Talk:2009 shootings of Oakland police officers

Mention of the Hip Hop generation
Perhaps mention of the hip hop generation in conjunction with the general atmosphere of Oakland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hip_Hop_Generation#Chapter_1:_The_New_Black_Youth_Culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.144.194 (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hip-Hop does not equal "African American." Therefore, this should not be mentioned at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operationnation (talk • contribs) 06:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i agree. i didnt see anything at this link that could directly link to this story. to the original link poster: please start new sections at the bottom of the page.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Weapon
We have extensive multiple sourcing that the weapon involved was an AK-47. Only one source said it was an SKS. The Oakland Police Department originally indicated it was an SKS, then they changed that to an AK-47. We really should resolve this point and not keep switching back and forth in the article. It would also be good to resolve the issue of whether or not either weapon had been converted to be fully automatic, rather than semi-automatic.Apostle12 (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The news reports mentioned an assualt weapon. Can someone find a description of the weapon used? There is certainly a gap between the weapons that officers are allowed to use and the ones that criminals are able to get their hands on. 64.230.85.80 (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's some info from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/22/BAV116KEU0.DTL

Doomed SWAT sergeants didn't expect an AK-47

"When Oakland police Sgts. Ervin Romans and Daniel Sakai burst into an apartment on 74th Avenue on Saturday, they knew they were entering a dangerous situation... What they didn't know was that the killer, Lovelle Mixon, had somehow gotten hold of an AK-47 assault rifle, police officials say. All they knew was that the gunman who had shot motorcycle officers Sgt. Mark Dunakin and Officer John Hege about two hours earlier used a handgun. "Nobody knew he had an AK-47," said City Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente, who was among four council members to join Mayor Ron Dellums and acting Police Chief Howard Jordan for a late-night press conference Saturday. The bulletproof vests that Romans and Sakai wore were no help - when Mixon fired his automatic rifle through a closet door in the apartment, he hit the two sergeants in the head..." - Tripodian (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the Category: 2009 Crimes at the bottom of this entry, but when I actually go to the category, "2009 Oakland police shootings" isn't listed there, even though it should be. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.211.103 (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * its there now.66.80.6.163 (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a couple notes on the fact that the nature of the weapon isn't known. There is a pretty vast firepower difference between the military AK-47 and the civilian semiautomatic version with similar appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.71.141 (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The "civilian vs. military" nature of the is not the issue. The weapon was an SKS, which was a semi-auto predecessor to the AK and it was originally designed in the 1940s. An SKS needs to be heavily modified before it can fire full-auto. The cops were probably not expecting a rifle and so only wore soft body armor. The 7.62x39mm rounds fired from an SKS would penetrate the soft kevlar armor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.16 (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the origin of the AK known, country of manufacture ect? Geo8rge (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the citation for this assertion: "It may have been a semi-automatic civilian version; such weapons are treated as assault weapons under California law because they resemble military weapons and are chambered to fire 7.62X39 cartridges." These weapons weren't banned by California because of their appearance. They were banned because they were originally designed for use on the battlefield and are effective killing machines when configured for semiautomatic-fire only. Whatever your personal view, if you are going to attribute a motivation to California legislators and law enforcement in enacting a ban, provide a primary source. Forward Thinkers (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Murder" vs. "Kill"
The rather more neutral term "kill" does not convey the reality of this crime. Lovelle Mixon was carrying a loaded semi-automatic weapon when his car was stopped for a traffic violation. Rather than risk incarceration, since a warrant had been issued for his arrest due to a parole violation, he chose to exit his car and fire without warning, hitting two police officers in their heads. Since both died, this qualifies as "murder"--the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.

Later, when Lovelle Mixon chose to hide in the closet of his sister's apartment, he armed himself with an AK-47 assault rifle and chose to fire through the wall and door of the closet, killing two more police officers. This also qualifies as "murder"--the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.

When officers returned fire and killed Mixon, they were fulfilling their duty to the citizens of Oakland. This was a lawful "killing," performed with honor.

Words matter. We should not shy away from using the word "murder" when that is what it is.Apostle12 (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on this one. I suppose nobody is calling Mixon a murderer because they haven't seen the word mentioned in any news article. Plus one can say - well, how can you call someone a murderer if he hasn't been adjudicated i.e. convicted of murder. Besides, the dude is dead and can't defend himself. Well, to that I say: "murder-suicide" - the person doing the killing is dead, can't defend himself, but he's labeled a murderer without any problem... Sarenk (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. In a typical news or professional writeup for a murder-suicide, the murderer is not called a murderer but a "killer", and the other party (the victim) is "killed". Kill and killer are fact-based words, murder is a legal term, as someone pointed out. In this case, "shot and killed" is the appropriate terminology. Carlsson E. (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I realize that the press often avoids the terms "murder" and "murderer;" I am suggesting that it should be used more often, especially in cases where the facts are not in dispute. Both "kill" and "murder" are fact-based words, and they mean different things as any good dictionary will confirm. Use of the terms "murder" and "murderer" are entirely appropriate when the "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being" occurs.Apostle12 (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Who, besides you, said that the facts are not in dispute? Where is it undisputed (and sourced) that this was a premeditated murder?  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC))


