Times article that we're already using. I don't know about Freeman. For starters, is the identity of a tweeter verifiable? If so, did anyone verify it? Presumably the Times were able to somehow verify McKnight's identity before they quoted him, and he agreed to stand behind his statement by letting them report his name. Otherwise there would be tons of people calling the Times, and giving false names, to report that they witnessed the shooting.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I looked around and can't find anything that verifies Emmanuel Freeman so I think he would be an alleged witness at this point. 99.236.73.138 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brown was eighteen when he was shot dead, I ain't no English professor but eighteen or nineteen is teenage and Brown was a teenager when he was shot dead, why revert to man as done by User talk:Mandruss Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tried to point you to the answer to your question in my editsum, but I'll do it again here and even quote the relevant passage. The link: Age_of_emancipation#Emancipation_in_the_United_States. The quote:

Minors are under the control of their parents or legal guardians, until they attain the age of majority, at which point they become legal adults. In most states this is upon turning 18 years of age. However, in special circumstances, minors can be freed from control by their guardian before turning 18.

For our purposes, (male) legal adult = man. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User Mandruss. The word "man" is the more appropriate term in this case. While the word "teen" is technically accurate, it is the less appropriate choice. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

This is a bit of a false dichotomy in that someone can be both a teenager and an adult. But as Mandruss correctly points out, in the US, 18 is considered an adult. "Man" is the most commonly used term for an 18-year-old male, even if he is also technically a teenager. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is relevant to the article, but does anyone see a reason to include it? Source [26](ScubaSharky (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

It depends on whether it's related to the shooting.Mattnad (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As that source is written, I don't think there is anything there. If multiple sources run with this and draw attention to the false police report as possibly calling into question the reliability of his account, maybe. Ravensfire (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you mean by "false police report"? There are many police reports/statements, are you talking about a specific one? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's in linked article and the report is not related to this case. The possibility is that someone who's filed false reports in the past has credibility issues. Reading it now, it's not as strong of a statement as I thought it was. Apparently, Johnson was charged in 2011 with filing a false police report. The weakness is that the article only says "charged", nothing else. I have no idea if the charges are dropped, still pending or were decided. Given that, and with nothing in the article directly raising credibility issues regarding his statements for this situation (so a WP:SYNTH issue), I don't see anything useful in this source to add to the article. Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 days in the Cole County Jail, SES, placed on 2 years unsupervised probation. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relevant to the Brown shooting incident. It goes to his credibility (or lack thereof) as a witness in the case. It goes to his (alleged) willingness to lie to the authorities (police). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Ravensfire mentioned above, it's SYNTH for us to say that it calls into question his credibility in this issue unless a reliable source makes that claim. You can see how this is the case: Johnson's statement (source A) + Johnson's prior charge (source B, which I would also note is not a conviction as far as we know) = Johnson could be lying (a claim found in neither source). Additionally, there are WP:BLPCRIME issues with US reporting this when, again, we don't know if there was a conviction. Dyrnych (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said it's relevant to the article. I didn't say that we needed to make the "leap" from one fact ("A") to another conclusion ("B"). The readers can read the facts and leap to whatever conclusions they want. As long as the facts are supported by reliable sources. But, yes, it's relevant to this article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no good reason for having "Dorian Johnson's account" and "Other eyewitness accounts" as separate sections - they should be merged into a single "Eyewitness accounts" section. Having him separately would be privileging his testimony above that of others - and that would be OK if that's what was in reliable sources, but I don't think it is. StAnselm (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it gives undue weight to his account, as if his is the most reliable account and it really doesn't seem to be at this point. His account should be with the other witness accounts. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Johnson's account into the eyewitness account section. I don't really think that there are undue weight concerns in having it separate, but it seems organizationally correct to place it there. Dyrnych (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You snooze you lose, not that my input would have changed the outcome. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my revert hasn't been reverted yet, so I'll give it a shot. He is the only eyewitness who saw the whole thing up close, hence he is the prosecution's star witness. End of justification. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly invested in Johnson's account being separate or being contained in the eyewitness accounts beyond thinking that it makes organizational sense. His account is an eyewitness account, and I think that it serves just as well to place his account first among the eyewitness accounts. Dyrnych (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so nobody else wants to respond. After all, consensus was already reached, so why bother. Whatever. I'll self-revert. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that my edit meant that consensus was reached, which is why I'm fine with you reverting my bold edit. BRD, right? Dyrnych (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that your edit had anything to do with it. The "consensus" was reached in 19 minutes and I failed to see the new section in time, and none of the other prior participants felt compelled to respond to my argument, so I lose. That's WikiLife. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with slowing things down a bit. I probably did jump the gun on editing with a discussion still in progress. Dyrnych (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worth a (nuther) try. I don't think Isaid's argument holds any water at all, since we shouldn't be making judgments about the relative reliabilities of the various accounts. The fact that Johnson had by far the best look at what went down is not a matter of judgment. He did, period. Anselm makes a fair RS point, and I guess it comes down to whether we think it's enough. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think there would be conflicting views in secondary sources regarding Johnson's reliability - naturally so, since although he was in the best position, he was also the most personally involved. That's not a reflection on his honesty - the more involved you are, the more skewed your interpretation and memory of an event is going to be. He saw his friend get shot before his eyes! Anyway, we need to be strictly neutral about his reliability. Mandruss, would you be interested in hunting up some sources which suggest he might be the "key" witness, or some such thing? StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was based on this content that was in the article and reported by reliable sources, which has been inserted and removed several times: The autopsy appears to contradict aspects of Dorian Johnson's account, including that Wilson shot Brown in the back and that Wilson shot Brown while holding Brown's neck, refs for passage being NYT and WaPo. And on a final note, if the prosecutor is counting on Johnson to be the "star witness", then it's quite doubtful he'll get a true bill returned from the grand jury. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Key witness in Ferguson wanted in Jefferson City

