Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 14

Robbery in lede RFC
With specific wording to be determined later, should the lede mention the robbery

Survey

 * include WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Include for the above reasons. As irrelevant to the issue of whether Wilson was justified in shooting Brown as the robbery is likely to be, we do discuss the robbery at length in multiple parts of the article. Dyrnych (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Include - It is a very relevant part of the overall incident, based on the extensive coverage in sources. Currently, around 15% of the article discusses the robbery.
 * Include – Both relevant and significant.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Include However "who knew what, and when did they know it" questions will arise.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Include The strong-arm robbery is an important part of the narrative and article, especially considering the controversy concerning police release of the robbery tape. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Include - I reverted because I thought the wording was awkward, not because I'm opposed to a mention in some form. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 *  Include very short mention of the alleged robbery in the lede. Details belong to the article's body -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Include If it's relevant then it must be included. Op47 (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Include I can't even imagine the article without a brief reference to the event in the lede. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course The video put the kibosh on turning this incident fully into Trayvon Martin redux. The attempt to do so is why we have this page, and the video is central to the evolution of the incident's public meaning. Andyvphil (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Include Primarily because of the controversy concerning police release of the robbery tape. It works as it is currently worded. It must not be worded in a way that would prejudice the reader with regards to Michael Brown. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Exclude till we have further information, since it has not been shown yet that the robbery was related to the shooting. Till we have a source that directly relates the robbery to the shooting in a significant way, it's not really a good idea to include this in the lede. It'll confuse people and implies that the robbery was closely tied to the shooting, when in reality police simply released this and did not explain whether or not it was related to the shooting.– FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 01:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Yes. The lede should mention the robbery with as much specificity as is necessary to convey how mangled the police claims as to whether Wilson did or didn't know about it have been. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * At least as regards the police chief's presser, it wasn't his "claim" that was mangled, it was reporting that was mangled. Andyvphil (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A good point. My (currently reverted) addition to the lede did not bring in the context of Wilson not stopping Brown due to the robbery correctly, and that is an important distinction. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I would note there's no need to refer to it as a "strong-arm" robbery in the lead. We discuss the nature of the robbery and define the term "strong-arm robbery" later in the article, and I maintain that it's more confusing than edifying to call it a strong-arm robbery without that definition.  All that said, is this an appropriate place to discuss the content of the mention of the robbery in the lead (if there's consensus for that addition)?  I think it's probably fine, but I'll defer to Gaijin42 as this is his RfC. Dyrnych (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to working out wording here, but if it doesn't happen here, thats fine too. So far it looks like there is going to be consensus for inclusion in some form so we might as well start hashing out the wording. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My concern is how the robbery is tied to the shooting. I'm not sure we can get a lot of this in the lead. And btw, the correct term on Wikipedia is "lead" not "lede" which is a newspaper term. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly second that last sentence. WP:LEDE is a redirect to WP:LEAD. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters, but some of us (yes, I'm guilty) use lede because lead can be ambiguous. For example, "According to the lead, lead leads other metals for battery production, but copper is used in the leads." Don't even get me started on buffalo.- MrX 20:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather be ambiguous than wrong. :D &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I make the mistake at least once a day, but the distinction is important.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Snow? Wording.
It looks like the includes are going to have it via WP:SNOW. Thank you for clarifying the reason for your revert. OK, based on comments in the above sections, and elsewhere, it seems that there are several points that we may or may not want to include in the lede. I'm not saying I think all of the points below do need to be included, just listing all the ones I think might be included so we can put the legos together.
 * (Police allege that?) A few minutes before the interaction, Brown (and Johnson?) were involved in a robbery
 * Brown taking cigars from behind counter, shoving/assaulting clerk
 * Johnson being handed cigars, placing them back on counter
 * Incident was captured on surveillance video
 * Johnson, lawyers, family have admitted it is Brown and Johnson on the video
 * At time of initial interaction between Wilson and Brown :
 * Wilson was aware of robbery
 * 911 call from customer
 * broadcast call to officers
 * Was en route to the scene to investigate
 * But stop was purely due to Jaywalking, and initial interaction was not due to robbery, Brown/Johnson were not suspects at that time
 * At some point during stop, police posit that Wilson may have seen Robbery evidence and considered Brown a suspect in robbery.

Based on the fact that Johnson, lawyers, family, etc have admitted its Brown and Johnson, and that the Cigars were taken without paying, and that we have video I think we should drop the "Police allege that" bit. However, in the interest of innocent until proven guilty, we could describe the action directly rather than naming a crime - "took Cigars without paying, and shoved the store clerk"

So initial stab at proposed wording : A few minutes before the shooting, Brown and Johnson were captured on a convenience store surveillance video, where Brown can be seen taking some Cigars without paying for them and shoving the store clerk. While en route to the store to respond to a 911 call, Wilson saw Brown and Johnson and stopped them for Jaywalking. Police have proposed that during the pedestrian encounter Wilson may have seen the Cigars in Brown's possession and then associated them with the store, but say the initial contact was unrelated to the incident at the store.

Some of the wording is a bit cumbersome, to avoid using the word robbery. Anyway. Comments, or alternative drafts welcome. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That long sentence does not belong in the lede. If we mention the robbery and the alleged participation of Brown and Johnson, it should be minimal as not not to give undue weight. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What part do you think is unneeded? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Too long and detailed for the lead. Also creates NPOV issues because we describe in detail the police's POV without mentioning anyone else's POV.
 * I suggest "The possible connection between the shooting and Brown's alleged role in stealing cigars from a convenience store is a subject of dispute." The police's own statements are conflicting and we still don't have clear answers as to who knew what when.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Its an objective fact that Brown is on the video taking the Cigars. His own family, and the various lawyers for that side admit it. There is no POV involved in that. To take your wording and tweak with my response "The possible connection between the shooting and Brown's role in taking cigars from a convenience store without paying is a subject of dispute."
 * Works for me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points: Thoughts on either? Dyrnych (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think that this part is accurate: "While en route to the store to respond to a 911 call[.]" My understanding is that Wilson had just finished responding to an unrelated matter and was not in fact going to the convenience store to respond to the robbery.  According to this source: "Police reports released Friday under an open-records request showed that at 11:51 a.m. on the day of the shooting, authorities received a 911 call reporting a robbery at the Ferguson Market. An unidentified officer was dispatched to the store, arriving within three minutes. The officer interviewed an employee and customer, who gave a description of a man who stole the cigars and walked off with another man toward a QuikTrip store. Separately, Wilson had been responding to a nearby call involving a sick 2-month child from 11:48 am until noon, when he left that place. A minute later, he encountered Michael Brown walking down Canfield Drive. The documents contained no description of what happened between Brown and Wilson" (emphasis added). Is there any source that reports that Wilson was himself responding to the robbery?
 * 2) Can we take the first sentence out of passive voice? Maybe: "A few minutes before the shooting, a convenience store surveillance video recorded Brown taking some cigars without paying for them and shoving a store clerk."  Johnson's presence at the store is factually accurate but I think unnecessary for the lead.
 * Thanks for the clarification on the call. I am fine with switching to active voice and dropping Johnson from the statement. I prefer something in the realm of the longer version, but two others have voiced concern about length. What are your thoughts in that regard? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is my proposal based on Gaijin42's version (addition in bold):
 * A convenience store surveillance video showed Brown taking some Cigars without paying for them and shoving the store clerk, minutes before According to witness reports and Ferguson police, Wilson drove up to Brown and a friend, Dorian Johnson, and ordered them to move off the street and onto the sidewalk. An altercation then took place between Brown and Wilson through the window of the police car. A shot was fired from within the vehicle and Brown and Johnson began to flee. Wilson left his vehicle, fired his pistol at Brown and confronted him. Wilson then fired several shots at Brown, fatally wounding him. Witness reports greatly differ as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up or moving towards Wilson when he was shot multiple times.
 * I have deleted a few words from the next sentence. If there is consensus about what happened, we do not seem to need attribution.- MrX 17:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need the details, can't we say that A convenience store surveillance video showed that Brown was a suspect in a robbery minutes before..., that's what he was and so was Johnson at that time. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with omitting details. How about we say "A surveillance video showed that Brown robbed a convenience store minutes before..."?- MrX 18:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer it to be appended to the end of the paragraph, in accordance with the principle that the most important facts are first. The article is about the shooting, not about the robbery. I propose to add, after the last sentence, The connection between the shooting and Brown's role in stealing cigars from a convenience store earlier that day is a subject of dispute. This provides an brief, NPOV statement of the facts while acknowledging the lack of clarity about who knew what, when. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Earlier that day" is a bit much. it was literally minutes. Your phrasing would allow for multiple hours to have passed. Most important first yes, but when we are literally talking about minutes chronologically also holds a lot of weight. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is at least a temporal connection between the robbery and the shooting.- MrX 19:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Even though there's a temporal connection, introducing the shooting with the robbery implies a causal connection that is unsupported. I support a short, separate paragraph placed after the paragraph about the actual shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, Johnson and Brown both knew they were suspects in a robbery from minutes before, regardless of whether Wilson knew or not. Isaidnoway (talk)  19:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we've discussed this before, but we shouldn't be making the inference (especially in the lead) that whatever knowledge Brown and Johnson had about whether or not they were suspects had any connection to the shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We should let the reader make up their own mind as to what may or may not be related. That involves giving the reader the factual objective information to do so. hiding that information because it might lead to a particular conclusion is not WP:NPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am definitely not talking about hiding the information. Dyrnych (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not "hiding" the information to ensure that we don't create speculative inferences. Right now, we don't know what, if any, connection there really is. The police's information has been as conflicting as anything else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What_SYNTH_is_not Saying that the robbery occurred minutes before the shooting is not inferring anything. it is a 100% true objective fact. We are not saying anything about who knew what when, nor are we saying the robbery justifies the shooting. If events that are lieteraly minutes apart are being shifted around, there is no cohesion to the section. We could equally move away brown stopping them, or the altercation through the window, or fleeing. Why do we put them in the order they are in? Because thats the order they happened. Making an exception for one thing is making a POV decision about which items are important and which items arent. We should not be making any such decision. The neutral presentation is chronological. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We put the events of the shooting in order; no dispute there. But events that may or may not be related to the shooting should not be placed in the narrative of the shooting because by placing them there we imply that they are PART of the narrative of the shooting. That's not a POV decision about importance. Dyrnych (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the lede, not the shooting subsection. Did that get lost in the shuffle somewhere? with that clarification, does that adjust any of the comments you made above? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the lead as well. My suggestion was to have the events of the shooting, followed by a short paragraph describing the robbery.  It lacks some narrative flow but makes up for it by making it clear that we (i.e., the voice of Wikipedia) don't know if there's any relationship between the robbery and the shooting at this point. Dyrnych (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think its doing more than that. I think its using wikipedia's voice to say they specifically do not have a relationship. Breaking a very short chronological gap is using wikipedia's voice very strongly. If we want to say we don't know what the relationship is, we should just say that, not try to create a tortured narrative that makes the user guess. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We can counter that by saying something to the effect of "It is currently unclear what connection if any the robbery had to the shooting." I don't see a great way to do that if we present the robbery as though it were part of the events of the shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Responding at bottom of section, so that editing is easier. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * hiding that information because it might lead to a particular conclusion is not WP:NPOV - And yet, there's been precious little support for including Johnson's record, in a neutral way, in a neutral location, using precisely the same reasoning. The argument against was exactly, "because it might lead to a particular conclusion". &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I've been pretty consistent with respect to both things. Dyrnych (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you're the precious little support to which I referred. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've read quickly, but by no means have studied, the material above. This seems to be about what words should be added to the lead about the robbery that took place a few minutes before the shooting. May I suggest that you're taking too long for what should be a simple summary?

