Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020
An edit stated that a white woman burned down the Wendy's restaurant where the shooting took place, adding in its summary that they got the information from a YouTube video. However, that edit did not add any source to the article to back up that claim and the articles referenced make no mention of any individual person setting fire to the restaurant. Can whoever made that claim add the YouTube video in question in the references of the article, or if that can't be done, can someone revert the edit; changing the phrase "On June 13, a white woman burned down the Wendy's restaurant" back to "On June 13, a group of rioters burned down the Wendy's restaurant". Kzkzb (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ by - thanks to both of you! Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 18:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter and police brutality
and I disagree as to whether this article should have the Black Lives Matter template and be in Category:Police brutality in the United States and Category:Victims of police brutality. In response to the question in the most-recent edit summary, "brutality? says who?": Based on these, I think the template and category should be included. I also think this content should be restored to the article; it had been removed earlier (before many/all of the above sources were published, I think) by in this edit. What does everyone else think? Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Washington Post "In cities including New York, Chicago, Paris and Zurich, demonstrators marched through streets and demanded an end to racial injustice and police brutality. The diversity, breadth and endurance of the protests since Floyd’s death on May 25 offer an indication of the growing power of the Black Lives Matter movement. New video evidence of alleged police misconduct continues to give fuel to activists. In Atlanta, spontaneous protests started late Friday after police shot and killed a black man outside a Wendy’s in an encounter captured on video."
 * AJC "The Atlanta police shooting follows weeks of protests around metro Atlanta and across the country over racial injustice and police brutality. Demonstrators across the nation have called for police reforms after the death of George Floyd, a black man, while in the custody of Minneapolis police ... Hundreds of protesters are marching toward and gathered around the Wendy’s restaurant where the shooting took place. Outside the restaurant, protesters chanted “Rayshard Brooks,” “Black Lives Matter” and “Hands up, don’t shoot.”"
 * Al Jazeera "Rayshard Brooks, 27, was killed by police officer in Atlanta, triggering fiery protests against police brutality"
 * BBC "Protests then began again in the centre of Atlanta on Saturday. Images from the protest show demonstrators holding signs with Brooks' name and Black Lives Matter signs." (which tags its article under "Black Lives Matter" and "US police killings")
 * ABC (Australia) "Dozens of demonstrators took to the streets outside the restaurant on Saturday afternoon local time in a fresh wave of Black Lives Matters protests after a video of the incident was shared on social media." In a Reuters photo caption, "The shooting death of Rayshard Brooks triggered a fresh wave of Black Lives Matters protests in Atlanta"
 * The Guardian categorizes this under "Black Lives Matter movement"
 * Also this article is listed on the Black Lives Matter template itself
 * I made that edit only because the removed text made the flatly obvious statement that A happened during B, without saying anything at all about the significance of that conjunction. It may as well have said, "Brooks was shot a few days before the summer solstice." I'm sure there's a source relating the two events in some meaningful way which we can use. That's all. EEng 14:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * (1) If THIS article reflects that it attracted BLM interest, then I would have no objection to inclusion of the BLM template and cat (2) Brooks aimed a weapon at a cop and got shot. How is that "police brutality" without a legal finding of such? You cannot equate a police shooting with brutality just because some are concerned by the outcome. WWGB (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A taser is not a lethal weapon, and there were multiple officers present. By your reasoning you can shoot someone holding a big rock. EEng 15:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The cop was fired, the police chief resigned, the weapon was a non-lethal weapon. I don't want to argue whether or not this was a justified use of lethal force. My argument is that BLM and "police brutality" are supported by the reliable sources, such as those quoted above. If the BBC categorizes this under BLM, so should we. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored the BLM category and template as there is a reference to BLM in an article in Further Reading. I am not convinced that the category "police brutality" is justified, as it does not appear to be used in multiple reliable sources in reference to this shooting. WWGB (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Section heading
The title is Victim. The heading for such a section on these articles is most commonly the name of the person who died or was injured. Jim Michael (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Made it Background. EEng 17:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Did Rayshard Brooks have a criminal record?
Like George Floyd?

Floyds arrest record and incarceration is on the wikipage.

I am trying to find an arrest record, etc. online. I havent found anything yet. Anyone else find any sources stating he does or does not? Moscowdreams (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, unless the officers knew about that, why would it be relevant? Nick Cooper (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * . 88.69.31.190 (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Tasers aren't lethal weapons. Cops use that excuse all the time when they kill someone by tasering them. You can't have it both ways. --Converting to insanity (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They're incapacitating weapons. A suspect can't be allowed to incapacitate. Jim Michael (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The anonymous editor is talking about Brooks Drunk driving. Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It provides background information of the subject of this article and would help to present his background in a factual manner rather than the biased media/protester attempt to present him as some random innocent, saint. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you guys have any sources or material about the article youd like to discuss? Because Wikipedia is not a forum for your personal beliefs. And BLP applies to recently deceased people, and as such I am redacting one comment.  nableezy  - 15:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC) A meme without attribution is circulating which suggests that Mr. Brooks had a prior conviction for DUI. Also, the suggestion that the police didn't know about past criminal convictions, if there were any, seems unlikely since they no doubt ran his license plate before actually engaging him. He was, after all, in his car when the police arrived.


 * I'm archiving this mess of meandering speculation. When there are sources let us know. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Broken style
the text have half of an html tag in the article on the sentence "he lay on the ground.[21]<ref[22] Five minutes after the shots were fired an ambulance arrived"
 * ty, fixed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Deaths in police custody in the United States
Re: Special:Diff/962613269, why doesn't this category apply to this article? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 02:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Brooks was clearly not in custody at the time he was shot, although I suppose you could argue he was in custody when he died shortly thereafter. Nonetheless, please see the description of the category: Category:Deaths in police custody in the United States. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * have you looked at the description of the category? It reads "This category contains articles about people who died in police custody in the United States of America, such as deaths during an arrest caused from suffocation or beating, or people who died from an unrelated cause during their arrest. This category does include those shot dead by police officers." Jweiss11 (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Brooks was placed under arrest and was in the process of being cuffed. How does that differ from being in custody? An arrest is the act of apprehending and taking a person into custody. WWGB (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , what am I missing? The category description says "This category does include those shot dead by police officers." Brooks was shot dead by police officers. It says "deaths during an arrest". Brooks died during an arrest. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 03:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad. I misread the description as including a "not", which I inferred from the population of the category. Seems the category is severely underpopulated then. Jweiss11 (talk)
 * Or you could be right, and the missing "not" could just be a typo, which would explain the underpopulation. Hmm, I don't know. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 03:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020
Please include that he fired the taser he stole for the police at the police 2603:9001:F03:8E7B:9D1C:36D:86D2:5A59 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't remember reading this is any report of this; AFAICS he only pointed it at them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * NYT and CNN later reported "fired the taser", so I added that to the article. However, today I read that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation stated they can't confirm the taser was fired. I also read some articles (I remember NPR was one) that still said "pointed" but not "fired". As such, this content in our article may need to be further updated, probably noting that reports conflict or it's unconfirmed or something like that. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Add
It's not a NPOV to say he resisted arrest. He was never told he was under arrest. A NPOV description would be that he resisted being handcuffed.

Please reflect in the lede that in addition to wrestling with the officers he punched one. That is rs supported and very relevant. --2604:2000:E010:1100:78EF:58BC:AE45:D6C5 (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done You can't say that it is "RS supported" without at least citing one... In any case, "wrestling" does imply there was some physical confrontation, no matter what the exact gestures were. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrestling does not include punching. Isn’t that obvious? That’s why wrestling matches do not allow punching. —2604:2000:E010:1100:588:C26E:933F:3A39 (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It was in. This edit took it out of the lede. The ref is already in the text below, which is the only place it has to be. This is it: in the NY Times. Another supporting ref is in NY Magazine, indicating that the officer he punched was Rolfe--that aspect need not be in the lede, but I think should also be added to the text below the lede. Especially since it was then Rolfe who shot him. This third source is from the NY Times, and also indicates he punched Rolfe. So - there are three high-level RS refs supporting it. Please restore it to the lede. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reference to the punch should be included, as it is a salient fact and describes a certain level of violence. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's the gunshots that describe a certain level of violence. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Gunshots describe the level of violence from the police officer. The punch describes the level of violence of the person killed. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The Atlanta PD Policy on use of force focuses among other things on whether the officer reasonably believed that Brooks posed an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or if there was probable cause to believe that Brooks had committed a crime involving the infliction of serious physical harm and the officer reasonably believed that the Brooks' escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person. So - the gunshots apart - this is material information to reflect in the lede. 2604:2000:E010:1100:893E:254B:7DA6:A88D (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The specific request, as required by the form, would be to add the bold in the lede (with the above three refs if they are needed): "Brooks had resisted arrest and wrested a taser as he wrestled on the ground with two police officers, and punched one of them." 2604:2000:E010:1100:644A:43B5:4DD3:1CF3 (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020
Addition of new information + photo http://archive.is/W5Ayp

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020
In this is stated "several" that means more than 2 but, less than many. The facts are only two cops are shown and later mentioned. You are miss leading the readers to think 5 or 6 cops were there. That's not the truth and could continue to cause unnecessary anger. It should read "two cops invested" 2001:4430:4171:74C4:0:0:201:969 (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jim Michael (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please remember to mark the edit request as answered when you complete it. TJScalzo (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020
I want to change the word "laid" to "lay" and the headline "Arrest and..." to "ATTEMPTED ARREST and..." Reversewombat (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Thanks. -- ToE 11:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

“Ruled a homicide by the medical examiner”
I often see this misconstrued as a finding of guilt. It isn’t a judgment on the criminality of the shooting.

All it means that that Rolfe did, in fact, kill Brooks. That is obvious and has never been disputed by anyone.

The statement is often misunderstood. When it is properly understood, it adds no meaningful information. I suggest it be removed from the article, or at least from the lede. Capedia (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for posting about it. Not the first time this was removed from the lead. Yes, it's exactly as you say: no meaningful information. That it was a homicide is obvious from the gunshots, and now also from the murder charge. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 02:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020
A man asleep in car -> A sleeping man parked in a Wendy's drive thru. Lead section does not mention Wendy's 98.113.245.32 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? Would it change the reader's understanding of what happened if it had been a Burger King? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Editted logged out. Anyway, it's always a good idea to give a reader some basic context about what happend. The bottom of the lead mentions "Protesters later burned down the restaurant outside which the shooting had taken place." It would be in good interest to mention the name of the restraunt. Also, theres multiple WP:RS that suggest Rayshard Brooks fell asleep in the Drive-Thru. Rayshard Brooks also had a BAC of .108. This should definitely be in the lead, otherwise it's missing content and biased. I'm totally against what the police did, but as above, things like these need to be mentioned
 * Edit-- Wendy's probably shouldn't be mentioned in the lead, but those other things should.Nvidiafan58 (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. The truth should only be hidden if it saves space. This time, vagueness added 44 bytes. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Except saying "Wendy's" isn't enough; we'd still have to say it's a fast-food drive-through. So no. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Taser model: Single-shot or double-shot?
Have any sources yet reported if the taser fired by Mr. Brooks was a single-shot or a double-shot model? Are any double-shot models employed by the Atlanta Police Department?

Note: Our Taser article is a bit of a mess having two "Models" sections: Taser & Taser#Models. Someone with time to dig through references may wish to update it. -- ToE 19:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've have yet to come across a source examining this, and I wonder if this is why GBI hasn't yet confirmed the taser was fired. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This NY Times article uses the plural "darts" when referring to Rolfe tasing Brooks. But it's unclear if this is a purposeful distinction of a double-shot Taser or if all Tasers have multiple darts. Also, I added a maintenance template to the duplicated Models section on Taser. TJScalzo (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I believe "darts" in the NYT analysis refers to the single pair of darts fired in a single shot.  Single-shot taser models such as the 26P can fire only that one pair of darts without loading a new cartridge, but double-shot models such as the 7 and X2 have a back-up shot, allowing a second pair of darts to be fired.  I just did another search and still don't see any reporting on the models the APD fielded.  Presumably this will come out in the GBI report. -- ToE 12:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

AJC: I guess it was a double shot? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 21:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I suppose that could still leave some uncertainty, since if the taser supports contact mode, such use could also be described as deployment.  But in this case it appear that the tasers (or at least Office Brosnan's) were double-shot.  During today's charging announcement, the Fulton County DA said, "We have also concluded that Rolfe was aware that the taser in Brooks's possession, that it was fired twice, and once it's fired twice it presented no danger to him or to any other persons." -- ToE 21:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw that and also wondered about contact mode. RSes are also reporting the DA's statement about the distance between them being over 18 feet... but I can't find any RSes that then go on to state that the distance of the taser is 15 feet. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 22:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Found one. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 02:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

During the press conference, the DA said Brooks fired the taser at Rolfe and the shot went over Rolfe's head (38:55 in this video), and also that Rolfe knew that the taser had been fired twice and thus posed no thread (43:16). Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 01:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've added two shots and Taser range to the article with sources. I think this thread can be archived now. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020
RELIABLE SOURCE: Clayton County, Georgia, Courts website at https://www.claytoncountyga.gov/government/courts/court-case-inquiry. Select "Criminal Search" and "Name Search." Then select "All Courts" from Select Court drop-down and enter Last Name "Brooks" and First Name "Rayshard."

EDIT "BACKGROUND" BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING TO EXISTING TEXT:

Between 10 November 2010 and 3 March 2016, Brooks was a defendant in 23 criminal cases in Georgia courts. Offenses include false imprisonment, felony cruelty, battery (family violence), and weapon possession during a crime. Brooks was on probation on 12 June 2020 when he was confronted by police and killed.

[NOTE: As a black man with two young sons, I believe it is essential we know why Rayshard Brooks bolted. My suggested edit bears on this without presuming to know Brooks's thinking.] Erowik (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is WP:Original research. We need a WP:Secondary source. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 12:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

SECONDARY SOURCES:


