Talk:Killing of Oscar Grant/Archive 5

Public reaction
Indybay coverage of the justice for Oscar Grant movement was deleted, and could be useful in the 'Public reaction' section. Anarchangel (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Media Activism" is not exactly RS.Cptnono (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, this was copied over from my discussion page: I don't know where or how to start a "talk" on Oscar Grant page as you apparently suggested, but you rudely removed a valuable link I added regarding the Justice for Oscar Grant Movement. In what sort of way do you "own" this issue? Why would I need your permission to add a link? In what way are you an "expert" on the facts of the case and the demonstrations? The www.indybay.org/oscargrant page linked to includes more information on the case than any other single source on the murder and the following related events, definitely more so than wiki here. It is probably THE definitive archive on the subject. There is a ton of original material found no where else on the web, such as the actual court transcripts from Mehserle's preliminary hearing, unedited audio from related BART meetings, a tribute video by Oscar Grant's family, and much much more. It is rather problematic that you would assume only corporate reports have value when I could go through a good number of the corporate "news" links here and point out factual and contextual issue after issue with their reporting. (Also, the SF Chron page linked to hasn't even been updated since March. Yikes.)

I would greatly appreciate you undoing your deletion of that link. I actually intend to include more links to specific indybay.org posts relevant to certain passages in the wiki Oscar Grant piece as time allows. The first link is just to the Oscar Grant overview page but more specificity can be added to the wiki page over time.
 * Hi 69.107.98.158, Please sign your comments with ~
 * To see an article talk page click on the "discussion tab at the top of the article page. I have copied this over there as well.
 * I removed the link per External links not to be rude or because I think only corporations have the right to present news.
 * Indybay is s biased coverage of the event and does not meet standards. You can ask about it here if you plan on using it as a source. Even if consensus says it is OK for a particular inline citation, we can not use it as an external link. The first thing the reader sees when clicking on it is "Justice for Oscar Grant" and that Grant was "murdered". This is coverage that can not be trusted due to its bias and we do not need to facilitate leading the reader to a conclusion in that way. There is still a criminal preceding to see if it was murder and to determine what sort of justice is required.
 * I'm not an expert. I am someone editing a Wikipedia article. Don't be so snide and try to assume good faith or at least follow the civility guidelines.
 * If you can stay neutral, take a look at Reliable sources and start contributing.Cptnono (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I posted that link and agree with Anarchangel that Indybay coverage should be included (my original questioning of the link removal is above). The link fairly noted "coverage of the justice for oscar grant movement" - and that's exactly what it is. If people want to add a link that promotes another view, they can add a "justice for Mehserle" link to somewhere. and while CPTNONO seems to have not done more than click a link to indybay and seen the word murder and judged that it does not meet standards somehow, I have to point out again that there are countless original unedited sources at indybay that do not exist anywhere else. CPTNONO seems to be willing to deny wiki users access/links to that info because she/he detected "bias". CPTNONO also noted that she/he does not think only corporations have the right to present news but apparently only their news meets "standards". I am surprised I have to go there, but corporate media happens to have a very strong pro-police (and pro-corporate) bias. If CPTNONO doubts this, I would be more than happy to rip through a half dozen corporate articles linked from the Oscar Grant page and point out the obvious pro-police bias. Besides, there is bias all over wikipedia. Advocacy groups are linked to all over the place, on wiki "news" stories even, for wiki users who might want to explore more of what advocacy groups think of the issue -- and these groups often do not have a tiny fraction of the FACTs that indybay does. The Indybay link clearly stated it was coverage of the "movement for justice for oscar grant" which is a completely honest representation. I don't think bias should be an issue, because pure news objectivity is largely a myth. The only issue should be does the link give wiki users an honest idea of what they are about to click to, and the indybay link did that. As for Oscar Grant being murdered, the officer is on trial for murder, and even the trial judge who oversaw the preliminary hearing said he believed the officer intended to shoot oscar grant in the back which is murder. It's not like the officer is on trial for manslaughter and indybay hyperbolically calls it murder. I believe CPTNONO was judging a book by its cover and did not bother to look deeper at the value the indybay link offers to wiki users nor the biases of corporate media linked all over the oscar grant wiki article. Again, indybay has invaluable resources not found anywhere else, like the actual court transcripts, from the preliminary hearing, an oscar grant tribute video created by his family, unedited audio and video of BART meetings, and lots, lots more. While the word "murder" might have shocked your sensibilities, CPTNONO, actually poke around the indybay link page and you will find coverage far more in-depth than literally anywhere else on the web. The corporate media largely ignored many meetings and events that have happened, not reporting on them at all, yet indybay has coverage of almost everything that has happened or come to light. Corporate media does not report on many of the facts that have come to light. Check the indybay feature on the preliminary hearing for instance and then go back to your favored corporate links on the preliminary hearing and see how shabbily and shallowly they covered it (often quite biasedly pro-cop in reporting cop testimony verbatim but barely mentioning that it was refuted by video evidence or contradicted by other testimony). Check corporate coverage of developments at BART regarding police oversight and then look at indybay's coverage that includes almost every related meeting. Lastly, don't wiki users deserve to hear from the reporting of activists who are fighting for justice themselves, as a direct source, or is only the corporate filter of what activists are up to that is acceptable? Corporate media often reports from their offices and not from the streets or meetings and so forth and therefore often gets many facts/happenings wrong 69.107.98.158 (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipeida is not for promoting views. Simple as that. As I suggested earlier, if there is a story that needs to be on this page that is only sourced at the website please mention it or take it to the reliable sources noticeboard.Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add the link to "promote views" but to inform wiki users of many numerous facts and happenings that corporate media neglects to cover, or fails to cover due to their own biases. I asked you to compare the number of actual facts listed about the preliminary hearing, corporate media versus the indybay feature on the hearing. corporate media reporting is shallow at best. please actually read my comment above69.107.98.158 (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did read you entire comment but thought that going into a detailed response would not be productive. My response is in bold:

