Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 4

In fairness to those who point out that we don't really know what Michael Brown's juvenile record, if any, is.
I believe that as we continue to include the passage that states that Michael had no record of arrests or criminal convictions (which I absolutely believe should be there) that we also include a well sourced statement explaining the laws that keep confidential if it is as I understand it to be) a juvenile's criminal record.

Not sure where one would find such a thing, unless it's just a general principle in all 50 states that is easily documentable.

While many of us here may not consider Michael's criminal past to be relevant to the story, clearly his supporters in Ferguson do. They contend that he was a good but not perfect kid who didn't have a reputation for violence that might have given the police officer justification to treat him so harshly -- even if he was involved in a shoplifting incident that day (as three unimpeachable videos (two from very reliable local news media sources) and one where specific mention of the Ferguson Market is made (uploaded to YouTube on August 10). Michael's supporters in Ferguson are a part of this story, undeniably. If they believe that his lack of a reputation as a violent menace is relevant, what right do we, as editors of this article have to veto that sentiment in this article.  If you need to attach such sentiments to those players by means of a reliable source, by all means, do that.  But please do not remove from the article the FACT that as of today no one is aware of credible evidence to support a claim of violence by Michael Brown at any time prior to his shoplifting of the cigarillos at 12:51 the day he died. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Juvenile criminal records are not always sealed, and in most states certain juvenile criminal records CAN'T be sealed. I'm not an authority on Missouri law (although I can tell you that under Alabama law, on which I am an authority, juvenile records are not automatically sealed) and I haven't seen any authority quoted in an RS.  I think that this might run afoul of the prohibitions on original research and synthesis.  Also, we currently have an unambiguous statement that Brown has no criminal record from the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.  No qualifications as to juvenile record. Dyrnych (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify this a bit since I seem to have responded to an issue that you didn't raise, juvenile criminal/delinquency records usually are CONFIDENTIAL, if not sealed. Still, I stand by my points regarding OR and SYNTH. Dyrnych (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This doesn't add up. If "juvenile criminal/delinquency records usually are CONFIDENTIAL", it seems strange that the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office would say he had no criminal record? Furthermore, according to the source, this was said by the 13th. It seems strange that no source for this statement can be found other than in a local business journal. I also noticed that this piece wasn't even written by a journalist, but rather a Digital Producer. Finally, not only have no other major news agencies reported this statement, but many have said that his past record is unknown. Now, if it were true that by the 13th the St. Luis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office already confirmed that he has no criminal record, why are the major news sources saying that it's not known? Yaakovaryeh (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Other sources reported the same statement. See, e.g.,, . I know of no sources that state that his criminal record is unknown. Dyrnych (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are indeed much better sources, and they should replace the current ones. Here are some examples of where I was/am coming from: MSNBC wrote "Brown was not believed to have a criminal record, either." If the St. County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office said that he had no criminal record, they would have said so rather than just "not believed. Another (stronger) example is the New York Times, which quoted his *family* as saying that he had no criminal record. writing "The family insisted that Mr. Brown had no history of violence or aggression." If the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office said that, why would they be quoting the family? The article then says "He had no adult arrest record, according to the police, who said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile." Which clearly indicates that it is unknown. and again why are they not quoting this statement by the prosecutor's office? And if the police can't say, how can the PA? and likewise if the PA can, why not the police? Yaakovaryeh (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dyrnych, on Sunday I presented a link to a NY Times article where they in fact clarified that Brown had no adult criminal record or arrests, but that his juvenile record cannot be released. Again here is that article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/ferguson-mo-michael-brown-and-darren-wilson-2-paths-to-a-fatal-encounter.html and here is the NY Times statement: "The family insisted that Mr. Brown had no history of violence or aggression. He had no adult arrest record, according to the police, who said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile."

As others have said, it appears that you and isaidnoway are trying to control the narrative here by cherry picking info that paints Michael Brown in a positive light, despite many things coming out that shows he was not the "gentle giant" you would like to portray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Stating "that his juvenile record cannot be released" misrepresents the source. The source says that police officers "could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile."  That does not mean that they cannot release the record.  Nor does it contradict the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, which is (obviously) a different entity and which stated that he had no criminal record.  If it turns out that he did have a juvenile criminal record, that will eventually come out in a reliable source and we can include that in the article.  But until that happens, we have no evidence whatsoever that Brown has a juvenile record and it is not appropriate for us to insinuate that he does when we have (1) a source that denies that he has any criminal record and (2) no source that contradicts this claim.
 * Also, personal attacks are not appropriate either. Stick to discussions of content rather than claiming to know editors' motives. Dyrnych (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't know whether the man did or did not have a juvenile record. All we know is that he had no adult record for those three months.  Since when should Wikipedia make up and assume things?  The supportable statement is that he "had no adult record". 2601:0:7280:28D:E87D:6B12:6407:C7AE (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no assumption being made. We have a reliable source that quotes the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office for the proposition that Brown had no criminal record.  We also have reliable sources that quote the FPD for the proposition that Brown had no adult criminal record, but they could neither confirm or deny that he had a juvenile record.  Those two statements are not in conflict, and the second statement raises no doubts about the first statement. Dyrnych (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * USA Today has explicitly reported that Brown has no criminal record. Until and unless a reliable source is found which states that Brown did have a juvenile arrest record, there is absolutely no reason for us to speculate or reason or parse words. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH
It is original research to separate the witness accounts into those that are supposedly consistent with the autopsy and those that supposedly are not consistent without a reliable source making this claim. It violates Wikipedia policy to do this; please stop. Dyrnych (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, at a bare minimum this is a wildly controversial change to make to the article. Please follow WP:BRD and STOP REINSTATING THE EDITS WITHOUT DISCUSSION. Dyrnych (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% - we absolutely can not say in WP's voice that the witness accounts contradict anything. That is not our place and is grossly out of line. Isaidnoway (talk)  07:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? The autopsy is not "reliable" but witness account statements that include one from someone who was involved in a felony robbery (and a friend of Brown's) is? Care to explain your logic? The USA article cited even stated that the autopsy contradicted those witness accounts. Sy9045 (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The autopsy results are a bit too "inconvenient" for some editors, who will fight tooth and nail and cite a million Wikipedia policies to keep them out. And to keep out the fact that all of those witnesses are scientifically proven to be contradicted.  But, don't worry.  Reliable sources all over the place will soon be reporting on the autopsy results and how they contradict all those witnesses.  Those reliable sources will not be hard to find (as much as some editors want to keep this information out of the article).   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with you Joseph. I can't imagine what how many other articles on Wikipedia are edited in the same manner. I cannot believe this is allowed to happen. Sy9045 (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry,, but it's more than a little absurd to claim that someone who cites policy, and disagrees with you, is simply using policy as a weapon to get their bias into an article. A reasonable person might consider the possibility that they are citing policy because they believe in policy and believe, right or wrong, that policy supports their argument. Please review WP:AGF and stop this destructive talk.  Mandruss &#124; talk  07:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Since you so strongly support policies, here is another one for you to support: Ignore all rules. Or is that one a bit "inconvenient" for you to support?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've yet to invoke that particular one, and I suspect I never will, for multiple reasons. First, I haven't needed it; second, I think it's a cop-out for lazy thinkers; third, it means we might as well throw out all policy, surrender to the lawless Wild West of Wikipedia, and watch Wikipedia crash and burn as a result. This applies when you look only at the three words and take them literally, but the fact is that the policy is far more nuanced than that. So I don't object to the policy per se, but rather to the literal interpretation of its name.  Mandruss &#124; talk  08:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, you "pick and choose" which policies you like (i.e., serve your purposes), and follow them? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you never cited a policy here? Sheesh. I quit.  Mandruss &#124; talk  08:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure how that answers my question. In fact, it avoids my question.  No?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source that explicitly says that EACH account is contradicted? No? Then you CANNOT INCLUDE that claim in Wikipedia's voice. You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. I would advise you to look carefully at Wikipedia's core content policies, ALL OF WHICH YOU ARE CURRENTLY VIOLATING. Dyrnych (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We just simply title it "witness accounts" and list those accounts. The reader can determine for themselves if they think it contradicts something or not. Isaidnoway (talk)  07:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/justice-department-autopsy-brown-ferguson/14196559/), cited that witness accounts that described Brown being shot in the back was contradicted by the autopsy. It's sad that you (and editors like you) are politicizing this article. Sy9045 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am thoroughly sick of you accusing me of politicizing the article as you BLATANTLY push your own POV in completely disregard of basically every Wikipedia policy. You have at no point cited any policy that allows you to synthesize sources in the way that you are doing, which is revealing because you CANNOT cite any such source.  Now you are misrepresenting the source that you cite, because it UNAMBIGUOUSLY states that the autopsy finding "could contradict a witness statement."  It COULD contradict A witness statement.  Does it contradict a statement?  It sure could--but that doesn't mean that it DOES!  Which one?  Who the hell knows! Dyrnych (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine, for now, use the word "could" in this article. Just wait a few more hours, and we can change it does "does", as soon as the reliable sources state so.  Which will obviously happen.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