 * https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2020/06/15/atlanta-police-shooting-rayshard-brooks-out-on-parole-past-crimes-include-cruelty-to-children-family-violence-battery-theft-credit-card-fraud-more/
 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8431801/Rayshard-Brooks-probation-faced-going-prison-charged-DUI.html
 * https://www.rapsheetz.com/georgia/doc-prisoner/BROOKS_RAYSHARD/1001370147
 * https://www.joshwho.net/rayshard-brooks-was-no-martyr-as-well-as-george-floyd/
 * You need to read the rest of the page I linked. The sources need to be reliable, which means they must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not the Daily Mail or someone's blog. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a Van Jones CNN piece about how probation factors into running, can't paste, Google if curious. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link: Van Jones: Atlanta police shooting is about probation, not just police -- ToE 11:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * So can someone propose some text, complete with refs? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 14:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Probation status
There are now reports about the probation status of Rayshard Brooks, and how a DUI charge would have resulted in him being returned to prison for his 2014 conviction for battery/cruelty. [Rayshard Brooks was on probation for four crimes (Daily Mail) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8431801/Rayshard-Brooks-probation-faced-going-prison-charged-DUI.html] Would it be appropriate to add something about this in the "Background" section? 99.230.35.213 (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * DailyMail is not reliable. Furthermore, I wonder if this delves into speculation territory for the purposes of the article.--allthefoxes (Talk) 04:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Many "trusted names in news" (USA Today, CNN, People) are covering a February Reconnect interview Brooks gave about his own views on his own probation and parole. Obviously doesn't directly explain why he bolted in June. But explains his past crimes, punishments and how he was already sick of the cycle. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Courtesy links:
 * Rayshard Brooks opened up about struggles, incarceration months before death. He wasn't going to 'give up'. (Lorenzo Reyes, USA Today, Jun. 18, 2020).
 * Rayshard Brooks opened up about the struggles of life after incarceration in an interview before his death (Randi Kaye, CNN, June 17, 2020).
 * Rayshard Brooks Discussed Being Treated Like 'Animals' by Law Enforcement Months Before Killing (Benjamin VanHoose, People, June 18, 2020).
 * Rayshard Brooks, before he was killed by police, said justice system sees us as 'animals' (Ben Kesslen, NBC News, June 18, 2020).
 * Rayshard Brooks reflected on ‘mistake’ that led to prison time before death (Yaron Steinbuch, New York Post, June 18, 2020).
 * -- ToE 18:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, I'd have taken several hours to move these. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems appropriate to cover in article, with the reliable sources. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This content is neither relevant nor acceptable. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A guy talks about how prison and probation suck for him personally four months before he's shot dead resisting arrest on minor bullshit that a non-parolee would simply and compliantly grumble about, because he was in violation and would have gone back to prison if he hadn't. That's relevant with a capital R, in my books. Why don't you accept it, too? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * RB being on probation is relevant, but drink-driving is far from being 'minor bullshit'. Jim Michael (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is when the car isn't moving. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In different states as long as the key is in the car it’s an oui. Considering they’re arresting him, that might be why. Food for thought if anyone wants to look into itAnon0098 (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Even where that's so, the police have discretion. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He must have driven to Wendy's while drunk. Police have to arrest drivers who fail a breathalyser test. Jim Michael (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He must have driven to Wendy's while drunk – How do you know? How do you know he didn't drink sitting in the parked car? How did the police know? How do you know he didn't start unimpaired, realize that he was becoming impaired as his system absorbed alcohol, and then -- quite responsibly -- pull over so as to not drive impaired. Seriously. How do you know?
 * Police have to arrest drivers who fail a breathalyser test – Really? Prove it.
 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He didn't pull over and park. He fell asleep while his car was in the drive-through lane, which is for ordering food & driving off. Had he not fallen asleep, he almost certainly would have ordered food & driven away. If he was drinking while in that lane, he was drinking when he was driving &/or about to drive. Jim Michael (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, encouraging Jim Michael to treat this page less like reddit and more like a Wikipedia talk page would be a better move. As far as relevance, well thats to be determined. Nobody on this page has any special understanding of Brooks' mindset or views on his chances of getting violated back to prison. When reliable sources relate his probation status to his actions and to his killing then it can be considered relevant. Until then however it is not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I just thought I'd call his bluff. I'm so sick of armchair know-nothings tossing out half-baked stuff that pops into their heads. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As a fully-baked bed potato, I'm sick of being misunderstood. Yes, being above the limit behind the wheel is and should be an arrestable, finable and demeritable offence. But it's minor bullshit relative to the sort of thing that would get a typical non-parolee prison or death. Now I'm going to Wikipedia rehab. See you in July! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Many people without previous convictions are arrested & imprisoned for drink-driving. Jim Michael (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * EEng - you may find this surprising, but Georgia law (similar to CT law and laws of some other states) actually, through the actual Georgia statute and the related caselaw, adopt some of those assumptions that you would find surprising. Here’s a pretty good summary description. And you can read the statute as well. https://www.dui.info/is-it-a-defense-to-your-georgia-dui-to-pull-over-and-sleep-until-sober --2604:2000:E010:1100:D810:36B3:3CA3:DE02 (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing surprising at all in what you linked. What it makes clear is (a) the officers probably were within their discretion to arrest him and (b) it would also have been within their discretion not to arrest them. My other point above was that JM's breezy assertion that He must have driven to Wendy's while drunk and predictions about what Brooks almost certainly would have done are just his speculation. Those points stand uncontradicted. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to contradict what I said. The idea that he was in the drive-through lane while drunk without having driven there drunk isn't reasonable because no-one else was in the car. Even in the highly unlikely scenario that he drank the alcohol while in the drive-through lane, he still would have been drunk while in charge of his car. He wasn't in a parking spot. He easily fitted the drink-driving criteria. There's isn't a possible version of events that would have meant that he didn't commit an offence for which the police were correct to arrest him. Jim Michael (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem unable to hold onto the thread of the discussion, nor does it sound like you read the material so helpfully linked by the IP. You wrote Police have to arrest drivers who fail a breathalyser test (underlining added). No, they don't. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 12:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say in that link that the police don't have to arrest drivers who are over the drink-drive alcohol limit. It talks about pulling over when drunk, but RB hadn't pulled over - he was in the drive-through lane, not parked in a parking space. Even if arresting weren't compulsory, the police are certainly entitled to do so. Jim Michael (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if arresting weren't compulsory, the police are certainly entitled to do so – which in not what you said at the start of this colloquy, which was Police have to arrest. As urged by nableezy we really need to stop now. Helping you improve your powers of logical thinking isn't yielding enough progress for the time invested. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop using this page to discuss anything other than what words should be used in the article. Thank you in advance. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Jim Michael - I agree with  nableezy  in that you should stop using this talk page to discuss anything other than things that can improve this WP article. Talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider discussing them at the reference desk instead of on article talk pages.  BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Arsonists
Were they protesters, or criminals who were using the protests as a cover for their criminality? Arson isn't a form of protest. Jim Michael (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * At the moment, the fire has two references, both of which refer to protestors setting fire. Yes, they might be vandals, arsonists or criminals, but we cannot yet say that in wikivoice. WWGB (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This (https://twitter.com/ImKingFola/status/1272012004539224066?s=19) seems to show that they were not affiliated with BLM protestors 177.194.178.151 (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Jim Michael, have you studied much history? Of course arson is a form of protest. It is just not a form of legal protest in most societies. --82.37.129.75 (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Describing attacking & destroying as a form of protest is bizarre & not neutral. Saying that they were protesters makes it sound like they were part of the BLM protests at the time. The article should clarify whether or not they were. Did the group who set fire to Wendy's go there to do that, or were the arsonists part of the already present group of protesters? Jim Michael (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not bizarre, it's standard objective history. Would you say that the 1992 Los Angeles riots weren't in protest? --82.37.129.75 (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In part - but the looting, arson etc. was criminal opportunism. The term riots is used in reference to them much more often than protests is, which is why the article has riots rather than protests in its title. Jim Michael (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This article from a reliable news source contains a link to Twitter post that includes a video that shows what the person filming believed to be fireworks being set off by persons inside the restaurant. (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/rioters-burn-atlanta-wendys-to-the-ground-following-death-of-rayshard-brooks/)
 * Anything left to do before we archive? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead
The lead now leaves out that Brooks punched Rolfe, that Brooks shot a Taser at Rolfe, and that charges were filed against Brosnan. All three of those are very important. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I trimmed those. The lead was becoming a copy of the body instead of a summary. They're important details, and important details are key to filling up the largest portion of any important article. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020
Change "The police began to handcuff Brooks who then wrestles with the officers and is able to seize Rolfe's Taser".

To "The police began to handcuff Brooks who then wrestles with the officers and is able to seize Brosnan's taser (not Rolfe's). Rolfe discharged his taser at Brooks, who then punched him (Rolfe) before running away with Brosnan's taser. 167.102.225.96 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks on the tase bit, nah on the rest. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020- Change two mentions of word "Prison" to "Jail"
After his arrest, Rolfe was transferred from the Fulton County Jail to the Gwinnett County Jail, where he is being held without bond Gregg0ry132231 (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

My request is because it is factually incorrect as there is no Fulton County Prison nor any Gwinnett County Prison, they are both "Jails"..see links to both official sites at https://fultoncountyga.gov/services/public-safety/fulton-county-jail AND http://www.gwinnettcountysheriff.com/

Second, the difference is significant and relevant because Jails are where people are held for short term and are most often not convicted yet,unless it is for a misdemeanor. Prisons are for those already convicted, so this could be misleading to the readers. Many sources define this difference with Merriam Webster Dictionary sites being a most obvious choice as listed here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/jail-vs-prison-difference. Respectfully, Gregory.
 * Yes check.svg Done Good catch; thanks. Not only are they jails and not prisons, but the transfer is not in the cited source, and it's not a lead-worthy detail anyhow. I removed the sentence from the lead. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 22:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I noticed this too, actually, but figured maybe he was being held in a special facility for his safety. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020
There is a statement that the officers did not administer medical aid to Mr. Brooks. This is not true, the accusation was that it was delayed medical aid. This point is even disputed as one officer had a concussion. There is also a statement that the officers kicked Mr. Brooks. This is also not a proven fact and is in dispute during the trial. It should be removed until proven or edited to "accused of kicking Mr. Brooks". 97.119.207.148 (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The source says"11:23 p.m. For the next minute, Officer Rolfe and Officer Brosnan stand over Mr. Brooks, who is injured but moving on the ground, and occasionally reach down to him. Officer Brosnan appears to use his radio. Neither officer appears to provide medical assistance to Mr. Brooks. Another police car arrives at the scene. 11:24 p.m. Another video shows Officer Rolfe running back to his S.U.V. and calling for help over his radio. Bystanders denounce the shooting to a third police officer who is at the scene. 11:25 p.m. Officer Rolfe and Officer Brosnan begin to provide medical assistance. Officer Rolfe appears to unroll a bandage and place it on Mr. Brooks’s torso."The part on the kick is given as what the prosecutor alleges. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2020
Rayshard Brooks was convicted of DUI in Fulton County Georgia, on 03/25/2011. He was also convicted of PHYSICAL NEGLECT as well as CHILD ENDANGERMENT in Fulton County Georgia, on 07/18/2014. Rayshard Brooks was serving a 7 year sentence for these child abuse convictions, when he was granted early parole, due to COVID-19. He was assigned to Georgia Parolees out of Georgia. Delmar0321 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We'll need a reliable source to back that. Jim Michael (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the relevance of a 9 year old DUI conviction? or a 6 year neglect and endangerment conviction? And yeah, absent sources this is also a BLP violation. This isnt a biography of Brooks, it is an article on his killing. Unless those convictions are somehow relevant to his being shot in the back, and unless theres some indication the police officers involved were even aware of them they cant possibly be relevant, I dont see why they would be included. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There were similar discussions in regard to George Floyd, but sources back the info there. Jim Michael (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

First sentence
The first sentence is very misleading. That’s not why the officer shot him. The sentence should end not with “.. following a complaint about Brooks being asleep in a car blocking a Wendy's drive-through lane“ but rather “.. following Brooks shooting a Taser at the officer.” Please make the change so as not to mislead readers. --2604:2000:E010:1100:D810:36B3:3CA3:DE02 (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point; I've altered the lead. Jim Michael (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Recommend legal analysis: IRAC
Recommend citation to original sources such as video recordings, incident reports,  radio transmissions, 911 calls, deposition transcripts, emails, and any other verifiable factual sources. The mass media stories are multiple level hearsay not within any exception. FRE 805. Recommend: application of law to fact. Losduarte (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FRE is the Federal Rules of Evidence, and if Wikipedia was a court then the concept of hearsay might make sense for us. But it isn't, and it doesn't. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020
Rayshard Brooks's significant criminal record is not mentioned in this article. This record is absolutely essential to the story, since it explains why Brooks ran from police. See State of Georgia Department of Corrections Case No. 794205. Erowik (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It does? According to whom? WWGB (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The videos of this event show a cooperative, compliant, polite Brooks. Suddenly he runs, and observers may wonder why. As with most conflicts in life, the answer isn't as simple as we may wish. It simply isn't worthy of Wikipedia to conceal pertinent information about Brooks's incarceration.
 * Absent reliable sources connecting that record to him running it is OR to do so here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No connection is required, because Wikipedia has only one page about Rayshard Brooks. Therefore, his background should be included on "Killing of Rayshard Brooks." Otherwise, Wikipedia editors are making an active choice to withhold relevant information about Brooks.

Please delete the "Background" section from this article if it cannot mention Brooks's criminal history and incarnation.
 * It won't be deleted. It should be expanded, but we need reliable sources to back up the info. Jim Michael (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE and WP:OR, we should wait until reliable sources link Brooks's criminal record to the topic before we add information about it. Jancarcu (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. There’s disagreement on this change between editors. Please move this discussion to another section. Edit requests are for uncontroversial changes only. Thanks. —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 15:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Title of article
The large majority of similar police shooting incident articles seem to be titled "shooting of". Just wanted to know if there is a reason this article is titled "killing of"? Yodabyte (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * because it was a fatal shooting, under the logic that "shooting" should be reserved for non-fatal shootings. It's true that many articles don't follow this logic currently, but there is a discussion ongoing about this (all are welcome to join) at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. There's a proposed flowchart currently under consideration there. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 02:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of violence in that flowchart. Thanks for explaining. Yodabyte (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See the article title move request further down this page. WWGB (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Taser aim
The Times found, and the video shows clearly, that the aim was not in any way accurate. Why exactly should that not be included? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to see by what margin the taser which RB fired at the cop missed him & it isn't of significant relevance. He fired it while drunk & running, so it's not surprising that he missed. Jim Michael (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the significance of relevance. And so too apparently does the New York Times. If he aimed wildly while running in another direction he didnt represent a threat to the officers, even more so after the leads missed and he could not fire again without reloading a new taser cartridge (and Ill let you guess the odds that he just happened to have a cartridge on hand). I dont see a reason in your response why we should not include, when saying that he aimed in the officers direction (note that it previously had the even more inaccurate aimed at the officer, aping the police's original claim of pointed at the officer) that his aim was not in any way accurate. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * He certainly did represent a threat. After drink driving, he attacked them & stole a taser from them. He turned to fire the taser to try to hit one of them. They couldn't wait to see if they'd be lucky enough to avoid being hit by the taser then hope to catch up with him. They pulled their guns as he ran off with the taser so that they could shoot him if he tried to fire the taser at them - which is what happened. Had the taser hit one of them, he could have stolen a gun from the incapacitated officer. Cops can't let attackers incapacitate them. Jim Michael (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats cool man. But uh I have a reliable source that talks about how his aim was inaccurate. You have what again? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article already has the footage from the cam on Wendy's, which shows what happened. We know it was inaccurate because he missed his target. That doesn't contradict him having clearly aimed it at the cop. Jim Michael (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We have a reliable source that says he aimed "in the direction" of the police officer, and further that he did not aim with any accuracy at all. Id very much appreciate not needing to read your personal opinions on this topic and rather see what sources you have to support your contentions. I asked why we should not include what a reliable source finds relevant. Is there an answer to that outside of Cops can't let attackers incapacitate them? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE ultimately is a matter of consensus, regardless of the legitimacy of your source. Him firing at an angle doesn’t change the fact that he fired it in the direction of the cop. I too fail to see the significance of the angleAnon0098 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Youre the first person to say anything about an angle. Which isnt what the source considers significant. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the margin the taser which RB fired at the cop missed him which is in what direction the taser was fired in relation to the officer. Again, he fired the taser in the direction of the officer. Anything further is insignificant Anon0098 (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, the reason Rayshard Brooks’ marksmanship with a Taser is wholly irrelevant is because Georgia State law and the Atlanta City Police Department Policy Manual deem it to be so.

In Georgia:

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Sources

1. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/us/rayshard-brooks-force-law/index.html

2. https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-3-21.html

The Atlanta Police Department Policy Manual states:

An officer may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when: 1. He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others; or 2. When there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm and the officer reasonably believes that the suspect’s escape would create a continuing danger of serious physical harm to any person.

Sources

1. https://www.atlantapd.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=3273

In none of these sources is an offender’s accuracy with a weapon considered a determining factor when an officer decides to use deadly force. This is a tragedy and I can sympathize with the perspectives from Malachy Browne & Christina Kelso, but by the article’s own admission at the 11:23 mark, “the flash of the Taser suggests that Brooks did not fire it with any real accuracy,” which means that in the opinion of these journalists they think the video of the altercation suggests poor marksmanship. Suggestion and speculative analysis are not facts and even if we could factually determine Rayshard Brooks’ Taser accuracy, it would still be irrelevant given state law and APD policy.76.218.230.54 (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)c2ley
 * Im sorry, but what reliable sources report as fact is not, on this website, speculation. Apparently the DA disagrees with your views on state law and APD policy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The CNN citation is an RS. The district attorney is just that, an attorney for the state. Obviously he disagrees or else there wouldn’t be charges. That being said, an RS stating what the law says is important. Whether or not you agree it is WP:DUE to include it in the actual page, which isn’t the point, it does affect what other information is WP:DUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon0098 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm further sorry nableezy, but the article you're pulling from is not reporting this fact. Again quote, “the flash of the Taser suggests that Brooks did not fire it with any real accuracy.” In what part of this can we reach the conclusion that these journalists are factually reporting that Rayshard Brooks fired inaccurately? They're suggesting from the video they've seen that Rayshard Brooks might have fired the Taser without any real accuracy. That type of suggestion is not fact. We would need a ballistics expert and forensic Taser examination, to factually conclude if Rayshard Brooks' shot could reasonably be determined to be without any real accuracy. Truthfully, I'm not even aware if forensic Taser ballistic examination is even a field that exists - I don't know. Though the even bigger problem with this whole point is that all of this is completely and totally irrelevant given Georgia state law and APD policy. I did not give nor cite my own personal views nableezy. The things I cited are Georgia State law and the Atlanta Police Department Policy Manual. Again, In none of these sources is an offender’s accuracy with a weapon considered a determining factor when an officer decides to use deadly force. So, the Atlanta District Attorney is welcome to disagree, but he or she is not disagreeing with me, he or she is disagreeing with Georgia State law and APD policy.

This is a tragedy. We all wish this hadn't happened, but Rayshard Brooks' marksmanship with a Taser needs to be removed as it's wholly irrelevant to this article.76.218.230.54 (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)c2ley

I revised this content and added additional sources regarding the shot going over Rolfe's head. I suggest this thread can be archived. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Levivich 76.218.230.54 (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)c2ley

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020
Add this image to article (maybe infobox?): File:Rayshard_Brooks_Bodycam.jpg. It is a screenshot of Atlanta Police bodycam footage. Police bodycam footage is automatically in the public domain under United States copyright law, since it fails to meet the threshold of originality required for copyright to apply. (There is no photographer/videographer controlling the bodycam and making creative decisions about which camera angles to shoot from, etc; the bodycam just automatically, mechanically, records whatever occurs.)