I posted that link and agree with Anarchangel that Indybay coverage should be included (my original questioning of the link removal is above). The link fairly noted "coverage of the justice for oscar grant movement" - and that's exactly what it is. '''It is coverage qith the intent to push a viewpoint. As I said, "Media Activism" is not appropriate''' If people want to add a link that promotes another view, they can add a "justice for Mehserle" link to somewhere. No, we shouldn't be promoting views or letting debates and arguments spill on to the article. and while CPTNONO seems to have not done more than click a link to indybay That is just rude. and seen the word murder and judged that it does not meet standards somehow, I have to point out again that there are countless original unedited sources at indybay that do not exist anywhere else. '''We need to try harder to find sources. Also, External links and inline citations are different. We can discuss case by case basis for citations.''' CPTNONO seems to be willing to deny wiki users access/links to that info because she/he detected "bias". CPTNONO also noted that she/he does not think only corporations have the right to present news but apparently only their news meets "standards". Please see wikipeida guideline on reliable sources again I am surprised I have to go there, but corporate media happens to have a very strong pro-police (and pro-corporate) bias. T'''his is obviously disputed and I will not get into that discussion here. Maybe you would be interested in article that cover this subject instead.''' If CPTNONO doubts this, I would be more than happy to rip through a half dozen corporate articles linked from the Oscar Grant page and point out the obvious pro-police bias. Besides, there is bias all over wikipedia. Bias on other pages does not mean this one should be Advocacy groups are linked to all over the place, on wiki "news" stories even, for wiki users who might want to explore more of what advocacy groups think of the issue -- and these groups often do not have a tiny fraction of the FACTs that indybay does. The Indybay link clearly stated it was coverage of the "movement for justice for oscar grant" which is a completely honest representation. I don't think bias should be an issue, because pure news objectivity is largely a myth. The only issue should be does the link give wiki users an honest idea of what they are about to click to, and the indybay link did that. Yes, the description might be honest but that is not why we have external links As for Oscar Grant being murdered, the officer is on trial for murder, and even the trial judge who oversaw the preliminary hearing said he believed the officer intended to shoot oscar grant in the back which is murder. It's not like the officer is on trial for manslaughter and indybay hyperbolically calls it murder. It is a source that does not stay neutral in its reporting as made clear with these terms I believe CPTNONO was judging a book by its cover and did not bother to look deeper at the value the indybay link offers to wiki users nor the biases of corporate media linked all over the oscar grant wiki article. That is not the case Again, indybay has invaluable resources not found anywhere else, like the actual court transcripts, Those are available elsewhere from the preliminary hearing, an oscar grant tribute video created by his family, I'''s that needed in the article? It is not a memorial''' unedited audio and video of BART meetings, and lots, lots more. Again, try to find sources that cover it in a neutral tone While the word "murder" might have shocked your sensibilities, CPTNONO, No it didn't actually poke around the indybay link page and you will find coverage far more in-depth than literally anywhere else on the web. Other sources are available The corporate media largely ignored many meetings and events that have happened, No they didn't reporting on them at all, yet indybay has coverage of almost everything that has happened or come to light. Corporate media does not report on many of the facts that have come to light. Check the indybay feature on the preliminary hearing for instance and then go back to your favored corporate links I don't have favored corporate links on the preliminary hearing and see how shabbily and shallowly they covered it (often quite biasedly pro-cop in reporting cop testimony verbatim but barely mentioning that it was refuted by video evidence or contradicted by other testimony). Check corporate coverage of developments at BART regarding police oversight and then look at indybay's coverage that includes almost every related meeting. Lastly, don't wiki users deserve to hear from the reporting of activists who are fighting for justice themselves, as a direct source, or is only the corporate filter of what activists are up to that is acceptable? Sure they do, just not with an external link to a source that has not been vetted Corporate media often reports from their offices and not from the streets or meetings and so forth and therefore often gets many facts/happenings wrong Cptnono (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * where are the other sources of virtually every BART meeting discussing their police? where are the other sources of the court transcript?  where are the reports on how the family is taking it all? is the community response irrelevant to the story if the corporate media fails to cover it?69.107.98.158 (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not discuss the merits of "corporate media" with you here. Another editor found the transcript for the bail hearing so try to find similar information for inline citations without giving undue weight to an activist site. In regards o the family, google "oscar grant memorial service". For community response: There is a section devoted to this. Feel free to expand it with sources that meet this project's standards. Cptnono (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