{{:::::: Good thing you've got a crystal ball, buddy. I'm likewise done discussing this for the night. I'm quite sure that another editor will clean this up, since it's not even close to compliance with WP's core policies. Dyrnych (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with a crystal ball. It's called common sense.  You want to "hang your hat" on semantics and linguistic gymnastics.  Clearly, it is only a matter of time before a reliable source outright states the contradiction.  Ya know, the contradiction that is apparent to everyone ... except you.  My mistake, I should have said "contradictions", plural.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Adding "could" is not controversial since it was in the USA Today article. The Boston Globe one above also writes "appears to contradict". We can use any of those terms. We can even use "unsubstantiated". Sy9045 (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not willing to edit war with you over this as I know it will eventually be removed. Good night. Isaidnoway (talk)  07:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. So we all agree on what we can't do.


 * What we could do, though is make an awesome table that takes each of the points of dispute and lists all of the statements that we have in reliable sources from each of the eyewitnesses that have come forward and from each of the official spokespersons for the police who have made their own claims as to what happened. Then the readers could see those claims side by side and could do their own analysis as to which seem to align with the results of the autopsy and which do not.  I have found Dorian Johnson and Tiffany Mitchell to be very credible from the beginning.  But I'd be the first to admit that Dorian's belief that Michael was shot in the back is not borne out by the diagram we have from those who performed the autopsy.  Do I think he was attempting to deceive us?  No.  I think he really believed that that is what happened given the fact that Michael had run 35 feet away from the vehicle and then turned around abruptly.  He admits to being at a disadvantage as far as viewing what was going on as he was hiding behind a car fearful for his life.  Do I think that Michael turned around rather than just keep running? I do.  But here's a question for the 6-bullet shooter fans among us.  If Michael was such an imminent threat to Wilson, why are there four bullets in Michael's arm and none in the center area of his chest where you would think that all bullets would be aimed if there was any danger to Wilson at all?  I ask with great sincerity.  I want to know the mind of a 6-bullet apologist.  What scenario could have possibly led to the planting of four bullets in one arm?  Extra bonus points if the scenario you manufacture actually supports a claim that Wilson was in danger of death or serious harm is also supported as he fired each of those six bullets. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Go out and do this experiement. Run fast down the street or your yard and see where your arms go.  Unless you don't move them, they are going to move in front of your chest.  Hitting a moving target is not as easy as the video games would have you believe.  Arzel (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I would have stopped writing after the first two sentences. The rest is WP:OR and not what we're here for. You said, "the readers ... could do their own analysis," and then proceeded to do analysis. At best, it's a waste of disk space and our time.  Mandruss &#124; talk  08:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}} The following article has been used to justify the division of witness accounts into "Accounts Supported by Physical Evidence" and "Accounts Contradicted By Physical Evidence".

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/justice-department-autopsy-brown-ferguson/14196559/

After reading the article, I found that it states that the autopsy report "could" contradict the witness statement, not that the autopsy report does contradict the witness statement. For us to make the jump that it definitively does contradict the witness statement by placing it into a subsection titled as such is plainly wp:synth, which is forbidden. —Megiddo1013 08:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe I saw some excellent player of tactics, who, using a policy that grossly contradicts facts in certain cases, and thus by enforcing this little Verifiability, not truth rule, deliberately hides and suppress even the simpliest truth. I remember that in the final of 2013 Copa del Rey Final, the 35' goal of Atlético Madrid was scored by Dirgo Costa, yet in the official report, it states the scorer was Arda, which was a big mistake because video footage shows that there is no doubt/no ambiguity that Costa was the scorer. Some users adhered to the official report while other users adhered to the simple facts. And it was even brought to Wiki:football for a discussion. The English wiki eventually disregards the mistake in the official report, and documents the correct scorer. The Spanish wiki adheres to the report and put a clearification below. I see that the exactly the same things here happen, and some editors are trying to hide certain simple facts by adhering to "old" mistaken reports. So lying is their goal, and the policy? --merely a tool. And yes, this remark is somehow sarcastic, yet I don't try to conceal it by saying "I ask with great sincerity", as some childish hypocrite did above.
 * So my advice? If you truly care about wikipedia, don't fear to update the contents, when some old reports, be it reliable or not, are proven to be wrong. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Once reliable sources say that old reports are proven to be wrong, we can do as you say. One new report saying that it "could" is not enough. For goodness' sake, you might as well rename the headings to "False Witnesses" and "True Witnesses". Also, here is the text of the USA Today article:

{{quote box|width=70%|align=center|All of the shots, the Times reported, were fired from Brown's front — a finding that could contradict a witness statement indicating that Brown was hit as he ran away from police.}}
 * —Megiddo1013 08:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * When a sufficiently significant "fact" is proven to be wrong, that is usually reported by reliable sources. In the rare case when it is not, then truth loses to verifiability, and that's just something we have to live with. Wikipedia has never claimed to be anything more than a reporter of (mostly) secondary sources, and it's unfortunate that more people don't understand that.  Mandruss &#124; talk  08:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