Key witness Dorian Johnson now admits that Michael Brown ATTACKED Officer Wilson

Key Ferguson Witness Dorian Johnson Changes Story, Admits Brown Attacked Officer Wilson And Tried To Take His Gun

Michael Brown Shooting Key Witness Charged With Filing False Police Report: Dorian Johnson

Key Ferguson Witness Dorian Johnson Previously Pled Guilty to Filing False Police Report

Key witness meets with authorities to discuss Brown shooting

REPORT: Key witness Dorian Johnson now admits that Michael Brown ATTACKED Officer Wilson

COLLAPSE? Radio Station Claims Primary Witness Will Admit Michael Brown Charged Officer Darren Wilson
‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"dorian johnson" "key witness" -wikipedia - 26,400 hits ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They sure do all say key witness, but those sources seem to cast doubt on his credibility rather than bolster the belief that he has any credibility as a key witness to the shooting. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Johnson is a credible witness is a separate question from whether he is the key witness. Also, amusingly, many of these sources are repeating a discredited report that Johnson changed his story. They're certainly relevant for perceptions about the role of Johnson's testimony, though. Dyrnych (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could be correct, Johnson may be the key witness that convinces the grand jury to return no indictment, I guess I didn't look at it that way. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Key witness for the defense. Isn't that what I said?? ;) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a cursory look into these sources, and these that assert that Johnson has changed his tune, seem to be quite fringe. Am I wrong? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from myself above: "Predictably (given the source), this seems to be inaccurate, per Johnson's attorney." Dyrnych (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is suggesting using any of the above sources, are we? Anyway, User:Mandruss is correct that Johnson will be a key witness, this basically will boil down to the most significant evidence - That will be Wilson's version of the events, the forensic and physical evidence, and an eyewitness who was "right there" and his version of the events. Having said that, I still don't think he warrants his own section yet. It's certainly possible to expand upon the possibility of him being a key witness, if there is support for that. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, none of those sources appear to be reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read what Isaidnoway said. The sources aren't being offered for inclusion in the article; they're being offered to show that Dorian Johnson's account is considered more important than some of the other accounts. Dyrnych (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to use an unreliable source to make that determination? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to speak for Mandruss, but I assume that the sources listed are a small subset of the sources referring to Johnson as a "key witness." Also, this certainly seems like a reliable source. Dyrnych (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I reached the end of the "key witness" with the above, and had entered "primary witness" territory before I stopped. As far as article titles, that is. I don't know about body text. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the PARTICIPANT'S box. I rest my case. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source that says that Brown had a juvenile arrest/criminal record? If not, then we should stop suggesting that he did by saying that he had no adult criminal record. To my knowledge, the adult criminal record language comes from a police statement that neither confirmed nor denied that Brown had a juvenile criminal record. We have a source that states that he had NO criminal record--no qualification at all. Other sources that say that he had no adult criminal record are consistent with that source, because if he had no criminal record at all then by definition he had no adult criminal record. Until a source suggests that he had a juvenile record, we should stop implying that he did. Dyrnych (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"An 18-year-old shot and killed near a Ferguson apartment complex Saturday afternoon had no criminal record, according to the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's office." [27] Additional qualifiers are not necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the notability of a statement that he had no adult arrest record, being as he had been an adult for about 2.5 months. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally argued for "adult", but it really doesn't make any difference anymore, one can easily look at the video of the robbery and come to their own conclusions. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, User:Isaidnoway. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree that having no criminal record having been 18 a short time is not surprising. I'd remove it out of the lede and only mention it in the body. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the edit, as it looks like there's a general consensus for it. Dyrnych (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article should have a section (or at least some coverage) of how eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable: Why witnesses are often wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Eyewitness testimony does an adequate job of summarizing the relevant issues. Why would we include that in this article? Dyrnych (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's extremely relevant. Much of our article is based on eyewitness testimony and nowhere do we explain that it's close to worthless. We shouldn't be misleading our readers. Our job is to write informative, educational articles. Expecting readers to check another article is not realistic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the grand jury members are going to consider the eyewitnesses or their testimony to be "close to worthless." You exonerators crack me up. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that CNN is trying to exonerate anyone? CNN is a reliable source and Luftus is an expert who's testified in over 300 court cases. It's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not this article's function to educate the reader about the world. I can't articulate it any better than that at the moment, but it seems intuitive to me. Imagine a newspaper article doing that.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's our job as encyclopedia to provide informative, educational content. That's what an encyclopedia is, after all. You don't have to imagine. I already provided a news source that does exactly that.[28] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many have run articles on "eyewitness testimony" in fact. [29] Elizabeth Loftus in The New York Times (International New York Times Opinion section) Despite their lack of knowledge about eyewitness memory, these poorly informed jurors are holding the fate of defendants in their hands. ... (In New Jersey) After Henderson, defendants who can show some evidence of suggestiveness will be entitled to a hearing in which all factors that might have tainted the eyewitness evidence will be explored. The judge also will present to the jury more specific guidance on how to evaluate eyewitness evidence. The Washington Post [30] The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to make it harder to introduce eyewitness testimony at criminal trials, despite a recent proliferation of studies that show mistaken identity is the leading cause of wrongful convictions. Sotomayor said She said the “vast body of scientific literature” that has established the unreliability of eyewitness testimony — including the “staggering” fact that 76 percent of the first 250 convictions overturned by DNA involved eyewitness testimony — “merits barely a parenthetical mention in the majority opinion.” So, yes, major newspapers and the courts have indeed dealt with the unreliability of "eyewitness testimony." [31] presents a scholarly view. Collect (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I absolutely agree with you in principle, the issue is that nobody has discussed reliability of eyewitness testimony in the context of this incident, which makes any inclusion here very susceptible to WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDO issues. Any comparison or application of this well-established truth to the particular testimony would obviously be OR. Any statements standing on their own are UNDO/OR as how are we deciding that the statement is relevant to the topic at hand? In the long run this will resolve itself. At trial, or in some other analysis the issue of reliability of testimony will surely come up. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaijin42: I already provided a source which discusses reliability of eyewitness testimony in the context of this incident. It was in my very first post to this thread.[32] Did you view it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that this would go equally for challenging police officers' statements, for they are either eyewitnesses or directly-involved parties. We don't have a good sense of what the forensic evidence in this case is yet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I buy the fact that mistaken identity is a problem with witness reliability. I don't buy the idea that 20 people who saw him die can't be relied upon to be truthful about whether Brown was substantially closing on the 7 to 25 foot separation between himself and the shooter. So far, the only thing that I have read suggesting that forensics can help us on with distance is whether there is any gun powder residue on his body or in his clothes. None on the body. No access to the clothes. So I guess we have to go back to eyewitnesses for now. Or we could just delete this article until the courts hear all of the evidence and make a determination. Those are our only two ethical options in my opinion. Whatever floats your boat. People who claim that forensics is going to tell us what the witnesses didn't see, I don't understand that logic at all. Call me a Luddite, I guess. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNdekYNzvzA Gaijin42 (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the some of the comments, I get the feeling that nobody actually watched the CNN news report I cited in my original post. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. The following is a CNN report which discusses reliability of eyewitness testimony in the context of the shooting of Michael Brown:

• CNN - MICHAEL BROWN DEATH INVESTIGATION - Why witnesses are often wrong

No WP:OR or WP:SYN is required. We simply report what reliable sources are already saying about the shooting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Indeed I did not view your original source, and was thinking you were just discussing the well known general issues with eyewitnesses. If CNN has specifically commented on that topic in context of the case, then the OR/SYNTH issues go away, and all we are left with is WP:WEIGHT. I think a sentence or two is supportable, but more than that may be unjustified unless this topic gets further traction. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That material is better suited to Eyewitness testimony. There is an entire section on the subject. Not here. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Thoughtmaker feels that the Police accounts subsection needs to be in the middle of the subsections for the eyewitness accounts, for "neutrality", he said. In other words, it would fail NPOV to put them either first or last. My take on it can be summed up as follows: That is patently absurd. Thoughts? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's alphabetized so it's not subjective. No importance should be assigned to any of the accounts until the courts and the press have ruled in finality. That's true neutrality. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Not patently absurd, IMO. I agree with the alpha sort. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no need to edit war over this. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It's not an eyewitness account. Why would we place it in the eyewitness accounts?

(2) I agree that this is a weak argument, as are most arguments about placement of text being NPOV. We assign the police report no additional importance by placing it in a separate section. Dyrnych (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit war. Never have, never will. I reverted once. K? But it boggles my tired old mind that we're making a telephone directory out of the Accounts section. Tell me, which would be the favored position, first or last? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The police are eyewitness accounts. They have eyes, they are human beings, they are just as fallible and corruptible. The courts needs to decide. To say they are not equal to eyewitness accounts in fallibility is to pretend the police aren't equal human beings. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) We are not a court and are not presenting evidence to a court. I'm not claiming that the police aren't fallible or that the police account represents "the truth." But it's manifestly different from an eyewitness account. Dyrnych (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My argument for the police to have their own section would be because eventually it will be required, or it will start taking over the other accounts. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Mr. Thoghtmaker, isn't Bystander heard on video out of sequence? Aren't you violating NPOV there? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Obviously I agree that we shouldn't alphabetize the accounts. I don't care if we put the police account at the top or bottom, or in its own section, but inserting it in the middle is poor organization. Since there are objections to the bold edit by Immanuel Thoughtmaker, the status quo ante version should be restored until such time that consensus is reached for changing it.- MrX 21:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we've all said our piece and it looks like 4-to-2 against the telephone directory. Now what? Wait for more? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pull both Johnson and the police out into a separate sections called "Involved witnesses" or something. Then the ostensibly neutral, uninvolved eyewitnesses separately. If they are going to stay all together, then I would say the "involved" ones should go at the top, as the most important.Gaijin42 (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, lost that. Well maybe not. See #Having Dorian Johnson in a separate section?, above. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually it will look like the yellow pages. I hate to make predictions, but, we still have a boatload of eyewitnessess/witnessess that we still don't know about yet. There was a boatload of police officers on the scene afterwards as well, every single one of them wrote an incident report - which are relevant as to what they observed upon their arrival at the scene. For instance, did they observe an injury on Wilson's face, the position/distance of the body, shell casings they observed, witness names/statements they gathered at the scene, was an ambulance called, etc. It's not necessary yet I don't think, but eventually that wall of text is gonna get hard to navigate. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're gonna try the case in this article. Think about 2014 IVK - we didn't do that sort of thing there. Are you talking about the size of the Police section in Accounts? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all those police incident reports are being introduced as evidence to the grand jury. What those police officers observed upon their arrival to the scene is relevant to this shooting. Obviously, we don't have them yet as they chose the grand jury route, but eventually those reports will be released. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're right, it would have to be moved out then anyway. But I think patently absurd is the stronger argument for moving it out now. It's what MrX more tactfully called "poor organization". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Gaijin42 made a good point above, when he referred to Johnson as "involved". Johnson's role in the incident was completely different from that of the other eyewitnesses. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like patently absurd and poor organization, sounds good to me. Do it. I support boldness. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for coming! ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that it makes little sense to put the police in the middle of the other actual on the ground eyewitness accounts. The police should be the first listed for the simple fact that the prosecution always goes first. Police are attempting to prosecute Michael Brown. Then you give the claims of those who say that they saw what happened, starting with Dorian Johnson as he was the witness the closest to Michael Brown. If you want to do the rest after that in alphabetical order fine. But can we make that alphabetical by last name, and state at the top that that is why they are arranged as they are? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• simple fact that the prosecution always goes first. Police are attempting to prosecute Michael Brown - The only flaw with that argument is that the State of Missouri is attempting to prosecute Darren Wilson. Be careful not to use arguments that can be turned around and used very effectively against you. :)