The lead already includes this paragraph: "Brown had no criminal record. Wilson had served as a police officer for five years, three of those with the Ferguson Police Department. He has no disciplinary history." How about "Brown had no criminal record but was suspected in a robbery that had taken place minutes before. Wilson had served..."? If any readers want more, they can find it in the robbery section. Comments? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

So, what is your proposed wording, and where exactly would you place it? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Something like this, placed in a separate paragraph immediately below the brief narrative of the shooting:"A few minutes before the shooting, a convenience store surveillance video recorded Brown taking cigars without paying for them and shoving a store clerk as he exited the store. It is currently unclear whether the incident at the convenience store was connected to the shooting."Thoughts? Dyrnych (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we're supposed to summarize in the lead (see WP:LEAD). My change is to add 12 words in the third paragraph of the lead section: "but was suspected in a robbery that had taken place minutes before" (with the proper citation) right after "Brown had no criminal record". --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I too would like to see us keep the detail out, and would prefer not to add another paragraph. RoyGoldsmith's proposal seems reasonably close. - MrX 22:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My problem is that we are leaving out this POV as a possibility, "at some point" during the encounter Wilson saw cigars in Brown's hands and thought he might be a suspect in the robbery. Here's another source: Jackson told the Post-Dispatch that the officer, Darren Wilson, saw cigars in Brown's hand and realized he might be the robber. Here's another one from USA Today: At that point, Wilson "made the connection" that Brown might have been involved in a theft that had just been broadcast on police radio, Jackson said. The way it reads now we are implying that the pedestrian stop alone turned into an altercation and shooting, which is Johnson's POV, we should be offering the other POV along with Johnsons . BTW, A brief section in the incident report tied the robbery to Brown’s killing, which it said was “worth mentioning”. The police report (p.8) backs that up as well. Isaidnoway  (talk)  23:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's sufficiently important to include in the lead, but if you can convince everyone else, I won't stand in the way.- MrX 00:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm simply trying to dispel the notion that the robbery isn't connected to the shooting. I'm perfectly fine waiting for Wilson to offer his version of what happened, so it can be included as well, rather than relying solely on Johnson's version of what happened. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Continued
First, I'm starting a new subsection. Most of the last subsection doesn't apply (and I have to scan pages and pages until I get to the point where comments may be inserted.)

Second, my addition applies to the 3rd, "background" paragraph, not to the 2nd, "incident" graph. In my opinion, it doesn't imply anything except Brown was "suspect" in a robbery. I specifically used the passive voice so that we don't say even that Wilson was aware of the robbery (or that Brown knew that the robbery had even been reported). Isaidnoway's points about Wilson seeing the cigars are well founded but they belong in the body of the article, not the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I just bolded to include the police claim that wilson noticed the cigars. I have no issue removing it, I think the lead (and relevent section) needs to better reflect the controversy surrounding the video release and not the contents of the video itself - A Canadian Toker (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I moved this subsection up to preserve date/time order. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Bold Sept 4

 * I added the following paragraph immediately before "Brown had no criminal record"... I don't think this addition is overly long given the length of the article. I'm not sure how important the robbery was in the police interaction but discussion of the video is definitely needed. I'd like to hear others' thoughts. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"After the shooting Ferguson police released video of a convenience store robbery in which cigars were stolen. The robbery happened minutes before the shooting. The Ferguson police claimed that the footage "shows a confrontation between Brown and an employee at the store." While Wilson initially stopped Brown for blocking traffic Wilson alleges to have noticed Brown carrying a box of cigars. "At that point, Wilson 'made the connection' that Brown might have been involved in a theft that had just been broadcast on police radio." The timing of the release of the video was controversial and criticized by Brown's family, politicians and others. [unsigned by ACanadianToker, 23:34 4 September 2014]

I need for someone to tell me our definition of "consensus". If it's "absence of clear group opposition", there are two or three changes I've given up on unnecessarily, and I can go ahead with them now. I thought consensus was presence of clear group support. ‑‑ Mandruss (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think as a whole, this is OK, but I have removed the part about Wilson seeing the cigars, because there are a couple conflicting statements there, the police have changed their story and we should leave that complicated story to be told in the body. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I shortened the new paragraph added by ACanadianToker to take into consideration some of the prior discussion.- MrX 02:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Could someone explain to me in simple words why the robbery video is considered so important that it deserves two, fairly long sentences (including a direct quote) in the lead of this article? Why not devote equal space to, for example, Johnson's eyewitness account or the reaction by officials? This much information about the robbery might go in the lead of our sister article, 2014 Ferguson unrest, where the release of this material does appear to be a primary cause of the re-escalation of violence on Aug 15. But why so much in the lead of this article? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The robbery is connected to the shooting. WP:LEAD allows for prominent controversies to be included in the lead. Isaidnoway (talk)  22:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But why this controversy? Why not Johnson's eyewitness account or even "Josie's" 3rd-hand account? Do you mean that the controversy about the robbery video is the most important bone of contention we have? I still don't understand. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Because a RfC was opened specifically to address this controversy and whether it should be included in the lead. There is an overwhelming consensus to include it. Isaidnoway (talk)  22:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Bold Sept 5
Because I have such strong objections to the length (and only the length) of the change, I boldly reverted Canadian Toker's two-sentence addition and replaced it with the 12-word phrase I had used up above. Is this OK? If not, here is the place to continue our WP:BRD. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, there may be something wrong with the Huffington reference; I tried it several times and it always acted like a WP:DEADLINK. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your 12-word phrase doesn't accurately reflect the controversy of the robbery video. Seems like just a random comment inserted into the lead, rather than explaining it was a controversy. Isaidnoway (talk)  04:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have two comments. First, the job of the lead is to summarize the article. We should not delve into any controversy in the lead except when the whole article (or a major section of it) is about something in dispute; for example Controversies in autism or Controversies about the discovery of Brazil. My real concern is that by giving the robbery video such prominence in our lead would make many readers think that a major portion of the article is about the controversy.
 * Second, I don't believe that there is a controversy about the robbery video any more. Yes, many people (including Brown's family) initially doubted the video when it was first released, especially since it was released first as still pictures. But even more people have examined the video since Aug 15th and have come to the conclusion that the suspect was indeed Brown. (Among others, the police investigator in the incident report who compared the robbery suspect in the video against Brown's body and Dorian Johnson who, through his lawyer, said that Johnson was present with Brown in the convenience store.) It has been more than 3 weeks now and I don't know of any reliable sources since, say, Aug 20th, that claim that Brown wasn't the man who shoved the store clerk down in the video.
 * It seems to me that the only significant relevance now of the robbery video is that it was a major cause of the Aug 15 re-escalation and that summarization (if warranted) should be in the 2014 Ferguson unrest's lead and not here. If, by controversy, you mean Jackson's ill-timed release then that too should go in our sister article.
 * For the above reasons, I think that we should go back to:
 * Brown had no criminal record but was suspected in a robbery that had taken place minutes before. Wilson had served...
 * or something equally short, as opposed to:
 * Ferguson police released video of a convenience store robbery which occurred minutes before the shooting, stating that it 'shows a confrontation between Brown and an employee at the store." The timing of the video's release was controversial and criticized by Brown's family, politicians and others. Brown had no criminal record...
 * I would like to get a consensus on this addition to the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Brown had no criminal record" is under discussion in another section, and it looks like there may be an RFC on that. Including it here unnecessarily complicates things by mixing two separate issues, unless it's clear that the "Brown had no criminal record" part may be modified by the other discussion. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * One sentence describing the surveillance tape and one sentence describing the controversy around the tape is indeed a summary. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My only criticism with your shortened suggestion above is that whether or not he was a suspect is in question. Whether Wilson actually suspected him of the robbery is different from the seperate controversy - releasing video, seemingly to discredit the innocence of an unarmed man killed by police. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Bold Sept 7
OK, here's where the lede is now, in relevant part:

1) "Brown, an unarmed black man..."
 * Googling for "Shooting of Michael Brown" I get "the police shooting that killed unarmed teenager Michael Brown", "a police officer fatally shot Michael Brown... One side says the teenager was surrendering...", "Michael Brown, 18, was unarmed...", "Michael Brown, an unarmed black teen...", "... Darren Wilson chased the unarmed teen..." (This last, CNN - reffed here  - is two new eyewitnesses, very interesting.) ... Brown is a "black man" of unspecified age only on Wikipedia.