why do you want me to google that? also, I'm not so sure about the standards of this piece. most of it is built on articles that were written months and months ago when there wasn't much more than a few youtube videos to go on. the preliminary hearing was very revealing. and since you brought up vetting, who exactly has vetted all of the chronicle articles linked here, because I can refute a number of them as inaccurate at worst and outdated at best? and who at wiki can "vet" the indybay ones because you'll find lots of actual facts there?69.107.98.158 (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that, while you said you don't want to discuss the merits of corporate media, we are discussing this wiki piece and one doesn't have to go further than the second source listed here to find someone at the Chronicle *opining* that BART made mistakes and listing what that author *thinks* were BART's early mistakes. the author is clearly making value judgements based on actual events. it is not simply a clear statement of fact, or some pure objective reporting. and that is just the second link. 69.107.98.158 (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Google news has many sources that an be used. I am asking you to find other sources if possible.
 * It is not my standards or standards for this article. It is Wkipeida standards that we need to follow. This article has been assessed with a B rating on the quality scale. It could easily get to GA in the future if we follow the guidelines. Do you want more informaiton on this?
 * This article has been kept up to date in many aspects but feel free to expand areas of concern with reliable sources.
 * Apologies, "vet" was vague. Indybay does not have the editing process required to be a reliable source. "Murder" is not yet a fact (even though it might be) which leads to the conclusion that they present information inappropriately.Cptnono (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I skimmed to the end of the sources and noticed #89. explain to me how that is a reliable source. it is one man who wasn't even there opining about protestors. it's clearly an op-ed piece. oh, and google news includes indybay stories, if wiki uses google news classification as a form of vetting. do a google news search for any number of related keywords and you'll inevitably bump into indybay posts. ~
 * Google news offers plenty of poor sources. I personally recommend it as a resource. One thing that I would recommend is taking the information you find at indybay then google newsing(sic) key words to find what you are looking for.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is constructive. Chip Johnson is an established writer who wrote an opinion piece for a reputable news source. It being used as a source is not completely off especially since the line it is used for does not offer opinion. However, we have plenty of sources and do not need it. If you think it should be removed I will not disagree.Cptnono (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

didn't you write, "Wikipeida is not for promoting views. Simple as that"? apparently, it's not so simple after all. Chip's *viewpoint* was fine with you until I said something.