 * "Murder" implies considerably more than "kill." It is a reasonable tradition to wait for someone to have his day in court or to at least interview impartial witnesses (in the case that the suspect is himself killed, which seems to happen universally to "cop killers") given the greater tradition of "innocent until proven guilty."  The proclivity to label "them" amounts to propaganda, and does not belong in objective media. 99.200.213.44 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Murder" is a completely inappropriate term in this instance ... hence, I changed it in the original article edit a day or so ago. "Murder" is a legal term that has legal implications. We have absolutely no idea if Mixon comitted an "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being" (as an earlier post suggested). Those are certainly not facts and they are certainly not sourced. That is merely an assumption on the part of a Wikipedia editor. It is indisputable that Mixon killed these four officers ... and that is what Wikipedia should be reporting. This is a killing, not a murder ( ... or, rather, four killings, but not four murders). Mixon may have been high on drugs at the time ... he may have been psychotic or delusional ... he may have thought he was killing in self defense ... he may have "snapped" in anger or rage or fear ... he may have heard voices telling him to kill ... who knows? None of us knows. All of those situations could very plausibly have happened. And, thus, this event could very plausibly be termed a manslaughter or a "not guilty of murder by reason of insanity" or whatever. The bottom line is ... Mixon committed a killing. It may (or may not) have been a legal murder ... we have no idea about that. But we do know (and can report) it as a killing. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Furthermore ... think about it. If I were going to "premeditate" the killing of a cop, I doubt that I would go about it by driving around, looking for a parking spot (as reported) ... or wait and hope to get pulled over in a routine traffic stop.  That hardly sounds premeditated ... sounds more like the guy was afraid of returning to prison and he just "snapped".  Not that it makes it right.  Nonetheless, it is quite feasible that this may not have been a legal "murder" ... so we can't speculate.  But we know for sure it was a killing.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Pure, unequivocal nonsense. Mixon was carrying a loaded semi-automatic handgun as he drove through Oakland. When he was stopped, he decided to draw that handgun, exited his vehicle and gunned down two officers.  After the officers were down, he approached each, execution style, and put at least one bullet in each of their heads.  Then he fled to his sister's apartment, arming himself with a semi-automatic assault rifle. He hid in a closet, waiting until he heard the officers enter the room. He fired through the wall and door, killing Sergeant Romans.  Then he cracked the door open, aimed at Sergeant Sakai's head, and fired killing Sakai almost instantly.  These actions cannot possibly be construed as acts of self-defense.  If he "snapped" the "snapping" lasted for more than two hours. Only a diehard criminal defense attorney incapable of thinking conclusively could fail to understand that this was "the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being."  Apostle12 (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! I am glad that you are so confident ... and that you know so much about this case!  So, pray tell --- how do you know Mixon's mental state?  Did you yourself conduct a psychiatric evaluation?  How are you so certain as to whether he was or was not crazy?  I see that you are so cock-sure that this was a premeditated murder ... well, that being the case, you will have no problem whatsoever finding valid and reliable sources that agree with you.  This case has been all over the news all over the country for the past few days.  Can you offer some sources that agree with your "oh-so-obvious" conclusion that this was a premeditated murder?  Put your money where your mouth is.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC))


 * You forgot to add in the possibility that Mixon might have become temporarily imbalanced because he might have eaten too much sugar-laden junk food--the so-called "Twinkie Defense." The trouble with such equivocation is that it has consequences; specifically it gives quarter to those, like Mixon's family, who wish to make excuses for his behavior rather than calling it what it was and roundly condeming it. Yes...murder, plain and simple.Apostle12 (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that you are dodging the question. And this is now the third time that I have asked.  Where are your sources stating that this was a premeditated murder?  Put your money where your mouth is.  Actions speak louder than words.  Stop ranting and raving about your conclusion.  Just bring in the cites and sources that state, as you say, "plain and simple, this was a premeditated murder".  That will easily end this debate.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

I'd like to point out there's been no trial, so he is not a convicted murderer. It seems there hasn't even been time for a real investigation--though in his absense, it's likely the truth will be stretched (which is not to say that he didn't probably murder the police officers.) It's just that the truth matters, and we'll probably never know it--we certainly don't thus far. 147.105.3.10 (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed- the word "murder" cannot be used because it is a criminal charge. As the man is now deceased, the charge will not be brought against him. Therefore, he "killed" cops, he didn't "murder" them. Furthermore, Joseph A. Spadaro's point is very relevant. How do we know it could even be called "murder" in the first place? Basically, this is a semantical argument. It's moot. --Zhong hei qing bai (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Common Law Definition or Sophistry: Which will rule?
In jurisdictions where common law applies, which includes most of the United States including California, common law murder is defined as the:
 * unlawful
 * killing
 * of another human being
 * with a state of mind known as "malice aforethought"

The first three elements are relatively straightforward; however, the concept of "malice aforethought" is a complex one that does not necessarily mean premeditation. The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of "malice aforethought":
 * intent to kill
 * intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death
 * Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine)

If Lovelle Mixon were alive, I would be the first to insist we not use the term "murderer" or "murder" until he enjoyed his day in court. Yet post-mortem trial and conviction are not possible in American jurisprudence. Given the specifics of this case, no conviction is necessary for reasonable people to arrive at the conclusion that the words "murderer" and "murder" are legitimate when refering to Lovelle Mixon and his actions. Only a true sophist could argue otherwise. Apostle12 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem quite hell-bent on making sure that the label "murder / murderer" gets put on this incident. (As an aside, I am curious what your ulterior motives are.  You seem a bit too interested and over zealous in making it happen.)  As I have repeated many times in the above posts ... if you are so cock-sure of this murder label ... and, clearly, this incident has been reported on extensively in the media throughout the nation ... then you should have no trouble coming up with plenty of valid and reliable sources indicating that this was a premeditated murder.  So, what's the hold up?  Or can you find no such sources? (... yet still maintaining that it is "clearly and obviously a murder" ... only because you conclude so).   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I have made my position clear; to be brief, words matter. And equivocation in these matters gives quarter to those who wish to dodge responsibility and shame.  In this case, I think it is appropriate to use a word that conveys the moral failure inherent in the crimes Lovelle Mixon commited--that word is "murder."