I think an image is important since it emphasises the humanity of the victim that he was an actual person. Of course, this may not be the ideal image to remember him by, but it has the advantage of being clearly in the public domain. If someone finds another image which Wikipedia can use which is more suitable, of course I would not object to replacing this image with that one. But an imperfect image is better for the article than no image at all. X373844 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I understand why you want this added, but in terms of documenting the events of the incident, which is the purpose of this article, I am not sure it adds anything. I'm therefore gonna go ahead and close this as not done for now, but I'm happy for another editor to take another stance. Best, Darren-M   talk  17:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: Is the objection to having any image of the late Mr. Brooks in the article? Or is the objection to having this particular image? I don't quite understand your reasoning. I should note that very very many media articles on this tragic event include images of the victim and also of the two police officers involved, so I am not sure why Wikipedia would not want to also include such images. X373844 (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems to me we should be able to find a better image of Brooks than this one. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We now have a different bodycam still in the article and I think it's pretty good. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 11:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Stun guns and tasers
Tasers and stun guns are considered firearms under Georgia Law thus a lethal weapon: https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-11-133.html.

Why is there a debate around the use of lethal force against a suspect pointing a firearm/lethal weapon at an officer? Is there a debate around the fact that the suspect didn't point the taser at the officer while running away? PatNPatN (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone keeps deleted this thread for some reason. I don't know why.PatNPatN (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed this thread since you posted the same question in another thread already underway. Please don't do that. Now I've deleted you post in the other thread instead. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ok thank you I'm still trying to figure out how this source editing\coding worksPatNPatN (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm confused, what exactly are you asking for here? Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss politics or the 'ethics' of the situation. Are you requesting a specific change to be made to the article, and if so, what change and what are your sources for that change? We aren't going to change text based on our interpretation of the criminal statutes; we follow what the sources on this particular matter say. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that politics and ethics are irrelevant in this matter and that the article should be neutral (as opposed to bias). I suggest that an excerpt from the Georgia law regarding "Stun guns and tasers" be inserted since Stun guns are considered a firearm. Unless I'm mistaken, there are no debate about the fact that Rayshard Brooks stole the police officer's taser and later pointed it, or attempted to, at a police officer? Is it prohibited to reference the law of a state on Wikipedia? PatNPatN (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it's prohibited, and here's why. The statute cited recites that As used in this Code section, the term ... “Firearm” includes any handgun, rifle, shotgun, stun gun, taser ...; in other words, that particular definition of firearm applies only in that particular statute, which deals with sentence enhancements for certain offenders committing certain offenses under certain circumstances. (And there's nothing at all in it about what's a lethal weapon – a jump PatNPatN made on their own.) On the other hand, another Georgia statute defines a firearm as "any handgun, rifle, or shotgun" – so not tasers – but then that statute is about discharging firearms on or near public highways. Neither of them has anything at all to do with the case at hand.This is a superb example of why articles don't include editors' amateur WP:original research. You can't just point to a phrase out of context. Amateurs are just not equipped to interpret the complex web of interacting and superseding statute and case law. We need secondary sources for that kind of thing – and highly qualified ones at that.  <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * EEng, you're a treat! El_C 16:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Under Georgia laws, Stun guns and tasers are either referenced to as weapons, firearms or electronic control weapons PatNPatN (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Listen, Pat, there's no time to waste arguing about this on Wikipedia. You need to write to the District Attorney and tell him what you've found before he makes a terrible mistake! Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You have learned well, Grasshopper. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Paul Howard the district attorney just recently said stun guns are considered deadly weapons in Georgia law. Just google it and you'll find plenty of sources including video where one can listen to his own words.--TMCk (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh! You mean the District Attorney already knows what Georgia law says? I guess he looked it up before he filed murder charges. Great! Then I think we're done here? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * According to the Warrant issued on Officer Streeter of the Atlanta police on 2 June 2020, Stun guns are considered a deadly weapon Quote from the article: The warrant for Streeter's aggravated assault charge says he "intentionally and without justification used a deadly weapon, a Taser, against Messiah Young, which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury."PatNPatN (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

According to this law firm: https://www.abtlaw.com/criminal-defense/weapon-crimes/stun-gun-laws/#SiteTop Carrying a projectile stun gun is considered a firearm in Georgia, however, a contact stun gun isn't and can be carried without a permit. Since Brooks' taser had already been fired twice it could only be used in contact mode. I think we let the lawyers decide what type of device he was carrying. Stickywu (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "Tasers have a range of about 15 feet (4.6 m)" Not all of the cartridges are such, longer versions exist with range of 25 ft/7.6 m and 35 ft/10.7 m - section Cartridges & CEW Operation

Paul Howard's statement
Paul Howard, Fulton's District Attorney, stated on 2 June 2020 in a different matter (Taniyah Pilgrim & Messiah Young) that tasers are considered deadly weapons

Based on the statement above, I have 3 questions.


 * In (Subsection "Death" 3rd paragraph), this wikipedia article states, quote:


 * "While still running, Brooks glanced back, half-turned, and fired the second shot of Brosnan's taser – capable of two shots before being reloaded – over Rolfe's head".


 * Wouldn't it be accurate to:
 * 1. specify that, as well as being capable of two shots before being reloaded, it is also considered a deadly weapon in Georgia law?
 * 2. imply the possibility that Rolfe operated in good faith as he witnessed a deadly weapon (taser) being pointed at, or in the direction, of Brosnan by Brooks?


 * In (Subsection "Investigation and criminal charges"), this wikipedia article states, quote:


 * "He said Rolfe should have been aware that the taser Brooks had taken posed no danger, as after being fired twice it could not fire again"


 * 3. Should we conclude that the District Attorney doesn't believe that the taser was discharged when he half-turned as he was running away?

Wikipedia is here to summarize secondary sources, not to judge people for their actions. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 23:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) No. The section that describes what happened that night isn't the place to talk about Georgia law. That might be relevant in the investigations section, if we had high-quality, reliable secondary sources to cite.
 * 2) No. It'd be inappropriate for Wikipedia to speculate about whether someone was or was not acting in good faith.
 * 3) No. According to the DA, the first shot was the one fired at Brosnan during the initial struggle, and the second shot was the one fired while running away. The DA's point is that after the second shot, there would be no more shots. Under no circumstances should this article draw any conclusions about what the DA does or does not believe.


 * To whoever asked the three questions - you are wrong, under Georgia law a taser is not considered a "deadly weapon" and neither is a stun gun. As a matter of fact, a taser and a stun gun are not considered a "deadly weapon" in any state within the United States.  As you know, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog, so please be more careful about posting erroneous, and factually wrong, information on here. Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * According to Fulton's District Attorney Paul Howard, Tasers are considered deadly weapons.PatNPatN (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not the article. I thought the talk page was to engage in dialogue regarding possible relevant pieces of information?PatNPatN (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * According to the Wikipedia page for Taser .... Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Paul Howard Jr. said in 2020 that “under Georgia law, a taser is considered as a deadly weapon"

Requested move 14 June 2020
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Although there remains not insignificant opposition, there is overall consensus that these sets of articles, in general, should be titled "killing" per the death being rules a homicide by the ME. Whether this will result in a conviction of, say, murder, or in an acquittal of justifiable homicide, is not immediately pertinent to deciding to call it a "killing" in the interim (i.e. it merely instructs the reader as to the kind of death it was). El_C 14:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Killing of Rayshard Brooks → Shooting of Rayshard Brooks – Not yet ruled as a homicide. Redthreadhx (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Most dictionaries define killing as being an intentional act to cause death. The intent in this case is not yet clear.—Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: If a person dies and there is a cause, whether there was intent or not, it is still a killing. Soldiers in wars have killed people. However, given the natural laws of society, they are not usually described as "murder". The intention to cause death is murder. A cause which results in the death of a person (or animal) is a killing. Intent is not relevant. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Further comment info: As you mentioned dictionary definitions, here are a few:
 * Dictionary.com: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of The dictionary has two additional grammar notes about the definition of the word...
 * WORDS THAT MAY BE CONFUSED WITH kill - execute, murder
 * SYNONYM STUDY FOR KILL - Kill, execute, murder all mean to deprive of life. Kill is the general word, with no implication of the manner of killing, the agent or cause, or the nature of what is killed (whether human being, animal, or plant): to kill a person. Execute is used with reference to the putting to death of one in accordance with a legal sentence, no matter what the means are: to execute a criminal. Murder is used of killing a human being unlawfully: He murdered him for his money.
 * lexico.com (apparently that is what Oxford is now called): Cause the death of
 * Collins Dictionary: to cause the death of (a person or animal). Collins further explains with examples:
 * More than 1,000 people have been killed by the armed forces.
 * The earthquake killed 62 people.
 * Heroin can kill.
 * Usage note There are several words which mean similar things to kill. To murder someone means to kill them deliberately. Assassinate is used to talk about the murder of an important person, often for political reasons. If a large number of people are murdered, the words slaughter or massacre are sometimes used. Slaughter can also be used to talk about killing animals for their meat.
 * Merriam-Webster: to deprive of life : cause the death of. Noah's dictionary also states the following:
 * Choose the Right Synonym for kill - kill, slay, murder, assassinate, dispatch, execute mean to deprive of life. kill merely states the fact of death caused by an agency in any manner. killed in an accident frost killed the plants slay is a chiefly literary term implying deliberateness and violence but not necessarily motive. slew thousands of the Philistines murder SPECIFICALLY implies stealth and motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility. [etc... caps for emphasis]
 * Cambridge: to cause someone or something to die


 * I also looked up the MacMillan dictionary, and it's entry for "kill" was this: to make a person or other living thing die. It then gives the example of people "being killed on the roads". It also gives a definition for murder: to deliberately kill someone. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The above IP comments seem to describe dictionary definitions for kill, which is a different word from killing (per Bagumba's link). "Killing" is typically implies intent, and I believe that introducing a topic as "Killing of" is a phrasing that implies intentionally setting out to kill. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. There is no evidence that the police intended to kill Brooks. They shot him and he died. WWGB (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Right. They killed him. The title isn't "Intentional Killing of Rayshard Brooks". If it were, then your vote would be valid. Logically, your argument actually opposes the move. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: What a meritless argument. It's the equivalent of saying to a judge, "I just stabbed him in the throat and he died, doesn't mean I intended to kill him, your honor! Therefore I should be charged with manslaughter, not murder!" You don't have to explicitly say "I intend to kill you" or some equivalent for it to clearly be intentional. The question should be would any reasonable person expect a human being to survive the pain inflicted by the perpetrator and no sane person expects someone to survive three gunshots at such close range. This isn't an argument on whether it's justified btw. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 2:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support move to Shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Many people find this killing to be justified yet still describe it as a killing. --Flejern (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A stern reminder that WP:BLP applies to talk pages. Please keep your personal opinions about Rayshard Brooks to yourself. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 09:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Brooks isn't a living person.
 * It's not opinion. The camera on Wendy's recorded Brooks firing the taser at one of the officers who tried to arrest him, having stolen the taser from them. Surveillance video of police shooting of Reyshard Brooks Jim Michael (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You have been here since 2010 and aren't aware that BLP applies to recently dead people (WP:BDP)? I have redacted your comment for you per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPTALK as it is apparent you do not believe you have to abide by our policies. Reverting this will not bode well for you. You are free to rewrite what you wrote backed by actual sourcing, but the way you wrote that was unquestionably in violation of the policy. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 10:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course we all have to abide by WP policies. I agree that I shouldn't have used the wording that I did in that comment & I won't reinstate it, but I stand by my view that Shooting of x is a better title in cases such as this one. Jim Michael (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose (with alternative). I suggest the article be titled "Death of Rayshard Brooks". The "killing" usage implies intention that has not been established. The "shooting" usage gives undue weight to an inessential aspect of the event. The important fact, and why there is an article, is that Brooks died. Dayirmiter (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever we do, "Death of" sounds like a poor choice. It's completely passive. As though he died from Covid, or in his sleep. Of had an overdose, as in Death of Michael Jackson or Death of Ludwig van Beethoven. 2604:2000:E010:1100:9853:FFC:DDD4:F35D (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Support, see below. Robofish (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, though I'd support Death of Rayshard Brooks. As Dayirmiter says above, the most important point is his death. (There can surely be no dispute that he was killed either, even if it hasn't yet been officially ruled a homicide. I don't think 'killing' implies anything about intention, but I recognise that it could be considered unnecessarily emotive language.) Robofish (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC) Changed to
 * Dayirmiter Robofish This might give some insight. Redthreadhx (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I wasn't aware there was a previous consensus on titles of these articles. In that case I've changed my position above. Robofish (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One local consensus, does not equal a set in stone sitewide consensus. Can you explain why you are not withdrawing this requested move when it has in fact been ruled a homicide at this point? That was your original contention with the current name. Moving the goalposts is not how we should be trying to determine article titles. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">—  Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 10:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop pinging me. I can't, OK? Redthreadhx (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the only time I've ever pinged you in my entire time on the site. I did not say you could close it, I'm asking why you haven't changed your position towards withdrawl/opposition of this after the situation has changed to meet the criteria you originally posited. If you don't want to answer that, that is fine, but I'm lost as to why you're making it seem I've pestered you about this when I've only pinged you once. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 10:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously you're not the only one who "pinged me once", and I'm shocked you're experienced enough to redact a comment yet explicitly asked me "why I am not withdrawing this requested move". I'm more likely to withdraw due to stress from this discussion than change of my stand. Redthreadhx (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is whether you still support your own move request, given that the sole basis of the request is no longer valid. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 14:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter? You know full well what the elephant in the room is. Hopefully this discussion can get rid of that animal. Redthreadhx (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually it does matter. Your move request is a !vote in support of moving. Do you still support moving to "shooting", and if so, why? I have no idea what the elephant in the room is. What are you referring to? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do support moving. Isn't the elephant obvious? If I don't support my own move request and it gets withdrawn, another move request will surely pop up because the elephant is still there. Redthreadhx (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So Not yet ruled as a homicide was entirely pretextual and you support a move absent any reason? Got it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't pretextual at the time I requested the move. Editors like you made me very hesitant to engage in this discussion any further. Thanks. Redthreadhx (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you should look up what pretext means. If your support for the move does not depend on what you stated justifies it then that justification is pretextual. You currently support a move with a stricken through reason. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with this move request is that you opened it within the first 24hrs with the rationale, "Not yet ruled as a homicide." Move requests take 7 days. It was 100% guaranteed that long before those 7 days expired, this was going to be ruled a homicide. If you didn't know that, then respectfully, you don't know enough about homicide to open a move request based on a death not yet being ruled a homicide. If you did know it was going to be ruled a homicide, then the move request was frivolous. Here we are, on day two, and it's been ruled a homicide already. Overall, this move request is a waste of time. The facts will continue to develop over the next five days, and everybody's rationale's are going to end up shifting as new facts come out. It almost never makes sense to open up a move request on the first day of a breaking news story.
 * Now, if you support moving the title to "shooting of..." for some reason other than "Not yet ruled as a homicide.", e.g., if you think fatal shootings should also be titled "shooting of" and not "killing of", then by all means, make that argument. But please don't open any more move requests for articles about fatal shootings based on the rationale "Not yet ruled as a homicide.", because fatal shootings will always be ruled as a homicide, because "homicide" is the act of one human killing another. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No the elephant is not obvious, at least not to me. Are you talking about a move request to "murder of"? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No the elephant is not obvious, at least not to me. Are you talking about a move request to "murder of"? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support move to Shooting. It's not a killing. I even wonder why this event has an article. Is every police shooting's gonna be an article? Or just police shootings where the criminal is black? --Wester (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess we follow the RSs on that? 2604:2000:E010:1100:9853:FFC:DDD4:F35D (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is a killing. A Wikipedia page just needs to have enough information to be sufficiently informative and the scenario needs to be somewhat notable, which this article is. Not every police shooting meets those qualifications. Also, your final sentence completely disregards scenarios like Shooting of Breonna Taylor where the black person killed is not accused of a crime, yet is killed all the same. It seems your Partial block from Death of George Floyd, Talk:Death of George Floyd and Death of Eric Garner was not sufficient. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 2:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: Given convention, consensus, and clarity. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 15:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It was a homicide, and will 100% be ruled as such by the medical examiner, even in the unlikely event it's deemed a justifiable homicide. There is no such thing as a shooting where the shooter doesn't intend to kill. Every fatal shooting is a homicide. What else could it possibly be? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are shootings which aren't intended to be fatal. Jim Michael (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Every fatal shooting is a homicide. Even an accidental fatal shooting is a homicide. Legally speaking, if you intend to shoot, you intend to kill. There is no such thing as "shooting to wound" under the law. Don't confuse intent with justification; they're two separate concepts. It's not like this was an accidental discharge of a firearm; when the officer shot the gun, he intended to kill. It may have been justified, but the intent was to kill. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be declaring intent in a case that's being investigated.
 * Many shootings are intended to incapacitate rather than kill. Where does the law say that there's no such thing as shooting to wound? Jim Michael (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's only a stub but you can start with shooting to wound and the sources cited there. Or google it. It's not a thing. It's because a firearm is deadly force. Think of it this way: Can I say I launched a missile at someone but didn't intend to kill them? No, of course not. Even if I honestly didn't intend to kill them, a missile is deadly force, so by using it, I at least was reckless in the use of deadly force. The same goes if I throw a grenade at someone. The same if I shoot a gun. A gun is deadly force, and intending to shoot someone is intending to use deadly force against them, which is the same as intending to kill. That's why "shoot to wound" is not recognized under the law. Here are a couple more sources about it, not in the shooting to wound article:  Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are types of missiles & grenades that aren't likely / capable of killing people. The law regarding proving intent varies & I'm not familiar with the specifics of Georgia law.
 * This incident would still be notable if RB had survived being shot. Jim Michael (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, one doesn't have intent to kill if one is using a non-lethal weapon, like for example a taser. If RB had survived, I'd support calling this article "shooting of". The proposed move is based on the argument that it's not a homicide. Because it is a homicide, I support the title "killing of" and not "shooting of". Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of our Shooting of x articles are about fatal shootings. Jim Michael (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes but that doesn't mean this one has to be. Our article titles are all over map, because they are decided in move-requests-brought-too-soon, such as this one. In fact, I have yet to see one of these articles (about a high profile death) where there hasn't been a move request in the first 24 hours of the article's creation. Because every editor has an opinion and thinks they're right about what articles should be titled :-) And those opinions differ, widely, and passionately. As can be seen here, with some editors arguing that "death" is most the most appropriate title, and others that it's inappropriate. That's why there's a discussion going on about this flowchart (see previous thread), to bring some level of standardization to these article titles. I named this article following the flowchart because I believe the flowchart (or some version of it) is the way of the future, because enough editors who have participated in the move requests are sick of them and looking for a better way to figure out article titles. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 14:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we would use "Killing of" for the title of an article about a homicide that was clearly justified as self defense or the defense of others – or at least I don't think we  use it in such an instance. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per consistency with other shooting death articles. Love of Corey (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This should be temporarily titled Death of Rayshard Brooks until there is a determination of cause of death, which is going to come before this RM is concluded. "Shooting of" is a euphemism and does not precisely describe the most notable aspect of the event. His death or likely killing (as the M.E. will surely has determine it is a homicide) is the most notable aspect and should be the title of this article. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Now, ruled a homicide as I predicted and also described as a killing in reliable sources. This article should be not be moved. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Bagumba.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. "Killing" can imply an intentional killing and "shooting" is more in line with similar article titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - the reasoning Rreagan007 gave is correct. Yodabyte (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency with previous article titles. AlexKitfox (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Bagumba and Rreagan007. Despite the opposers valid points, there is much precedent already. --Digihoe (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since ruled a homicide,   death or shooting is not according to our convention (see flowchart). Both death and shooting unjustifiably downplay the event. As there was no conviction, the title should also not be murder. Killing is most NPOV and commonly used in RS. gidonb (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - and honestly this political BS can be avoided entirely if we actually follow the sources and not our own beliefs on what should be. Sources that describe this as a killing, Brooks as being killed, and the police officer as having killed him include NY Magazine, NY Times (The swift decision on Sunday to fire the white Atlanta police officer who shot and killed a black motorist ...) (and another NYT source for the pedantic), CBS News (Protesters on Saturday set fire to the Wendy's restaurant where Brooks was killed) (and another CBS source for the pedantic), NBC News, The Guardian, USA Today. There is quite literally zero policy basis for supporting this move in any of the supports above. None. Just a bunch of nonsense that unless we know the police officer's intentions we can't title an article based on the description of the balance of reliable sources. You dont think Brooks was killed? Thats cool I guess. Doesnt much matter on Wikipedia, but cool nonetheless. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, plenty of "killing" in titles and texts! gidonb (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Several editors have noted that the death of Rayshard Brooks was ruled a homicide a few hours ago. Though I agree with Robofish that "killing" is likely an accurate and conventional way of describing what happened, it may also be unnecessary charged language. The convention seems to be to use the word "shooting" in an article title. --Flejern (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So should we use newspeak? I call upon Redthreadhx to withdraw the nomination ("not yet ruled as a homicide.") as it no longer holds water. Nor do the opinions expressed above mine. They were written reflecting another reality. gidonb (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - There is some confusion here. An autopsy does not render a ruling. It was not “ruled” a homicide. It was simply an autopsy report recording cause of death which used the wordhomicide - but a medical examiner is not a judge or jury. That distinction is an important one.2604:2000:E010:1100:588:C26E:933F:3A39 (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * People (Levivich for example) are confused at to what homicide means here. All it means is that "the death was caused by the actions of another person." It does not mean that a murder was committed. It has zero to do with "intent." And thus all the discussion above as to whether there is intent is wasted space - if you meant to shoot a deer but shot and killed a person, or thought a gun was empty and shot through a wall and killed someone, you had zero intent to kill a person but still committed a homicide. Not all homicides are murder. Just read what the GBI Medical Examiner's Office says on the issue. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am, indeed, very confused, but not about the difference between homicide and murder. Nobody here is talking about murder. At the top of this thread, you'll see that the move request from "killing" to "shooting" was based on, and only on, "Not yet ruled as a homicide." I opposed based on there being a 100% probability that it was going to be ruled a homicide. And it was. (Because two gunshots in the back is always homicide, though not always murder.) Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 14:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongest Possible Oppose - I am flabbergasted by some of the highly biased reasons for wanting this changed, reality is reality. Rayshard Brooks is dead, he was killed by a gun that was fired at his back, and the medical examiner has ruled it was a homicide, and the DA is looking at felony murder charges. Our policies do not permit such POV changes, and this should be resoundingly closed based on the clear weakness in the arguments of those attempting to support this move. Full stop. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 09:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That article - which doesn't mention charges - omits the crucial details that Brooks stole a taser from an officer & fired it at him. Jim Michael (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This article (by an ABC affiliate) does mention the murder/felony murder charges (it took two second to locate that). The DA has considered the circumstances and is looking at this route for charges, it is not up to you to decide what happens here. We go by reliable sources and we base our data in our articles off of them, we do not base our articles off of any editor's personal views of what happens in current events. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 09:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per NPOV, or "Death of...", which is even better.  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 09:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the subject was killed. Shootings don't always lead to deaths. In that respect, the current title "killing" is more accurate. In addition, the word "killing" also does not apportion any specific blame or judgement, but just describes the fact. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree that talk about "intent" is a red herring in the context of titling an encyclopedia article. Here the focus should be on descriptive accuracy and neutrality, as well as cross-article consistency. Thus the desirability of "The death of".