2) "According to witness reports and Ferguson police, Wilson drove up to Brown and a friend..."
 * Actually there are no uninvolved "witness" reports of Wilson driving up to the two, only the participants Johnson and Wilson (via the "confirmed" "Josie" account). But every source agrees on this, there's no need for attribution in the lede.

3) "A shot was fired from within the vehicle ..."
 * According to Johnson, at least sometimes. According to Josie (and, again, we have a RS reporting that this IS Wilson's account), "Michael... shoves him back into his car... Michael grabbed for the gun. At one point, he got the gun entirely turned against his hip. And he shoves it away, and the gun goes off.” Supporting this is the fact that Brady didn't hear the first shot, and it doesn't show on the audio tape (though the diggers do hear it) so it may have been muffled in a way that the first volley was not. Into the upholstery is not "from within the vehicle". Andyvphil (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed these errors (#2 & #3 -- #1 is just a bad choice) in the second paragraph, and a couple others, plus some tightening:

I did this stepwise -- see my comments. Do NOT just revert to the alleged "consensus" crap, as the statement that Wilson fired "from" the vehicle is a BLP vio stating in Wikipedia's voice that Wilson committed a Federal crime (attempted deprivation of a constitutional right) at that point. (He probably did, before Brown turned around, but we no longer state that either.) The 7th shot went into a building, btw, and there were probably other misses. Andyvphil (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Um, changed it back to "six". The building shot could have gone through Brown, I suppose. Andyvphil (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with stating that the gun was fired or discharged, but note the passive voice. "A shot was fired from within the vehicle" doesn't in any sense mean that "Wilson fired from within the vehicle," and it wouldn't be a BLP violation even if it did.  It's a long and entirely unwarranted logical leap from "a shot was fired from within the vehicle [under unclear circumstances]" to "Wilson committed a federal crime." Dyrnych (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how passive your voice is, the only source for the assertion that Wilson's pistol was fired FROM his vehicle is Johnson, and if Johnson's account is correct then that shooting was a civil rights violation iaw the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner. Wilson's account disputes this. What part of this still escapes you? Andyvphil (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Everything that is based on witness accounts should be removed, except in the sections that specifically cover witness accounts. Objectively, we don't know where the gun was fired from, and "from the vehicle" could mean "from behind [or in front of] the door of the vehicle". We also can't say anything about the number or timing of the shots other than "at least X shots," where X is the number of bullets recovered from the scene. Roches (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Bold Sept 8
OK, since the story behind the surveillance video(s) has been more fully developed, I replaced this

with this:

and was reverted by NorthBySouthBaranof with the comment "We are not going to "categorize" an alleged crime, much less in the lede."

The prior text already calls the robbery a robbery, and the replacement merely reports how the police characterize the robbery, which no one much other than NorthBySouthBaranof can still think is merely an "alleged crime". I mean, both robbers in the North Hollywood shootout died without trial, but Wikipedia still says, "Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Mătăsăreanu entered and robbed the North Hollywood Bank of America branch". And Brown robbed, not "allegedly robbed", the convenience store. Johnson may have thought, as he says, it was a prank, but it was indubitably a crime. Andyvphil (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The shove led them to classify this as strong arm robbery, a felony. in the lede? No way. That is detail for the body. The previous consensus version is superior as it includes information that was directly associated with the unrest that followed. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer the first version of the robbery incident in the lead, it's NPOV and the sentence that follows it makes it clear why it was controversial. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also prefer the first version, per the enormous amount of time that we've spent discussing this exact issue on the talk page. Dyrnych (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The earlier version is bad writing partly for the same reason that we replaced excessive attribution in the witnesses section. Why do we have the police "stating" something, as if we have only their word for it, when in fact what the video shows is no longer disputed? Why say "confrontation" when we can just as easily be more specific? It's also problematic in that includes criticism of the timing of the video's release, but not the PDs response that it was released at the Sunshine Law deadline, which is not, contra Isaidnoway, NPOV. Andyvphil (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The police stated that, regardless of what the video shows. And the details of the confrontation needs to be sourced to an RS, not to our own assessment of what we see on a video, per WP:NOR. As for the release, you should read the sources that say that no one had asked for that video on the FOIA; it was the police's attempt to muddle the waters post shooting, and a disgrace IMHO. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you need to catch up. The HufPo article libeling the police chief by saying he hadn't received any Sunshine Law requests before releasing the video (a really stupid assertion on HufPo's part, to think that no one in the media had thought to take an interest in it) has been updated to reflect the FPD's response that, the Ferguson website being down, the FPD had accepted requests by other means and had released the video on the deadline to do so. It doesn't matter whether you believe it -- it's not NPOV to put in the accusation and not the response. And there is no shortage of RS for the simple assertion that only the police, but Johnson, store employees, everyone including media RS who's looked at the tape all agree that it shows Brown robbing the store and assaulting the owner. The "police state that it shows" version was only appropriate before there was time for this consensus to form. The lede doesn't need citations, btw. It should reflect the maintext, which is where the citations need to be. If the maintext doesn't reflect the reality of the situation (I have to run, will look at this tmw) then I suggest you stop obstructing the development of the lede and work on fixing the problem. Andyvphil (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The deadline to respond to a Sunshine Law request is three business days, and the moron responsible for this embarrassing falsehood by the Huffington Post is the same moron, Ryan J. Reilly, who thought earplugs were rubber bullets . They also quote, and elsewhere highly praise, Matthew Keys, a reporter fired from Reuters for his "inaccuracy"[]. Shows you what "Reliable Source" means. Andyvphil (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I also replaced this execrable piece of writing, the "previous consensus version" (it's claimed)

with

but Cwobeel said "The circumstancs are disputed, I see no reason to delete that from the lede". As if I had. Andyvphil (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that you added "disputed circumstances of the shooting" I am OK with it. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I hadn't, but I have. Andyvphil (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sept 10
I've been away from all this (intentionally) and the only thing I can say is that you guys have greatly extended this talk page section. When new "recent events" articles experience a slowdown in news coverage, the contributors frequently spend their time disagreeing over what should go into the lead. In my opinion, it really doesn't matter. When we get more data (for example, when the grand jury reaches a verdict), the lead will have to be substantially rewritten and we'll know better whether or not the robbery video is significant. I know that there's a temptation to keep the article as updated as possible for news readers but remember the ten-year test. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

== "The Atlantic Wire and MSNBC have reported on the changing nature of the department's statements.[48][50]" ==

"Changing nature", eh? We mean, like Dorian Johnson's tales? Yeah, that what our "reliable sources" are clearly claiming, but, actually, no, the two linked sources, The Atlantic Wire and MSNBC, fantasized this. As did others.

(1)Here's the video of Jackson's presser-in-the-park: http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/ferguson-chief-officer-didnt-know-about-robbery/14124259/. My memory is that he indeed says Wilson didn't connect Brown and Johnson to the robbery at "initial contact", but then says he won't talk about the encounter past the initial contact because that -- unlike the robbery -- is still under investigation. He also says at one point that he doesn't know in detail what Wilson had said. (The investigation is being handled by the County, not the FPD.) He AT NO TIME says, as The Wire and multiple other incompetents misreported it "that the robbery was not related to the confrontation between Brown and Wilson". There is no excuse for these morons not to have known that Johnson was saying all over the place that Wilson had driven away after the "initial encounter", stopped, then backed into his and Brown's path, nearly hitting them. Contrary to The Wire's claim, this is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with Jackson's later statement that "...Wilson noticed that Brown was carrying cigars and then realized he might be the robber."
 * If memory serves, Jackson, on being further pressed on this issue admitted that this was speculation on his part and not a statement borne out of conversations with Wilson. (MyPOV:  If memory servers: How irresponsible is that!?)

(2) MSNBC correctly WRITES "Darren Wilson, the officer who stopped Brown, wasn’t even aware that Brown was a suspect in the robbery", but then wanders of into stupidity in exactly the same way: "Hours later, Jackson appeared to change his story, telling NBC News that while the officer who shot Brown initially stopped him for walking in the street and blocking traffic, “at some point” during the encounter the officer saw cigars in Brown’s hands and thought he might be a suspect in the robbery." "Appeared"? Appeared to who? Reporters with a room-temperature IQ? Well, that applies to many of our unreliable "Reliable Sources", not just MSNBC and The Wire.

(3) But on the video labelled "Ferguson Police Chief: Shooter didn't know Michael Brown was a suspect" the "reporter""reports", (1:35) "...Jackson said there was no connection between the robbery and the confrontation that led to Brown's death." Which is false.

(4)The Wire attempts to disprove Jackson's statement that he chose to release the robbery tape because "the media asked for it" by quoting a tweet from Christopher Hayes saying "ACLU put in open records request for incident pertaining to the *shooting*. Nothing about a robbery."