{{collapse top|title=Off-topic and OR discussions}}
 * Then can you please tell me why wikipedia ignores the mistaken report of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RSFF), and goes in favour of the simple fact? Sure there are other reliable and correct sources by BBC, Eurosport, MSN etc. But the report from the RSFF is definitely the most authoritative and is the one cited in the article. That is, the article directly contradicts the source it cites, regarding this tiny error. Here is the original discussion in wiki:footy. Do you suggest that we are bound to copy the mistake from the godlike reliable report, just because this is how wikipedia works? Please do answer this question in your comment. Thanks. If your answer is yes, then I will go change the scorer and see what uproar it sparks again in the footy community.
 * In our case, it is not even the matter of fact or verifiability. Media will soon pick up the autopsy report (and some already have). The problem I see here is, some users are quite reluctant to accept the fact, and try everything to delay this information, and to keep the mis-information from earlier reports. And I don't appreciate this attitude. (I'm not accusing the media reports or witness accounts as purposely lying. Everyone makes mistakes.) But when mistakes are found, then don't (try to) keep them here. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Why four to the arm? Because a usually heavy police trigger (i.e., Glock NY trigger), for liability purposes, will cause a shooter to pull shots to one side unless he is very experienced with his firearm and not someone who shoots only at infrequent re-qualifications with his service arm, which rules out around 90% of police, in my anecdotal experience as a shooter at more than a half-dozen different ranges where small departments came to shoot. He eventually adjusted his aim to compensate and got the two head shots last, unless you think someone moving toward you would take those two shots first only to follow with four to the arm - I guess this kind of logic is considered "original research." Another factor may be cross-dominance between shooting hand and dominant eye, which I find gives me a natural bias toward the left side of the target (Brown's right, as the deceased) as a right-handed, left-eyed shooter. Thirty-five feet is substantially more distance than most defensive-type shootings occur, but not an unreasonable distance to fire or to fear for one's life if an opponent is closing on you (see Tueller Drill). Even if they are unarmed, as a cop (or any armed person) you cannot let them get the better of you and take your weapon and lethal force is appropriate, especially if they are larger and stronger. 74.215.242.83 (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * All very interesting and I defer to your excellent knowledge of shooting sciences (or whatever one would call it.) But can we agree that the shots to the arm were likely taken from a distance?  I mean, if the two were within, say. five feet of each other when those four shots were taken, wouldn't Wilson have hit something more suited to actual self-defense than Michael's right arm? I mean, isn't it strange that there is not a single true hit to the chest, but instead two to the head, one through the top, and four to the arm?  I am having a very difficult time understanding how that could be construed as shots taken in self-defense.  I ask with all of the sincere hypocrisy that I can muster.  A jab at someone who is breaking the rules. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Why four to the arm?: Regarding your discussion about whether the shots to the head occurred first or last, the NY Times states the following from Dr Braden: "One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said." The Times article also suggests that Braden's opinion was that too many bullets were shot. However, if 4 of the 6 bullets hit Brown's arm, those certainly wouldn't be enough to stop him. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0

@ Michael Ridgeway, the bullet to the top of the head, most likely would have meant that Brown had his head pointed toward the police officer. The three "witnesses" say that the last shot was fired when Brown had his hands up. I am not saying this should be added to the wiki page, but quickly raise your hands up over your head. If you do so, your head will naturally go back, not forward. Again, not saying this should be added to the wiki page....but just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

"contradict" sources
We should not organize the article into consistent/inconseistent but as a statement for inclusion, that previous accounts are contradicted by the autopsy seems well sourced at this point. I'm not taking a strong stance on if we should do so, but the arguments against doing so are getting pretty weak.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/autopsy-reveals-the-michael-brown-was-shot-least-6-times "he autopsy found, which contradicts some witness accounts that suggested Brown had been shot from behind while fleeing police. However, the wounds may be consistent with witness claims that Brown had his hands up when he was fired on."
 * http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/18/dr-baden-michael-brown-autopsy-contradicts-witnesses-points-excessive-force "http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/18/dr-baden-michael-brown-autopsy-contradicts-witnesses-points-excessive-force"
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/18/autopsy-michael-brown-shot-six-times-twice-in-the-head/ "This seems to contradict the statements of Brown’s friend, Dorian Johnson, who said the officer now identified as Darren Wilson grabbed Brown’s neck with one hand and shot him with the other."
 * http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/michael-brown-mom-speaks-out-new-autopsy
 * http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/08/17/michael-brown-was-shot-times-ferguson-officer-preliminary-autopsy-shows/izi6zze4Z2QebrpaWtG2nI/story.html "Johnson said that he hid behind a parked car and that Brown was struck by a bullet in his back as he ran away, an account that Baden’s autopsy appears to contradict."
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html "Mr. Johnson said that he hid behind a parked car and that Mr. Brown was struck by a bullet in his back as he ran away, an account that Dr. Baden’s autopsy appears to contradict."
 * and many many others.
 * My original objection was to the term "physical evidence" being used. As far as I know all the physical evidence has not been reported yet, has it. Has the physical evidence from the scene of the shooting been released? Has the physcial evidence from the police car been released? This is a single autopsy report (1 of 3) and no way reflects all the physcial evidence and it shouldn't be reported by WP that it is. If editor's want to say it contradicts the single autopsy report, fine, but to say otherwise is irresponsible. Isaidnoway (talk)  15:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with your statement. The sourcing currently only allows to say that this autopsy contradicts particular statements. Larger analysis of other evidence has not been done/released for us to use at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You state: "the arguments against doing so [indicating that the autopsy results contradict the witness statements] are getting pretty weak." I agree.  They are well sourced.  They are highly relevant.  They merit inclusion.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

we are not conducting a criminal case here, we are not judges, prosecutors, or defense attorneys. All we have to work with is the sources we have. There is no problem in adding that sources are saying that there are possible contradictions, just note that Baden said that the wounds to the right arm were consistent with Brown having his back to the officer, facing the officer with his hands above his head, or in a defensive position, so yes, this is a fast evolving story and we have to be careful of recentism -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * When discussing the autopsy, we can certainly say that it could contradict some previous witness statements. On the other hand, we absolutely should not say when discussing specific witness accounts that the autopsy could contradict the account, because that is synthesis unless a published source makes that claim. Dyrnych (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's no "original research" in pointing out an inconsistency in the article narrative . I would not include speculative language like the MSNBC article above {"may have had his hands up when..."). --  Veggies  ( talk ) 05:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