 * To turn things around a bit, you seem a bit too committed to keeping everything neutral--"Lovelle Mixon killed the officers...the officers killed Lovelle Nixon." Same difference.  Writing it up this way fails to convey appropriate judgment, and this style of reporting in journalism leaves destruction in its wake in the form of terminal moral equivocation.


 * If you go back 80-100 years, you will find that the mealy-mouthed style now dominant in journalism did not exist.  A lie was called a lie.  A liar was called a liar. A coward was called a coward.  A murderer was a called a murderer. Reporters, and the news publications they worked for, were not shy about using words that conveyed moral judgment.  I wish to see the current style retired in favor of something less tentative, something more robust--starting with this case.  Pretty up-front...nothing "ulterior" about it.Apostle12 (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, dude ... we got your position. So, twelth request now ... the sources that support it?  Or do you think the fact that it is your opinion and your position is dispositive of the issue and negates the need for sources?  Sources that I have asked for umpteen times now.  If your conclusion is so "obvious to all" ... it surely would have been sourced and cited with the extensive media coverage of this incident.  Why do you keep avoiding this question / issue?  It is the real point at issue here.  You seem to think that your opinion / position / gut feeling is the point at issue here ... as that is the point that you keep defending, all the while avoiding the real issue of sources.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Sources are important, I agree. And the dominant style means that they are few and far between, though not non-existant...a headline here, a non-neutral word there (I found one mainstream headline that used the word "murder," which you quickly deleted).  You did ask what my motives were, so I replied; that is not "avoidance."  (I might cop to "agitation" however--it is sooo gratifying to see you agitated!) Apostle12 (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to the phrase "this style of reporting in journalism...". the only debate we can have in this forum is whether journalists have, or have not, reported this story in a particular way, what their credentials or notability are, and what other notable voices (the police department, notable representatives in the community, mass movements that may arise from this on any side of the matter) have been given attention in our various communities. we are not journalists here, we are encyclopedia writers. again, lets bring on the source material and we can get all the notable voices heard through our article. our personal feelings dont matter in the final article (and i have very strong feelings about this event, its affecting me personally) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My intent has been to comment on how journalists have reported on the story, and as you know by now I have strong feelings about that. I agree that we need to bring in the source material, and that doing so usually results in most notable sources being heard through Wikipedia articles.  Countering this is my observation that, in cases such as this, many voices are stifled--some by liability concerns and some because of the dominant credo regarding journalistic "professionalism." When those voices are stifled, we have a narrow range to draw upon; I would like to see that change. Apostle12 (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the context of my post and labeling it 'sophistry.' Shall we continue the name-calling? You obviously are bent on incendiary language, which is obviously why you are insistent on using the term "murder," even though the only word we seem to have is that of the police--the guy killed a cop, so you know they're going to come out with hyperbole, which you obviously embrace. GROW UP! 174.149.223.244 (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I didn't mean to edit your post, and the edit history is already so long that it would be difficult to trace exactly what happened.  I do recall  that I made an error in positioning the new section where I did (at the time I didn't think it mattered a great deal); it has now been corrected.  I meant the word "sophistry" to refer to the general line of thinking exhibited in the previous section, not to your post specifically.


 * I cannot, however, apologize for using the words "murder" and "sophistry." I don't consider this incendiary or name-calling, just descriptive. I do not "embrace hyperbole." Apostle12 (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(I was at 147.105.3.10 before) By the way, the "neutral" view you despise is Wikipedia policy. 174.149.223.244 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's quite it. Different points of view that are not neutral can  legitimately be included in Wikipedia articles.  With regard to a controversial subject, the net result needs to be balanced, so that readers can evaluate differing perspectives.  So "neutral" refers to the overall approach, not to each and every facet of an article. Apostle12 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change the name of this article
Please see the previous section regarding use of the term "murder."

I propose that the name of this article be changed to "March 21,2009 Murders Of Oakland Police Officers."