(5) Later the Huffington Post was even more irresponsible, posting an article that is STILL libellously titled "Ferguson Police Chief Lied About Why He Released Alleged Michael Brown Robbery Tape" on the basis that "the police department did not receive any specific requests for the videotape". But the City Arttorney for Ferguson has replied, "On August 12, 2014, the [St. Louis Post Dispatch] requested 'all documentation concerning the events LEADING UP TO and including the shooting of Michael Brown" which shall include “incident, arrest and investigative reports, 911 audio, photos and VIDEO retained by the police department.'” and "on August 14, 2014... Judicial Watch requested ALL RECORDS relating to Michael Brown and dated between August 1, 2013, and August 9, 2014."(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/05/ferguson-chief-lied-about-michael-brown-tape_n_5773420.html )The video is included in the investigative report for the robbery, which certainly "related to" Michael Brown, inasmuch as he committed it. And the FPD was required by Missouri's Sunshine Law to release the informatioin within three days of the request. (http://ago.mo.gov/sunshinelaw/faqs.htm#Q3 ) I covered this in maintext a few days ago.
 * I have written about this Huffington Post article elsewhere and consider it to be extremely irresponsible reporting. But the person who I believe is open to the greatest criticism is the St. Louis Post Dispatch writer who can't even seem to keep his stories straight when uttering just two juxtaposed sentences. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

(6) As long as we're on the subject of reliability, The Wire "reports" "The police report identifies Brown as the primary suspect in that robbery, according to reporter Ryan Reilly. Officer Wilson was apparently responding to that call when he encountered Michael Brown on Saturday." It still says that. Even after the "updates". Even now. But KSDK, which I link to above for the complete video of the 3pm presser notes, "Chief Jackson said Wilson was unaware the pair were wanted in connection with the robbery; another officer was investigating the robbery at the time." The Wire misses this and STILL hasn't caught it. But KSDK doesn't catch the "initial contact" distinction either.

Anyway, I last night made this edit with this comment, "Tighten. A lot of RS misreported at the time what Jackson said about Wilson connecting robbery and suspects, but that's no longer unclear." and was immediately reverted by NorthBySouthBaranof with the comment, "Not sure what you mean by "misreported" - who says it was 'misreported?' The RSes specifically discuss that the department's story has changed on this matter." I've addressed this before with less specific reference to the text, but he seems to have missed it. Presumably he will now know what I meant by "misreported". I meant, "misreported". Andyvphil (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the time you took to present your arguments, but it is obviously clear by now the FPD botched the entire thing from the beginning with conflicting reports, the release of the videos, strategic leaks to the media, their outrageous response with sniper rifles and SWAT teams, and other shenanigans. We shall see what the DOJ uncovers. Until then, we report what source say. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you remember the inane comment that Jackson made on Aug 16 at that press conference (watch the video to learn how incompetently it was done), in which Jackson responded when asked about the timing of the tape release? Because you asked for it - That is what he said, and he said it with great discomfort because he knew he was just playing a game to discredit Brown. I don't know how that guy is still police chief. The Sunshine law excuse was made much later on.  -   Cwobeel   (talk)  19:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your mind-reading skills would be more impressive if you weren't so aggressively ignoring the the obvious: "Because you asked for it" is just another way of saying, "Because you collectively submitted many Sunshine Law requests", which Jackson says several times, though not using exactly those words. He mentions consulting the City Attorney about this, even if the correct terminolgy didn't stick. Andyvphil (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Andyvphil, all your claims are very interesting but they're also unsourced original research and synthesis from a number of different sources that you claim add up to "this was misreported." Unless you have a reliable source which directly contradicts MSNBC and The Atlantic Wire's statements, they remain in. Are there any sources saying MSNBC and The Atlantic Wire were wrong to report that the police's story changed? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the press conference": Jackson: “We got a lot of FOI requests”  Watch at minute 1:30 (!!!!) how he gives it away that this was all a PR exercise gone bad.  At 3:53' Jackson: “Take a look at the tape”. Appalling. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  19:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "how he gives it away that this was all a PR exercise gone bad." I watched the video at the suggested mark, and the things you said above did not actually happen.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Just created a stub for Thomas Jackson (police officer). Feel free to help there and expand the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Were you asleep when it was pointed out to you that WP:NOR doesn't apply to talk pages? How about when the statement in WP:RS about necessity of evaluating even the most usually reliable of sources for their accuracy on a particular statement was quoted to you? How is my observation that various newsmedia misreported what Jackson said "unsourced" when I provided you a video of the event that shows exactly that? Apart from the fact that he calls Sunshine Law requests "FOIA requests", what is supposed to be wrong with his explanation of why he released the video? When asked by some idiot reporter, iirc, if he's sure it's Brown on the tape, what's "Appalling" about answering “Take a look at the tape”? Have you contributed anything to this article beside obstruction and an appalling imperviousness to evidence and logic? (Same question for you, NorthBySouthBaranof.) Andyvphil (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you need a cup of tea. I am not engaging with you in this manner. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You weren't engaging anything I said anyway, just doubling down the same nonsense you were spouting before about plots by the police and the like. Andyvphil (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So, you continue with your personal attacks? I appreciate your passion for defending the police, but please cool it. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

convenience break

 * Wrong again. I don't have a "passion for defending the police". I believe Wilson is probably guilty of a Federal crime. I have a passion for the truth. I don't know what floats your boat but it's really hard to square your performance with good-faith argument rather than a simple determination to own this article, say what may. E.g., the FPD was required to respond within three days to the Sunshine Law request for its file on the robbery, once the investigation closed. I've linked the FAQ on the Missouri govt website that says precisely that. On the Friday after the Saturday shooting Chief Jackson released the video because the investigation of the robbery was closed, but refused to say anything about the encounter between Wilson and Brown after the initial contact because that was still under investigation. He says that he's doing it because he is legally required to do so, which is true. What part of this do you disagree with? Andyvphil (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The City of Ferguson says that requests were made that required it to release the video. That's fine and may even be true, but it's also legitimate to be skeptical that (1) the requests that were made encompassed the video at all and (2) even if the city was required to release the video, that the city's choice to release the video at a press conference slated to provide Wilson's name to the media was inappropriate and was calculated to "thuggify" Brown.  With respect to the first item, one could point to the city's reluctance to release ANY information (initially Wilson's name and basic details about the shooting incident itself, but also things like the names of other officers involved in other incidents during the unrest), which has been observed by basically every media outlet that's reported on the case.  Also, government entities are not generally known for being overinclusive with releases to the public under open records laws and, to my knowledge, no entity specifically requested the videotape.  With respect to the second, one could point to the fact that releases under FOIA (and presumably under Missouri's Sunshine Law) are usually made to the entities that request them, not to the broader public.  In any event, there's still plenty of room for controversy over the video's release even with the city's purported justification. Dyrnych (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "...it's also legitimate to be skeptical that (1) the requests that were made encompassed the video at all..."
 * No, it's not. There's no question that SL requests were made that encompassed the video.


 * I will agree that it would not be unusual for a police department to be as insouciant about its duty to obey the law as Holder's DOJ is and as it asked the FPD to be, but it's hardly a telling criticism of the FPD that in this instance it obeyed a law, however willingly. And I'm not remotely clear on why you would think their performance would have been improved had they released the material only to St. Louis Post Dispatch and Judicial Watch instead of handing it out in printed form, with stills, to the entire press. In fact, that suggestion is bizarre, though of a piece with the deplorable attitude rampant on this page that inconvenient facts should be made as difficult as possible for the lesser orders... I mean, "the broader public"... to find out. The "controversy" is just POV-pushers disappointed that the video took the wind out of their "unarmed teen" narrative. Andyvphil (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've located a third media request for the robbery video: "Reports today claim there were no media requests for the robbery video at ferguson market prior to the day it was released. I absolutely did make a formal written request for the video two days before it was released. A source told me about the video. Betsy Bruce and I asked the mayor about it. During a taped interview. ... " -- Mandy Murphey, FOX 2-KTVI, Sept. 6.
 * Go ahead and believe in the wonderful, law-abiding motives of the FPD if you want. Totally your right to do that, and it's good that it's a view that's represented in the article.  But you're arguing that well-sourced material be excluded from the article because, in your view, the arguments that support it are wrong.  That says a lot more about your willingness to push a POV than that of other editors. Dyrnych (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your inability to closely read a text is again on display. I nowhere suggested that the motives of the FPD were pure. I said that their motives were irrelevant to whether they should be criticized for doing the right thing. Andyvphil (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your inability to make an argument without couching it in the form of a personal attack is telling, but here's the thing: who cares whether they SHOULD be criticized or not? They HAVE BEEN criticized, and for reasons that some people find persuasive.  And you're STILL suggesting that the dispositive issue for inclusion in the article is whether or not the arguments that support that criticism are right on the merits. Dyrnych (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keeping things out of the article is your schtick, not mine. The evidence being what it is, anyone who finds this particular "criticism" persuasive is an imbecile, but I'm satisfied that the discerning reader will detect that truth if I give him the evidence in a neutral fashion. Which I did. Andyvphil (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are arguing to remove verified, reliably-sourced content based upon your original research and analysis of what other people have written. I disagree with your original research and I don't think it shows anything like what you think it shows. You have provided no reliable sources which support your claim. Calling reporters "incompetents" and "morons" doesn't constitute evidence of anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not evidence, it's a conclusion based on evidence, which I've provided and which you haven't even attempted to refute. Andyvphil (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Initial reporting by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch compiling a number of statements made by Thomas Jackson
In the event that this is helpful, I thought I'd post it here verbatim:

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

The officer who shot Ferguson teen Michael Brown stopped Brown and another teen because they were walking in the street, not because of a robbery a few minutes earlier, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said Friday afternoon.

Jackson said the officer was aware cigars had been taken in the robbery of a store nearby, but did not know when he  encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson that they might be suspects.

He stopped them because they were walking in the street, Jackson said.

But Jackson told the Post-Dispatch that the officer, Darren Wilson, saw cigars in Brown's hand and realized he might be the robber.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ferguson-officer-stopped-michael-brown-for-walking-in-street-but/article_52c40b84-ad90-5f9a-973c-70d628d0be04.html

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's made unclear whether when the Post-Dispatch writes "...Jackson told the Post-Dispatch..." it's self-puffery (that is, they are reporting what Jackson told the entire press... but are trying to make it sound like they had an exclusive interview), or whether they actually have an exclusive interview in which Jackson actually said "Darren Wilson, saw cigars in Brown's hand and realized he might be the robber" as opposed to Jackson saying he guessed Wilson might have seen them.