• After Police, Dorian Johnson needs to be first among the eyewitnesses. I wanted him separate from the rest of the eyewitnesses, but I lost that one. Also "Bystander heard on video" clearly needs to be last. So you're left with the question of how to arrange the remaining four eyewitnesses, and I think it makes sense to have Crenshaw and Mitchell adjacent since they're related (Mitchell was picking up co-worker Crenshaw). That pretty much kills any alphabetization, unless you want to say that the remaining four are in order by first name (which itself will fail when we add an eyewitness named Ramona, as she would separate Crenshaw and Mitchell). ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the inclusion of the statement:

"The autopsy appears to contradict aspects of Dorian Johnson's account, including that Wilson shot Brown in the back and that Wilson shot Brown while holding Brown's neck."

This seems to, in turn, be contradicted by other claims in the same section. At the moment we say:

• Brown couldn't have been shot from behind ("The autopsy appears to contradict aspects of Dorian Johnson's account, including that Wilson shot Brown in the back")
• Brown could have been shot from behind ("... the wounds to the right arm were consistent with Brown either having his back to the officer ...")
• We can't determine what happened anyway ("Right now there is too little information to forensically reconstruct the shooting").

In addition, the coroner stated that he didn't test the clothing or car for residue, and therefore couldn't be sure that Brown wasn't shot at close range. Given this, it seems like a much better to avoid including any interpretation of the coroner's findings unless they are made by the coroner in his official capacity - just make the statement of what he found, and leave it to the reader to determine the strength of the witness statements on their own. - Bilby (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this assessment. I also found it troubling that the article seemed to state multiple conflicting views as fact. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Please watch the following from CNN: Why witnesses are often wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that eyewitness accounts are unreliable - of course they always are. :) But we can't insert commentary about the reliability of any given witness statement, especially when we contradict ourselves by doing so. We need to drop any interpretation, and only report the facts of the autopsy. This has nothing to do with how reliable witnesses are. - Bilby (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, the autopsy we report is the one performed at Brown's parents' request by Dr. Michael Baden, not the one performed by the SLC medical examiner (and not the coroner's report).

Second, we summarize from reliable sources, giving due weight based on their proportion. If suddenly, 90% of the world's publications said that the moon was actually made of green cheese, we would report it as a fact (and the other theories, like the moon is made of rock, as outdated ideas), regardless of our personal opinions.

I note that your first example (The autopsy appears...holding Brown's neck) is taken from two reliable sources (NY Times and WashPost). If they disagree, so be it. Technically we are not allowed to mention this contradiction unless we find a discussion in a third reliable source. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can choose whether or not to include this claim - that's what we do. Stating that the autopsy contradicts Johnson's account, and then stating both that the autopsy can't reconstruct the shooting and that it is compatible with Johnson's account, is foolish. If the doctor conducting the autopsy had made the claim that his findings contradict the witness statements, then fine, we add them. But as Baden didn't, we're surmising based on an opinion from an unknown source (presumably the reporters), and it makes a lot more sense to leave that claim out. - Bilby (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On tonight's episode of The Last Word on MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell is reporting that Wilson did not file an incident report about his role in the shooting, on the advice of his union's lawyer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNN International reported on this a couple of nights ago, they said he had already been interviewed twice by detectives about the shooting, once on the day of the shooting, in what they described as a "soft interview", then another more detailed interview a couple of days later. So they already have his statement on his version of how it happened. His lawyer is wise to advise him to stop talking, in light of a grand jury investigation into his conduct. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the fifth amendment trumps a police officer's responsibility to file an incident report after killing a man??? This gets sicker by the minute. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually sick, no matter what you think about the Brown shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the US Constitution is actually valid. And one ought draw zero inferences from a person abiding by it. Collect (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that police statements draw a whole slew of inferences about Michael Brown. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remove the LOD report. This is little more than his opinion. Arzel (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I have replaced it. He is a notable journalist and commentator making statements on an indisputable reliable source TV network, and his reported statements are at least as reliable (when attributed) as claims by The Daily Caller, which we also use. It is not "his opinion," he reported them as factual statements. Readers can decide whether they believe him or not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, autopsies are mentioned in the following order: independent, county, federal.