Again, words matter. The current article could refer to shootings BY the police, when actually gunman Lovelle Mixon MURDERED four police officers. Apostle12 (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The current title sounds ok to me. A few months or years down the road, the media may start calling it the Oakland massacre or the Oakland incident or something short and catchy - like the Newhall Massacre. Right now everyone knows that the "2009 Oakland police shootings" is all about. Sarenk (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * True enough, everyone knows right now. But why not start out with an accurate title?Apostle12 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

One important consideration is the length of the title. Wiki searches are picky and case-sensitive. Not sure if you want Wiki users to type in "March 21,2009 Murders Of Oakland Police Officers." to get to this article. Sarenk (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see the problem. How about "Oakland police murdered--3-21-09"Apostle12 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think title is fine for now. we dont set terminology, we follow notable reporting. some suggestions to throw out, to think about if we need more clarity before the news world settles on one: "oakland police officer quadruple murder of 2009" "oakland police officer multiple killing of 2009", "oakland police officer murders of March 2009". im just trying to put the title words in the best possible order for searchers. i think we need to wait, as this is very likely to have a huge effect locally, and the article will be expanded. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "murder" without a trial amounts to police propaganda. It seems likely he killed them, but he cannot be found to have murdered them without a trial. Propaganda such as this paints the police as "the good guys" and everyone they encounter as "the bad guys." I know from personal experience that the police are not always "the good guys," and this type of thing reinforces a stereotype that the police are always good and right. I say it's good enough to try to honestly account for what probably happened, since the guy will never be tried, and that includes avoiding words that amount to incendiary devices. 99.200.213.44 (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto. The word "kill" is 100% appropriate to report ... the word "murder" is not ... for many reasons, including those outlined above in a prior section on this Talk Page.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

Well, per latest reported evidence, the killer was also a rapist. He raped a 12-year-old child and as many as five women. 1processserv (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * yeah, i see the distinction between kill and murder. id go with the word kill, unless someone can source a similar situation where the term murder was used. i cant recall right now any well known cases like this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, he's not a convicted rapist. Secondly, what does that have to do with the issue at hand? We are discussing the shootings, not his prior record.--Zhong hei qing bai (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the word "killer" over "murderer", but I'd like to make a point none the less. You don't need a criminal trial in order to be a criminal. If I go across the street to the 7-11 and steal something, I'm a shoplifter. If I get arrested and convicted, I'm a convicted shoplifter. If I don't get convicted, I'm still a shoplifter. Now, in order to report something as fact, you need proof. But that proof doesn't have to be a conviction. Personally, I see more than enough proof to confirm that Mixon is the murderer of 4 police officers. But there will be people who will make excuses for whatever reason to defend him, and because of that I think using "kill" is much easier and just as accurate, and probably more objective as well. But anyways, thanks to everyone who did contribute, it does seem professionally and responsibly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.36.103 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to enshrine and canonize people. Nor is it the place to demonize and convict people.
Just state the facts in a concise manner, and leave the POV words out. Joe6packed (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If we were to call Lovelle Mixon a "despicable murderer," or a "turd of a human being," or "a twisted child rapist," then we might be guilty of using POV words, or even demonization--however accurate those descriptions might be. But since "murder" simply means "the premeditated killing of one human being by another human being," to refer to Lovelle Mixon as a "murderer" is simply stating a fact in a concise manner.


 * Another editor put it well: When someone commits suicide and kills another person at the same time, we call it a "murder-suicide," no trial, no hearing...yet everyone accepts it. There is no way in American jurisprudence to convict Lovelle Mixon after the fact, though perhaps there should be; in the absence of such a legal process, what ethical standard demands that we be so squeamish in this case?Apostle12 (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, since it is arguable that Lovelle Mixon committed "suicide by cop," and since he killed four other human beings doing it, this too is a "murder-suicide." Apostle12 (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * when significant media outlets report on this being a murder-suicide, we will start using that language in the article. if the nation settles on that language, we will use it. yes its arguable that this is suicide by cop, but that doesnt make it reportable in the article. and while there may be sentiment to have him "convicted" of a crime, if the law disallows such a procedure for a dead man, and there isnt, say, a public outrcy to call this a murder suicide, then we will not call it such. we dont start a movement to call it a murder suicide, we dont make the law here, we dont make ethical decisions about what to call this, we dont have to worry about being overly squeamish. we report what is reported, using NPOV. and if we just wait, we will probably see enough social phenomena to flesh out the article in all directions (commentaries, public statements, etc).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
Since the infobox contains the name of the perpetrator, should it also contain the names of those who were killed? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I may be wrong, but ... I think that the "template" for this type of infobox is set up purposefully to include the perpetrators and to exclude the victims. I checked some of the other similar articles and events ... for example ... Newhall Massacre, Columbine High School massacre, Bath School disaster, and Virginia Tech massacre.  The infoboxes in those articles also specifically detail the names of the perpetrators, while only indicating the number (but not names) of victims.  I suspect that there are many incidents (such as some of these cited here) in which there are many victims and it would be impractical to actually list all of the names.  That is my guess.  I could be wrong.  But, there is some merit to that argument.  Whether or not that argument "holds water" in a case such as this is another question, as there are far less victims.  Then again, in this case, would we list only the dead victims, or all of the shot victims, or what ...?  I think it's a better format to list only the perpetrator.  But, either way would be fine with me, actually.  We should probably maintain consistency with other articles, though.  That's my two cents.  (By the way, may these four officers rest in peace.)  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Speaking of the Infobox ... it lists only one injured victim. Are we sure that that figure is accurate?  Does anyone know?  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC))