My bet is on the former, but The P-D also writes, "Jackson said the officer was aware cigars had been taken in the robbery of a store nearby, but did not know when he encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson that they might be suspects.", which I don't remember seeing in the park presser,: (MSNBC:.) That is, I thought Josie said the call came in after Wilson left and before he returned. But I could be wrong. I've never listened to that and am not sure I've even read a transcript.

That last link (MSNBC), in addition to the video, has text saying "Hours later, Jackson appeared to change his story, telling NBC News that while the officer who shot Brown initially stopped him for walking in the street and blocking traffic, “at some point” during the encounter the officer saw cigars in Brown’s hands and thought he might be a suspect in the robbery." Which is where we get our our current text, "Still later, Jackson told NBC News that while Wilson initially stopped Brown for walking in the street and blocking traffic, "at some point" during the encounter Wilson saw cigars in Brown's hands and thought he might be a suspect in the robbery.[48]". Again, my bet is that "telling NBC News" is code for "NBC had someone in the crowd of reporters", rather than an exclusive, so that if what is written doesn't agree with the video, you should believe the video.

On the MSNBC video the main exchange re "initial contact" is circa 6:00-7:00. At 10:45 a reporter accuses Jackson of changing his story, but that appears to be a reporter who is conflating Wilson with the officer who responded to the robbery, not having listened to what Wilson already said earlier about that, iirc. What's the timestamp on "I guess he might have seen the cigars?" Andyvphil (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you're referring to the quote mentioned in the section below, I've added timing indicators to it in answer to your question above. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I thought there might have been something in the MSNBC video about cigars that I missed. THanks. Andyvphil (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've listened to a bit of Josie's call and, indeed, when the P-D writes, "Jackson said the officer was aware cigars had been taken in the robbery of a store nearby, but did not know when he encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson that they might be suspects.", it is contradicting her/Wilson's account. I don't believe Jackson said that -- it's just one of our Reliable Sources screwing up some details, as usual. Andyvphil (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

CNN's Don Lemon presses Chief Jackson on the matter of what Wilson knew when he approached Brown and Johnson
Chief: Officer maybe saw stolen cigars 	Updated August 15, 2014

Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson says the officer who killed Michael Brown might have seen him carrying stolen cigars.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/15/ac-bts-ferguson-police-chief-thomas-jackson.cnn.html

Note the following verbatim citation from Jackson: "And then as [Wilson] passed [Brown and Johnson], you know, I guess   that's when he might have seen the evidence and connected it."

(CNN's Don Lemon turns to this specific topic beginning at 01:22. The quote above begins at 01:50.) There's another video out there, if memory serves, (and I do hope I'll be able to find it) where, when pressed by an interviewer, Jackson admits that this analysis is his own speculation and not a statement based on his conversations with Wilson. In the meantime, hope this is sufficient to show that a belief that Jackson's statements were speculative and not authoritative is certainly not unjustified given his "guess" about what "might have" been going on in the mind of Darren Wilson. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But is Jackson's statement a reasonable and plausible explanation, considering the facts we know. Brown stole cigars from a convenience store, 10 minutes later he is walking down the middle of a public street in broad daylight carrying the stolen cigars. Wilson stops them, says get out of the street, they don't comply with his order, and at some point while they are foolishly still standing around, he saw the stolen cigars and made the connection with the robbery. Sounds reasonable and logical. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems an unimportant question since Jackson already said that he didn't know what Wilson had said, and his hypothesis was not based on the facts we now know. But it turns out that that is exactly what Wilson's story is, as you might know if this article didn't omit it. I just listened to part of Josie's account for the first time and she says that Wilson was cursed, pulled away and parked (and, she thinks, called for backup, which explains the parking and the quick arrival of the second officer) and -then- the robbery call came in and Wilson understood the significance of the cigars, backed up, and what ensued ensued. Yes, all this does indeed sound reasonable and logical.
 * Now, whether what you describe Brown doing - robbing a store in his own neighborhood, boldly ignoring two security cameras, attracting attention by walking down the middle of a busy street carrying his loot and cursing out and disobeying an officer who merely tells him to move to the sidewalk - none of that sounds reasonable and logical. But that's what happened.
 * It cries out non compos mentis, and then if you notice Brown's recently changed behavior, his "vision" of the devil chasing an angel, his recent baptism, the religious content of his conversation with the contractor who was cursing out a tree root, even his expression in his graduation picture (compare with the other students... I decided on imperiousness)... well, things begin to cohere: mental problems interpreted in religious terms with resultant delusions of grandeur and invulnerability. How dare the clerk ask for his id or the officer tell him to move to the sidewalk, he's on a mission from Jesus to sort out the bad vibrations caused by that cursing contractor! He'd 'said he would come back to do it! And what Wilson interpreted as "taunting" was just Brown letting him know how impotent the poiliceman was.
 * To be clear, I'm not saying any of this should go in the article. But if you want to know what's reasonable and logical, that's my best hypothesis. Otherwise, as you said, how do you explain what happened?
 * That said, the subject here is what to do about the text saying Jackson said Wilson saw the cigars. For me, it's like the text saying police sources said Wilson fired on the fleeing Brown: accurate by accident. We should find a source accurately saying it was a guess and go with that. Andyvphil (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Nation sees probable cause for a murder charge. Shall we place this view into the Reaction section?
The Nation: What More Will It Take to Arrest Darren Wilson? Also, numerous reliable sources are asking if the video of the Caucasian contractor angrily protesting that Brown had his hands up when shot and where he hold his hands up to make his point, is a "game changer." Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Its in front of a grand jury, which is the process that would get him indicted. Not sure what you are hoping for. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am hoping that an editor or two will answer my question as to whether this reaction to the release of the white-guys video merits inclusion in the Reaction section. I hope that this time, my intent is clearer than it apparently was when stated the first time.  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We shall know in a few weeks. Till that time there is no point in reporting on speculation. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, Its not "The Nation" its "Mychal Denzel Smith" a writer at the Nation, clearly writing an opinion piece in his own voice in their blog section, with the tagline "All the blackness thats fit to print and some that isn't", and repeatedly saying "I" . So to decide if it should be included we need to decide if Smith is a voice of sufficient authority, or notability, or relevance. Since the voices we already include are heads of major civil rights orgs (Sharpton, Jackson, Amnesty), and world league politicians and orgs, my opinion is no, Smith is not an appropriate addition to the reactions section. Some editorial media voices may be appropriate (I'm somewhat surprised we have none), but we should be picking major league voices written in  full editorial weight/voice of the organization.  (I do note we have a few media voices in the Unrest article, and they are in general of a much higher caliber than this one, which reinforces my opinion.) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a ton of opinions out there, and we are not going to report them. This is all speculative and does not add anything useful. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael, I think that blacks may find it offensive that you feel that a white person may have greater credibility. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC
 * I had no feelings at all. I quoted reliable sources and asked for all of you to decide if it merits inclusion in the article.  An apology for your insinuation of my racism would be a nice touch, Kevin Murray. I'll be hoping for one, but certainly not expecting, my best attempts at AGF notwithstanding. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This from Slate. You really must read this stunningly important article in its entirety to understand that I am onto something here, comrades. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/09/ray_rice_donald_sterling_danny_ferry_and_surveillance_technology_cameras.html Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Then tell them to get over it. The contractors are asserted to have greater credibility because they are more neutral, not because they're white. Andyvphil (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have hoped that would be the case, but some sources are arguing that the fact they are white their testimony will weight heavier on the grand jury: The race of the witnesses shouldn't matter, but it could for the grand jury that's investigating the case, said Mark Geragos, a CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney. There are nine whites and three African-Americans on the 12-member panel tasked with deciding whether Wilson, who is white, should be charged. "You now have some witnesses who the majority of this grand jury are going to better relate to. I hate to say it, but that's the reality of it, and that's why it's a game changer to me," Geragos said. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  19:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will note for the benefit of editors less impervious to facts than Cwobeel and his ilk that, while the contractors may think they're helping convict Wilson, if you evaluate what they say in conjunction with the shots audio tape, as I do upthread, it looks good for him on the manslaughter charge. Andyvphil (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Dorian Johnson will be the "game changer" in this incident, just hide and watch. Isaidnoway (talk)  22:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaigan42 says it well. This is opinion, and I'm unsure of the notability of the commenter. Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon }

No indictment forthcoming? Discuss how to handle reaction
This opinion piece in the Washington Post suggests that no indictment will be handed down. There will definitely be a reaction of some sort. Would it be best to put this in its own section at the bottom and then summarize that in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork   (talk • contribs)   15:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we can defer any action on this until there's an indictment or a lack of one, unless we want to mention in the grand jury section that Milbank has criticized McCulloch's handling of the grand jury. As far as speculation about future reactions, I wouldn't go there. Dyrnych (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This article deals with much more than a prognostication that no indictment will be forthcoming. In my opinion, it is a treasure trove of information that goes to the central controversy in this matter and it comes from an unassailably reliable source, the Washington Post.  I would urge all to at least skim it top to bottom. For those who won't, the central theme is that the fix may be in and that in the event that is true, the person who will have been the chief orchestrator of the fix is the prosecutor, Bob McCulloch. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WaPo can speculate, but there is not need to report speculation in WP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to speculate, but it wouldn't hurt to think about how to handle this one something happens.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 00:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Cwobeel and TKP. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that we can help ourselves by speculating on what will happen if there is no indictment. That said, Dana Milbank's complaint, that the DA didn't recommend a charge but left it to the Grand Jury to determine if there should be one, is meritless. I think it means simply that the reason the case was put before the Grand Jury was not that the DA thinks he has a case but to clear the air. Isn't that the stated purpose? (I don't know the answer, but am supposing it to be true.) For the DA to recommend a charge if he's not convinced he has a case would be a travesty of justice paralleling l'affair Trayvon. Andyvphil (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This article deals with much more than a prognostication that no indictment will be forthcoming. In my opinion, it is a treasure trove of information that goes to the central controversy in this matter and it comes from an unassailably reliable source, the Washington Post. I would urge all to at least skim it top to bottom. For those who won't, the central theme is that the fix may be in and that in the event that is true, the person who will have been the chief orchestrator of the fix is the prosecutor, Bob McCulloch. As we now have a Wikipedia article about McCulloch, perhaps some of the information in this article could serve there. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You posted this comment twice, but it's still wrong. I've already pointed out that the suggestion that "the fix is in" is based on no evidence whatsoever, and printing this opinion piece in the WaPo doesn't transform this piece of trash into anything we can use. Andyvphil (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A prosecutor allowing the grand jury to come to their own decision is hardly "a fix". If the evidence indicates a crime (as some of the public claim is patently obvious, WITHOUT access to the evidence) then they will indict. If the evidence doesn't, they won't. I doubt anyone needs to suggest "murder" or "manslaughter" to them, as everyone with two beans in their brain can see that when someone dies, that's what you should be thinking about. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wilson's lack of disciplinary history in the lead
Just as Browns lack of a criminal record was determined not to be a lead worthy point, I propose neither is Wilson's service record. I propose we remove this as well.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 15:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was in the lead to balance the statement about Brown's criminal record, and without that statement it's undue. Dyrnych (talk)
 * It was not in the lede to balance anything. You may be conflating this with the discussion of ages in the lede. Andyvphil (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Were you editing this article when it was placed in the lead? Do you have any basis for that statement?  If there's an independent reason why it should be in the lead, feel free to state it. Dyrnych (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I take it you were the one who added it to the lead? Or else, you participated in a discussion in which there was a clear consensus that this should be done?  Feel free to clarify whether that is the case. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that addressed to me? Largely, I do not recall. It is in any case not up to me to do the research to demonstrate the falsity of the assertion that Wilson's service record was added only once to the lead and that it was done because there was a consensus for the absurd proposition that a mention of Brown's criminal record was an anamadversion that needed to be balanced. If that took place it it up to the individuals who advance that proposition to demonstrate it, and then we can again discuss the value of that prior conclusion. This material has been in the lede, most of the time at least, since I've been here. It seems to me appropriate that it should remain. I will expand on that should this discussion continue. In the meantime there is no consensus to remove it and I will, if it has been removed, restore it, pointing here, pending conclusion of the process we have established on other issues. Andyvphil (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The comment was addressed to Dyrnych, who was seemingly claiming to have some unstated basis for saying the officer record was only in the lead to balance the bit about Brown's age. Was just trying to clarify what that basis was. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 13:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TKP. No need for this in the Lede. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If Wilson has six years of no history of abuse of unarmed black men, or others, I think it's worth mentioning immediately. If we were in position to say that Brown had no criminal record I would be in favor of mentioning that as well. Andyvphil (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with removing this from the lead. It is argumentative in much the same way as Brown not having a criminal record is.- MrX 01:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are confusing informative with argumentative. Wikipedia readers are not jurors and it is not our job to to do our best within Wikipedia rules to keep them uninformed. Andyvphil (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Andy. I don't feel strongly that this should be removed other than I don't see the point any more and I'd like to see the Lede kept as short as possible. It seems that there have been other salient issues omitted from the Lede for the sake of blessed brevity. Maybe pick a better battle? --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why "any more"? Are you accepting the proposition that this information was only, and was, justified by "balance"? NPOV is not an artificial balance. There are essays on that.
 * Brevity is good. Not excluding significant information is better. And the note is very brief already. Do you think it insignificant that Wilson has a good record as a cop? As I said, if Brown had a known good record I would want to mention that immediately too. Unfortunately, a court has decided we can't handle that information, and all we know is that he just robbed a store. Which is really unfortunate in my estimation as I believe Brown probably really did have a pretty good record, perhaps just truancy since the family's lawyer suggested that, or not even that. But we don't know. Andyvphil (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that Wilson's service record isn't mentioned in the body of the article enough to make it to the lead. This has little to do with Wilson's record (other than that wasn't mentioned much in the body either).Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 01:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate metric. Why would a simple fact be mentioned "much"? How many times must "unarmed" be mentioned in the maintext to merit inclusion in the lede? Andyvphil (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * From wp:lead It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.. Wilson's service record (what this section is about) IMO is not an important point.  The sources mention this, but just barely.  The body of our article does the same.  That's the metric,Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 02:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that if Brown's lack of a criminal record is not in the lead, it is wp:undue (and, as TKOP notes, violates wp:lead) to mention Wilson's lack of disciplinary history. (I see both things have been removed from the lead.) -sche (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree both are not appropriate for lede at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda
Just a caution that editors should be careful not to inject propaganda into this talk page. Not sure what the policy is regarding this, but such continued activity might result in a block for disruptive behavior. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propaganda for what? But I agree (I am guilty of it as well) that sometimes comments are unnecessary, per WP:NOTFORUM-  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Only who can prevent flame wars? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Did Michael Brown pay for any of the cigarillos he left with?
I ask because I just found this which is the most authoritative statement to the effect that he did that I have found so far. This site was served to me by Google News so please, no criticisms for the fact that it's not the New York Times. It is what it is.

Did Brown Rob the Ferguson Market Before Wilson Stopped Him? The surveillance video that has been released by Ferguson PD showed Brown in the store. However, the store owners said they did not report a robbery and that a customer in the store made the call via their attorney. Further, a longer version of the video shows that Brown did indeed pay for a package of cigarillos but took more. Once again, the police in the investigation have the full video and have only released a portion thus far. There is also a portion of the clip showing Brown shoving the owner of the store. Without audio, there is no way to determine what was said. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Source: http://newsone.com/3047840/mike-brown-shooting-facts/

My question. Do any of you believe that it is plausible that Brown did pay for some of the cigarillos? Will this source suffice to introduce such a theory into the article? If not, have any of you seen other sources analyze the video in the same way, whether reliable or otherwise. Personally, I have not. But rather than spend a day trying to find a second source all on my own, thought I'd put the question out to all of you. My appreciation in advance for any insights you can give (that aren't too jugular-centric).Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It’s a false rumor that’s been circulating for several weeks in unreliable sources. Those sources say that the store video shows that he paid for the cigars but it doesn’t. In fact it shows that he didn’t pay for them. Here’s the video. Notice that he enters the store with empty hands, then goes to the counter and puts his empty hands behind his back, pulls his empty hands from behind his back and grabs cigars, possibly talks with the clerk over the counter, then leaves the counter. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "NewsOne - For Black America" Entitled to all the misinformation the gullible can be persuaded to believe, apparently. Have you seen the police-released version of the video, two unbroken cuts, one from each camera? (The link Bob provides is to an edited version.) It goes from before Brown and Johnson come in to after they leave, twice. There ain't no more, Andyvphil (talk)
 * Thanks so much for the responses all. This is so much to try to keep track of and so many sources that I never had heard of before August 9.  Thank you for your patience and assistance in helping me make sense of the various claims that one can come across when Google News surfing. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

FPD violating law and own policies by not releasing proper incident report
Lot of information about the FPD's attempts to intentionally obfuscate the public record of the crime, in Salon citing legal and political experts.

The article states that not releasing a incidence report is a crime and a violation of the FPD's own policies. The article explains that (i) such records are indeed public records, (b) Wilson's obligations of an officer require him to file an incident report even if it implicates him in a crime (they cite FPD's policies on police report procedures, which Wilson's report is clearly in violation of). There also should have been a use-of-force report, which should have been handled by Wilson's chain of command, so far this report has not been furnished.

There seems to be only one legal expert (Grapski) in the article who is making the claim that the released incident report is breaking the law and this isn't supported by the other cited experts. That Wilson is violating his department's internal policy appears clear-cut.

The article also goes into detail about the Missouri ACLU's public records request for the incident report, and the lies/cover-up by the FPD refusing to give it by conflating incidence report (which are public records) and investigations reports which as part of ongoing investigations are not.