AFAIK, they occured in the following chronological order: county (no date found in sources, probably 9th or 10th), independent (17th), federal (after 18th).--Japarthur (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there is an autopsy performed by military coroners on the 19th. It might be the one referred to as "federal", but the source (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?_r=0) is not very clear on this. --Japarthur (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Justice Department announced that the "federal" autopsy will be carried out by military examiners (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/preliminary-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-shot-six-times/). So "military" and "federal" autopsies seem to be the same one. --Japarthur (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous information in the county autopsy section about marijuana shouldn't be mention in this section.--Japarthur (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point 4.1 is called "Procedure", but mentions two of them: police and FBI. IMHO, it would be clearer to change the title and put each one in a different section with a specific title. --Japarthur (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to resent this fact. I saw no rationale for it. Worth mentioning ? --Japarthur (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The delay in taking his body away gets mentioned as a source of irritation. For the actual residents of the neighborhood, it had to be traumatic. Imagine one of your friends lying literally in the middle of the street in front of where you live with, as one witness described it, brain matter actually on the street along with a long trail of blood that flowed downhill straight down the street while police with German shepherds, body armor and assault weapons guard the perimeter that they marked off with yellow crime-scene tape. Frustrating wouldn't begin to describe what that would feel like.

I vote for including it but would urge a good source for the duration, especially if you state that it's five hours. I've always heard four hours, personally, and never five. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky NPOV territory, obviously. So I'd let RS be our guiding light, in other words pass the buck to them. I haven't done that research, don't have the time, and feel the the person who wants to put it in should do that. If most of the heavyweights—NYT, WaPo, LAT, TV and cable networks— report it, then put it in (with at least three refs I think), otherwise not. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There you go:

1. New York Times the body had remained in the street for nearly five hours [33]

2. Kansas City Star Michael Brown's body lying for four to five hours on the city street [34]

3. CNN before Brown lay dead for five hours, uncovered in the street [35]

- Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is CSI stuff -- bodies are frequently left in situ for investigative purposes and it has no actual relevance as far as I can tell. I saw "partial remains" in NYC once many hours after an incident. Gory? Yep. Indicative of anythingother than a thorough and proper investigation? Nope. Collect (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a verifiable fact, and reported by numerous sources, so it does not matter what we think of it. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/21/diametrically-opposed-stories-hannity-examines-varying-ferguson-accounts Which I post as a reminder that we should all be careful not to be duped into reporting stuff like the orbital socket fracture baloney as though it's established fact. ('cause you wouldn't want people to think you're as gullible as Sean Hannity, would you?) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I wrote a somewhat lengthy essay in response, and then cancelled because it's not what an article talk page is for. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, eye socket injuries would not necessarily show up on a cell phone video. [36]. Hospital records, if and when presented, would be what is needed for any rejection of such a claim. IIRC, we do not have photos of the officer involved. Collect (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need to get some sleep but I've transcribed some of what he said and tried to make it in order of events. I'm pasting it here for now. Anyone want to help prepare this for final insertion into the main article under a heading somewhere up top?

First pass attempt at a transcript. Sorry for all the things that need fixing still.