 * First, I want to thank you for your contributions to this article. I believe we have arrived at a point where the article is reasonably well sourced and balanced--subject, of course, to further refinement.  I asked a friend, an officer with OPD, if anyone else had been injured and he says no.  Since he was close to last week's events he would be in a position to know. Apostle12 (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV DISPUTE: This is the most biased Wikipedia article I've ever read.
I tried to edit the article, putting in the fact Sgt. Pat Gonzales, the lone surviving cop, shot and killed an unarmed, black, 20-year-old Gary King Jr. back in September of 2007. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070922/ai_n20521923 Also, Mark Dunakin, one of the deceased officers, has been known to terrorize and harrass citizens of Oakland since he arrived on the force. http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/police-2-oakland-residents-4/ Also, Lovelle Mixon has not only never been convicted of rape, but never even CHARGED with rape. This is PURELY the reporting of the San Francisco Chronicle. Some one continues changing the true information I put in for their opinions. Wikipedia is obviously in the pocket of "mainstream," European-American owned media. I had to edit out all the "black activists" and "black newspaper" references in the article, but I'm sure that will be re-edited as well. "Blacks" are Americans as well, and no prefix to the media or activists (i.e. adding "black") is necessary. Lovelle Mixon has never been tried or convicted of rape. These are all libelous allegations, and in poor taste (libeling a dead person) presented by the San Francisco Chronicle. I thought Wikipedia was objective and worldly, but I was wrong. I also tried editing all the "many" references in the "aftermath" section of this article, since that is the author's opinion. In the "aftermath" section, opinionated words such as "many" are used instead of SOME. And far too many of the sources for this article are from the very-biased San Francisco Chronicle. But again, that was changed back as well. I'm sure this post will be deleted as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operationnation (talk • contribs) 06:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Operationnation (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here in Brazil a criminal like this Mixon guy would not have a chance with the BOPE... and no one will ever parade in the streets defending a low-level criminal like that. --Officer Boscorelli (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of "Aftermath" is the one paragraph that deals with some of the racial implications of this incident. Without those racial references, the paragraph becomes senseless. The rest of the article is entirely free of racial references.


 * Because DNA evidence links Lovelle Mixon to at least one of the six rapes, because the rapes all occurred in the same neighborhood, and because the same M.O. was used in all of them, it is quite legitimate to pursue this issue. If, for example, Lovelle Mixon's DNA match continues to hold up on retesting, the authorities can divert scarce resources to solving other crimes, since Lovelle Mixon is no longer with us.  Personally I would like very much to know if he was likely the perpetrator in the rape of the 12-year-old girl.


 * You are correct that "many" and "some" are slippery words. However they do appear in the referenced articles.  More precise terms will have to await accurate polling.


 * If you submit material about the slain officers, especially claims that Mark Dunakin "terrorized the black community for years," you had better back it up with rock-solid evidence. (No, not "evidence," rather "sourcing." Apostle 12) Emotions are running high now, and OPD is not likely to tolerate his reputation being maligned. Unlike Lovelle Mixon, he was not in trouble with the law from age 13, nor was he a convicted felon who had done time in Corcoran state prison, nor was he a pimp, and he never committed four wanton murders.


 * I'm sure no one will delete your post.Apostle12 (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The only "rock solid" evidence about Mixon being linked to rapes is from the San Francisco Chronicle and the now vengeful Oakland PD. The fact is, these rapes allegedly happened in the last year. Why are they only coming to light now? Why did the Oakland Police and San Francisco Chronicle not talk about these rapes in this "black" neighborhood before these cops were killed? These alleged and libelous rapes only became crimes (and news) once police were murdered. These "rapes" were not a problem to police or the SF Chronicle before Lovelle Mixon struck. It was ok for these crimes to be committed in "the black community" to Oakland PD prior to Mixon. The fact is, Mixon has never been charged or convicted of rape. End of story. This is blog material; heresay from a police department wanting revenge on a man who took out 4 of their guys.

European Americans do not want to hear the fact that the surviving cop, Gonzales, murdered an unarmed "black" man just 18 months ago. http://revcom.us/a/103/gary-king-en.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070922/ai_n20521923 http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/22/BAFDSC1H0.DTL Since the SF Chronicle seems to be the standard for "evidence" in this entire article, the last link is from their paper. The commentary about Mark Dunakin "terrorizing the black community for years" is from the SFbayview.com. I don't see why this source is any more or less reliable than the Chronicle. One is the paper for European Americans...the other for African Americans. And you seem to be very concerned about the OPD's feeling instead of journalistic integrity and accuracy, with your quote, ""the OPD is not likely to tolerate his reputation being maligned." What does that have to do with the truth that Gonzales shot and killed an unarmed "black" man in 2007? Or is this article supposed to be sympathetic to the OPD? The only HARD evidence of Mixon "raping a 12-year-old" is the SF Chronicle and OPD in revenge mode. Let's remember that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operationnation (talk • contribs) 08:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Operationnation (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My post, above, should have read "rock solid sourcing," not "rock solid evidence."


 * You seem to be uncertain as to what constitutes reliable sourcing. The Chronicle does not possess hard evidence; they simply have reported that DNA samples taken after the 12-year-old girl was raped are a preliminary match with the DNA of Lovelle Mixon.   For all its faults, I have not heard charges that the Chronicle has been guilty of manufacturing stories.


 * More tests are being conducted to determine if this preliminary match bears out, and the tests are done by forensic labs associated with the OPD investigation of the rapes. I know some of these people--some are African American, some are Asian American and some are of northern European heritage; believe me, they care and their concern does not run along racial lines. Your suspicions seem unfounded to me--even paranoid.


 * The man Gonzalez shot was not "unarmed." He had a revolver in his waistband.  I can't comment on this case because I haven't read the official report, but I do know that much.