Saeranv (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Amazing, but not surprising after seeing what has happened so far. We should include some of this material in the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing amazing about that at all. Chief Jackson has been very clear from the beginning that the St. Louis County Police Department was investigating this shooting and that they would be handling all the incident reports. Isaidnoway (talk)  04:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started reading this, but will note that the credibility of this Salon article, dated today, goes right in the toilet in the third paragraph where it repeats in libelous fashion ("TheBlot magazine reported that Chief Jackson had lied on Aug. 15...") the now thoroughly debunked falsehood that the video was released without Sunshine Law requests for it. Andyvphil (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow. It's immediately followed by this howler: "Chief Jackson’s press statement at the time thus contained at least two big misstatements—first that information about the robbery was released because of media requests, and second that he was releasing all the information requested relative to the shooting of Michael Brown: ..." (followed by a misleading quote). Of course, Jackson said several times in that statement that he couldn't say anything about the shooting past the point of "initial contact"! Andyvphil (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * He accurately quotes Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.100.2, but conveniently leaves out Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.100.3, which states: Law enforcement agencies are afforded discretion to withhold arrest, incident, or other reports or records if they contain information that is "reasonably likely to pose a clear and present danger to the safety of any victim, witness, undercover officer or other person." . Law enforcement agencies may also withhold otherwise public records if disclosure would "jeopardize a criminal investigation", or would disclose the identity of a source wishing to remain confidential or of a suspect not in custody. Investigation reports are closed records until the investigation becomes "inactive." Isaidnoway  (talk)  05:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, there is only one cited expert here who is saying that the FPD has broken the law. The article also cites Anthony Rothert, of the Missouri ACLU, who casts doubt on that claim. The material that seems clear-cut includes (1) the delaying tactics used by the police when asked for the incident report, (2) that said incident report, when released, violated the internal policies of the department. Also bonus, we get a link to the robbery incident report which it seems the police were much more happy to fill out. Saeranv (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Tha article also links to a booklet on the MO Sunshine law. which, like which I've previously linked to to substantiate the 3-day requirement, contains a gloss on 610.100.3 as follows:
 * The first "circumstance" applied to Wilson's name, the second to practically any information in the incident reports that the County Police haven't chosen to release about their investigation. How would the FPD Records Office know what the County Police might regard as jeopardizing their investigation?
 * Salon complains about dates, but the redaction and sign-off on the redaction also occurred on some date, a possibility I offer in addition to the ACLU's suggestion that it might simply be the print date. Andyvphil (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll just state here, again, that I believe that the reason that the police are so loathe to admit that Darren had full knowledge of the description of the person who robbed the Ferguson Market is fear that some vigilante will take such an admission as impetus to take out the store clerk who placed Michael Brown in the crosshairs of Officer Wilson. The citations of law above reinforce that hunch, frankly. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The guy Brown shoved is, I believe the owner. He was at some pains to deny having called the police -- in fact a customer had done so, iirc -- being very greatly concerned for his life and business. I don't believe, however, that the kind of folks who might be intent on killing him or looting or burning his store would be much interested in such fine-grain distinctions as whether Wilson had gotten a description of Brown through the Ferguson Market's agency. Nor do I see any evidence that the FPD is "loathe to admit" that the description they got from the "employee" or unidentified patron (the robbery incident report is unclear which, but maybe both) reached Wilson. Anyway, and again, Wilson (via Josie) said he heard the report, so what are they allegedly hiding? Andyvphil (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil your points are well researched, I appreciate what you're doing here. I am skeptical of your broader argument however, it seems a forced. The argument being that when it comes to the robbery report or robbery incident report - the police are forced to release all information because of the Sunshine law; but when it comes to anything that has to do with the actual shooting - the police must suddenly exercise discretion because of safety issues? Saeranv (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "broad argument" you imagine I'm making, still less how "safety issues" I've never mentioned might be relevant. The only thing I addressed and denied is the assertion that the police are hiding the fact that Wilson knew of the robbery. Anyway, the distinction you find so "sudden" is perfectly straightforward: The FPD had "exceptionally closed" its investigation of the robbery, which terminated the ongoing investigation exception to its obligation to release the report including the video, however the County police are still investigating the shooting, apparently, so their material is still excepted. Andyvphil (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know where all this will get us, to be honest. All we know is that we have a grand jury investigation (even though led by a somewhat reluctant prosecutor if one is to judge his past history in such cases), an FBI investigation, and a DOJ investigation. Patience. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there some suggested edit for the article? If so, please propose it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Curioso straw poll
This is just me checking to see if my experience matches yours. All of us now know about the contractors who are weighing in. Did any of you have any idea that one of those two contractors was the subject of a news report that got play in the St. Louis market an August 12, just three days after Brown was killed? Me, I had no idea and was stunned to find it in their archives. I really thought that we had a pretty good listing of witnesses who had been reported on by reliable sources. I'll post the URL presently but thought I would ask first, authenticate later if that's okay. What is notable about how that was reported is that he didn't allow his name or face to be shown and that he gives a statement which is then electronically altered so that his voice isn't recognizable. That being the case, there was no way that anyone could have guessed is race at the time. {Apparently my final musing sentence ticked off FactChecker or whatever his name is. So I removed it.] I'd seen so much of it lately that I thought I might venture. Wrong again. The Double Standard stands. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I'm adamantly opposed to trying to identify who this person is, especially because they attempted to hide their identity.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 17:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your opposition to outing this witness. It's just that he sort of got outed when the video was found on Instagram.  You can even see the name of his company on the truck there.  And then there is the fact that he is white.  And the fact that he is very loud in denouncing the shooting as wrongful.  And that he holds his hands up in the air.  And so some reliable sources are calling it a game changer.  Not me, mind you.  I'm just pointing out that his same statements, made in the media on one television statement on August 12 were not a game changer.  And I'm simply curious to know if anyone before me found mention of the August 12 broadcast where this witness describes his experences, both of talking to Michael before the shooting, and of what he saw during the shooting.  Hardly FORUM.  Just want to know if someone saw the original report and decided against informing the rest of us of its existence for possible use in the article.

HOWISTHATFORUM????? (I'll just use questions marks as suggestions that I resisted the temptation to type that blockword five times in response to the five instances below.) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For the love of Christ, NOTFORUM
 * NOTFORUM
 * NOTFORUM
 * NOTFORUM
 * NOTFORUM
 * WP:NOTFORUM


 * Also, I wonder if any of you all have spent any time musing about how, in the grand scheme of things, Wikipedia talk pages are not an open-mic night? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well I guess I have to learn to keep the emotional impact of such massive mindbenders as the discovery of the August 12th broadcast have on me to myself. As I can't imagine another mindbender of this proportion materializing, I think I'll be good from here. So again, your patience and forbearance with your humble and ofen-castigated noob is most appreciated. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael, the problem I have with this section is that it assumes bad faith : You are basically accusing us of seeing the story, and not putting it in. The article has Shooting_of_Michael_Brown in it, and from my quick review its been there in substantially its current state since the 12th, including a link directly to the dispatch article with the video. . Is there some bit of information you think is missing? If its just a link to the video itself, there are BLP/safety concerns involved, but I don't think those are insurmountable. - but I also note we aren't really linking directly to the videos of any of the witnesses. However, any analysis of that video on our part would obviously be WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Michael, I have mentioned this before, and I several times I started to remind you, but thought better of it. We are not detectives nor investigative journalists.  The questions and hypotheses you often raise fall within those types of professions.  That is not what we do at Wikipedia.  We reads sources and paraphrase them.  Can you please stop posting the TL;DR speculation sections?  Please try posting just the source, and a very brief summary of what the source says.  Then we can discuss the merits of the source.

Dear Gaijin42, when you state that the construction worker account has been up since the 12th, to which month are you referring -- September or August? My reference to August 12 was not a typo. The Fox2 report was broadcast on August 12 and then posted on the station's web site. There are numerous witness or quasi witness accounts that we have not included in the article. So asking A) if someone saw the article and then asking such a hypothetical person B) did you decide against using it is hardly a bad faith line of questions. It is simply my attempt to understand whether the answer to question A is yes or no and a follow up question to whatever person might acknowledge having seen the report before the story got rehashed by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and CNN. Note that the AGF double standard has once again shown it's lovely little head. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I meant September, although I don't think it really matters for this discussion, either date is before your original post in this section . For the record, the information got added into the article on Sep 6th by in this diff . I personally was not aware of this witness or video until sometime mid last week. You asked more than B, you also asked C) "decided against informing the rest of us of its existence" your entire post has an accusatory tone to it (in my opinion), if that was accidental, then I apologize for reading it into your statement. In any case, I don't think its unusual for this to run under the surface (as it was a surprise to you, or to me) - I think its common knowledge that most of us are finding leads for the article either in major mainstream sources (CNN, Networks etc) or on various blogs we may follow to find sources. When those places themselves skip over a story or point, its likely to elude all of us.  Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well I meant August. And so no one had seen the article.  I was curious to know if I had just missed it when someone hadn't.  My conditional questions were not meant to be accusatory, rather just covering all of the possible explanations that might have applied.  So it appears that none of us knew about the August 12th broadcast of this witness's account until most of the world came to know about.  As to the apology contingent on a misread of my intent, I'd say that apology is applicable based on the condition stated, so I am happy to accept it. :-) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a Sep 8 article that refers to an Aug 12 interview of one of the construction workers and a KTVI interview of one of them that aired Aug 12  is mentioned in this Sep 7 article . The Sep 7  ref is already used in our article's section Construction worker. Not clear where you're going with this regarding our article.   --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

crime commisioner
I deleted "Crime Commissioner" because to me it strongly implies some sort of official city/government position. I can't help of think of examples like Commissioner Gordon. (IE Police commissioner The "Crime Commission" in question appears to be just the local Crime Stoppers organization, of which the guy you added is a member (possibly board member). http://stlrcs.org/crime-commission/st-louis-crime-commission-members/ Gaijin42 (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought it was a government commission. I removed the whole item. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Grand Jury can meet until January 7, 2015
''A St. Louis County grand jury usually sits for four months, a period that for the current panel expired last week. State law provides for a term of up to six months, which moves the date to November. On Wednesday, Circuit Judge Carolyn Whittington issued an order adding 60 days more.[...] St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch can bypass a grand jury and take a case to trial by filing a complaint that goes first to a preliminary hearing, a public proceeding in which a judge decides if there should be a trial. Often, his office files a charge first and then obtains an indictment to replace it, avoiding the preliminary hearing. McCulloch chose to take the full investigation of Wilson’s use of deadly force to the grand jury. He announced weeks ago that he would present all the evidence gathered, leaving to grand jurors the decision of what to do. Ed Magee, his spokesman, said Monday it is a somewhat unusual circumstance in that the office is not asking the grand jury to endorse a charge already filed. He said prosecutors will help the grand jury navigate legal issues and draw its own conclusion about what to do with Wilson.''