"I was actually in my bedroom" at the outset of the encounter between Officer Wilson, Brown and Johnson.
According to Brady, the altercation "was already happening" when he first looked out the window to observe what was going on.
When asked by O'Donnell if he could see Brown's hands, Brady answered, "Yes."  "They were, most likely, through the window, and maybe the cops arms --"
When asked if he could see the officer's arms at that time as well, Brady replied, Yeah, I [saw] his arms moving also.
"He took off running from the vehicle.
"They both just took off after the little tussle at the window"
"The officer just immediately gets out of the vehicle and he just started shooting in a shooting position.
"When he started shooting, he's taking large steps to him. He wasn't shooting at [Johnson]."
He passed the officer's cruiser and he passed the vehicle that his friend was hiding behind.
Brady indicates that at that point he left the bedroom to go outside, taking about five seconds to make get out of the apartment.
"When I gets outside, Brown was actually balled up, like he was hit in the stomach, is what I thought."
So, as he was kind of balled up, he was going down actually.
And the cop actually shot out about four or five shots, he hit the ground, and that was it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11044383/Eyewitnesses-describe-Michael-Brown-killing-as-new-footage-released.html Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source is about as tabloid as it gets. Avoid at all costs. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph is a tabloid? You may be confused with the Daily Telegraph? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of us is confused. The Daily Telegraph shows the "official website" as telegraph.co.uk. At the bottom of the home page for telegraph.co.uk is a copyright notice for Telegraph Media Group, which owns the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph, and no other "Telegraph", according to its article. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:) - In any case, the newspaper in question is hardly a "tabloid" as we have here in the US, being one of the top daily newspapers in the UK. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I remember two or three UK sites "reporting" on 2014 Isla Vista killings in a manner that I wouldn't call journalism, and I thought the word "telegraph" was in there somewhere. I went looking for that in archived talk, and found where I complained about them being used as sources, but I was referring to edits I had just made and didn't mention their specific names in the talk. Ah well. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for creating unnecessary controversy by using a Telegraph URL that actually had the MSNBC interview embedded. I had relied on it because of the reference to Kenna Lewis, which, according to Google News, can only be found on the Telegraph article, as of about 24 hours ago at least. It's her video. Michael Brady appears in the video as well described primarily as "her fiancé." Then I later saw that the whole thing was up on MSNBC as a long-form interview with Lawrence O'Donnell, followed up by an analyst who does a very good job of pointing out why we have to take seriously what the "non-thug" [not my term] witnesses are saying about who Michael Brown was killed. You'll note that the link I included in the External Links page goes directly to the interview with O'Donnell. But the cites to his comments in the article omit any mention of the O'Donnell interview, instead pointing to CNN and Anderson Cooper. So many witness statement[S] So little time. How do you guys keep up? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As is, it seems anything relating to injuries suffered by the officer, or the twelve witnesses supporting the police version of events, is downplayed and relegated to parts of the article that are unlikely to be read by the casual visitor. I don't dispute that there's plenty of racism all over the US and the world, but it's not in the interest of Wikipedia to be part of a hate machine, as it stands the article only emphasizes the stories told by the deceased's friends and family, including a possible accessory to robbery. I sincerely hope the truth comes out about what bullet was fired exactly when while Mr. Brown was doing exactly what, and let the chips fall where they may.Oathed (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is reliably-sourced information available which is not in this article, feel free to add it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oathed: Wikipedia being part of the hate machine? As you seem to be a a relatively new user, I'd suggest you read our basic content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. A summary is available at WP:NUTSHELL. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Been here for about 4-5 years now. Had to change username due to PII in it. The bias accusation on this article still stands. See documentation on injuries to the officer was removed from high-profile position in article. As it stands, this is a one-sided and partisan article not up to Wikipedia standards.Oathed (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What "documentation of injuries to the officer?" There is no such documentation publicly available, there are two competing accounts of his injuries and no proof that one is right and the other wrong. We are reporting both competing claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ce) If you believed that, then fix it. Just remember that we work here to achieve consensus, and we don't engage in edit wars - Cwobeel (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there are twelve witnesses supporting the police version of events. If they are eyewitnesses, and they are as well sourced (WP:RS) as what we already have, then I agree that the article needs more balance. So go for it, it will be good editing experience. (Add: The only thing I might have a problem with is anonymous eyewitnesses, as I prefer people who are willing to stand behind their claims. Others may disagree with me.) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. You would have been aware if partisans with a clear agenda hadn't been reverting good-faith edits. Google it and you'll find it easily. As is, it's either not on this page, or hidden way down in the paragraphs of a large and unwieldy article the average busy Wikipedia consumer is highly unlikely to read straight through.Oathed (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge no reliable source has reported this information, probably because it's sourced to a tweet that has been discredited even by its own author. "It shows up when you Google it" does not mean "reliable sources report it." Dyrnych (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Oathed is likely referring to this. You can see the discussion up there, but suffice to say that the claim is not sourced to an RS. Dyrnych (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Never mind.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Officer Wilson, given the fact that he is acting under the advice of counsel not to say anything that could be used against him in trial, why don't we just find a source who states that directly and sort of implicitly apologize for the fact that we have no RS information that can be put into the article that might be exculpatory. As part of this you could discuss his failure to even file a police report. Or the media's fascination with plausible leakers who are allegedly working on behalf of Officer Wilson to create a second narrative that could resonate with people whose minds are not yet completely made up (as if such people still exist at this point). Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and posting a picture of the body of Michael Brown laying in the street, apparently even before the yellow tape had been strung up. You can see the Twitter time stamps for yourself. My review of his Twitter feed is how I was able to find a reliable source that we could use to bring him into the story. (You're welcome.) His Twitter handle is @TheePharoah and if you look at his Twitter feed since, numerous notable individuals, including Antonio French, have been in communication with him in a very public way, including an offer to help him lawyer up and expressions of concern for his safety. He appears to not want to be known personally, even joking that he had to turn down offers of pizza because he'd have to divulge his address. But the St Louis Post-Dispatch, thankfully, curated a number of his tweets and posted them in an article, as can be seen by going to the Social Media link that I put in the External Sources section of the video. Not meaning to be offensive, but I'm rather stunned that this remains undone a full 14 days into this story. He clearly is going to be a central witness during the grand jury hearings but good luck getting a RS source that will let you tell the world that. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart reported on this [37]. But I would be cautious unless a more mainstream source reports on it. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something. That Post-Dispatch page refers to the tweeter as "This Twitter user". I don't see any identity that has been verified by RS. See #Two_more_witnesses (Freeman is the name associated with @TheePharoah there).‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks. I didn't know that a name had been attached to his Twitter handle yet. Appreciate you clearing that up for me. I'd urge a mention of his Twitter handle in the article, unless there are guidelines that prohibit that. I doubt that the hundreds of thousands who have learned of TheePharoah's role in all of this over the last two weeks would be able to make the connection without us giving them a stronger hint. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't thank me, read what I said in #Two more witnesses. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more, LA Times [38], NY Daily News [39], so all we need now is someone capable to summarize that account. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll oppose the add of an anonymous eyewitness. We have plenty of eyewitnesses who have had the balls to give their real names (and I don't doubt that the names they gave were verified by RS). And I don't think this guy's tweets add anything encyclopdic anyway, just tabloid fodder. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the tweets I could find. I don't see the slightest tidbit of significant information about the events that we don't already have from at least two named eyewitnesses. So the value of this is? I'll look for more and add them here if I find any. Feel free to do the same, no sig necessary.

