Talk:2022 Sacramento shooting

Removal
why did you remove "just blocks away from the California State Capitol building and the Golden 1 Center arena" in the Events section? When people don't know about the streets, it seems important to mention two nearby notable buildings so they can understand better where the shooting happened. Plus, some people might not be able to view the infobox image (due to connection problems for instance). ObserveOwl (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a parochial reference. Most people outside Sacramento (and the US) do not have a clue about the "California State Capitol building and the Golden 1 Center arena". WWGB (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, at least some people in California should know where the seat of the Government of California is. Mentioning it is a little better than just saying the streets. I don't think it is parochial to simply mention that it was near one of the most important places of California. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It belongs. Many sources like NPR and CNN point out that this is really close to the capitol building. The capitol is a significant reference in the city, possibly the most known building. Pika voom  Talk 12:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * California State Capitol building and the Golden 1 Center arena articles have Geographic coordinates for geohack, and makes it useful for the perplexed. ....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Corrected location
twice today i have removed a parenthetical reference to Cesar Chavez Plaza/Park being across the street from the shooting. it is not across the street, it is two blocks one block to the north. .usarnamechoice (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC) edited 20:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Cesar Chavez Plaza is not "across the street" from the shooting site. re-added this false info. if you want proof, look at Google Maps. 10th and K is not across from 10th and J. it is a block away, which is different than "across the street". that said, i give up. leave the incorrect information there for all i care. .usarnamechoice (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am extremely sorry. I should've realised that statement was controversial. I've changed it to simply "(located in 10th Street)", and added a source. Is that ok? ObserveOwl (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The park can be described as on 10th Street, on 9th Street, on J Street, or on I Street. All are correct, the park occupies one square block: the west boundary is 9th St., the east boundary is 10th St., the south boundary is J St., and the north boundary is I St. In the USA, the park would be said to be "on" one of these streets instead of "in". i will leave it to others to make this correction. .usarnamechoice (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * One thing to remember here is that the shooting was not in a single location, not a single address. The investigators closed "9th St to 13th St is closed between L St & J St" (CNN). The shooters were moving and shooting many bullets. Pika voom  Talk 06:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * this is one reason i chose to use "nearby" instead of a specific location, but my change kept being undone/reverted. in the article, the park is currently said to be located on 10th St but as a park i dont think it rly has an address, but if i had to tell another resident what street it is on i would say J St. or across from City Hall (on I St). its better imho to simply say the park is "nearby" to the shooting location(s). .usarnamechoice (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * J street is "2" blocks from K street since there is "Jazz" alley between them. ....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m from Sacramento. This may be late, but to provide closure, the Jazz Alley is halfway between J & K. Each lettered street name is one block. To go from a lettered street to its adjacent alley is a half-block. To go from a lettered street, past the adjacent alley, and to the next lettered street is one city block. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Some Sac alleys have been commercialized beyond just a route for delivery and service vehicles, for additional retail and foot traffic, but for technical and urban planning reasons, it’s still only a half-block Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

sacbee.com articles about 2022 Sacramento shooting
Citoid is failing for sacbee.com:
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260088970.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260090360.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260066475.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260072590.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260094740.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260101525.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article260068450.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260092405.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260071275.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article260129235.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260095420.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260110170.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260066715.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260066505.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260090180.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260092415.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260069915.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article260143115.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260070505.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260066355.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260099355.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260071775.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260072525.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260082345.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260101575.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260071105.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260066675.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260069705.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260076895.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260068725.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article260070130.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260130935.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260144630.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article260082620.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260103050.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260132720.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260072845.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260077465.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article260106120.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article260069225.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article260116590.html
 * https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article260149190.html
 * ....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of early release and D.A. fighting it
My edit was removed:

|diff

I was told to seek comment here. My position is that the need for inclusion should be so obvious that anyone dissenting is either supremely ignorant or is acting in bad faith. That’s just my opinion. 2600:1012:B05F:4052:C4EC:B8AD:F23B:1FEA (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I will overlook the clear breach of No personal attacks. No-one has been charged yet over the shooting, but this IP editor wants to include the suspects' priors. Should this go to trial, even the jury will not be made aware of priors. Material about the suspects is encroaching on WP:BLPCRIME. WWGB (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I was frustrated that what is clearly a result of “criminal justice reform” is being cast as a gun access issue (not saying that isn’t also an issue) on this page. In case you weren’t aware by looking at my IP, this affects me, and it really upsets me that this page contains no information about the early release or how prosecutors and law enforcement (that aren’t named Gascon or Boudin) are at odds with these “reformers”. I wasn’t aware of “crimeBLP” but that doesn’t excuse my remark. Sorry. Anyway, I consider those reforms and reformers (Newsom’s appointees that let those goons out, Gascon, Boudin) as a harm to my and the public’s safety and look forward to the DA recalls this year, and am more than happy to volunteer my time to improve Wikipedia in this area. My biggest weakness is that I am too passionate. 2600:1012:B015:3CF4:70A7:7E60:AE3A:B072 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources are covering the previous convictions and early release in detail, the LA Times devoted an entire article for this. Furthermore the arrest was also for being a "a felon in possession of a firearm", since he was not allowed to hold a handgun. Pika voom  Talk 08:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I just changed the article.

The previous version said:

Smiley Allen Martin, 27-year-old brother of Dandrae, was the second suspect arrested. In 2018, Smiley was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but was released early by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in February 2022 due to proposition 57 legislation. Both Martin brothers had been injured in the shooting.

After my change, it now says:

Smiley Allen Martin, 27-year-old brother of Dandrae, was the second suspect arrested. In 2018, Smiley was sentenced to 10 years in prison for "punching a girlfriend, dragging her from her home by her hair and whipping her with a belt," but was released early by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in February 2022 due to proposition 57 legislation, which classified his actions as "nonviolent." Both Martin brothers had been injured in the shooting.

I think this additional content improves the article, because it shows that elections have consequences. I only wish the Associated Press article had included some quotes from supporters of classifying his brutalty violent crimes as being "nonviolent." Such classification seems awfully Orwellian to me. Bq54276de (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The LA Times source clearly states he did go up for the 'non-violent' review under the Prop 57 rules and was denied under that. This was a normal parole hearing that let him out. ''California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials said the Board of Parole Hearings denied Martin parole under nonviolent parole review in May 2021, but he was later released in February 2022. '' Apstockholm (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Twitter not a RS
Twitter is not a reliable source. That is especially true when the tweet is linked to with no indication of who tweeted it, but IMO also when someone like a reporter, who might be an RS if published in an editorially supervised venue, is tweeting under their own name. I will clean this article up accordingly. If you disagree, revert me and discuss here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgndenver (talk • contribs) 08:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)