 * I accessed the San Francisco Bay Review, and their comment that Mark Dunakin had been harassing the black community for years seems entirely specious to me. Based on what?


 * You don't know my racial background or attitudes, but how can you make blanket statements like "The Chronicle is the paper for European Americans" or "European Americans do not want to hear...(fill in the blank)"? That is blatantly racist drivel and discredits you.Apostle12 (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so its ok to call a newspaper a "black" newspaper and call activists "black activist" and continually refer to the "black" neighborhood in Oakland, but there is no such thing as a European American community? You are discredited for wanting to believe everything the SF Chronicle writes. All the alleged rapes you obviously WANT Mixon to have committed happened in February, yet ZERO Oakland citizens were made aware of these alleged rapes until Mixon killed Oakland police. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/26/MN3516N0KN.DTL But I'm done with this. This entire article and your comments are the "blatantly racist drivel" and I hope you and Wikipedia get pleasure out of biasing history. Operationnation (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would welcome any sourced news articles about history of police brutality from any officers involved, or reactions from the communities that feel oppressed (im not saying they arent, im not stupid). Harry Edwards was on channel 2 news talking about the community being a powerkeg. if his comments are written down, or on a good video link at channel 2, bring them on. so far i havent found much. operationnation, please respect civility guidelines. i welcome any constructive edits you have. i wish Chauncey Bailey was alive, i bet he would have done an interesting article about less reported issues here. and newspapers can be called "black" newspapers if that is how they identify themselves. if not, i agree. the phrase "european american" has not been adopted by a vast majority of european americans. african american, or black, has been used by a significant majority, and i dont believe only as a means of oppression. again, what is reported on, what are the debates going on outside this forum? we need to bring in all the voices we can, but not if our doing so shows conflict of interest or Npov. operationnation, since you share a name with a website that reports on these issues from a very strong point of view, you may appear to have a conflict of interest, so just get some good sources. peace Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Your 'lecture' on "civility guidelines" needs to extend to all. More on Oakland citizens and police; and the lack of a "protect and serve" relationship. Courtesy of the main source for this entire article, the SF Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/28/INO216MACK.DTL I (and Operation Nation) will continue placing the dispute tag on this article until the truth about the two cops, Gonzales and Munakin, are included on the article's main page. We'll monitor and add it back everytime someone deletes it. And I agree with you re: Chauncey Bailey. Operationnation (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought you were "done with this"? Just read some similar stuff on the "Operation Nation" website. Any relation to their Brian Wilkins?Apostle12 (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You will need to make a better case for the NPOV tag. And some give and take on your part, along with a willingness to engage in rational discussion, would enhance your ability to make your points.  Otherwise your contributions will remain limited to angry diatribes, and you may find yourself blocked for disruptive editing.Apostle12 (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Brian Wilkins" is ME. I don't hide behind internet names or badges. I assume Apostle12's last comment was meant to be an intimidator? Ok, well, I'll play along and leave your "2009 Oakland police shooting" Wikipedia article to yourselves. Have fun and I look forward to perusing the updates. "Angry Diatribe 2009"! Operationnation (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you create WP pages for example: History of OPD community relations, OPD shootings of civilians, and maybe pages for individuals involved if they achieve notoriety, plus pages for whatever else is important. This article is really not the place to discuss the service records of individual officers beyond what might be important to the tragic events of that day, but could refer to such articles if they existed. You could also create your own Oakland Wiki, and do whatever you want, any way you want.  Alternatively you could work with local organizations, assuming you live there, and create an Oakland web presence to suit your tastes.Geo8rge (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your attacks against Operationnation really disappoint me. I wish European Americans would stop thinking they don't ever do anything or say anything wrong. It is ridiculous that Apostle12 is using Operationnation's argument to say that he is too racially charged. European Americans use race as a defining characteristic all the time, often using it as a negative. Operationnation's argument is well-informed, and I think you, Apostle12, should respect it as being so. I'm sure you'd want the same regard. --Zhong hei qing bai (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is about details of the shooting, not the OPD or any individual police. Mr Mixon is obviously central to the event so his personal details are probably important to the article.  Thus far I do not see that any of the officers details are important in the sense that any other officers could have been there and been shot.  Oakland Police Department, Oakland police community relations, OPD History, OPD shootings ect could be the subject of another article.  The Oakland Zoo has a WP page but not the police.  I see no reason to stuff everything OPD related into an article about a specific event.  See New York Police Department as an example. Geo8rge (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1 or 2 incidents/attacks?
"It was the single deadliest attack on California police officers since the Newhall incident in 1970, when four California Highway Patrol officers were shot " I hate to be a stickler to the details here, but I think this is really 2 incidents not one. Perhaps: "It was the single deadliest single day for the California police since the Newhall incident".Geo8rge (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The shootings happened a block from each other and were very close together timewise - and all done by the same person. Plus what happened on 74th was just a continuation or outcome of what happened during the traffic stop on McDonald. AgentMcDonald (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the rape accusation
Community wasn't told of Oakland girl's rape http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/26/MN3516N0KN.DTL