I JUST SAW SOMEONE DIE OMFG

Im about to hyperventilate [now isn't THAT informative!]

I saw it happen man..

@allovevie the police just shot someone dead in front of my crib yo

Fuckfuck fuck

Bruh. Im so upset

@DomoTheTruth dude was running and the cops just shot.him. i saw him die bruh

Its blood all over the street, niggas protesting nshit. There is police tape all over my building. I am stuck in here omg

Bruh they chanting we gon.be on.the news smh

The dead dude dad out.here tripping

@DomoTheTruth he looked like 18 or 19. His parents out here tripping now

@SLIKK_DARKO yeah man. 7 times i think

@SLIKK_DARKO the first two was, the next 5 werent, he turned around

The first two was clear, then it was a barage of them shits

‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more, LA Times [41], NY Daily News [42], so all we need now is someone capable to summarize that account. No, it needs to pass the significance test, too.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The significance is in two specific tweets: that two of the shots happen when Brown was running, and that the next five when he turned. No other witness is so specific. - Cwobeel (talk)

@_amourlace no reason! He was running!

@SLIKK_DARKO the first two was, the next 5 werent, he turned around

- Cwobeel (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think Mitchell gives us the salient points of that. All she lacks is the exact number of rounds. ‑‑Mandruss (talk 20:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, if you want to add the following, I wouldn't be opposed. "An anonymous Twitter user, who witnessed the shooting, stated tweeted that the officer fired twice at Brown while he was running away, and five more times after he turned around to face the officer." No need to mention the Twitter handle, no need to refer to any online fuss in reaction to his tweets. Short, simple, to the point.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may work. You do the honors. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest "toward" rather than "at" as most officers would actually have hit a person they were aiming at with the first two shots. The source would accommodate that wording as well. Collect (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Isn't "fired at" the same as "fired toward"? And "fired at" the more common usage? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same. Firing at a person implies specific aim, while towards is more typical where a person is not being aimed at. At a distance of 35 feet, police officers would usually hit a target being aimed "at." Absent a source implying aiming, and absent the source using specific wording, the more conservative wording is generally preferred. This is not OR -- it is using the wording generally used. Collect (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but we have at least two eyewitness accounts that say he was hit at least once while running away.

• Piaget Crenshaw - he was hit with several shots as he ran
• Tiffany Mitchell - The cop follows him, kept shooting, the kid's body jerked as if he was hit. After his body jerked he turns around ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying that the other accounts need to be kept out of this account, then I would respond that this account says, "dude was running and the cops just shot.him". That's "shot him", not "shot toward him". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts, I forgot to source it and got reverted! I'll do it again, correctly. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having a little trouble with the source. I can source "@SLIKK_DARKO the first two was, the next 5 werent, he turned around", but we need the implied preceding "omg bruh was they in the back?", or some RS synth to that effect. Any help?‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are awesome. As to the question of why we need to add another witness who says what other witnesses have said??? How about this answer. Because we might need that last witness once the thuggifiers among us have successfully discredited the first five witness that we named in the article. [Intended as irony from a contributor who is [go-to-euphemism: discouraged] every day at what I read here. Sadly, the very large kernel of truth behind the irony in my statement is why it stings so bad.] Face it guys, the running narrative for days has been YOU CAN'T TRUST ANYTHING THAT BLACK PEOPLE SAY. BELIEVE THE POLICE. QUIT YOUR GRIPING. ON TO THE NEXT INSTALLMENT OF AMERICA'S GOT TALENT. Uh, I won't be playing along. Sorry to [discourage] Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Day 1 Aug 19: Crickets. Day 2 Aug 20: Crickets. Day 3 Aug 21: Crickets. Day 4 Aug 22: Mike Ridgway nudges with intended humor. >> You all know who Kajieme Powell is, I presume. If not, I'd suggest you Wikipedia him. Oh wait, that's not going to work. [intended as humor] Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Crickets. Crickets. Crickets.[reply]

Discussion of an ongoing and patently obvious hole in our article so this is not out of bounds. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an analyst for MSNBC pointed out last night in discussion with Lawrence O'Donnell, what distinguishes the most notable alleged witnesses from many of the others is the proof that they bring to the table that they were actually there. @TheePharoah tweeted a message at 12:03 and had a picture out shorty thereafter. @Tifanny Mitchell has produced video of the event before the yellow tape was up. Michael Brady has video to support his claim that he was present. Dorian Johnson, no need, that's beyond dispute. I believe that for each of the witnesses with tangible evidence to support their claim that they witnessed the events personally, we should specify, using RS sources, what that evidence is, i.e., mention that the video, picture, or tweet is now available and point to it with a cite. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- we can only use what is clearly reported n reliable secondary sources. See WP:SYNTH for the major problem -- that is, combining sources to make a claim not found in the source directly. Collect (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