"Killing" - While accurate enough, the word is not neutral; on the contrary, when used as a noun, as in this case, it is quite emotionally evocative. The verb form is less so. Though I might say Fred Smith "was killed" in an automobile accident, I would refer to that event as "the killing of Fred Smith" only if I were trying to evoke an emotional response. So it's important to distinguish between the verb form and the noun form. (Please note that I am not suggesting moral equivalence between Brooks's death and a traffic fatality.)

"Shooting" - The reader of an article titled "The death of" surely will learn the cause of death in the first paragraph, so that fact does not need to be in the title. To understand why it should not be in the title, consider the following:

"The strangling of"

"The bludgeoning of"

"The decapitation of"

While each of these may be faithful to the facts of a particular death, I should think it obvious that, as titles, they have more the flavor of a supermarket tabloid than an encyclopedia. Are those in favor of the "shooting" usage here prepared to retitle an already extant article to "The asphyxiation of George Floyd"?

In the interest of an accuracy that is neutral and non-sensational and can offer consistency across the encyclopedia, I suggest "The death of" as the best usage. Dayirmiter (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The word "killing" only implies that a person was killed by another person or, for example, an animal. It is neutral language, as it doesn't suggest whether or not the killing was justifiable.
 * A person "killed in" a car crash is also neutral. However, due to the quirks of the English language, "killing" suggests a cause. Most car crashes are accidental, and therefore "the killing of Joesph Bloggs" isn't quite correct.
 * Ironically, "the shooting of" is more similar to the other examples you list: "decapitation of", "strangling of", as well as "stabbing of" or "asphyxiation of".
 * But here's the thing, with the exception of "decapitation", the other titles do not necessarily suggest that the subject had died. One can be strangled, stabbed, bludgeoned, pushed from a height and run-over and still be alive.
 * Alternatively, "death of" only suggests a death, but is in itself not neutral because it ignores the fact that there was a cause. "Death of" is more ambiguous, as it could suggest that a person died due to their own fault, or natural causes or any number of other reasons.
 * The fact is that the subject of this article was killed. He didn't merely die. That means someone was responsible for the death, but it doesn't necessarily imply that a person was culpable. It's a subtle difference, but appropriate language. I think everyone, without question, will agree that the police officer in question was responsible for the subject's death. But it is up to the appropriate authorities or potentially a court.
 * Interestingly, I would be curious as to the title of this argument in the event that, if the police officer is charged and found guilty, will be. I would assume there would be a need to re-title the article to "The murder of.." Perhaps that shows how a "the killing of.." as a title is neutral. --82.21.97.70 (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I think this article title should follow the course of George Floyd's article renaming. Since the facts are not known fully at this time, go with a more neutral title then change as necessary. I support both "Death of" or "Shooting of", but prefer "Death of" at this stage. As additional facts or determinations are made, I would support "Killing of". -Glennfcowan (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose It saddens me to see our community of editors going through such growing pains. Attempts to downplay the seriousness of this killing do not come across as objectivity.  They hurt.  They add insult to injury.  Why is it so hard to admit that police are killing people?  At best, putting "death" in the title makes the encyclopedia sound pusillanimous. At worst, it looks like we are still in deep denial.  Dismissing this police killing as a "death" amounts to refusing to face the facts (unless the proposal to move was some kind of sick joke about the victim's pre-existing condition of being Black).  It's time for Wikipedia to show greater maturity in these matters. - phi (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —you refer to "some kind of sick joke about the victim's pre-existing condition of being Black" but "being Black" is not known to be a component of this shooting. The individual refused to be handcuffed, the individual engaged in physical battle with the police officers, the individual removed the taser from one of the police officers, and the individual pointed the taser at one of the police officers. Can you explain why you are referring to "the victim's pre-existing condition of being Black"? Bus stop (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right,, context may have changed or made the remark obscure. This was a reply to previous suggestions that a compromise before putting "Shooting of..." in place of the current title might have been to put "Death of...".  The point I was hoping to get across was that despite Rayshard Brooks's apparent skill in de-escalating a confrontation with the police, almost successfully, the broader trajectory of a life that included completion of the prison pipeline ought not to have death by police as an ending.  Therefore it seems to me that putting "Death of..." in the title would be highly offensive, like a foregone conclusion.  However, I'm not sure what you mean about not being Black.  Who was the non-Black component?  I mostly go by radio. Thanks. - phi (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —you refer to "Rayshard Brooks's apparent skill in de-escalating a confrontation with the police". Would that include physically fighting with the police and taking one of the tasers from the police and pointing that taser at the police? I don't think those are deescalation skills. Our article's lede says . Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Can somebody provide a single source demonstrating there is any such debate on if Brooks was killed? Anybody? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support "Shooting of": This is the typical article naming convention for people killed by firearms when murder has not been established. See the naming patterns in Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States. As noted by Bagumba, "Killing" may imply an intent to kill, which is not established here. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per, follows logical naming of similar articles, follows the prevailing language used in an overwhelming number of sources, and follows the naming consistent with the medical examiner finding of homicide. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I really have had a hard time making a decision on this. "Killing" usually means to deliberately take someones life; however, the Killing of George Floyd consensus begs to differ, so I don't know. In my opinion, if a word is going to cause so much discussion it just needs to be avoided. As for using "shooting", I don't particularly like it; we would never name Floyds article the "asphyxiation of George Floyd" so I find it weird to make "shooting" the one exception to the rule, however, precedent has done that (there are plenty of examples of shooting in the title go look at Trayvon Martin for example). There definitely is not debate on whether or not Brooks was shot, on the other hand, there is debate of rather or not we was killed. So we need to stay with what is most neutral. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One distinction to notice is that George Floyd was not shot. For people who were shot, Wikipedia ordinarily uses "Shooting of" or "Murder of". See Talk:Shooting of Breonna Taylor and Talk:Shooting of Atatiana Jefferson for recent examples. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Did anyone say there is a debate on whether Brooks was killed? Please note that "X was killed" is different from "the killing of X". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Literally the comment above mine. And several other supports. If there is no debate on whether or not Brooks was killed, and it being true that not all shootings result in death whereas all killings do, why is there an argument about this title? And I have no idea what I am supposed to note is different there besides subject and object there. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dayirmiter somewhat addressed this above under "Killing" explanation --Digihoe (talk) 22:31, 15June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I see. Maybe that's not quite what was meant. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is perhaps bad form to vote this way in the face of overwhelming precedent to use "shooting" instead of "killing" in this situation, but I truly believe that this precedent is moribund. It is incoherent that the killing of Rayshard Brooks appears in the articles List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2020 and Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States while the article on this killing cannot use the word "killing" in its title. Anyone who has shot someone else dead has killed them. Such an event is described as a killing. This is the nature of the English language.
 * Some wish to use "killing" only to describe intentional killings, in line with this dictionary definition. But that is a moot point, since this killing was by all accounts intentional. I would be more amenable to changing the name from "killing" if it seemed that this death were not the result of the correct usage of an instrument designed to kill.
 * A good reason to change the name away from "killing" would be to avoid excessive emphasis on the actions of whoever caused the death, as in the event of an accidental death or one caused by carelessness. Moving to "shooting" does not at all reduce this emphasis, but does introduce vagueness. Moving to "death" would be vague to a lesser degree and would accomplish the reduction of emphasis that is perhaps desirable since this article is about much more than the events that caused Rayshard Brooks' death.
 * Many of us have acknowledged that killing is an emotionally charged topic. Nevertheless, we name it.
 * Also, please note that:


 * 1) clearly a justified intentional killing is a killing
 * 2) substituting one's own judgment on the justifiability of this killing for that of legal authorities or reliable sources is a clear violation of NPOV