I would argue that the first-hand accounts with ample photographic and video evidence found at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/08/18559668.php are a much more valuable and reliable source for wiki users. a link to that feature can be found near the bottom of the original indybay.org/oscargrant link I added here. likewise, I would argue that http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/08/18559668.php is a better overall source on the preliminary hearing than anything else on the web, with both court documents and witnesses to the proceedings reporting very thoroughly on what happened, definitely in *far* more detail than any corporate reports (and that is another link from indybay/oscargrant page) 69.107.98.158 (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that the depth of information is great, facilitating a link to such a biased and activist site is of too much of a concern. If you see something that needs to be included bring it up. We can always revisit what resources are available for particular inline citations.
 * This is also not an indiscriminate collection of videos, images, sound bites, or information nor is it a mirror of or link to that info The goal is to present information in an encyclopedic manner.
 * Also, as mentioned on your talk page, remove the nowiki code from the 4~s and your sig will pop up.Cptnono (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Chip's viewpoint was in. It was a mistake that no one had caught. Good work but don't use that to determine other aspects of this article.Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I could go on and on calling out corporate news malfeasance on this story beyond Chip's sophomoric writing -- which of course is definitely not encyclopedic. as for bias, how about the first link in the prelim hearing section, #51?  KRON4's republishing of the AP piece is definitely biased pro-police.  it goes on and on about Domenici's testimony and all the things she said, and only at the very end does it mention in a single sentence that virtually all of her testimony was refuted by the hi-res video shown (higher res video that the bart cops confiscated on jan1 that never made it to youtube).  and it doesn't even say that, but it merely says the prosecutor "tried" to use the video to show that.  she was actually shown to be a total liar in court, as were all but one of the other officers on the platform that night.  any sensible person who followed things closely knows this.  even the judge called the cops and the defense out on their obvious BS, scolding them numerous times throughout the hearing.    while I presume that you will object to the totally honest title of this report ("killer cop", which is 100% accurate and even mehserle doesn't deny he killed grant), this report on so-called "biased" indybay is actually a much more fair telling of what happened in court that day (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/05/29/18599312.php#18599313).  really, compare the two and see which is more informative and fair.  69.107.98.158 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC).
 * As I mentioned above. I will not get into a discussion on corporate media. Everything you just mentioned I have personally seen in sources so I disagree with you. If #51 is a concern try to either a) fix the line that refers to it if there is a problem b) remove it to rely on another appropriate source. Sources are not the problem in the article. How they are presented are. When you start linking to activist site is when they become a concern.Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking at t again "She said she was fearful when heard taunts coming from Grant, his friends and passengers on the train.[51]" I don't see the problem. It is a statement that is sourced. A separate line from a proper source in a the criminal precedings subsection could be used but the fact that she said she was fearful seems valid. We are not saying Grant was a jerk, just saying what she claimed.Cptnono (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * and therein lies the problem. this repeats what she said in court without any acknowledgment that is was proven to be a lie.  the truth is bigger than a random listing of some facts that can be sourced, like what one person said in court.  truth requires proper context.  did you know that Pirone yelled "bitch ass nigger" twice at oscar grant just seconds before mehserle shot him?  (you would if you read indybay's coverage of the preliminary hearing or even the court transcripts on indybay, but you won't learn that from relying on sources like KRON4/AP or chip johnson).  so here you have at wiki a proven liar (Domenici) claiming taunts made her fearful without any of the factual refuting of her claims that happened in the court.  that gives her statement credibility on wiki that it didn't have in court.  and you can't see the problem in that?!?  I give up  69.107.98.158 (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For anyone who wishes to contribute:
 * "bitch ass nigger" is well sourced. (2nd try with google which took about half a minute of punching in key words: Please feel free to add it using reliable sources.
 * Chip Johnson is out (someone screwed up putting that in or didn't follow through when additional sources became available).
 * Info can be added on the officer lying in court. This has also been covered by RS. Any ideas on where to include such info is appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder on WP:ELNO
 * What Should be linked... 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
 * Links normally to be avoided Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article... 11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies). (not sure of the vetting process on contributions but it doesn't look strict)
 * Also (and maybe mopst importantly): In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP. Exceptionally biased and not neutral. Questionable quality (although I do applaud its community) that does not meet Wikipeida's standards for inclusion. Try finding more established and less derogatory sources to use as inline cites and bring up Indybay if this is for some reason not possible.Cptnono (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Analysis
This is a list without bullet points and does not improve the article. Its inception was when there was plenty of coverage and editors wanted to stuff things in. It also reads like we are trying to have the reader infer one thing or the other. It is also cherry picked. I am removing it and placing it below. Is there a way to work these lines into the prose? Some of them are duplicates. If this is too bold feel free to revert.Cptnono (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of case by legal and police experts