About Michael's much delayed funeral
There are several important facts having to do with the delayed funeral of Michael Brown which have been reported so far, including the fact that it can't take place until after the third autopsy is performed and reports and that various individuals and groups are promising to cover the expenses for the same. As of Midnight 8/19 CDT, the word funeral figures nowhere in the article. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"No sign of a struggle"
"Members of Brown's family surrounded attorney Benjamin Crump at a press conference  as he described the emotional turmoil they've faced after an independent autopsy found   that Brown was shot at least six times, including twice in the head.   Dr. Michael Baden, the former New York City chief medical examiner who conducted the autopsy,   also addressed the media, saying there was "no evidence of a struggle" --   a key detail at odds with the police's reported accounts of what transpired   moments before an officer shot and killed Brown on Aug. 9." CITE:Michael Brown's Family: What Else Do They Need To Arrest Killer Of Our Son? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Were Brown's arms when he was shot?
SOURCE: St. Louis Post-Dispatch: [http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/did-michael-brown-have-his-hands-up-when-killed-by/article_f9904f19-dba5-58b4-ac4b-56b9bda29646.html Did Michael Brown have his 'hands up' when killed by police? Private autopsy can't say] - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We need to be mindful of confirmation bias when we edit this article. For example, someone added that all shots were from the front, but in the press conference, Baden said that the wounds to the right arm were consistent with Brown having his back to the officer, facing the officer with his hands above his head, or in a defensive position. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  16:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I struck part of this per WP:BDP. In addition to what Cwobeel said, the shot down through the top of his head is neither to the front nor back. What is the purpose of this section supposed to be? 9kat (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Reactions to the Shooting of Michael Brown
Now that we have an International reactions section, this seems like a good time to consider spinning off a reactions article similar to Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. - MrX 03:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. There is now an effort to create a new article (see above), and we should take a step at a time. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in the future but right now it doesn't seem needed. --Fuzheado | Talk 10:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"Aftermath in Ferguson" section
Yes, the word "aftermath" is vague. However, I can't think of a better way to capture that the reaction has been at varying times lawful (peaceful protests) and unlawful (rioting, looting). As long as we note that both peaceful protests and civil disorder occurred in the synopsis below the heading, is it necessary to be more specific in the heading itself? Dyrnych (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read civil disorder article, there are a bunch of synonyms that we editors may consider. I understand and agree that we should have a NPOV term for the "unrest" and not peg the "unrest" events as all good or all bad ... even so, I feel like the "Aftermath in Ferguson" section is specifically about the Ferguson "tension/clashes" as the police and the protestors take to the same streets with occasionally conflicting purposes. Suggestions for section title? I want to use whatever editors consider an agreeable term. Peace, MPS (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I propose the title "2014 Ferguson Protests and Unrest" or "Ferguson Protests and Unrest 2014" or "Ferguson Protests and Unrest". Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's more of an article title. Maybe "Aftermath in Ferguson - Protests and Unrest"? Dyrnych (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a reason for that. It should be its own article, just the way that Rodney King is one article and the Rodney King Riots is another article.  The National Guard is involved.  I say that a situation with the National Guard involved deserves its own article.  You know, Kent State, Desegegration of Schools against wishes of Alabama Governor, Ferguson 2014.  Why is this so hard??? Michael-Ridgway (talk)
 * I am beginning to agree that it needs to be its own article, but that's a separate discussion from the one that we're having here. That's all I'm saying. Dyrnych (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ok I just changed section title to "Aftermath in Ferguson - Protests and Unrest" per talk MPS (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Should this section be condensed and left with a link and a single paragraph to the Protests and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri (2014) split or is it too soon? This section just duplicates the events day by day that are in the split article. Bil Simser (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Racism in the lede, in Wikipedia's voice
I removed this from the lede:


 * "The incident sparked unrest in Ferguson, largely due to questions of racism as a factor in the shooting, since Brown was African-American, while Wilson is Caucasian."

This seem very inflammatory, especially since it's presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice.- MrX 02:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That sentence seems to be a good summary of the article. All you needed to do is to attribute it to the WaPo, instead of deleting. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I intend to replace it with wording tweaks, because it's incredibly well-sourced and is obvious in virtually every report about the issue. The crux of the protests is that people believe racism was a factor in the shooting. Whether you personally believe that or not is irrelevant - it is an unchallengeable fact that has been widely reported. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I tried to correct, but go ahead and improve if you can. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Cwobeel: Not really. Attributing the passage is necessary, but not sufficient. Putting it in the lede and saying that racism is the largest cause of unrest is sensationalism, and not a conclusion that we should be glibly making for our readers.- MrX 02:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 33,700 Google News hits for "michael brown racism." It is patently obvious and incredibly well-sourced that the community's concern over the shooting of Michael Brown is driven by beliefs and fears that the police department is racist. Whether that conclusion is true or not, we are obligated to report what the community believes, even if you think it's wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @NorthBySouthBaranof: This has nothing to do with my personally beliefs, and everything to do with good writing. Mentioning racism as a factor is fine, but making the entire aftermath about racism takes complex issues and turns them into political soundbites.- MrX 03:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this incident is indeed political, and not reflecting the sources on the subject would be a mistake. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you remove "racism" from the search and add "Ferguson" (to remove other potential MB's) you get almost 19 million news hits, that is less than 0.3 percent. It does not appear to be a leading factor in news reports.  Arzel (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All these impeccable reliable sources stridenly disagree with your conclusion. Want more? There are more. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No...they...don't... Did you read what I wrote?  Arzel (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Take it from a white guy from a biracial marriage (my wife died 14 years ago) who lives in downtown St. Louis and who is watching hours of live local feeds with wall-to-wall commentary and interviews and interviews every night.  There is massive consensus among black residents in the St. Louis area that police treat them differently than they treat white residents, all other considerations being the same.  To leave any mention of the perception of a racial double standard out of the lede is to leave people who don't read any further (especially if they are young, from foreign countries, etc.) baffled about what this is really about.  I sense a hard bias in favor of sanitizing the image of white Americans in the comments above. Just sayin'. I hope all will try to consider how others not like us see these events. Especially the main performers in the events we are "chronicling"  (not "reporting" on, of course). Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The unrest erupted mainly because of circumstances of the incident and the local police's handling of the shooting, not because it was a racial issue. There are many non-black protesters in the crowd. Furthermore, there is no evidence at all that the shooting was racially motivated, only a few allegations from the media. 98.15.254.104 (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lots of non-black people oppose racism, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. Are you claiming that only black people can protest racism?
 * You're correct that there is no evidence of racial motivation, but there is very obviously a perception in the community that the police department is racially biased. Significant media comment has centered around the overwhelmingly-white makeup of the city police force and a history of issues between it and the African-American community. An array of reliable sources have reported on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Grand Jury
The St. Louis County’s Grand Jury will be presented evidence starting today. This is notable, as the decision to prosecute or not will be decided by the Grand Jury. Note that the federal investigation can file their own charges if they find cause:
 * If probable cause is found in either of these equivalent proceedings, a "True Bill" is found, an indictment is filed, and the criminal charge against the accused may continue on to trial or plea of guilty. If probable cause is not found, a "No True Bill" is found, and prosecution of the case ceases. The Grand Jury, thus, determines the future of all criminal cases brought before it.