--Flejern (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment This was gone over just a few weeks ago on Killing of George Floyd. The word "kill" has nothing to do with whether or not it was a murder or even intentional. It means that something with agency caused the death of a person. "Kill" is in no way charged language, nor does it have an improper legal meaning the way "murder" does for someone who hasn't been convicted (yet). That said, "shooting" is more consistent with other article titles related to death by gunshot --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Shooting is factually accurate and consistent with other shootings. I don't see a problem with "killing of", as there is no doubt that the shooting was intentional. Possible justification of the shooting/killing is separate from intent. Most "shooting of" articles are intentional, and it is more specific as to the type of killing.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose all reasons have been mentioned above and whatever I write is a repeat of facts. <b style="color:navy;">Gharouni</b><i style="color:orange">Talk</i> 13:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per BarrelProof.Boardg (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Double non-support. What I support is deadly-force homicide of Rayshard Brooks or some variant of that nature (deadly-force police homicide of ~). Most people know that "deadly force" is a concept from law enforcement and military contexts, that deadly force is sometimes justified, but that agreement about when deadly force is justified is commonly contentious. The fact that he was killed by shooting is rather secondary here. Killing and murder are both somewhat loaded. "Homicide" leaves no ambiguity that death resulted, with the added advantage that it reads closer to "penis" than it does to "cock" or "prick" (these being the loaded terms of choice for the loaded genital organ). I'm not sure my suggestion will usefully further this debate, but it does capture my underlying sentiment about this debate on both sides. The Wikipedia article on deadly force is entirely apt here. This article points out that the police have a right to shoot a fleeing subject if the subject is deemed willing to harm others (or the cops themselves). By pointing a taser at the cops, Rayshard demonstrated a panicked lack of willingness to deal with immediate consequence. At this point, if the cops have any doubt about the availability of a more dangerous weapon, they might well be justified to shoot back. But in this case, he had by then been frisked and evaluated (one highly suspects), so despite his evident lack of judgement—it's quite possible the only reason he didn't fire a hand gun at the police is that he didn't possess a hand gun in that moment—he was likely a non-threat to the police and public for as long as it would have taken to apprehend him again, all things considered. &mdash; MaxEnt 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We never have article titles like that you suggest. In your last sentence, you suggest that the police should have not shot RB, but you don't say how you think they should have apprehended him instead. Jim Michael (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's been ruled a homicide. Homicide = killing. Even if the officer charged is eventually found not guilty, it's still a homicide. In other words, future rulings have no bearing on whether this was a "killing" or not. It's a killing, and the title should reflect that it was a killing. "Shooting" is a transparent POV attempt to minimize what happened. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: It may be helpful to refer to some other recent RM discussions that raised similar issues. I suggest review of Talk:Shooting of Atatiana Jefferson, Talk:Shooting of Breonna Taylor, and Talk:Shooting of Sammy Yatim. All three of those were multi-page RMs that resulted in a consensus to move to "Shooting of" titles within the last month. The vast majority of "Shooting of" titles are about incidents in which people were killed. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be helpful to refer to WP:WAX. If Wikipedia makes the same mistake ten times we dont need to repeat it an eleventh time. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but that was not WP:WAX. I was calling attention to very recent and  in very similar cases. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So you were saying "What about article x and y and z?" In other words, WP:WAX. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In at least one of the articles that you link, some of the support votes reference the convention of naming articles "shooting" in cases where the person in question has been fatally shot. However, there has been a push to reconsider the naming of all fatal shooting articles as a result of the frequent recent RMs regarding such articles. So, although this convention exists on Wikipedia now, this article is one of the first to go through an RM in the middle of the discussion on changing that convention; for this reason, I don't think we should point solely to articles following the current convention as a reason to move this article away from "killing". --Flejern (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per NPOV and NOTCENSORED. The killing has been ruled a homicide; there's no need to hide this fact. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Shooting does not necessarily mean killing. Killing is precise. As an encyclopedia English Wikipedia needs English language precision. "Killing" is recognizabile, natural, precise, concise and consistent and the chart under Title of article, above, reflects these requirements.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2020
 * Oppose, This has been ruled a homicide, "Killing" is clearly the correct terminology. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. We should be seeking the most appropriate title. That would obviously be "Shooting of Rayshard Brooks". 22:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious to me. "Shooting" leaves the reader with the idea that the victim may have lived. "Killing" leaves no such ambiguity to the reader and prepares them for what is to come. That being said, I am open to alternatives ("Shooting death of ..."). —Locke Cole • t • c 16:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is quintessentially about the moments leading up to the shooting. I don't think the article is quintessentially about whether Rayshard Brooks survived the shooting or not. Hi, by the way, good to see you. Bus stop (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose 'Shooting' is not encyclopedic unless he survived. Even tossing out the homicide judgement, 'killing' is exactly what happened, and doesn't even have to imply intent. He died. He was killed. This is not in contention. Parabolist (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "exactly what happened" is that he grabbed a cop's taser and pointed it at a cop. Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Was he killed or not? If a bus hits me, I've been killed. If lightning strikes me, I've been killed. If a person bumps into me and knocks me off a cliff, I've been tragically killed. It doesn't matter what happens before then. People die when they are killed. Parabolist (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —the word "killing" would suffice if the English language did not have the word "shooting". The question is—why would we choose the word "killing" over the word "shooting"? Cops don't want to die trying to keep roads free of drunk drivers. "Killing" would not be the appropriate word in our article's title. A cop's life is in danger when a weapon—a taser—is pointed at them. The cop shot Rayshard Brooks at a point at which a taser was being pointed at the cop. That would most appropriately be called a "shooting". Yes, if we didn't have the word "shooting" in the English language, the word "killing" would suffice. But we should be choosing the most appropriate term. Why would "killing" be the most appropriate term? Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * a. The cop shot Rayshard Brooks at a point at which a taser was being pointed at the cop. untrue, and b. wholly irrelevant. Killing is more appropriate because it was a shooting that ended in death (aka a killing) and it is what is commonly used in reliable sources. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —I don’t think anyone is contending he wasn’t killed, nor saying that is not an accurate description. The issue lies more with use of the word “killing”, which conveys more. To use a pet cat as an example if I titled a blog  article “The killing of the cat” vs “The cat was killed”, the former evokes some level of intent beyond simply stating a fact of the final result. And this is bore out in most dictionary definitions of “killing”, which usually state or imply some level of deliberateness.Digihoe (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination and per WP:CONSISTENT. We have 275 entries under Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States, nearly all of which use the form "Person Name" or "Shooting of Person Name", and even more entries under Category:Deaths by firearm in the United States by state which includes fatal shootings not only by police officers but by civilians, such as Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori or Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Unless there is a mass movement of all such headers to Fatal shooting of Person Name or of combining all Killing of Person Name and Shooting of Person Name (excluding non-fatal shootings) under the umbrella header Killing of Person Name, it would be inconsistent and counterintuitive to have this header at "Killing of...." but other such headers at "Shooting of". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Long Comment Actually,, your point is really useful. Kudos!  While continuing to favor the other outcome, as I stated above, my take is that you are helpfully providing a solid answer to the question: “Why move title to ‘shooting of’?”  So the answer would be “Because precedent.”  Let’s suppose the question might also be, at least for some: “Why ‘Shooting of...’?”  And, let’s be honest.  Let’s take a deep breath.  Alot of English Wikipedia editors are Americans and we are discussing this at a time when our whole country is finally timidly beginning to traipse toward reckoning with the fact that we have long been engaged in some sort of mass collective denial about the fact that our police chronically kill Black citizens.  Of course we deny that.  Who would want to admit it?  As  notes above: "A good reason to change the name away from "killing" would be to avoid excessive emphasis on the actions of whoever caused the death."
 * This denial is just one facet of a larger bundle of denyings, a whole culture accreted onto our living society. Like a whole passel of barnacles globbed onto the hull of the ship of state, this big deny is making smooth sailing impossible.  Wikipedia reflects this, in part, cuz us Wikipedia editors are, on average, mostly human.  For years the denialism afflicting our society has crept into the encyclopedia and afflicted our discourse.  So, why ‘shooting’?  Well, “shooting” sounds more neutral.  We wanna be NPOV.  We wanna sound objective.  But let us be wary lest an excessive infatuation with ‘neutrality’ lend cover the virality of collective denial.  So I think your idea is great.  Slowly, cautiously, we can identify 275 articles titled “Shooting of...” for careful review.  For each, we might ask whether the title is there that way because we were afraid to face the fact that our society keeps killing African Americans.  We have been striving to talk neutrally about the fact that our society has been paying people to kill some of us.  Now we are realizing that this is not a neutral fact.
 * So, now, let us Wikipedia editors take a long, loving look into our collective heart and see that, historically, we have been a bit craven in our titles of the many, many articles on events that are part of the American carnage. We can start by applying the finalized version of the flowchart posted above.  Are we afraid of going through 275 titles?  “Be bold!” it says in the instructions for editing here.  Furthermore, we can give the individual articles individual attention.  We should always ask: “Why ‘Shooting...’?”  We do not have an article titled “shooting of president Reagan” but such an article could perhaps exist.  Hanging out with friends, at the mention of John Wilkes Booth, I observed one asking the name of the “that guy who shot President Reagan” only to be quickly met by another friend’s quick draw of the smartphone.  The phone wielder typed in “shooting of president Reagan” whose first result is Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.  “Of course,” I thought; not “shooting” because “assassination” befits status as a public figure but not simply “assassination” because Ronald Reagan survived.
 * Nor do we (yet) have an article titled: “Shooting of Derrick Sanderlin” (now NN I suppose) though I can imagine a scenario after RSs may in a fictional future have headlined pieces like “Police Shoot Police Trainer” that somehow some of us Wikipedia editors could feel the need to create a title like that “Shooting of Derrick Sanderlin.” So the flowchart would say “not lethal” and the article would say “rubber bullets.”  But it would be shooting that was central to the event.  Or we might just possibly imagine an article “Shooting of Palnatoki,” an example that serves well to show just why we should not use ‘shooting’ in the case of Rayshard Brooks.  The possibility of a phrase “shooting of y” being a subjective rather than objective genitive (y shot z instead of y got shot) contributes to the attractiveness of “Shooting of...” as a weaselword way of phrasing it for those who are in denial.  “Shooting” is the word chosen in likely a couple hundred of those 275 articles because we have sought the ambiguity of not saying outright that a citizen was killed by a public servant.  We have been avoiding the truth.
 * When you avoid telling the truth up front, directly facing facts, ambiguity is an advantage. That “Shooting of...” as a title holds such ambiguity is obvious from a comparison of two of the three articles specifically cited above.  Anyone who has worked with exchange students can tell you that the tragic, fatal but not truly murderous, shooting of Yoshihiro often comes up when foreigners express doubts about our country’s love of firearms.  The killing of Ahmaud involves a very different backstory, in which the role of our Second Amendment rights would seem much less marked, so perhaps in that case the verb ought to be not ‘shooting’ but something that gives an idea closer to what happened, hunting down, lying in wait, being part of the ‘criminal justice’ system, etc.  Do we use “lynching” only for hangings or events in the distant past?
 * In this case, the shooting was not the point. And the past is not so distant, any more, as it was only a few years prior, when the denialist articles were titled up.  The point was that after extended interaction a man was killed by the police, that it strains credulity to claim  because of the color of his skin color did not factor into violent police behavior following failed negotiation , that this took place in a country with a long history of denying that such things were part of a pattern.  All editors should note that the police kicking the shot citizen and standing upon him afterwards really ought to be enough to convince us that “shooting” was not the main point.  We can ensure consistency by questioning precedent, following Roman Spinner’s excellent quantitative survey of what that precedent is with qualitative surveying of what we have been writing in our titles.  Are we mature enough to admit we have a problem?  May the article on this killing of Rayshard Brooks be the first step in Wikipedia’s recovery from unconscious or unconscientious denial. - phi (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you making the unsupported claim that RB was killed by the police because of the color of his skin? The camera on Wendy's clearly shows that he was shot just after he fired a stolen taser at one of the cops. Jim Michael (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jim Michael. I have adjusted the wording of the phrase in question (last paragraph, following "extended interaction"). - phi (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —per WP:TALK, please don't alter your post after it has been responded to. You may strike through some of your text and add new text. I am troubled by this edit. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you,, I hope I got it right now. - phi (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support "Killing of" would be fine if he hadn't been shot (as with George Floyd) but as he was, "Shooting of" is more precise. I don't think it implies he was shot and still lived.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Oppose Killing is defined as "an act of causing death, especially deliberately." Is that not what happened here? We got "an act causing death" down. Any reasonable person knows when you shoot a guy three times at such close range they are going to die. This is not manslaughter, where reckless actions let to death. This was intentional. Unintentional would be a tazer killing someone, throwing small rocks at someone ends up turning them into a corpse or kicking a soccer ball so hard that ultimately ends up decapitating someone. In those cases, death is so unlikely in the normal sense that when death does occur it's clear accidental, without intent, and at most manslaughter. This was not that. It's a gun. Anyone knows that a gun at close range (let alone three shots) is going to kill someone in the ordinary sense. The only thing that would be unlikely in the normal sense was his survival. (Not an argument of weather it was justified or not, just intent is all). GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Any reasonable person knows when you shoot a guy three times at such close range they are going to die" and they are going to cease threatening your life with a tazer, as was the case here. —the cop does not want to die. The subject of the article quintessentially is the attempt to arrest a man for DWI and their physical fight with the cops that involved taking a tazer from one of the cops and pointing it at one of the cops. Whether death resulted or not, is not what this article is quintessentially about. It is my contention that the subject of this article primarily is the Shooting of Rayshard Brooks. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think at this point everyone understands that you feel about his killing was warranted, Bus stop. I'm not sure you need to hammer it home any more. Parabolist (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The important thing to understand,, is that the essence of the article spans mere seconds—from the individual's refusal to be handcuffed, to the firing of shots from a gun at that individual. Refute that if you wish. And by the way I most definitely did not assert that "his killing was warranted". Bus stop (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The core fact here is that Brroks is dead, and he is dead because of the actions of another person. The dictionaries define "kill" as "cause the death", regardless of intent; an accidental killing is still a killing. So the neutral term here is "killing" ... and the alternatives such as "shooting of" and "death of" are whitewash. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Would prefer death of as it would be consistent with other police involved incidents like Death of Eric Garner...but shooting is factually accurate. Lightburst (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: It appears that the aforementioned article has been moved to Killing of Eric Garner. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 20:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The significant fact here is that Brooks is dead. The manner of his death is a secondary issue.  "Shooting" includes non-fatal shootings, and if Brooks f he had been shot non-fatally, then we probably wouldn't even an article about him.
 * I disagree - it's the shooting that's the most notable part of this event. This would more likely than not be notable & have been responded to in a similar way had RB survived being shot. This happened with the police beating of Rodney King, which he survived. Jim Michael (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BrownHairedGirl—it is not so simple that "he is dead because of the actions of another person". The police may be required to arrest a person for DWI. They fought and took a taser from a cop and pointed it at a cop. Are they not complicit in that which transpired? Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is really getting into the territory of the highly tiresome. I've added an FAQ at the top of this page; read the entry explaining what homicide is. As to your idea that the police may be required to arrest a person for DWI: instead of just making stuff up, why don't you actually find out? You also need to look up complicit. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I may have misused "complicit". The cops may have been required to arrest. That is not a controversial statement as I did not assert for instance that they definitely were required to arrest. I responded to the assertion, I will quote it in full, "The core fact here is that Brroks is dead, and he is dead because of the actions of another person." As we are choosing a title for the article we want to be concerned with "The core fact here". Could that not have bearing on the title best suited to this article, ? Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * not a controversial statement as I did not assert for instance that they definitely were required to arrest – No, it's just a completely useless statement that muddles the discussion by injecting doubt on something about which there need not be doubt. Among situations in which an officer has the authority to arrest, there are very few in which an officer doesn't also have discretion as to whether to exercise that authority. A classic nowadays is that in most jurisdictions, officers receiving certain types of domestic-violence complaints are required to make an arrest if possible.As to the rest of your post, I can't understand what you're trying to say. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your views on this move have been made abundantly clear. Kindly stop WP:BLUDGEONING, this move request already has way too many personal opinions in it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well at least he's only bludgeoning it. He's not strangling, shooting, decapitating, or killing it. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * —you raise valid points. I will strike through my problematic post. I will just state that the cops are allowed to arrest, not required to arrest. It is my understanding that arrests for DWIs are commonplace. My overriding point was a response to BrownHairedGirl's statement that "he is dead because of the actions of another person". He bolted from the cops and fought with the cops, physically, even going so far as to take taser off of one of the cops. I don't consider those the "actions of another person", as stated by BrownHairedGirl. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * None of those actions are what killed him. It was the gunshots. Rolfe's gunshots. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your taking my comments to heart. I'm only going to say one more thing, and then I think we should end this. Yes, Brooks bolted, fought, punched, and even tasered these officers. But none of those things killed him. What killed him was Rolfe aiming his gun and pulling the trigger. There are punishments prescribed for the things Brooks did, but none of them is death. Nor, in a civil society, is punishment meted out at the curbside. Rolfe's job was to maintain order, know the law, and follow the law -- even under pressure, even when provoked. Police officers are supposed to be especially good at that, and if they're not then they shouldn't be police officers. Unfortunately too many of them take the job because they like the idea of a line of work in which the customer is always wrong. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are saying "There are punishments prescribed for the things Brooks did, but none of them is death." There is not one participant in this discussion that is unaware that death is not the punishment for DWI. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about DWI. We're talking about (in your words) the fact that Brooks fought and took a taser from a cop and pointed it at a cop, which you say made Brooks complicit in that which transpired -- i.e. in his own death. If that's not what you meant then you need to choose your words more carefully. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A problem with including killing in the title is that it implies deliberate killing. Another problem is that it makes it sound like Rolfe was the attacker & Brooks the victim. The Wendy's camera footage shows that Rolfe shot Brooks about a second after Brooks fired the taser he stole at Rolfe. Shooting is neutral & thus more suitable for the title. Jim Michael (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * it implies deliberate killing – No it doesn't; see the FAQ at the top of this page. It implies a deliberate act which leads to death; whether he intended it to lead to death, and whether that act was criminal, remains to be determined.
 * it makes it sound like Rolfe was the attacker – When you shoot an unarmed man, running away from you, in the back, you're the attacker.
 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Unarmed?! You know that Brooks was armed with a taser, which he stole & which a second before being shot he fired towards Rolfe. Jim Michael (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To: Jim Michael - Rolfe is the attacker and Brooks is the victim. And, from RS reporting, it appears that Rolfe did deliberately chose to use lethal force when Rolfe did not have to. From CNN: Rolfe's lawyer admits "Officer Rolfe dropped his taser and fired his service weapon " three times.  Therefore, even Rolfe's lawyer admits Rolfe deliberately chose to drop his taser when Rolfe (attacker) deliberately chose lethal force to shoot Brooks (victim). Oh and Tasers are not considered a "firearm" so yes, Brooks was unarmed. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And just to add to BRM's points: once Brooks shot the taser the second time, the taser was spent and could not fire again. Rolfe knew that because it's the same model taser he used. Facts matter when you're about to kill someone. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, "facts matter". Brooks was charged with DWI, just as countless other Americans are. But Brooks punched a police officer. And Brooks took the taser of a police officer. And Brooks aimed the taser at a police officer. (Just a couple of more facts.) Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And, as observed repeatedly, none of those are punishable by death, even less so at curbside. So shall we take yet another go-around now with your circular reasoning, just for old times' sake, or shall we quit? Your choice. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nor did anybody ever assert that anything was "punishable by death". We know that death transpired but "punishable by death" is your own fanciful language. Please start a new section if there is something you wish to discuss, as this section has already been closed, by, . Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So all that stuff you said about the punch and the taser were irrelevant. OK. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are going on about, EEng. Start a new section if there is something you wish to discuss as this section has already been closed. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020
Looking for consensus