We can draw our own conclusions, but will need to wait for a while to see how this unfolds. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson polls
Lots of interesting poll results here. This article gives most of the important numbers, but there are multiple articles around talking about the poll and focusing on different parts of it, so I think all of it could meet the WP:WEIGHT burden. (Although the most common area of focus imo is the media question). Lots of sources focusing on the racial disparity in the polling. Some of the questsions are about the shooting, some more appropriate for the unrest article. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/survey-exposes-sharp-racial-divide-in-public-perception-of-ferguson/article_da5a19d4-1e28-5ead-b8f6-4148a9a39f54.html Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

autopsy drawing
Should we include a copy of the autopsy drawing in the autopsy section? It seems like its an easier way to communicate the location of the hits, and I don't think it should have copyright/fair use issues? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, good idea. Saeranv (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The only autopsy drawing I've seen is from the private autopsy. I assume it was released for general use, but it isn't covered by the government document exception. Andyvphil (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right, I was thinking the drawing was the govt one, but it was the private one. Anyone think we would have issues getting through NFCC on it? Seems like a pretty easy case to make to me. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Facebook a reliable source?
I don't think so, so I have added a cn to text sourced to a Facebook page. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically, if this information is relevant, it should have been reported by a secondary source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a reliable source for fact, but it seems like it's a reliable source for a person's claim that they did something. Dyrnych (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We are using to support a fact, which has not been reported elsewhere. I am not sure we should use Facebook in this manner. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:RS: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:


 * 1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Isaidnoway (talk)  04:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. That was news to me. Previously these sources were not acceptable in WP but I see that the policy has evolved. I will remove the tag. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Such sources have always been acceptable, for limited purposes, here to supply additional relevant detail to Murphey's statement on the video in the reference you deleted, and I restored. Andyvphil (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Always, not really. A few years ago that was not the case in WP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the self-SPS exception has been in place (in some form) since at least 2006 . Facebook specifically mentioned since 2011, although due to the criteria involved, the number of places this exception applies is pretty limited. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I knew about SELFPUB, but circa 2011 the social networks were added. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Facebook wasn't "added", it was merely explicitly mentioned at some point. But it was covered by SELFPUB before that, as soon as it came into existence. And SELFPUB is just a gloss on principles that are foundational. Andyvphil (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we shouldn't make a sub-section there titled "Controversy over video release" or maybe "Criticism" or something else, considering the amount of weight we're giving this fiasco (a lot of content has been added recently), or in the alternative, maybe trim some stuff there? Isaidnoway (talk)  05:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Normally the HuffPo and Salon are argued to be RS, here they're frothing at the mouth in reaction to the Brown shooting, and it's been noticed in other media ("Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson was accused Friday in Internet headlines of lying to the public...) I see no reason to fail to notice this spectacle, or address it at less length than is necessary to do it justice. Andyvphil (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do justice to what? Headlines? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Headlines?"??? Non seq. I have no idea what thought you think you just expressed. Andyvphil (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

References in lede
Per WP:CITELEAD, and given the substantial number of eyeballs on this article, I'd think we can safely remove all refs from the lead for easy reading. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Blot
Starting out a paragraph with "X from The Blot determined that there were not requests" seems undue and maybe also has WP:RS issues. We list multiple sources that specifically say they did make requests, so the blot is wrong, and we should indicate that in the text. But anyway, why are we relying on the blot (especially since we are saying they were just repeating salon/huffpo - just quote huffpo/salon!).

Some of Blot's other stories on their front page right now are :
 * 12 male stars I crushed on growing up
 * Do handsome men have lower sperm quality
 * Forget Tramp Stamps: Finland Has Kinky, Homoerotic Real Stamps
 * Would YOU Jump 65 Feet to Rescue an Animal?
 * 13 Rules for dating a transgender woman
 * 5 tips for wannabe superheroes and villans

Is this really the kind of source we want to introduce this argument with?

(Also, the blot report has many corrections in it, some of which are very relevant to the way we are presenting this info) Gaijin42 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, that is not needed. We can keep the text from the HuffPo instead, and there are other sources that claim that Jackson misled the press. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  9:31 am, Today (UTC−5)


 * The paragraph looks messed up. It's the fourth one in the section Robbery incident report and video release. For example, note the source at the end of that sentence about The Blot. I don't see The Blot in the references. (BTW, that was quite a list of stories. Wasn't there a movie about The Blot?) --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

✅ I have removed the reference to the blots analysis, and done some other minor cleanup to the paragraph.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

For completeness/honesty, I just noticed that I made a mistake in my initial analysis above and got things backwards. Blot did not base their story on huffpo/salon. Huffpo/salon based their stories on the blot. I still say we should use them instead as having a better reputation in general. Although both they and the blot are factually wrong about requests not being made, we should still include it so people can follow the chronological narrative, and if they are looking for the "lie" stories have a place to pick up the thread of whats going on. (Note that there are other parts of Salon/huffpos story that are not disproven, their theories about motives or mishandling may still have validity to them, they are just factually wrong about requests not being made.) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure the stories about the misleading/lying are factually incorrect. This is more nuanced than that if you read through the chronology. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For the specific fact of "did or did not the media request the video" it is. While some of the requests may be "spun" by the department to be interpreted that way, the Channel 11 one at least specifically asked for the robbery video two days before it was released, and 2 days is the sunshine law timeout. Other lies or misleading parts may still be valid, but since we are specifically talking about the release of the robbery video in this instance...Gaijin42 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. Saying, "I still say we should use them instead as having a better reputation in general." completely misses the point. Damn right The Blot is a garbage source. And we're not using it as a source. But allegedly reliable sources Huffington Post and Salon treated as a reliable source and are still calling Chief Jackson a liar, never mind that the charge has been comprehensively disproved. 'THAT is what we're reporting!
 * The question of whether particular Sunshine Law requests were written with the robbery video in mind is a complete red herring. If the Post-Dispatch had a dashcam video in mind when it requested "video", so what? The FPD doesn't employ mind readers. The claim by HuffPo and Salon is that Chief Jackson LIED when he said that there had been many freedom of information requests for the video, but in fact we can so far identify four, and there are probably others. And contrary to the edit that said the HuffPo "initially" said this, the title of the article still says Jackson lied and there is no acknowledgement anywhere that the Ferguson City Attorney's response demonstrates that they have clowned themselves. The Salon assertion was published well after both HuffPo article and response, but continues this determined blindness to error. Now, we are very familiar with this phenomenon. We have POV warriors here whose determined indifference to fact and logic put their stablemates at HuffPo and Salon to shame. But this reaction to the Michael Brown shooting is remarkable, fully qualifies as WP:N, is in my editorial judgement significant to an understanding of the reaction to the shooting. And, where on Wikipedia would this material better appear?
 * I haven't yet looked to see what damage has been done, but given the heretofore uncomprehending comments, I'm expecting the worst. A good-faith effort to repair it would be appreciated, if unexpected. Andyvphil (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a deep breath my friend. Reasonable people can disagree as how to present material, and this is especially true when what is patently obvious to you and I has not been written for us in a WP:RS. Unfortunately WP:OR specifically prohibits adding words to the effect of "incorrectly" etc unless an WP:RS has done so, and WP:V specifically says when there are source conflicts to present each side. This article has enough tension, and this section already resulted in improvements to the article with consensus from people on all sides of the issue. There is always room for more improvement, and we should work for them, keeping it calm and concise will help greatly in that effort.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that, and I therefor never used the word "incorrectly" in the article, but instead presented the overwhelming evidence that the HuffPo & Salon (and of course The Blot, but who cares) are saying something mindnumbingly stupid and irresponsible, and let the reader decide. But then I come here and I find out we're debating whether we can use The Blot as a RS for the assertion "Jackson Lied"! This is crazy! CRAZY! Andyvphil (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's not forget that BLP contentious material applies to Jackson and the FPD as well in this article, and we shouldn't turn this section into an attack piece on the failings of Jackson and the FPD. Isaidnoway (talk)  15:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not an attack piece if we report what sources say about Jackson's actions in a neutral manner. Also note that a police department is not a living person. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPGROUP but in any case, we are talking about the actions/statements of specific members of the department. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well if I'm not mistaken, a "police department" would be considered to have "police officers" in their employment and they are certainly individual "living persons" protected by BLP. Isaidnoway (talk)  16:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * BLP as applied to the FPD is not a concern. BLP as applied to the editorial staffs of The Huffington Post and Salon... maybe. But I think we're compliant. Andyvphil (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Police departments are not people in the context of WP:BLP, but officers are. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  16:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have to work hard at missing points completely? The FPD, and specifically Jackson, is vindicated by this material. Andyvphil (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the only reason you want to include this material is to "vindicate" somebody, then I question whether it's even needed. It's not our job as editor's to insert content into the article in an attempt to vindicate someone, nor to insert content into the article in an attempt to cast aspersions on someone, including media organizations. If either of those reasons is the sole purpose behind this content, then it needs to be removed. Thomas Jackson has his own article now, move it over there, or move it to the Ferguson Police Department article. Or in the alternative, if the conduct of Jackson and the FPD is that significant to this article, then we should just make a section of "Allegations against the FPD" - like what was done with the Sanford PD and lump all this content into one single section. Isaidnoway (talk)  17:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The heading this material is under, "4.2 Robbery incident report and video release / 4.2.1 Reactions" is better than making a collection of criticism of the FPD. As to you first point, I didn't say that the purpose of the material is to vindicate Jackson. I said that since the material vindicates Jackson we need not be concerned about BLP as it applies to Jackson. Since you ask, the purpose of the material is to illustrate the utter lack of any attention to facts or honesty or clear thought, in some of the media reaction to the shooting and its aftermath, which is A subject of THIS article. Are we talk about media criticism of the FPD (which the article does)... but ignore it when those criticisms are untruthful? WP:NPOV requires otherwise. Andyvphil (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The criticism is well reported, including the governor's statement, the associated press, Johnson;s comments and so on, and we report what sources say. Now, if you can find reliable sources that report of a "lack of any attention to facts or honesty" as it pertains to the media coverage, by all means add it to the article. Otherwise, let's move on. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)