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Urging a split
The clashes are still going on. A state of emergency has been declared. Now there's been someone shot. People are resisting orders and apparently want to do 'civil disobedience'. (Source) Also, the event is now longer the 1992 Los Angeles riots which has its own article. Rodney King also has his own separate article. So why not start an article titled something like 2014 Ferguson riots? The riots and the shooting itself are two distinct events. The whole 'militarization' of the situation was also widely reported on. I don't think I'll propose another split, as I already did that 3 days ago with. (Result was 'no consensus')   [  Soffredo  ]    13:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Has the situation changed much since the discussion that ended two days ago here Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown? I'm not sure we should have an article that captures every detail of the protests. In fact, the content in this article will probably be trimmed eventually.- MrX 13:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the situation has changed. 7 arrested, 1 shot, state of emergency declared.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 15:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7 arrested out of a town of 21,203? Soffredo, the LA Riots were on a scale that was so much worse than this. The people of Ferguson, for the most part, are just going about their lives. A few are protesting, and a very small few are being bad actors. -- Avanu (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet these "very small few being bad actors" are getting a lot of media coverage. The riots pass WP:Notability.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 19:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, why the rush to split the article? We can do it later if it's necessary once this is no longer a breaking story. Dyrnych (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't we wait until this is no longer a developing story to decide whether to split the article? There's no pressing need for the split, I think. Do you see any urgency in splitting the article?  Dyrnych (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Eventually, yes this is likely to be split. But for now is best to keep it here. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it best to keep it here? I don't get why we don't split it now before the page gets clustered with information.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 15:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it's time for a split. The media coverage on the protests/riots/looting has turned into 24/7. Isaidnoway (talk)  15:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * But how is the coverage unique each day? And the idea that all the people are in a "riot" is a bit of an inflated idea isn't it? Daytime, people are peaceful; nighttime, it is a few opportunists. As with all current news articles, this one is massively bloated right now. Until the collary events, like protests or riots and looting take hold as a matter of life in Ferguson (or spread throughout St. Louis) it does really seem warranted. -- Avanu (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, because different and unique things happen each and every day, so far. I'm not sure where you got the idea that "all the people" are in a riot, do you have sourcing for that? Isaidnoway (talk)  16:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No rush to split, but when you do, call it Aftermath of the shooting of Michael Brown, not "Ferguson riots". Darmokand (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well we call it the 1992 Los Angeles riots, not the Aftermath of the Rodney King trial, don't we?   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 21:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than have a split, why not rename the Timeline article to something like "Protests and Unrest after Shooting Death of Michael Brown?" It's very much heading in that direction already -- and there is little in the way of timeline info that is going to be added to that article that directly relates to the killing.  The encounter, altercation, shooting and death all happened in the space of three minutes.  But the aftermath is 9 days deep already (the Rodney King riots ended after 6 days) and with the kind of defiance seen both on the streets last night and heard as recently as yesterday and last night in one-on-one conversations with people such as Alderman Anotonio French, there is little reason to believe that the end is in sight.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to throw in my support for a split or renaming of the article. The motivation behind the demonstration extends beyond Brown's shooting, although that was certainly the catalyst for it. I believe at least a few journalists have expressed a similar sentiment. Dmarquard (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Searches naming the event

 * Ferguson violence: 72,800,000 results
 * Ferguson conflict: 42,800,000 results
 * Ferguson clashes: 15,200,000 results
 * Ferguson unrest: 9,280,000 results
 * Ferguson riots: 9,150,000 results
 * Ferguson demonstrations: 9,090,000 results
 * Ferguson chaos: 8,770,000 results
 * Ferguson civil disobedience: 1,900,000 results
 * "Shooting of Michael Brown": 1,020,000 results

Searches related to the event

 * Ferguson police: 162,000,000 results
 * Ferguson military: 101,000,000 results
 * Ferguson war: 89,100,000 results
 * Ferguson emergency: 65,800,000 results
 * Ferguson no peace: 61,100,000 results
 * Ferguson peace: 47,000,000 results
 * Ferguson protests: 38,400,000 results
 * Ferguson tear gas: 38,000,000 results
 * Ferguson journalists: 19,700,000 results
 * Ferguson arrests: 11,500,000 results
 * Ferguson looting: 5,570,000 results
 * Ferguson militarization 4,200,000 results