1. For the most part this is just a compilation of records from verifiable government sources. I will add more direct links to all the records and not just the wrap sheet of offenses. These records themselves are not disputed and below is how they are linked to the actual person. As noted in the background already, Brooks in his own words stated that he plead guilty to two offenses, false imprisonment and financial card theft. He was giving the interview to Reconnect in Atlanta about his experience with parole, as explained on Reconnect's website https://reconnect.io/rayshard-brooks-in-his-own-words/. So his offences have to have been committed in Atlanta area. Looking for Rayshard Brooks on the Clayton County Court public records website, linked below, we see that there is only one Rayshard Brooks with those offenses. The reason for putting the description of charges into words and not just giving a list of links to cases is that they are somewhat confusing to navigate as multiple cases relate to the same charges, but are a result of cases being transferred between court levels. So giving a link to the list might create the impression that he had 23 offences (or whatever a prior number was, that was given), when in reality the actual charges are less. So it is established that the charges he talked about in the interview are the charges from the website. The other charges are linked to him based on references to other cases. For example, we can see cases with his name, but specifying his birth year too. These are state court cases (Not clear why they also give the year, either because at state level there is another Rayshard Brooks, or it's just the state naming convention. Have not found other Rayshard Brooks records in Georgia, so leaning towards the second option). They further confirm that this is the same Rayshard Brooks as the birth year is the same. Tracking how cases make it out of Magistrate to State and out of State to Superior court we can see that the same Rayshard brooks is referenced in Superior court cases (the state case pages list the superior court case pages). The fact that all the charges are linked to the same person and that person is Brooks is further confirmed by going to the Georgia Department of Corrections public records website http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/GDC/Offender/Query and looking for GDC ID 1001370147 (for some reason looking just by name did not consistently yield results). His identity is verified by name, birth year, photo and description. All offences listed on the Clayton County website are linked to him here as well, including the ones he spoke about himself.

Specifically related to the false imprisonment charge that he plead guilty to, we can note that the case number in Clayton County court was 2014CR01069. Looking for Rayshard Brooks on Fulton County's public jail records website http://justice.fultoncountyga.gov/PAJailManager/default.aspx, we see two bookings show up, one related to the same case number. The person's description and name match Brooks's on top of case number. The other booking is from much earlier (2010) and is not related to any of the offences listed on Clayton County website. However, the warrant authority is listed as Fulton County Sheriff. Taking the listed case reference (07SC62537) and going to Fulton County Court public record https://publicrecordsaccess.fultoncountyga.gov/Portal/Home/Dashboard/29 we find case that the case is also for Rashad Brooks (one of known aliases according to Correction Department records). His identity is even further confirmed by his birth date, given on page 6 of the indictment (only page 1 is available for preview and one does have to pay for electronic delivery of the whole public record). His juvenile record is not public, but in one of the hearing transcripts (bond petition) the prosecutor refers to it in front of the judge and Brook's lawyer does not dispute it.

To sum up, all cases are conclusively linked to Brooks by his own admission and by internal unique identifiers, and further linked by verification of identity, such as name, age, photo, location.

All of the above are authoritative sources for what Brooks's record is. The proposed edit does not express an opinion on the record, nor what someone else could have thought of the record and thus does not need someone in the news to report on it to be authoritative: it's not a news article, it's a statement of fact. Next point explains why the facts are relevant.

2. The background section talks about facts and events that should be relevant to the shooting. It already references Brooks's record, what he himself thought of his situation in life and how both of those could have affected how this tragedy played out. The proposed edit establishes a factual basis for the severity of Brook's situation. It also further underscores that he really knew what he was talking about when he talked about how parole/probation works. He was on and off probation since he was 10 or 11 (that was what he got for his juvenile offences). This edit further removes speculation around the extent of his record (like people counting court cases instead of actual offences).

3. I would like to broadly address the possible reluctance to make the edit because it will skew the the narrative in some way. I see most of the references made to his record on fringe or tabloid publications with a lot of it leaning towards a narrative of "he was a thug, so he got what was coming to him". This fact may create the impression that listing his record can only be aimed at that outcome. I'd like to point out, however, that Reconnect published the interview with him, where they basically inform the public of a portion of his record, but it does not support the 'thug' narrative. Sure a lot of it is because it's in his own words, but what it goes to demonstrate is that the fact of having a record can skew the narrative surrounding the topic of the article only if people on the one side of the argument are talking about it. In fact the little reference i heard from more authoritative news sources were along the lines of how hurt Brooks was "by the system". His full record can just as well be used to demonstrate the full extent of how hurt he was, as i can to demonstrate how big of an offender he was. A long record can be used to say that he consistently made poor choices, but at he same time can anyone really say that a 10 yo child or 14 yo child "made bad choices" and so he led himself down the path leading to this event. His long probation experience can be used to say that he very well knew not to break the rules, but can also be used to say that if you're on probation for year and years, you are bound to make some missteps (just like people say that the longer a police officer's service is, the more normal it is to see a larger number of complaints). His early age felony charges can be used to say that the system allowed him to get off easy (if convicted, around now would be the earliest he'd be getting out) or that it screwed him, when he had to spend two years in a detention center for the case to only be placed in a 'dead docket' after prosecution decided they may loose the actual trial ('dead docket' cases allow the defendant to walk free, but the record of a pending case often shows up in background checks limiting opportunities). All i'm saying with this is that facts are facts and people choose to read narratives into facts. The edit does not create a narrative by itself and Wikipedia is a place for facts for people to make their own judgement on the issue. Not listing the fact of his record in the portion which centers around discussing the same makes no sense. The only question if it's verifiable and relevant and i think i cover both in my points 1 and 2. I also try to make the language describing the facts of his record neutral, by not saying 'he did something', but 'he was charged with something', 'he plead guilty to something', 'records show..', etc. Suggestions on how to make the language more neutral are welcome.

Change Brooks's background from

Rayshard Brooks was a 27-year-old African American resident of Atlanta. He had been married for eight years and had three daughters and a stepson.[11][12] In February 2020, he gave an interview where he discussed his experience being incarcerated, his life struggles after incarceration, and his difficulty finding work and financial problems.[13] He said that he had pleaded guilty to false imprisonment and credit card fraud and was sentenced to one year in prison.[14] A driving under the influence conviction would have been grounds for his probation revocation and return to prison.[15][16]

to

Rayshard Brooks was a 27-year-old African American resident of Atlanta. He had been married for eight years and had three daughters and a stepson.[11][12] In February 2020, he gave an interview where he discussed his experience being incarcerated, his life struggles after incarceration, and his difficulty finding work and financial problems.[13] He said that he had pleaded guilty to false imprisonment and credit card fraud and was sentenced to one year in prison.[14] A driving under the influence conviction would have been grounds for his probation revocation and return to prison.[15][16]

According to Fulton County public records: In 2007 Rayshard Brooks (known alias Rashad Brooks) was indited by a grand jury of a capital felony involving two armed robberies and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (the victim was shot in the stomach 3 times). case 07SC62537 Brooks was 14 at the time. The case took over 2 years to litigate and ended up being "placed on the dead docket" after critical evidence was suppressed due to a procedural error by the detaining officers (the key to the car, where the gun and stolen wallet were found, was seized about an hour before an arrest warrant was obtained), even though both victims identified Brooks as the perpetrator. The transcript of the bond petition hearing, contained in the public records, shows the prosecutor referring to Brook's juvenile record, which included theft by receiving of a motor vehicle in 2003, when he was 10 or 11, and criminal trespassing and theft in 2005, when he was 12 or 13. He got probation for both of those. While the 2007 case was being litigated Brooks spent two years in Metro Regional Youth Detention Center and, after turning 17 in Jan 2010, a month in Fulton County Jail.

According to Clayton County Court Public Records:

2010 and 2011 - false statement converted to obstruction of an officer in Oct 2010 and battery, simple battery and family violence in Jan 2011. Both cases were merged and resulted in 12 months probation with no contact with the victim. He violated probation in Nov 2011 and a warrant was issued for his arrest in March 2012. 

2012 - He was convicted of 2 counts of marijuana possession of over an ounce in May 2012. He got 12 months jail time, which was delayed. 

2013 - In March 2013 he was charged with theft by receiving stolen property, obstruction of law enforcement officer, felony cruelty to children, interference with custody, false imprisonment. The charges went to the county's Superior Court to be tried in 2014.

2014 - In March 2014 he is also charged with simple battery/family violence. 2013 and 2014 cases make it to the Superior court in May 2014. In Aug 2014 he pleads guilty to all counts, with the largest sentence being 7 years, 1 year of which he has to serve jail time for, and 6 years on probation. 

2015 - After 6 months his case is transferred over to the Pardon and Parole Board. However, just 3 months after that, in May 2015 an arrest warrant is issued for violation of probation. In October another warrant is issued for his arrest for 'theft by taking'.

2016 - In February 2016 the case is transferred to State and in April to Superior court with 4 counts of credit card theft. In June 2016 his probation from the prior conviction is revoked and he is required to serve another 12 months. In July he pleads guilty to theft charges and is allowed to serve the 12 month term concurrently with his term for probation violation. 

2018 - In December 2018 an arrest warrant is issued again in relation to another probation violation. 

According to Lucas County Common Pleas court's public records:

On 12/30/2019 Brooks was apprehended in Lucas County, Ohio and held based on a Georgia issued fugitive warrant issued for failure to notify community supervision of address change and failure to complete theft prevention class. On January 6 2020 he was in custody of Georgia law enforcement. 

On January 29th 2020 Brooks is released on probation again.

Brooks driving offenses include: 2011 - He had a 'driving without a licence' violation in May 2011.  2014 - In March 2014 Brooks had a speeding ticket for going 16-20 miles above the speed limit.  Drovosek198 (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Per previous discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"In 2014, a domestic dispute between Brooks and his wife, Tomika Miller, led to charges of battery, false imprisonment and child cruelty, but the charges do not tell the whole story. Brooks was accused of grabbing Miller’s wrist (battery), pulling her into another room (false imprisonment) and doing so in front of her 7-year-old son (child cruelty)." [www.ajc.com/news/opinion/opinion-taking-time-tell-fuller-story/HC9QQyt9Z2qFUCxN5ShGxL/]
 * No - I do not support Drovosek198's edit. That information has absolutely nothing to do with this WP article about Brooks being fatally shot in the back  BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support: This is particularly relevant, given RS discuss his status on probation as a motivation for attempting to run. We should at the very least comment on why he was on probation at the time of his death (child abuse). Cheers, <font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda; u  α  (Operibus anteire) 00:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a complete nonstarter because it's WP:OR. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like WP:OR is referencing something else and it's more like in research papers: define fact 1,2,3 and then make a conclusion. Here there is no conclusion or opinion, only facts (basically a readout of court records) supporting an already expressed opinion of RB on his life. But let's say i try to follow the OR guideline, then it says it has to be a reliable source. It also needs to be neutral. Based on prior discussion i see reliable source are things like CNN. Regardless of political stance, they do have an editorial policy and service a certain demographic. So to be neutral, i would need to list sources that have opposing editorial policies and serve a different demographic. But those are treated as unreliable (although in this case they are, as it is simply a statement of fact, that he has a record). But if we need someone to speak about a fact (not research) to be able to mention it here's sources: the host talks about his family violence charges and the text here mentions'other charges', including 'domestic incidents' Drovosek198 (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's not neutrality, that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. Start here: an encyclopedia is a tertiary source; it summarizes secondary sources. Whereas, criminal records are primary sources. If we were to summarize primary sources, we would be a secondary source, and not a tertiary one. The reason your suggestion is a "non starter" is because it summarizes a primary source. Instead, you need multiple reliable secondary sources to summarize, as is done currently in the article. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And the reason for that (in this particular case) is that interpreting court records is complicated (that's why there are lawyers) and it's very difficult to know (a) whether everything a database search turns up is really about the person you have in mind and (b) whether you're seeing everything that bears on interpreting the results properly. That's why one of the sites the OP linked warns By using this service, you acknowledge that you understand that it is solely your responsibility to verify any information you may obtain herein through personal written correspondence with the Inmate Records and Information at PO Box 1529, Forsyth, GA 31029 before making any assumption that said information is factual and complete.A similar issue that arises is attempts by editors to say "what the law on X is" by citing the text of a statute; unfortunately, a statute is just the start of knowing what the law is, because other statutes and court decisions can modify or preempt it. It's just way out of our remit. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you use the interpretation from AJC?