Although more than 100 people are killed by California police a year, criminal charges are rare, and this is the first murder prosecution for an on-duty killing in California in decades.

Several experts who observed video evidence suggested Mehserle might have confused his gun for his Taser causing him to mistakenly believe he was tasering Grant. If Mehserle thought he was firing his Taser, the killing would be accidental and not subject to a murder charge.

While there have been previous cases where police officers have confused guns with Tasers, modern Tasers weigh half as much as handguns. The prosecution argues that the position of Mehserle's Taser "in relation to his duty weapon, combined with the different 'feel' and color of the two weapons makes it highly unlikely that he would have mistaken one for the other." Burris responded to claims of Taser confusion by arguing that video evidence did not support the idea of Taser confusion and, in any event, Mehserle had no reason to fire his Taser.

BART purchased the Taser X26 stun guns in September, and provided them to officers after six hours of training, which is the amount recommended by the manufacturer.

After viewing the shooting from multiple angles, police use-of-force expert Roy Bedard commented: "I hate to say this, it looks like an execution to me" and "It really looks bad for the officer." University of San Francisco law professor Robert Talbot said the videos could support a claim of an accidental shooting: "Nothing about his body looks murderous."

Attorney Harland Braun, who won acquittal for an officer in the Rodney King beating, noted that video evidence can be deceptive, and doesn't show what happened before or after an incident.

Before Mehserle retained Rains, Rains told the Associated Press that it could be difficult to prosecute Mehserle for murder because the law discourages "second-guessing and hindsighting" of police officers, who tend to be favorably viewed by juries.

Mehserle is facing up to life in prison if convicted of first-degree murder.


 * The above strikes me as okay the way it is, and it is well-sourced. Apostle12 (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is fine. My concern is that we could put insert every story from the Chronicle in and it still wouldn't make this a better Wikipeida article. Most of it can be moved into excisting sections and not be presented in a random list format. Cptnono (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You say "most of it" ...which of the material shouldn't make the cut? Critical Chris   20:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "the killing would be accidental and not subject to a murder charge" needs to be reworked with "would have" if it stays. The police not charged in decades line was disputed it looks like and didn't seem too important (it doesn't hurt to stay if it is accurate).Cptnono (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Daughter
An IP removed an early mention of his kid and moved it into the line "He is survived by his mother, sister, four year old daughter, and girlfriend..." I agree with the change since Grant could be many things but having it randomly used as a defining characteristic overly emotive. We don't use "Grant was the father of a 4-year-old daughter had a child out of wedlock/worked as a butcher/was a convicted criminal/wore a hat sometimes and lived in Hayward..." Cptnono (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism
Why this is not included in terrorism category? Why limit the terrorism when the police is affected only?

I think that this is a form of state terrorism. The shoot was not an accident, and It was planned by the killer. IMHO, the police was terrorist, because it killed a innocent person. --79.109.5.24 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't be serious. At worst this was a case of one Bay Area Rapid Transit officer killing a man unjustly, although it seems FAR more likely that the killing was simply a tragic accident--a jury will decide that question.  Terrorism?!  Absurd!!Apostle12 (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)