Per WP:NOTABILITY, we should really split the article. All these results show how notable the unrest has become. Though the Shooting of Michael Brown may have started this, people now have different motivations for these riots (looting, causing chaos, etc.)   [  Soffredo  ]    16:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused. The article was split here. Or is there a different split you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsimser (talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing someone split it without discussing it first.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 17:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with Foreign Language Entries
This topic has international attention. Help with other language versions is especially needed for Korean and Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeraner (talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I created a Dutch version. Sikjes (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Police officer's version of the encounter
Here is (purportedly) the officer's version of the encounter: Alleged Friend Of Officer Darren Wilson Offers His Side. I assume that this story will start to get picked up by other news sources. So, this is for our consideration, with an eye to what we might (or might not) want to add to this article over time. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just FYI. "Alleged Friend of Officer Darren Wilson Offers His Side" is farther away from the subject than you ever go for reliable information on something like this. This has been proven time and time again. You may watch it, but please do not think about adding something like this to the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Please re-read my above post. Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please restate, too many comments, too much text to infer which you mean. I don't want to misunderstand or draw the wrong conclusion from your comment which I cannot identify. Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In a nut shell, I was not advocating to place this info into the article. I was giving editors the "heads up" that this is what is being reported as the officer's (purported) version.  And we should keep an eye on further developments (i.e., as to where this goes, or if it goes nowhere).  And use the subsequent pertinent info to add in the article, as appropriate.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Even if other news sources did pick it up and ran with "alleged", would you be comfortable wanting to use it. In my opinion, if she came forward and was vetted and did an interview, then it can be used and attributed to her, but if she doesn't come forward and all we have is alleged, regardless of who is reporting it, I don't know... Isaidnoway (talk)  05:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Me, as an editor, am willing to look at anything, if for no other reason than to look for tipoffs to truths that might not jump out at me if I don't at least hear what is being said by someone who claims to be bringing accurate information to light. It's been working so far, if I may say. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * - - - Okay, I've listened to that video/audio several times now and the more I listen the more I can tell you it's not going to get picked up by anyone. Darren Wilson knows very well that he can give the world his version of events at any second and that there will be hundreds of reporters hanging on his every word.  The last thing he needs is to make some third party grape vine player his conduit -- and then to make Dana Loesch the next link in the grapevine.  Oh boy.  To me this is a slick way of sneaking out the talking points to the folks who desperately want the policeman to be exonerated because of how unpalatable the alternative is in the grand scheme of things.  And if I were looking for a way to sneak that out into the ether, I'd use the Dana Show too.
 * As I say, Darren Wilson doesn't need people like this to tell his story. His name is known now.  It was known when this recording was made.  He is of age and can speak for himself.  Until he does, this kind of stuff has no business in this article, in my opinion.
 * I take a different position with videos made of people who didn't want their names known who were witnesses to the shooting or at least claim to be such. Maybe Wikipedia isn't the forum, but I think it would be extremely instructive to be able to take every YouTube video there is where someone claims to be an eyewitness, catalogue them all, including the date of upload -- very important -- as in the case of the video I found today that talks about "cigarillos" uploaded on the 10th of August.  And then just compare and contrast all of the claims made in every one of them -- and then put that synthesized wall of information side by side with the tiny drips of information we get from the police every 24 or 72 hours or so.  And see which one stands the test of plausibility.  I've been digging through this stuff so deep and hearing enough from people who talked to the people who talked to the witnesses -- I can tell you -- the journalists have their minds made up -- because they know there is no way all of those stories could have aligned so quickly on Saturday if they were all false.  I mean think about it. I have three videos already that I have found where an African American with tight ties to that neighborhood talks about the suspicion that Michael Brown stole cigars, cigarettes, cigarillos.  One of them identifies the Ferguson Market (going off of memory).  But the rest of the world only came to know about the cigarillos yesterday (Friday).  So dear journalist.  If you're reading this as you prep for another day of work on this story, why not go out and get a Pulitzer prize by fleshing these witness accounts out to where we can quote them on Wikipedia.  You won't have to give me any credit at all.  I don't want credit.  I want the truth.  So do a few people out there whose minds aren't resistant to facts, I believe.  And yeah, I know, that's not everyone.  Believe me, I do. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Please everyone remember that were an encyclopedia, not a news source. Our purpose is not to publish novel information or conduct our own analysis of events, and we especially should not be analyzing raw video footage. There are plenty of reliable sources for coverage of this subject. We simply do not use questionable sources in pursuit of truth.- MrX 12:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No one's analyzing raw video footage in the article. Happily, my one and only venture down that path was reverted.  Thankfully, as I learned later from KMOV that the vehicle in a photo that I thought was Wilson's vehicle was not his vehicle at all.  But I would beg to differ as to what this article is.  For the last nine days, this article has been the one persistent reference for the lead story on pages such as News.Google.com, which still show the respect they have for Wikipedia by giving us that kind of authoritative endorser as the dispenser of a reliable summary explanation of all that IS going on CURRENTLY and has gone on for the last 9 days.  Fact is, there is so much happening that the small number of editors we have can't keep up.  But the world expects us to be on top of things -- and not a year from now.  Now.  Which means we have an obligation to be as current as you would expect Wikipedia to be if you weren't an editor and were just checking in to get your daily briefing on what is going on so that you, a politician, or a journalist, or an educator, or a police officer, can speak intelligently to the question should the topic come up in your work or in idle conversation.  I am a self-employed programmer who isn't programming this week.  When this comes to some state of partially resolution, I won't be a Wikipedia editor anymore.  Because white paper stuff isn't really what I do.  But I think that the need for people to be able to know what is going on -- in this story -- is extreme.  For those who need a refresher after a couple of days disconnected from current events, we're a great resource -- if we do our jobs right and well. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@MrX you wrote: "We simply do not use questionable sources in pursuit of truth".

If that is the case, why does the wiki entry include the statement from Mr Johnson? He was with Mr Brown when he committed the strong arm robbery. He has both a strong motive to lie, and a strong bias toward his friend. The fact that he made a statement does not mean that his statement was factual. If the goal is to presents the facts, I would argue that he is an extremely questionable source of information.

The statement by the alleged friend of the officer is no more questionable than that of Mr Johnson, and given what we have learned regarding the robbery, it is a much more plausible scenario of what likely happened (i.e., Mr Brown not the innocent kid the media has portrayed, but a violent thug with a propensity for violence toward authority figures). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It is so outrageous to call Michael Brown a violent thug. I object to the reference being left in this document, especially given the fact that the passage in which it is found it is unsigned. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

To get back to the topic at hand (whether we should include a summary of the "Josie" interview in the article at this time), Anderson Cooper reports that CNN has a "source with detailed knowledge of the investigation; what he [Wilson] has told the police". If CNN (and possibly others?) has vetted the story (albeit, through an anonymous source), why shouldn't we include a summary?

Counter-arguments: (1) Anonymous sources, even those by a well-respected news organization, do not meet the criteria for Wikipedia's reliable sources. (2) Eventually, the contents of the interview will be confirmed or proven false by more reliable sources (like official statements). Why not wait until then? (3) The same could be said for any other of the "Witness accounts" (except for the Police account). They also will be proven true or false by subsequent sources. Why not eliminate all of them?

Counter-Counter-argument: Even with the 10-year rule, we are not Pravda. We do not include only official pronouncements in our articles.

What's your opinion? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times hard slams Ferguson police department
Quote of the century:

It's a department that sports combat gear and tricked out tanks, but can't afford the $50,000 or so it would cost to equip its 18 patrol cars with dashboard cameras that could record every police encounter.

-- Sandy Banks, (an African-American editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times).

SOURCE: In Ferguson, cops and looters should be held accountable http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-banks-ferguson-violence20140819-column.html]

Those of you who want to give our readers a better backdrop of the social context in which the story is playing out would do well to peruse this article looking for citable analysis and quotables. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That link does not work. At least not for me.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here -   Cwobeel   (talk)  21:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a forum and COI
I've just started reading this page and have noticed an editor who is straddling the line of discussing the shooting of Brown vs what the sources report. Additionally the same editor (Michael Ridgway) appears to have a COI regarding this incident. I have to leave for a few hours, but upon my return (if someone doesn't beat me to it) I will file a notice at the COI board and then possibly ask for Ridgway to be topic banned.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that that user in question is over the line on WP:FORUM quite often, but could you elaborate what you think the COI is? In any case, while I do see a problem, it may not rise to the level supporting a topic ban. However, as all of American politics/social issues are under "almost" discretionary sanctions Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics, asking for DS to be formally applied to this article may be a first step, which would make any future issues easy to control Gaijin42 (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Example of user vs WP:FORUM? Just for my own edification? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That user has been warned for the quasi forum use of this page, but to accuse him of COI without any evidence is a blatant disregard of WP:AGF. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I did say appears, which leaves room for interpretation. However examining his edits, he is referring to protesters as if he is one of them. One of his comments gave me the impression he might have actually attended protests. These are indicators he may have a conflict of interest, as defined on Wikipedia. Any incident raised by me at the COI board will have diffs. Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A protester does not make a COI. I think your comments are way over the top. Of course, feel free to file at COI/N, but It would expect that you would be laughed out for that attempt. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was involved in extended debate, at 2014 Isla Vista killings, with an editor who let it out that she was a young lady living in Isla Vista. I objected that she might be less than objective, and none of the senior editors present supported me on that. Could be your interp of COI is off. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also note that the user Michael Ridgway is hardly editing the main article, mainly posting here in talk, which in case he has a COI (which I doubt) is the correct way to interact per WP:COI. I suggest we drop this and move on. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Drop and archive, AFAIC. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. The passion displayed by Ridgway indicates there may be an outside interest. Also, let's not forget there are BLP concerns for both Wilson and the Brown families. NPOV must be maintained. However I'm willing to close this for the sake of harmony. It may be revisited again if needed. Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I demand removal of the libelous accusation that I have been protesting in Ferguson.
No proof has been presented to that effect and I categorically deny it. This is getting beyond outrageous. But I'm kind of used to that, being a defender of truth, and all. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Archived now. Let's move on. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal issues
I'm thinking of starting a section called Legal issues. It would contain the legal basis of the investigation under Missouri law: the Fleeing felon rule. My sources could include: The Guardian, St Louis Public Radio and FindLaw. These are all analysis pieces, not hard news.

