Talk:David S. Terry

Terry–Hopkins incident
It states that Terry was not tried, but then cites reference 16, an article from the LA Star, which clearly says that he was tried by the Committee of Vigilance and found guilty of assaulting Hopkins. It also states that he was released: "That David S. Terry, having been convicted, after a full, fair and impartial trial, of certain charges, before the Committee of Vigilance, and the usual punishments in their power to inflict, not being applicable, in the present instance : Therefore, be it declared that the decision of the Committee of Vigilance is as follows : That the said David S. Terry be discharged from custody : and Resolved, That in the opinion of the Committee of Vigilance, the interests of the State imperatively demand that the said David S. Terry should resign his position as Judge of the Supreme Court." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.5.49.44 (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
This entry says that part of Terry's dispute with Broderick concerned Terry's re-election loss in 1859. While not directly contrary, Lee Epstein's book "Constitutional Law For A Changing America" says that Terry resigned his position on the Supreme Court of CA before dueling with Broderick. Is one of these things wrong or are they both right?


 * The Death Valley Days episode "A Gun Is Not a Gentleman" says Terry resigned from the court in anticipation of the duel.4.154.235.126 (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

POV and tone
Removed unsourced comments that Terry advocated slavery in California. Also, one should avoid sensational statements and tone similar to that, especially without any support. The more sensational or controversial the statement and subject, the more inline references it must have. I early put in more calm statements with extensive inline references, but they were removed and replaced with unsourced comments.

About references, please avoid citing from blogs, even legal blogs, and avoid sensationalist journalism. Also, please avoid personal attacks. If you think a sensational remark about real historical events is absolutely true, then you should be able to back it up with valid sources.

A rule of thumb, If a real person is characterized with one-sided, sensationalist statements, the statements likely are not true.

On the court case, In re Neagle. I had excellent quotations from eyewitnesses who testified in court that Judge Terry had done nothing to warrant being shot and killed. He had done, they said, no assault, no violence. Unlike Marshal Neagle, Judge Terry had no firearm on him. This court case is important for that very reason, that law enforcement are given considerable leeway in using force.

This case established that very precedent we see today in cases where police are accused of using force excessively. They are allowed to justify their own acts if they do it in a prescribed manner. This was first established in Neagle, where independent eyewitnesses gave one version of events, but Mr. Neagle gave another. In Court briefs and reports, Mr. Neagle's version was taken at face value and eyewitnesses' testimony of the shooting of Terry in the restaurant were not repeated.

I understand the difficulty in digging up the original testimony, but I did the work and posted quotations. I also posted information from peer-reviewed journal, establishing that Stephen had a grudge with Terry for having been passed over in political patronage in the Democratic Party. As a result, Field switched to the Republican Party. Power relationships reversed after the Civil War, so that cross over proved politically advantageous.

Now remember, Terry had been the Chief Justice and as late as 1879, Judge Terry was a delegate to the consitutional convention of 1879, and was perhaps the most influential man there.

That is not consistent with the unsourced, sensationalist statements made.

To be fair, more than a little bit of the sensationalism is traced to 1889. Then as now, recipients of police shooting—such as Terry—have faced damage to their reputations. This damage is used to justify the shooting, because the dead cannot defend themselves. For that, we all pay the price.

There is often more to a story. Terry's is an interesting story.

Wyeson 00:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOR. "Did the work and posted quotations." Fine. Publish a peer-reviewed journal or a book through a reputable publishing house. Not here. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)