POV
Why does the POV box keep getting taken down when people are still discussing the neutrality of the article? Stop being political and concede that some people think this is not a fair representation of what happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microfiche troisieme (talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Officers' profiles
Do we need to expand the "Victims" subsection to include a short profile of each officer? The "Perpetrator" section tells readers who Mixon was, but the article is bereft of specifics concerning the lives of the officers. I could probably put something together, however the sourcing is lacking. Any ideas?Apostle12 (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I linked the names to the Officer Down web site, if there is a better memorial then use that. I would avoid giving the officers individual mention as it is not related to the shooting and would result in people adding possibly negative comments about their service records that are not related to the shooting, which is the subject of the article.  As to Lovelle Mixon, he is the central protaganist to the event, I think who he was and why he did it are part of the event.Geo8rge (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a memorial, and nor are 'memorial sites' reliable and neutral sources which are useful to the article. Since there have apparently been allegations made about some of the officers, these (if they can be sourced with reliable sources) do need to be mentioned, but a link to a police memorial website doesn't serve any purpose as far as article quality is concerned. Cynical (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Lovelle Mixon details
I realize that sourcing is a problem in providing details of Mixon's life, but perhaps Sista T. is not entirely reliable. Given the time Mixon spent in prison (most of the last six years), his age (26), and the information that he quit school at 17, it's hard to see how he would have had the time to become a "certified plumber." As a general contractor myself, I am somewhat aware of state licensing requirements, and I doubt Mixon could have fulfilled them given the time he had available. Also makes me wonder why he would have turned to crime--licensed plumbers make good money.

Anyway, based on the source, I've changed the description to read that Mixon "worked as a plumber and custodian." You don't need to be a "certified" (licensed?) plumber to do plumbing work under someone who is licensed. If you find another source to clarify this point, please let me know.Apostle12 (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Time
The entire article states PST (Pacific Standard Time), throughout. Shouldn't it be PDT ... Pacific Daylight Time? Or am I mistaken about that? Does anyone know for sure? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Right you are. By the old rules (pre-2007) the clock would still have been in PST mode until the first Sunday in April. Since the new rules mandate a change to PDT on the first Sunday in March, the 2009 Oakland police shootings occured after the change. I'll go ahead and fix it. Apostle12 (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Title of article
I'd like to bring up the title of the article. Generally, as I have seen it, the term "police shooting" is used to describe an incident in which a police officer shoots someone. I think a revision to the title should be considered. In this instance, of course, one person was killed by police; but this was secondary to the main incidents. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Can you please suggest an alternate title?  I'm stumped.Apostle12 (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe something like 2009 Shooting of Oakland police officers? How does that sound?  If anybody else has any suggestions, let us know.  JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's fine--let's change it AND provide a link from the current title so no one gets lost. Apostle12 (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. That's much better.  JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we really need to mention the year in the title ?. It just clutters the title and makes it longer. Also, how about the title Oakland Shootout ?. Given that at the moment there are no other articles with that title, that rules out any possibility of ambiguities. --Roaring Siren (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately "shootouts" are not an uncommon phenomenon in Oakland, whereas this 2009 event is unique in several respects--the murder of so many officers in a single day, among whom were three ranking sergeants, and especially the vile character of Lovelle Mixon. I think the current title is good. Apostle12 (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think this title is better than "Oakland Shootout." For one thing, people would not necessarily first think of the word "shootout" in association with this incident.  They would probably be more likely to use the word "shooting."  Also, the current very specific title will leave little room for doubt when the article comes up in a search listing.  JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have any other ideas, though, bring them up. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Controveries section?
Listing possible legal actions against 2 of the police officers in the section listing them as victims is poor encyclopedic reporting. If the allegations are sourced properly, (not just indymedia, but court records or more mainstream report) i would recommend a section called "community reactions" or controversies, where concerns like this can be listed. the allegations do not relate directly to the killings, unless and until there is a report that shows inappropriate behavior at the time of THIS incident.i will admit that such behaviors of oakland police do relate indirectly to this article, but this article cannot considered a forum to hash out police brutality/community relations. Lovell Mixon was by all accounts, in addition to whatever good qualities he had, a dangerous person who appeared to have lived by the sword and died by the sword. could better economic conditions and more opportunities for young black men have stopped this? probably. but by the time he committed these acts, his choices had been clearly moving this way. did he decide to stop any of this behavior and, say, volunteer at a church,or even uhuru house? no evidence for this. i do know there was a brief mention on tv news about whether the police dept sent in cops too rapidly, when a standoff might have been better. but that was not followed up on. this article doesnt have to be so controversial if people can follow common sense. and i am NOT going to make any of these edits, i dont trust the process right now, and dont feel i would be respected if i did so.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Oakland Police Department developed a history of police brutality against blacks during the 1950s, when openly racist officers were recruited from the Deep South to police Oakland's rising black population--prior to WWII, race relations in Oakland were harmonious, and police brutality against blacks was not a problem.


 * Thus a culture of police brutality against blacks did take root during the 1950s, and to varying degrees this problem persisted for decades. Yet--during recent years, and especially with the implementation of recruitment procedures that include extensive psychological testing--the problem has been much diminished. Instead the tables have largely turned, and a cottage industry has developed, with members of Oakland's burgeoning black criminal class filing hundreds of bogus complaints per month with the Internal Affairs Department of the Oakland Police Department in an attempt to harrass officers; essentially no officers who work street crime in Oakland escape being targeted by such spurious complaints.