However, these three are the only very reliable sources I can find, besides a few legal comments on CNN and MSNBC. (I have other sources; for example, by Police Mag and answers.yahoo.) Do you think this is enough to start a section on Legal issues or should we wait until some official on the case brings the subject up? Remember, we're theoretically writing an encyclopedia article, not news reports. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is too early and we need to be mindful of WP:NOR -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are reliable, but they're highly speculative at the moment with lots of "Brown would have been considered dangerous if he was struggling with the officer for the gun" type statements. The officer's defense is going to come out eventually, and if it includes the fleeing felon rule we should absolutely include it.  I think that until there's some indication that the fleeing felon rule is actually implicated, it looks like undue weight to include this. Dyrnych (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Money quote: "So, a key question for investigators to consider: Was shooting an unarmed teenager the objectively reasonable response given the specific set of circumstances the officer was dealing with at that time? In other words, did the officer “have reason to believe” Brown posed a threat – with or without a gun? This of course cannot be determined without the results from ongoing investigations into the shooting." Dyrnych (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * An article by William Norman Grigg on some possible legal principles that apply in Missouri and may which have bearing in this case:
 * SOURCE: Michael Brown, the “Tom Joad Test,” and Darren Wilson’s Likely Defense Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The FindLaw item has a problem in that whatever analysis it is making is not in reference to this incident. Therefore it can only be used for general statements about how the law works, not how that law applies in this situation. That makes it less useful. LewRockwell.com may not be an WP:RS for this particularly as Grigg has no legal qualifications that I am aware of.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, I'd just reiterate that there's no rush to include this type of section before we actually know what legal issues are implicated.  Once we have enough information to stop speculating about what issues the officer might raise, we can start including analysis from RS about those issues; until then, it's just total speculation and not encyclopedic. Dyrnych (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There certainly needs to be a "legal issues" section, with a subsection dedicated to what the defense will argue. In this case, any novice legal analyst can see the impending train miles down the track: the defense will argue--despite what the police chief has claimed--that Wilson was aware of the robbery APB and that Wilson correctly identified that Brown fit the description. The defense will further argue that Wilson had never encountered a robber that was unarmed, and that Wilson had never heard of any cases of unarmed robbery. The defense is free to argue that Wilson thought Brown was reaching for a weapon. Though untried and innocent until proven guilty, Brown had indeed committed robbery moments prior. As a result, no jury will ever convict Wilson of anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.242.93 (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC) [Refactor: move this paragraph into date-time order. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)]


 * WP:CRYSTAL – Smyth\talk 19:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ^^^This. Dyrnych (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ambulance
Jonathan Capehart of WP claims that: "Brown’s body was left in the middle of the street for more than four hours. No aid was administered to him. No ambulance was called." However, police chief Jackson has also been cited as saying that an ambulance nearby "did respond to assess Michael Brown." Are there any WP:RELIABLE sources that clarify which of these narratives are true?--Anders Feder (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason it needs to say "according to Johnson" so much?
The section is already titled "Dorian Johnson's account" so is there a reason it needs to say "according to Johnson" so much? Seems unnecessary. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Seems just typographical. Timeraner (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if we could just begin the section with, "The following is Johnson's account of the shooting", and then present the rest as if it were verifiable fact. I don't think that would fly, since it would depend on the reader reading the initial disclaimer, and then keeping it in mind as s/he reads. Can you think of a way to reduce the annoying repetitiveness?  Mandruss &#124; talk  03:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We could simply put in his entire "account" verbatim in a text box. Now that the article is split, we have the column inches to do that, I would think. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting idea and I'd like to see other opinions. Although "verbatim" implies direct quotes, which we don't have.  Mandruss &#124; talk  03:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We could alternate with "Johnson said." In any event, it seems like it needs to be absolutely explicit that it's Johnson making the claims, not Wikipedia. Dyrnych (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I cleaned it up with "Johnson said" and "Johnson stated". The section is titled "Dorian Johnson", so I would think that would indicate that it is his account of events and not anyone elses. Isaidnoway (talk)  04:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks much better. Thanks! Dyrnych (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Another question, why so many references there at the end of the first sentence that says get the fuck out of the street. And in the second paragraph there is a another bunch in the middle of that paragraph. Should we move them to be inline with the sentences that the ref actually supports, or move them all to the end of each paragraph. And I also noticed that Johnson's attorneys statement tacked on to the end of the last paragraph, should that be there, that's not part of Johnsons account. I just looked at it again and I guess when I condensed all those sentences into one paragraph (2nd one), I actually caused that bunch there. I guess it also could have been due to the large amount of editing there as well. Solutions? Isaidnoway (talk)  04:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * His lawyer's statements amount to part of his account, since his lawyer wasn't there and couldn't have any account of his own. Btw, I made this for the sake of discussion, but I guess we're past that.  Mandruss &#124; talk  04:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) As far as all the references, I'm not sure. Is it even really a problem beyond looking a bit bulky?  I added the statement from the attorney because it's from Johnson speaking through his attorney.  Attorney statement in the course of representation usually equals client statement, especially (as here) when it's in an interview and it's clear from the source that the interview is part of Johnson's account. Dyrnych (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not the bulk of the references, it's where they are placed. Seems odd that the first sentence would need that many references, while the rest of the paragraph is mostly uncited. Isaidnoway (talk)  04:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wilson's family
I don't think we should discuss Wilson's family in this article. They have zero involvement in the shooting, and it potentially exposes them to harm. Just because sources report something trivial doesn't mean we need to repeat it.- MrX 22:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was careful with my edit, removing the name of the woman. There is no identifiable information. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As a protagonist, I think that it is relevant to describe that he is divorced and lives with a woman who is a fellow officer. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why?  His family seems irrelevant.   Is a divorced cop somehow more likely to commit a bad shoot?   no.  --Darmokand (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do think that's relevant to a shooting incident Cwobeel? And is it so important to understanding this subject that it's worth the potential harm it could cause to innocent people?- MrX 23:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, there are no names named, so "potential harm" is not an issue here, unless I am missing something. I think that as this is an incident with two main protagonists, it is useful and encyclopedic to have information about them. Just think of the reader. I added that as I am a reader as well, not just an editor, and I wanted to know more about Wilson, his background, etc. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Out of scope. I don't think it should be included. Timeraner (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't feel strong about it, just that I think it has encyclopedic value. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just curious Cwobeel, is there ANYTHING/FACT that you feel doesn't have encyclopedic value as long as it has a source? Believe it or not, this is a serious question. --Malerooster (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