The Atlanta Journal article is a week old but snopes did an investigation on Brooks criminal history yesterday which has an abundance of information. I would like this discussion to continue since I think it's unequal to shine a bad light on Rolfes background and not show Brooks. In my opinion, both the Atlanta Journal (above) and Snopes are reliable sources and often used on wikipedia. www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/24/rayshard-brooks-criminal-past/
 * That's actually a good factual addition on what the things he plead guilty to were. Wish they specified the obstruction charge and theft too. On the topic of WP:FALSEBALANCE - reading the description i thinks it's silly to compare statements about Earth being round and not round and RB being a victim or a thug - they are not in the same league. One is a difference between theories with enormously disproportionate evidentiary basis, and another is a difference of opinion on an undisputed fact of a man's record. Sources like Daily mail (i'm not citing, but just saying) although in general may not be reliable, are more reliable than CNN in this particular instance as the facts from Daily Mail are easily verifiable by a reasonable person, and CNN is reporting inaccurately (like the actual charge that led to parole) or with omissions. I cited other news agencies that are now reporting on his record and the AJC source goes into even greater detail starting from 10 yo, just like the edit. Are all those also not reliable sources? Lastly, statements like "the law is..." may be a bit misleading as potentially implying some sort of complete legal opinion of application of a particular law, but if the edit just states "the statute says..." - that's a factual statement, it's not interpretation or legal opinion. An average person, who can read, can verify that the statute says what was quoted. Like in the edit, it says records show that this charge or that charge was filed, this or that conviction occurred. Those are pretty much literal exerts from court records, not legal interpretation. Anyways, looks like more and more reports are coming out about the full record, so it should not be an issue now.Drovosek198 (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Turned "partially"
I checked and don't see "partially" in AP, AJC, ABC, BBC or NYT's timelines (cited in the article). However, they almost all note that he turned while running (NYT says "in full stride"). I think that is implied by "With Rolfe pursuing him", but I'm not sure. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 20:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to capture the idea, which I think is crucial, that he didn't stop and turn his full body toward Rolfe. It's part-and-parcel of the "fired toward" or "fired in the direction" idea. Can you do whatever you can to express that idea, consistent with sources (in potentially two places -- lead and body)? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * doesn't capture the idea that he didn't stop? Because those are the words I wrote that are in the body now, and, believe it or not, a lot of people at the time said they were brilliant words, really tremendous words, the best words, and a lot of people agree they're very, very good. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 20:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, well "while running ... turned" somewhat admits the reading that he temporarily interrupted a continual (but not necessarily continuous) running process, that is, suspended running long enough to turn etc etc. I leave this in your hands while I plod through the rest of the article. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm coming up with nothing better than variations of "while running, he shot at Rolfe". Why does it matter whether he turned fully or partially, stopped and turned, or shot over his head without looking? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 04:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Levivich - How does this sound, I've read conflicting RS articles on whether Brooks actually fired the taser -- so I didn't include that. But I do agree, you do know your words, you use the best words, some people say no one has ever used better words. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know, both the prosecutors and the defendant (Rolfe) say that Brooks shot at Rolfe, and there's the still image the DA showed from the security camera video that seems to pretty clearly show the Taser firing and the darts flying over Rolfe's head . Not every source says Brooks fired the Taser, but there are multiple sources that say that in their own voice, and the DA says the Taser was fired twice, which is one of the key parts of the case the DA touted at his press conference. And I haven't seen Brooks's family attorney, or any one else, say that Brooks didn't fire the Taser. I think we can say it in wikivoice but attribution would be OK; I don't think we should omit it. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 04:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Levivich you are correct. I am mistaken.  Thank you for correcting me on that. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agreed that Mr. Brooks firing the taser is not being disputed in sources. During the charging announcement the DA specifically said: "And this was Mr. Brooks, who was firing a taser as well. But I don’t know if you can see it clearly. The prongs from the taser were actually fired above Officer Rolfe here."
 * The sources are what count, but note that you can see the taser being fired in the Wendy's security video we link. It's at 28:36 / frames 6-10 (indexed from 0), most clear on frame 7.  (This links to 28:30.  Go full screen at best quality (720p), pause at 28:36, step frame-by-frame using "," and ".".)  I believe what is most visible is the cloud of Anti-Felon Identification (AFID) tags (confetti marked with a serial number) released as the cartridge fires.
 * That was the second firing of Officer Brosnan's Taser. What I've not seen addressed in sources is the first firing -- by whom and when. -- ToE 09:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Our colleague came up with the wording While still running, Brooks turned his right arm just enough to fire the second shot of Brosnan's Taser, which seems very satisfactory. The first firing is mentioned earlier in the section. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd somehow entirely missed that. -- ToE 17:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. I had assumed that the text removed here had been added based on one of the sources. Are we back to Square 1? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I think we (all should look @ the YouTube video again: "Security camera video showing Rolfe shooting Brooks and subsequent events" specially @ 23:22:48. The video is the best evidence, its just a matter of putting the evidence into words for readers who will just read the lead or even the article & not see the video. As  noted "partially" is not in AP, AJC, ABC, BBC or NYT's timelines and, just my opinion, it seems "turned" alone is not as accurate. "Turned partially" or "turned" to me relates to Mr. Brooks' whole body turning when the body turning was minimal, if at all. What I see is Mr. Brooks continuing to run and while doing so reached back his right arm just enough to fire in Rolfe's direction and not interfere with his attempt to continue to outrun Rolfe, thus "While still running, Brooks turned his right arm just enough to fire the second shot of Brosnan's Taser toward Rolfe,...". Is there a problem w/this wording? If so, let's discuss because I believe we can do better for the reader than "turned partially" or "turned" without making the clause more wordy than necessary but accurate. Best regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Seeing something on a video and putting it into words is original research, and has no place in Wikipedia. We only include material that is published in reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Understand, but frame by frame shown NYT and others. Use cited works does not mean copying, just if they support the clause. Could argue a video published is reliable, published source. Note the videos added to the article - would they be removed as "original research"? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes they'd be removed as OR, because they're OR. Here's what WP:OR says:
 * All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors ... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
 * "Just enough" requires an (at least somewhat) subjective evaluation. What sourcing we'd accept for such an evaluation would be a question -- certainly multiple sources would be required -- but there's no way we editors can make such an interpretation on our own. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have reinserted the sentence: "Brooks turned his body just enough to fire the taser toward Rolfe" back into this WP article because this sentence is supported by the language used in the NYT article  that is linked to this WP article that describes the chase.
 * From the linked NYT article: "While being chased, and in full stride, Mr. Brooks looks behind him</U>, points the Taser he is holding in Officer Rolfe’s direction..."
 * That sentence is also supported from other reliable sources:
 * NYmag:  "<U>Brooks half turns around</U> and points the Taser toward Rolfe..."
 * LA Times:  "Brooks keeps running, glancing behind him and appearing to fire the Taser in Rolfe's direction ..."
 * CNBC:  "As Rolfe gave chase, <U>Brooks appeared to turn</U> and point the stun gun at the officer.."
 * That sentence was inserted here and removed here . I have reinserted sentence for two reasons: it is the best way to describe that Brooks did not stop and turn his full body toward Rolfe, and it is verbiage supported by the RS linked within this WP article describing the chase. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * One more thing: I also reworded the sentence in the body to "While still running, Brooks glanced behind and turned just enough to fire the second shot of Brosnan's Taser for the same reason I reinserted the other sentence. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * According to sources, he just turned and fired. Anything else is just POV. We follow sources, not opinions. WWGB (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To WWGB - I think you're mistaken. As I explain above, I reinserted the sentence based off of the sentence written in the article of the reliable source that we use within this WP article; therefore, the reinserted sentence is not POV.  Please re-read the quote from the RS we link/use within this WP article, "While being chased, and in full stride, Mr. Brooks looks behind him</U>, points the Taser he is holding in Officer Rolfe’s direction."  Based off that quote, from our reliable source, I feel it's clear that our linked RS supports the reinserted sentence which underscores that the reinserted sentence is not a POV BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * To WWGB - The sentence I reinstated is clearly supported by reliable sources (see evidence of RS support in my comment above) - so I really don't know why you keep undo-ing edits that are so obviously supported by reliable sources. Since no one here wants any appearance of an edit war we have two choices: 1) you take the time to read the quotes reliable source that support the reinserted sentence; or 2) we start an RfC and decide that way. Let me know how you want to proceed. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "glanced behind and turned just enough" is pure opinion, something invented by a Wikipedia editor. Show us any reliable source that uses any words to similar effect. WWGB (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To WWGB - Again, you're mistaken. The RS we use within this WP article writes, "  Brooks looks behind him</U>, points the Taser.."
 * Also, in my above comment (at timestamp 11:28, 24 June 2020 ), I quote additional reliable sources who write, " glancing behind him and appearing to fire.." and this reliable source quote "<U>Brooks half turns around</U> and points the Taser..." and this reliable source quote, "<U>Brooks appeared to turn</U> and point the stun gun at the officer.."
 * Two things to notice:
 * 1) the reliable sourced  do  support "glanced behind and turned just enough" - and therefore that sentence is  not  a POV.
 * 2) the reliable sources do  not  simply say what you're mistakenly claiming which is, "he just turned and fired."
 * I've given you plenty of quotes from reliable sources that support reinserting the sentence. So, I am very politely & very respectfully asking you: Do you want to start an RfC over this - or - have you re-read the quotes from reliable sources that I gave which will allow you to stop undo-ing the reinsertion of that sentence? Just let me know your answer, thanks & respectfully BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so "glancing behind" and "half turns" I have no problem with. But "just enough" I am not seeing. WWGB (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I like your new sentence WWGB - thank you & you are a fine WP editor to work with. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WWGB is right. turned his body just enough simply is not supported (I'm sorry to say, because it's a very neat phrasing) because none of the sources say anything that. They say looked behind, glanced behind, half turns, and if that's the sort of thing we have then we're going to have to go with phrasing that's within those bounds. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Whether he turned or half-turned isn't as important as including that Brooks actually fired the taser. Can somebody fix that up? Change "half-turned his body to fire" to "half-turned his body and fired". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.143.123 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Made that clear now. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Brooks was "relaxed, friendly, co-operative"
Please remove the line "Brooks was relaxed, friendly and cooperative" for the reason that none of the reference articles use the specific words "relaxed" or "cooperative". Only one reference article uses the word "friendly" and it is the journalist opinion and not a statement of fact, plus neglects that Brooks avoided answering direct questions and was slurring his words. We need facts and not media bias. When multiple experts analyse Brooks demeanour through court preceedings then this can be added but for now this is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.143.123 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll double check this but each reference should be using that exact word in their own voice. Originally I think I had two refs per word (for this reason), and reduced it to one. But I'll double check that the cites are right, they get moved around a bit. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Various aspects of Brooks' demeanor can be characterized in verbal proximity to one another. Doing so may be advantageous. I think it is reliably sourced that Brooks tended not to answer questions directly and tended to launch into irrelevancies, both verbal and physical. This should be stated in proximity to other reliably sourced characterizations such as relaxed, friendly, and cooperative. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I double checked and made a slight adjustment to the source ordering. There are more sources we could add, but I think it's overcite; pretty much every source in that entire section says he was "relaxed", "friendly", "cooperative", "compliant", "calm", "respectful", "cordial", in the words of the DA "almost jovial", or some variation thereof. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The change is better but I still dont think biased media reports and personal opinion are suitable. If you want to quote the DA saying he was "almost jovial" then to remain neutral there should also be an opinion from Rolfes lawyer, or quote Brosnan from his bodycam video that he was "fucking wasted". He was acting drunk but non-violent, decribing him as friendly, and cooperative isn't factual and doesnt belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.143.123 (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Reactions - addition
has a problem w/ this add to "Reactions" & would like opinions before wp:DRR:
 * "The District Attorney’s actions were criticized and there were calls for him to step aside (citation) including by multiple members of the Georgia House and Senate,(citation) the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association condemning his actions as a “... grandstanding vote seeking tactic...", (citation) and U.S. Representative Doug Collins, stating, “Charging an Atlanta police officer with felony murder before the completion of the GBI's investigation was a political decision, not a legal one.”(citation)"

Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with on this. 1) The unsupported accusations, criticism, and complaints from politicians, who themselves are in political election races, has nothing to do with the "killing of Rayshard Brooks" so does not belong. 2) I find no reliable source that accuses the DA of the things that politician Doug Collins is accusing the DA of so we should not insert the unsubstantiated opinion of Doug Collins since there are no RS who substantiate his accusations. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Point taken. The move to charge w/o a GBI investigation conclusion is w/o precedent, but agree now that opinions are questionable since everyone is up for election or reelection. Although one law professor and former DA in one of my cites came close - "If you let politics control the decision, you’re not making the right decisions," I'll wait to see if there are other independent opinions on point.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Some quotes from sources in the article about the swiftness/severity of the charges and what it means, which might be useful:
 * "The charges reflect a potential “sea change” in tolerance for violence by police, said Caren Morrison, a Georgia State University law professor who used to be a federal prosecutor. Morrison said the view until now has generally been that officers are justified in using deadly force in a case in which the suspect had a stun gun or other weapon that could cause “grievous bodily harm.” Later Wednesday there had been reports that Atlanta police officers were walking off the job or calling in sick in protest of the charges against Rolfe and Brosnan. The APD said in a Tweet that it is experiencing a higher than usual number of officers calling out for their shifts but that, “We have enough resources to maintain operations & remain able to respond to incidents.”"
 * "Legal experts said that the charges came surprisingly quick, and were significant for their severity, with punishment that could extend to life in prison or even the death penalty if Mr. Rolfe is convicted. “These are hefty, hefty charges,” said Jimmy Gurulé, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and a former federal and state prosecutor. The swiftness, he said, reflected a sense of urgency fueled by recent protests and broader efforts to shine a light on shortcomings in the criminal justice system."
 * "The swiftness with which a white police officer has been fired and then charged with murder in the killing of Rayshard Brooks is just the latest sign of how rapidly and dramatically police agencies have shifted strategy when it comes to dealing with deadly force cases. Historically, not only have police chiefs been reticent to take action against officers involved in in-custody deaths until a "full investigation" had taken place, they've been quick to defend the officer's use of force if he or she "reasonably" believed that a person had a deadly weapon or posed immediate danger to the officer. In this case, video shows that Brooks had taken the officer's Taser and appears to use it. But not only is the weapon designated as less than lethal, the video shows he was running away and that the shots that killed him entered his back. Now the officer faces 11 charges, the question of whether or not a Taser should be considered a deadly weapon will surely come into play, as well as whether the officer had "reasonable" fear of Brooks. What is already clear is that police departments are not feeling nearly as confident relying on the old strategies and rhetoric that historically have allowed them to slow-play their response to a police-involved killing." Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your research . Thought: Include the above under "Reactions"?
 * Also, for consideration as a "reaction", this information: “Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard is investigating the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks at the same time he’s the subject of an investigation himself. The confluence of two ongoing GBI investigations — one that Howard says is helping him, another that targets him — has sparked calls for Howard to get out of the Brooks case altogether.” - ''“He should step aside as Fulton County DA until the GBI investigation of himself is complete,” said Georgia State University law professor Clark Cunningham. "Atlanta’s chief law enforcement official should not be making unreviewable decisions about who to prosecute in this critical moment — for example in the Brooks shooting — while under the cloud of possibly being a felon himself.” https://www.ajc.com/news/local/fulton-county-leads-one-investigation-and-the-subject-another/SCcg7PBghbcMzb0Za0L4UN/ What about this independent, expert, reaction? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Personally I'm opposed to separate "reactions" sections, but more to your point, I agree that the article could be expanded about Howard, his election, that he's also prosecuting that other taser case in Atlanta, and possibly the investigations he's facing, including the one by GBI (though I'd stick it in investigation section, or maybe add Howard to the people involved section). Frankly I think Howard may be notable enough for his own article at this point. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 22:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see all that stuff ... in a separate article about Howard. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's think this over for a few days. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Take a look @ Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery & how it could apply to inclusion suggested here. Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Arrests before GBI investigation over
has a problem w/ this add to "Investigation and criminal charges" beginning before "On June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney announced..." & would like opinions before wp:DRR:
 * Instead of in the first sentence "; as of June 17, 2020 that investigation was continuing" add to beginning of next paragraph: "Before conclusion of the GBI investigation, on June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney announced..."

This intro has also been re-added by others. Relevant since GBI is non-political and always GBI investigations have been concluded before charges brought. Use of force investigations by this DA previously have taken up to years & always GBI investigation ended first. -See, e.g. AJC: “Ex-APD officer re-indicted for killing of unarmed black man” Sept 05, 2018 from the June 22, 2016 death. Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * By this point in the article the reader has already been told that the GBI investigation remains underway, so the question is why you want to rub that fact in the reader's face as an opening to the sentence about the DA filing charges. As WP:UNDUE says: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. By juxtaposing this particular fact here you make it sound like it has some grave significance, which it doesn't. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right but the DA proceeding w/o conclusion of GBI investigation was unusual, without precedent, and questioned. See, e.g. Nicole Carr "Many question DA’s decision to charge officers in Brooks case before end of GBI investigation" https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/many-question-das-decision-charge-officers-brooks-case-before-end-gbi-investigation/TB2ZUMLR4VAKBHZLVOFCFGUOUQ/ Cox Media Group (one division of which publishes the Atlanta Journal-Constitution). I don't think it makes it to sound like a grave significance - just notable - and don't think it presents undue weight under the circumstances. Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

