Talk:Killing of Kenneth Chamberlain Sr.

News or notnews
This has maybe persisted and developed enough to merit an article. I don't know. I will expand it if it is still here in a day. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely article-worthy, IMO. There's a lot of news and the case might be getting bigger. Groupuscule (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. I will slowly expand it. I'm still wary of committing a lot of energy to something that could suddenly go AfD. Thanks for the input. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Racism vs. Allegations of racism
I know that 'allegations' or 'accusations' are common prefixes to 'racism' on wikipedia articles. I've seen WP:Label. I'm wondering if there's a more in-depth policy page on this matter. We seem to have decided as a community that Nazis and other antisemites are definitely racist. The racism in the US category has entries like black brute & representation of African-Americans in media. Are there guidelines for deciding when we can call a killing a racist killing? I'm also curious why, when it comes to legal cases, Wikipedia sometimes seems to adhere to legal standards of proof, rather than encyclopedic standards. (The article Nigger seems clear on the point that this word is considered 'racist', particularly in a context like this.) Groupuscule (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well he did call the man nigger and both cops have been accused of racism in the past. Poppurrpop (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Police explaination?
The article lacks any sort of explaination from the police for tasering and then killing someone. Have they really given none, or it just missing? Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes this also struck me as implausible. I found the police's explanation easily from clicking on a linked article.  I can't say I'm surprised that it wasn't included here, but even the most militant advocate should realize that you lose credibility when you present such an implausible scenario as the police not even trying to explain their actions (whether you believe them or not).  I actually came to this page because someone told me about this story but could not tell me what, if any, explanation the police gave for their actions.  It does not serve Wikipedia well when editors are so blind to their own biases. Sober Rationalist (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For me, the real question is, why are the police allowed to break down your door for no reason? Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think they claim he had a knife or a hatchet, but I'm not sure how to write about that because I can't figure out if that's justification for breaking down the door, or whether or not it's even true. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you not have a knife or hatchet in your own home? I'm having trouble understanding why primum non nocere shouldn't also apply to police officers.  I realize that they have a tough job, but it isn't necessary to always resort to brute force.  In fact, brute force is only one of many options, yet it seems to be the one they usually rely on the most.  I think that police departments would benefit by demilitarizing their force, hiring only college graduates, increasing their pay, and adding social workers, EMT's, and drug and domestic violence specialists.  There is no need for the police to constantly act as a reactionary force, when they can be used for prevention and civilian outreach in a way that can prevent crime in the future.  Training police to only react to a problem that they are not qualified to handle is the problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow... just, wow. Consider what is presented in this Wiki article.  A medical alert bracelet is triggered, and first responders - including law enforcement - arrive.  The "victim" announces through a closed door that he does not need assistance.  Law enforcement cannot see or identify the individual stating that all is well; they have no idea what has occurred within the residence.  Is the person living there killed and his assailant telling law enforcement "everything is OK - go away" so he can continue to look for money, jewelry, etc.?  There is no way of knowing, except to verify facts.  Had Mr. Chamberlain opened the door, he would be alive today.  Regarding your absurd suggestion that the police be "demilitarized" and morphed into a Birkenstock brigade armed with lattes who will provide public outreach (while conducting classes for all ages in the proper and safe method of whale kissing) - did you actually READ what you wrote prior to posting?  My recommendation to you is to contact the PD of your nearest large metro area to arrange riding with officers.  I'm going to suggest that you request a Friday or Saturday night.  Better yet, make the request to the Detroit PD when the Pistons play in the tournament.  If the Pistons loose, it will be an exciting night.  If the Pistons WIN, it will be no less exciting.199.64.0.254 (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Over the Legal Limit
The article states that Chamberlain's blood alcohol was over the legal limit, but does now explain what the legal limit was in the circumstances, i.e., being in his own home.

64.40.54.139 (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Very true, I will address this now. groupuscule (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed a good catch, as the article itself contained many other details also contradicting the notion that Chamberlain may have been a threatening intoxicated menace. I will add research when possible. Thanks. groupuscule (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Move to "Murder of Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr."?
I'm kind of reluctant to do this, as it might be considered POV. But "murder" seems to be the standard for titles of articles about killings.  flarn 2006  [u t c] time: 01:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But where does it say that he was murdered? Nobody was convicted of murder. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's call a spade a spade. A murder is a murder even if a corrupt justice system doesn't indict the murderers. Walfin (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, Walfin, but we have to go by what sources say. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete or Find Better Sources for Accusations of Racism Section
Most sources for the "Accusations of Racism Section" come from an interview transcript from Democracy Now. This is not a RS, and many statements made in this section are not found in the cited source. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)