International Section
The international section is waaaay to long and pointless. It is not clear that they all have anything much to do with the actual incident. Most seem like little more than state propaganda to their own populations. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This has become an event that has attracted international coverage, and as such, we report it here per WP:NPOV. If it is state propaganda, so be it. This is an encyclopedia, and we report the significant views as reported by reliable sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the material is already in the 2014 Ferguson unrest article, I kept the summary and added a see also to the appropriate section there. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I agree with Arzel and Veggies. As I mention upthread, you may want to create a spinoff article if you think these (self-serving) comments are worth having in the encyclopedia. To me they seem ephemeral and without any enduring importance.- MrX 15:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we have reached a compromise. The summary here, the detail at 2014 Ferguson unrest -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't "removed" anything. The original citations are still up for people to follow. What I've done is condensed the insane number of subsections into a neat paragraph. --  Veggies  ( talk ) 15:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said above, we may have reached a compromise as the full material is in the unrest article, linked from here. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion: "Accounts" or "Statements"
With the growing number of additional interviews being granted by Dorian Johnson, Tiffany Mitchell, and Piaget Crenshaw, and the possibility that more witnesses will begin giving multiple press interviews, I would urge that we replace the term "account" in the singular with "statement" "statements" whenever we are sourcing statements made in two or more different interviews. At a minimum, the title of the section Witness Accounts should be changed to "Witness Statements" as soon as we can. Concurrence anyone? - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly I think that "statement" is more specific than "account." I don't really see a problem with an "account" comprising an ongoing series of statements. Dyrnych (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Statement" is a term frequently used for formal statements to the police or other officials etc. As we have no cites saying that any of the witnesses spoke to the police saying what is in their "statements", we are safer with using "accounts" or "statements made to the press", "interviews" or the like.   Further, we likely should avoid the term "eyewitness"  in this article as we do not "know" whether they are accurately stating what the saw,or, in some cases, what others had said to them.  We can not be in a position if implying in any way the common use of "a formal account of events given by a witness, defendant, or other party to the police or in a court of law" here. Collect (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. The word "statement" implies – or at least sounds like – it is a "formal" statement (e.g., one given to authorities, the police investigators, in court, etc.).  As opposed to an informal TV interview or such.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Vote for sticking with "account" as it more accurately describes the wide ranging nature of the info, as they are not all formal "statements." -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

At a minimum, when we quote a given "statement" made by any of the witnesses, we should specify the when and where, like we're doing with the various police "statements." Shoved him in car. Struggled in car. Bullet fired in car. Shot him a more than a couple of times, not many more. DROP. Told them to get off of road. DRIP. Suspected in robbery. DROP. Officer didn't know they were suspected in a robbery. DRIP. When the office drove on, he maybe (pure speculation by the chief) saw the cigars/cigarillos and realized that Brown might be a shoplifting suspect. DROP. Injured in the encounter. DRIP. Cigar's recovered when they scooped them up at some point during the four hours during which they didn't get around to scooping up Brown. DROP. His face, gestures with hand on driver window side of his face was swollen. DRIP. The officers name was Darren Wilson. DROP. He had a commendation. DRIP. We did an autopsy but we can't tell you how many bullet holes. We spent four hours going over the scene while Brown's body lay in the middle of the street. But we can't tell you how many casings were found in the vehicle and how many were found on the street. DROP. Oh, would you like some surveillance video with those fries? DROP. We won't have the toxicology for weeks. DRIP. Oh, uh, did we mention we found traces of marijuana in his blood? DROP. DRIP. DROP. Water torture. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I take exception to the way you are engaging in this page. Could you please consider staying on point and avoid making all these unnecessary comments? It is not helpful and it is becoming quite disruptive. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Multiple notable individuals and organizations and news organs and editorial boards have criticized the police for the way they have released information. I'm just listing a point by point of exactly how ridiculous it has been.  For those who want to see the police officer acquitted, I have no doubt that me pointing that out is disruptive.  If you think it's that bad delete it.  As I say, I have no expectation of winning any edit wars on this page or the other.  I propose an opinion.  The collective disposes.  They say women can't stand editing in Wikipedia.  Why would anyone want to put up with this?  Still, I'm not going away. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

NYT article - Witnesses accounts
There is a new article at The New York Times, which consolidates some of the unofficial reports, including some about Wilson sustaining an injury. This source can be used also to add to the witnesses accounts (in particular Johnson's) as it includes new information -   Cwobeel   (talk)  04:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There is also another witness named Michael T. Brady:
 * A man who lives nearby, Michael T. Brady, said in an interview that he saw the initial altercation in the patrol car, although he struggled to see exactly what was happening. “It was something strange,” said Mr. Brady, 32, a janitor. “Something was not right. It was some kind of altercation. I can’t say whether he was punching the officer or whatever. But something was going on in that window, and it didn’t look right.” Mr. Brady said he could see Mr. Johnson at the front passenger side of the car when he and Mr. Brown suddenly started running. Mr. Brady did not hear a gunshot or know what caused them to run. But he said he did see a police officer get out of the patrol car and start walking briskly while firing on Mr. Brown as he fled.

-  Cwobeel   (talk)

And also this:
 * According to his account to the Ferguson police, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him, law enforcement officials said. Fearing that the teenager was going to attack him, the officer decided to use deadly force.

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the article has a good opening discussion of the different witness testimonies and where they agree and disagree: Remember (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * FERGUSON, Mo. — As a county grand jury prepared to hear evidence on Wednesday in the shooting death of a black teenager by a white police officer that touched off 10 days of unrest here, witnesses have given investigators sharply conflicting accounts of the killing. Some of the accounts seem to agree on how the fatal altercation initially unfolded: with a struggle between the officer, Darren Wilson, and the teenager, Michael Brown. Officer Wilson was inside his patrol car at the time, while Mr. Brown, who was unarmed, was leaning in through an open window. Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer. But on the crucial moments that followed, the accounts differ sharply, officials say. Some witnesses say that Mr. Brown, 18, moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner, when the officer shot him dead. But others say that Mr. Brown was not moving and may even have had his hands up when he was killed.

I added Brady and Wilson's accounts based on the NYT article. Feel free to improve or make additional edits based on this source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Full name and date of birth
What are Mike Brown's full name and date of birth? 154.69.47.160 (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * His birthday, according to the police report, is 5/20/1996.
 * http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/ferguson-police-department-incident-report-on-aug-9-robbery/1256/
 * Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)