we should specify, using RS sources, what that evidence is. Ok, where are those RS sources? Wouldn't it make sense to make sure they exist before opening a discussion like this?‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey back off, I'm just mimicking what the analyst on Lawrence O'Donnell said last night as she assessed the credibility of the testimonies of Tiffany Mitchell and Michael Brady, as you lay the two (very similar -- her characterization not mine) accounts side-by-side. Do I have to go get her quote about how the fact that they cannot be impeached as not having seen that because of the physical evidence of their presence that they bring to the table WITH their testimonies? Even if I go get you that quote, there is no way in Hades you are going to find a way to weave that into the article. Either you mention what I'm suggesting you mention when I opened this section it or you don't. Failure to mention it gives unfair advantage to those who are thuggifying the African American witnesses in this story. My biased opinion as an unusual kind of white person. People of good will may differ. What say you? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the section for "Independent autopsy", it offers the words of Michael Baden. In discussing the bullets, this section states: with some of the bullets entering and exiting several times. Is this even possible? That a bullet can enter the body, then exit, then enter again, then exit again? And, so on, "several times"? Or is this passage simply worded incorrectly? I don't know the first thing about autopsies and ballistics, etc. But, I never imagined that a bullet can keep going in and out of the body even once, let alone "several times". Am I wrong? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bullets can enter and exit the body multiple times. See our handy article on ballistic trauma for a quick primer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. OK, I did not know that this could happen. Nonetheless, I read that article. It didn't say anything at all about this issue. Was there something in there, and I missed it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth graf: "Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds." Dyrnych (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But how does that answer what I am asking? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were questioning whether the source itself made that claim. As to whether it's possible, it is for multiple reasons. In this case, according to the autopsy "[o]ne of the bullets shattered Mr. Brown’s right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone." So entry wound, exit wound, another entry wound, and possibly another exit wound. Dyrnych (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, see the articles about the JFK assassination and the multiple wounds (indeed, multiple victims) from a single bullet. Collect (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh, that's true!!! [humor intended, though rarely achieved. Tough audience.] Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"died after being shot...by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who is white". What is the purpose of stating that he "is white"? Why is his race relevant? JDiala (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is part of the controversy, and facts are just facts. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources uniformly consider the races of the parties involved in this incident to be important, enough so that references to the parties' races are often featured in the leads of those reliable sources. That justifies its inclusion in the article and in the article's lead. Dyrnych (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am, if I'm not mistaken, the one who added it, to make it parallel with the fact that we identified Michael Brown as being African American. And I'm white. So you can take out all of your anger on me. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are the standards for identifying ethnicity? If Wilson is identified as 'white', should Brown be identified as 'black'? Or should Wilson be referred to as 'Caucasian'? It seems strange to me that we're using 'African-American' and 'White' as the descriptors here. They seem unbalanced to my mind. (ScubaSharky (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

That's a dilemma way beyond my pay grade. White takes fewer letters. That's my pitch for white. What is a Caucasian anyway? It ain't no freaking continent, like "Africa" or "Asian" or native "American" it's a hole in the armpit of Eurasia, no? Who came up with that term anyway? Probably the same (did I mention, white) social scientist who thought that creating the categories "moron" and "imbecile" for human intelligence was going to be a good idea. Paraphrasing a video my wife played for me recently. So don't take it personal. [intended as humor or as food for thought]Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach came up with the term based on now-disproven science. White is probably the standard term (if we must divide on account of "race") -- Veggies (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obtained by the ACLU. Only that it says absolutely nothing, but there are some very notable aspects to it.

• HuffPo article [40]

• Report [41]

- Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's at least worth mentioning.- MrX 21:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove non-cited text that calls Mike Brown a victim, when it's obvious by now that he was killed in self defense. --154.69.0.97 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an edit request, please use the edit request template. However, I doubt that you will get a positive response to that edit request given that it is certainly not "obvious by now that [Brown] was killed in self defense." Dyrnych (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. See victim.- MrX 21:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching the news that day. I think it was CNN that showed a video of the attack and shooting. This is what I saw. Mike was attacking the officer inside the police cruiser. He was using his bulk to hold the officer in place. The other guy was holding the officer's leg so the officer could not move. The other guy jumped up and ran away. Mike pushed himself off of the officer and stood up. He pulled up his pants, turned, and ran away.

The officer stood up. He was holding the left side of his face. He went to walk towards Mike but staggered to the left and then to the right. His right hand swayed back and forth with gun in hand. His arm swayed up as if to aim but did not stop. Not sure if he fired.

Mike stopped running, turned around, and ran towards the officer. The officer shot two times. Mike went down slowly and fell on his side. The officer staggered over to Mike and shot three times. End of video

The video was shown many times over the next hour and then went poof. Never to be seen again.

Not sure if you are trolling, or just mistaken. Are you sure you aren't thinking of video of the other Missouri "suicide by cop" shooting? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is the truth.

Had such a thing really been on CNN for an hour, it would have been seen by millions of people, and its disappearance would be widely reported, and captured by peoples tivos and would be all over youtube by now.

I know what I saw.

Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Apparently the vast media conspiracy is at play here, since none of us has seen any word of this missing video in the news. I'm guessing troll, which is the more generous interpretation.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will give my name if needed but I do not want the wold to know it. That video went poof for a reason.

Armchairnewsman, for the record.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]