 * Most of these complaints allege "racism," and many falsely accuse officers of using excessive force; all allegations are investigated by Internal Affairs officers, and the vast majority are dismissed out of hand. Yet even false allegations remain a matter of record; responsible researchers must look not only at what complaints might have been filed, but rather at whether such complaints have been upheld.Apostle12 (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

EDITING HELP for similar article about a shootout in India
A strikingly similar incident has occurred in India with the same no. of casualties. Any chance it could be mentioned in this article ?. Also, it'd be nice if someone could have a look at the article and wikify it. --Roaring Siren (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont see a way to link them at this time, but i added a cat to that article in the same tree as a cat for this one: police killed in line of duty.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No Picture?
With such a heinous murder and rape spree, why isn't there a picture of the thug? His spiteful, bastard face must be seen to have the full effect: Mugshot

Also, it should be mentioned somewhere, maybe in a Controversies section, that the Oakland black community and black activist groups actually came to Mixon's defense- calling him a soldier, a hero, and a victim: Source 1, Source 2 50.29.10.210 (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To be clear Oakland's black community did not, in general, come to Mixon's defense. Some did, but they were allied with the militant black fringe, which is always intent on exacerbating racial tensions in Oakland; they would have been happy to see a race war develop.  Oakland's black criminal class considers Mixon a "hero," reflexively supporting anyone who strikes out against the Oakland police.  Middle class and upper class Oakland blacks, who are far more numerous, condemn Mixon.


 * Regarding a photo of Mixon, even today it is not uncommon to see such photos prominently displayed in the homes of members of Oakland's black criminal class. I don't know why he should be memorialized in this article; in my opinion doing so extends him too much honor.  Let this forgettable miscreant be entirely forgotten.  Apostle12 (talk) 09:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see the argument for including the photo in principle. however, he was entirely nonotable before this, wasnt even a wanted man (for more than an hour), and if we add his image, we would i believe have to add the images of the police, which i think may bring the article into too emotional a territory, again, as none were known prior to this tragedy. people hungry to find the images can seek them out. I hadnt seen the images in some small minority of peoples homes of Mixon, but i believe it. And as to why people may not have heard more condemnation of Mixon from the majority of the oakland community: why even bother? isnt it obvious that he was wrong? who needs to say "killers are bad people", as if anyone with a brain could think otherwise? why even respond to those who praised him? waste of breath.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is biased and violates the NPOV guideline. The man was never convicted of murder and thus should not be definitively identified as the killer. The discussion of the Uhuru movement is more than biased. This article needs to be rewritten from something other than a police officer's perspective.Esplace (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Independent Board of Inquiry's report includes "The BoI concluded that on March 21, 2009, the suspect was solely responsible for the murder of four veteran Oakland police officers, at two separate locations over a period of 2 hours." The report also includes "The criminalist and evidence technicians accounted for each of the expended rounds and identified the locations where the officers or suspect were positioned at the time of discharge." The Wikipedia echoes much of what is in this report in a very neutral and factual way.


 * If you know of WP:RS sources that show there is evidence that the Board of Inquiry's findings or conclusion is wrong then you can add that to the article. Keep in mind that particularly in the case of the first two officer's killed that they likely been careful to verify that bullets recovered from those officer's bodies matched Mixon's weapon. They would want to make doubly sure the suspect in those two deaths had been located and was not still at large. It seems safe, and NPOV, to show in this article that that Mixon killed all four officers.


 * It seems like nitpicking but the article only uses the word "murder" once with respect to Mixon's actions on that day. It's in the very last paragraph. I fixed this to use the word "killed" instead which is also consistent with the rest of the article.


 * I have tagged the first mention of the Uhuru movement in the article. While it did not seem biased I saw that the cited reference never mentions either the Uhuru movement nor "African internationalism". The movement is mentioned three times in the article. All three mentions seem to be factual accounts of what the members did which is that they handed out fliers advertising a rally or vigil and that roughly 60 people attended the rally/vigil. I saw nothing in the article that seemed critical of or to promote this group's position or beliefs.


 * As the article seems to be within Wikipedia's NPOV guideline I have removed the POV hat notice. If someone feels the article needs work in the POV area or in regards to the Uhuru movement it would help if they are specific in explaining what the issues are and to provide WP:RS citations that support any claims that the Wikipedia article has major issues. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 2009 shootings of Oakland police officers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090330042913/http://uhurunews.com:80/story?resource_name=uhuru-movement-statement-on-lovelle-mixon to http://uhurunews.com/story?resource_name=uhuru-movement-statement-on-lovelle-mixon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2009 shootings of Oakland police officers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2009%2F03%2F29%2FINCD16MRRH.DTL
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2009%2F03%2F25%2FBAEO16M3TM.DTL
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2009%2F03%2F23%2FMNH016L58R.DTL
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2009%2F03%2F23%2FMNBQ16LGNH.DTL&tsp=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C510037%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2009%2F03%2F23%2FBAQD16LJOV.DTL&tsp=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2009%2F04%2F01%2FBAKB16QC57.DTL
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2009%2F03%2F29%2FBAK616O8CQ.DTL
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501064640/http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/03/28/oakland_police/index.html to http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/03/28/oakland_police/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2016 shootings of Des Moines police officers which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Victims
In the section describing the shootout on 74th, it was stated there was a young girl wounded by shrapnel from the flash grenade. Would it be appropriate to list her as an injured civilian under the 'Victims' section? She may not have been injured by Mixon but it was a result of his (at the time suspected) presence in the apartment. 2603:7080:6238:F37F:D1E3:92E2:C707:2EF2 (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)