* I do not support including the two partial sentences you're talking about for many reasons, including: they may violate WP:UNDUE & WP:BALASP. The two partial sentences focus only on the status of the GBI investigation at the time the officers were charged/arrested. The status of the GBI investigation is an insignificant detail, irrelevant to the arrest/charges being made, and may tend to violate WP:UNDUE & WP:BALASP by giving undue weight to an irrelevant aspect of the charge/arrest of the officers. Here's why I say those things: According to WSB-2 tv in Atlanta, "there’s no legal requirement" for the DA to wait for GBI to complete their investigation before arrest/charging the officers. In addition to that, WSB-2 tv writes, "the GBI does not make charging recommendations." Therefore, since there is no legal requirement for the DA to wait on GBI to finish their investigation before arresting/charging, and since the GBI does not even make recommendations on whether to charge or arrest the officers; the fact that GBI investigation was not finished is irrelevant, not significant to the officers being charged/arrested and may violate WP:DUE by giving undue weight to an irrelevant aspect of the officers being charged/arrested. To quote WP:BALASP - "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject..." Therefore, I feel the status of the GBI investigation at the time of arrest/charge of the officers should not be included. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you misread or I was not clear. I didn't want the clause repeated ("the two partial sentences"), just one clause to introduce, the other deleted. Obviously, there is no legal requirement for the DA to wait on the GBI to finish its investigation and, actually, the GBI has layed charges itself (see, Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery) but those aren't the points. The notability is the DA proceeding w/o conclusion of GBI investigation being without precedent and questioned. See, e.g. "Many question DA’s decision to charge officers in Brooks case before end of GBI investigation" referenced, above. "I was part of an officer-involved shooting team for many years at the Atlanta police, and we decided to send it to the GBI, Paul Howard was included in that. The DA’s office co-signed that, and that’s been the process all along.” Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I also think "Before conclusion of the GBI investigation" improperly implies the DA was doing something wrong by not waiting for GBI, whereas I think what RSes say about the actual significance of the DA not waiting for GBI is more complicated than that, and I don't see RSes saying that the DA did something wrong by not waiting. See the quotes I posted in the previous section for analysis of the meaning of the DA charging so quickly in this case. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think the introductory clause implies the DA did anything wrong, it’s just a notable fact that is important. The GBI is non-political and always GBI investigations have been concluded before charges brought. It is a matter of perspective. We need to be neutral. As the writings cited by you read, "Legal experts said that the charges came surprisingly quick, ...”The swiftness ... reflected a sense of urgency fueled by recent protests and broader efforts to shine a light on shortcomings in the criminal justice system” and "The swiftness with which a white police officer has been fired and then charged with murder in the killing of Rayshard Brooks is just the latest sign of how rapidly and dramatically police agencies have shifted strategy when it comes to dealing with deadly force cases.” As such, the introduction reflects these realities, not fault by the DA. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between saying "the charges were brought quickly" and saying "the charges were brought before the GBI finished its investigation". None of the three sources I mentioned say the latter in their own voice. The AP and BBC articles, which are specifically about the charges, don't mention GBI at all. NYT writes "Officials from the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the union representing Atlanta officers, denounced the charges against both officers as premature and politically motivated, as Mr. Howard is locked in a tight re-election race. They said prosecutors should have waited until the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which is leading an investigation into the shooting, announces its findings." It seems to me that the swiftness of the charges has been widely commented on by RSes, but not-waiting-for-GBI has not been widely commented on, and NYT presents it as a union talking point. I could be wrong about that of course, I just haven't seen the RS coverage justifying our highlighting that the DA brought charges before GBI finished its investigation. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "We were not consulted on the charges filed by the District Attorney. Despite today’s occurrence, the GBI will complete its mission...” https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/gbi-officers-charged-but-investigation-into-rayshard-brooks-shooting-not-complete “Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard took the unusual step Wednesday of charging the officers in the Brooks case before reviewing that third-party investigation, ... .” “Porter the former head of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia, added the move is still unusual.””He said prosecutors across the state agreed those investigations were critical to their parallel investigations.” “Paul Howard was included in that. The DA’s office co-signed that, and that’s been the process all along.” https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/many-question-das-decision-charge-officers-brooks-case-before-end-gbi-investigation/TB2ZUMLR4VAKBHZLVOFCFGUOUQ/ The GBI “... said it was surprised by the announcement ... caught the agency off guard.” https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/rayshard-brooks-shooting-gbi-didnt-know-of-officers-charges/85-62fcd2c5-fe12-41f8-b736-8475a263f21a “G.B.I. said in a statement on Wednesday that the agency had not been consulted ...””Legal experts said that the charges came surprisingly quick... .” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/us/garrett-rolfe-rayshard-brooks-atlanta.html ??the charges were brought quickly before the GBI finished its investigation??-weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To  Quaerens-veritatem - the two clauses " On June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney announced... " "as of June 17, 2020 that investigation was continuing" and "Before conclusion of the GBI investigation, on June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney announced" appear to violate both WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP by giving undue weight to an irrelevant, minor insignificant aspect of the charge/arrest of the officers. WP:BALASP says,- "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject...". Since 1) there is no legal requirement for the DA to wait on GBI to finish their investigation before arresting/charging, and 2) GBI never, never makes recommendations on whether to charge or arrest the officers; underscores the fact that GBI investigation not being finished is an irrelevant, minor insignificant aspect to the officers being charged/arrested. Therefore, neither clause should be included, both should be excluded. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the GBI investigation is weighted proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. I fully understand your position and you need not repeat it; however, I do not understand how giving the date of the announcement by the DA of charges violates both WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP. Aren't dates of occurrences relevant and significant to the time line? You are the only one I have noticed to object to this dating. In reading the article now and in the future I suggest readers would want to know how announcement of (the date of) the charges fits in with all the activities that are dated including, without limitation, in reference to when the killing occurred and when the police started the "blue flu" absences. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Quaerens-veritatem - Apparently I was not clear and I have unintentionally confused you. I apologize and will try to be more clear here: I have no problem with including dates in any timeline. It is not the "dates" that I say may violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP. It is the sentences, or rather clauses you wrote, (that happen to include dates) that I feel may violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP.
 * But, speaking of "dates" - I feel that a WP reader could become a little confused about the timeline of events the way it is currently written. The way it's written, it's hard to know what came first, second, etc. So, to avoid WP:UNDUE & WP:BALASP & to have a better flowing sequence of events, I would suggest having that section read something like this (rough draft): "On the evening of June 12, 2020 the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) began their investigation into the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks by officer Rolfe. The next day the Police chief resigned, officer Rolfe was fired, and officer Bronson was placed on administrative duty. On June 15, The county medical examiner ruled Brooks' death a homicide." That's just a rough draft but it does not include anything that would violate UNDUE or BALASP. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can skip the without limitation. This isn't a contract, counselor. The blue flue material can say, "X days after..." to set the time relationship. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just showing many occurrences beside those listed are, or will be, dated. Sorry for writing in proper grammar. The "On June 17" has been the intro to the paragraph I believe from the beginning, all other editors have left it, including you after deleting "Before the GBI investigation was concluded" a couple of times, I'm not sure why you see it as a problem at this late stage, and it continues to be consistent as other occurrences are all dated and even timed. It's absence won't tell the readers when the charges were made in relation to the death or subsequent activities without unnecessary counting. It is reasonable to set a timeline w/consistency: dates of confrotation and death, charges, bond, hearings, trial, etc. I think that it also shows the DA took quick action which has been viewed as a good thing in these days of proper and timely response to the police use of deadly force. The reader comes first. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because "On June 17" has been there from the beginning, does not mean it should be. This story is very fluid and the fact that another editor's eye's may catch something that was an oversight to you & other WP editors is why & how WP articles are improved upon. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh boy! Did I ever screw up! I made a huge copy/paste error in my comment above at timestamp 17:03 24 June and have corrected that comment. I intended to copy/paste "as of June 17, 2020 that investigation was continuing" but in error copy/pasted "On June 17." My error has caused unintended confusion and I am very sorry for that.  For the record, I only suggest changes for the 1st paragraph under the heading "Investigation and criminal charges" (as I indicate in a rough draft above in green above).  I have absolutely no problem with the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph staying as is:  On June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney announced eleven charges against Rolfe: felony murder, five counts of aggravated assault, four police oath violations, and damage to property.  Very sorry about my copy/paste error. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Because I feel awful about my copy/paste error & I want to be as precise as I can, I will put my proposed rough draft for the 1st paragraph along with the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph (that I think is fine as-is) below in green. In fact, I think the whole 2nd paragraph is fine as-is but in this comment will only include it's 1st sentence because that's what I screwed up in my copy/paste error.  And to reiterate, I feel the current 1st paragraph may violate DUE, BALASP, and it seems to not flow well regarding the sequence of events & that's why I wrote a rough draft for it.
 * (rough draft) "On the evening of June 12, 2020 the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) began their investigation into the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks by officer Rolfe (, which as of June 17 remains ongoing . The next day the Atlanta police chief resigned, officer Rolfe was fired, and officer Bronson was placed on administrative duty. On June 15, the county medical examiner ruled Brooks's death a homicide.On June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney announced eleven charges against Rolfe: felony murder, five counts of aggravated assault, four police oath violations, and damage to property...
 * Ok, I feel stupid now, so I'm gonna get off here & hope none of you are too mad at me for my screw up. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's really, really good, actually. I hope you won't mind, I made some modifications . <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem ! It's hard to be human! I have a plaque that says "Be careful how you present your words because tomorrow you may have to eat them." I was quite mystified about your position, but am relieved now that you have explained. I think your edit is fine. I am dropping the position that the second paragraph should begin "Before completion of the GBI report, on ..."! My only sticking point (sorry) is I would like to indicate to the reader (without necessarily a date) that the GBI's investigation was continuing (the reader may wonder what happened to it). When the investigation is completed we can delete that clause and just have a later entry stating when the GBI submitted its report. Anyway,  put in the clause, "; as of June 17, 2020 that investigation was continuing." so would like his opinion. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With what I hope will be her indulgence, I added something to 's text above. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thumbs up. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You all are very kind, thank you! I like the changes made to my proposed rough draft and unless someone else wants to make additional changes to it, I think we should go ahead and use it.   As for the inclusion of the status of the GBI investigation, because of UNDUE and BALASP (and maybe even additional WP guidelines) I don't feel it's a matter of shouldn't include it, but rather it's a matter of can't include it.  I understand that it's a sticking point for you  Quaerens-veritatem - but because of WP guidelines, it seems to me that we have no choice but to exclude it.  We reported that an investigation has begun and it seems the only thing we can do now is wait til the investigation is over and report on it then.  In fact, at that point, we might need to give the investigation its own subheading depending on what it says. Thanks again to you both for your kind words. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020
The description of the scuffle between officers and Rayshard Brooks does not include that he actually shot officer Brosnan. Brooks violently attacked, took and used the officers weapon on the officer. 2601:18C:402:F7F0:35DC:2108:D9F2:EC3 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. <span style="font-family:'Roboto',sans-serif;font-weight:300;color:red;text-shadow: 2px 2px 10px black;">Ed6767  talk!  13:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry to pick on you, but I'm getting pretty fucking sick and tired of meaningless drive-by "responses" to edit requests. If you don't know anything about the article or its history or the many conversations here on the talk page, you're not helping and just confusing things. The right answer would have been the one I give below., maybe you know some way to block requests on a given article from going into the queue. This is a thrice-daily waste of time for everyone. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , apologies that I'm not an expert at responding to edit requests, something I do very infrequently compared to other work here. Usually, it's due to the things showing up in my recent changes feed, then checking for spam ext. I normally don't turn down responses unless I clearly think there is an issue with it - although I very much appreciate being told much more politely that I made a mistake, as I likely did here judging by that reaction. I am sorry that you found it so insulting and will be more diligent in responding to the edit requests to prevent future frustration, especially on highly active or controversial pages. <span style="font-family:'Roboto',sans-serif;font-weight:300;color:red;text-shadow: 2px 2px 10px black;">Ed6767  talk!  19:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's nothing in the interface to restrict or otherwise throttle edit requests. Short of semiprotecting the article talk page itself also, there's nothing that can be done about frivolous requests that I am aware of. El_C 19:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't make myself clear. It's not the edit requests I'm pissed off about (and you know I swear a lot -- I had a grand uncle who was a longshoreman -- so don't take it personally) but rather the responses to them. It's what we talked about before. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you made yourself clear, I'm just a bit thick today apparently. Anyway, I think educating respondents is the way to go about this. How that is to be done, however, isn't something I have an immediate answer to. El_C 20:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's where I'm stuck as well. New Page Patrol has a project talk page; is there an equivalent for edit requests where this can be raised? I thought of Wikipedia talk:Edit requests but I have a feeling there's little attention there. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"In a press release on Wednesday, the attorneys said Brooks took Brosnan's stun gun from him and used it against the officer." www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/atlanta-officer-charged-death-rayshard-brooks-turns-himself-jail-n1231437


 * The article says (a) that Brooks fired the taser and (b) that Brosnan claims the taser did, in fact, zap him. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Background discrepancy
Reference the "background" section, What is the reason for redacting the Rayshard Brooks paragraph in a sympathetic manner (kids, family, struggle with jail, etc.) as opposed to the unsympathetic Garrett Rolfe paragraph where it goes straight into negative aspect of his career background (as opposed to also mentioning about his family or any possible stress related struggle he might have had on the job, etc.)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatNPatN (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Are there sources on those details? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I meant specifically: shouldn't the background section address the same points for all involved parties in this matter to avoid obvious bias? No subjects should be off limits but they should be the same, and in the same order, for all parties (family background, education, career, disciplinary, etc.). PatNPatN (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to move a section
I think we should move the statement "prosecutors claim that after Brooks was shot, Rolfe kicked Brooks and Brosnan stood on his shoulder." From the body and into the "investigation" section due to the fact that the video evidence does not support this claim and so far it's simply an allegation made by the prosecution, without evidence. It's misleading on the section it's currently in. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose in this photograph that the DA shows, Rolfe could have been tripping over Brooks rather than kicking him, but I really don't see a logical reason to put "Rolfe kicking Brooks" in the investigations section when "Rolfe shooting Brooks" is in the death section. Of course it should be properly attributed, etc., but I think everything that happened in that parking lot on the night of June 12 should be in one section (currently called "Death"). That "Rolfe kicking Brooks" is a disputed allegation is no reason to move it out of that section. By comparison, "Brooks tased Brosnan" is an allegation; "Brooks was intoxicated' is an allegation; etc., but we wouldn't move those details out of the section. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 05:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Background
<S>Why are we including events from the officer's past that are irrelevant to the story, but denying any edits that include background information on [Mr. Brooks] that are the reason he was on probation and attacked the officers? Seems like a bit of a double standard. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because "cruelty to children and battery convictions" are not "the reason he was on probation and attacked the officers", as clearly explained in the source that someone cited in making one of the edits that I reverted. I have no objection to adding what the secondary sources actually say, though. I'm surprised by the recent focus on this by various editors: is this advertised on some Proud Boys message board or something? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 23:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * [His background is relevant] toward the officers. Also, address my points and avoid the accusations and snide remarks, it's uncivil and can get you blocked. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To ProudOfYourMan - These are a few other things that can get someone blocked: WP:SANCTIONGAMING, WP:SOCK, WP:STRAWSOCK, WP:IDHT, & WP:DNFTT ... just to name a few. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no WP:CIVIL violation by Levivich. Are there any reliable, secondary sources that have connected this information with the killing as discussed at WP:WEIGHT? VQuakr (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that as a snide comment, that was a sincere question. The number of new editors specifically trying to expand coverage of the criminal histories of black people killed by police is pretty noticeable. In fact, Snopes wrote an article about it, titled "Rayshard Brooks: Another Black Man Smeared in Viral Social Media Posts After His Death", in which the author writes, "Now, as two police officers face criminal charges in his killing and his name becomes part of protest chants against racism in policing nationwide, some vocal corners of the Internet say his past arrests and incarcerations are crucial for understanding — and justifying — why police killed him." I'm curious which corner of the internet it is, and seeing the username "ProudOfYourMan" with edits to this article and Proud Boys made me guess it's a Proud Boys message forum. I'm just curious what the source is of this concern about criminal histories. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —you are introducing the idea of "blackness" to this discussion. You do so when you refer to editors "trying to expand coverage of the criminal histories of black people killed by police"., who only started editing this month, did not say anything about "black people". Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can take credit for introducing the idea of "blackness" into a discussion about the Killing of Rayshard Brooks. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Levivich—we are discussing whether or not we can include background information on two cops and one DWI suspect. Why are you are introducing "race" to this discussion? Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking the bait. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no "bait". What does Brooks' "race" have to do with whether or not his background information should be included in the article? You say I am "baiting" you. No I am not "baiting" you. I am pointing out that your introduction of "race" to this section of the Talk page is extraneous to the question being addressed in this section of the Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Implying that I'm part of some conspiracy that's being organized off-platform on some (as far as I know) non-existent message board, accusing me of being a sock, and waving around a bunch of vague threats regarding Wikipedia policy, instead of just addressing the actual, completely legitimate concern, may not be strictly WP:CIVIL but it's certainly unproductive and disingenuous. The article goes in depth into the officer's unrelated history but fails to do the same for the [victim]. I'd just like to get that fixed with minimal argument about who I am as a person. And perhaps the influx of new opinions and perspectives on Wikipedia lately has more to do with misrepresentation on the project, and not a hidden cabal of ne'er-do-wells. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, in fact, you really were part of some conspiracy that's being organized off-platform. Surprise! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

No-one can provide a reason why Rolfe's history is so detailed and Brooks is very vague? Reliable sources have been provided and the topic is notable in the media. I can understand that providing Brooks criminal history might cause some readers to use this as justification for his death but I believe hiding this information will not help the situation. A reader coming to wikipedia looking for facts on Brooks criminal history and not finding any will simply google to find all the disinformation which is filling social media. There is a problem with this article that is editors with good intentions, trying to protect the victim, are simply making matters worse. Do the right thing and provide readers with the facts... that is what wikipedia is all about.
 * To Bus stop & & ProudOfYourMan - This article is not the "biography of Brooks." This article is about the "killing of Rayshard Brooks" in the hands of the police. Do you two understand that? This article is about Brooks being killed by a police officer, Rolfe, who chose to put the public at risk unnecessarily when Rolfe deliberately chose to use excessive deadly force to shoot and kill the unarmed Rayshard Brooks twice in the back. Rolfe's lawyer admits that Rolfe 'deliberately chose' to unnecessarily use deadly force against the unarmed Brooks. Rolfe's lawyer said, "Rolfe dropped his taser and fired his service weapon " three times.  Rolfe fired one shot into a bystander's truck and Rolfe fired two deadly shots into the back of unarmed Brooks. Therefore, including Rolfe's history of being reprimanded for "unreasonable and unnecessary" use of excessive deadly force that presented unacceptable risk to the public, is not a one-off the night Rolfe killed Brooks, is covered by RS, and is relevant to Rolfe killing Rayshard Brooks - so this article should reflect that.
 * To be clear: ex-officer Rolfe is the attacker and Brooks is the victim. Brooks' history has zero (0) to do with Rolfe unnecessarily choosing to put the public at risk when Rolfe chose to used deadly force against an unarmed Brooks. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:SOAPBOX aside, Brooks being a violent criminal who attacked an officer and fired a potentially deadly weapon at him is central to the story and should be included. I get that you WP:DONTLIKEIT but Wikipedia isn't about what you like, it's about providing a neutral, fact-based documentation of what happened. ProudOfYourMan (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC) Sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To ProudOfYourMan - your comment appears to violate WP:GAMING & WP:GASLIGHTING.  Fact is, taser is  not  considered a deadly weapon.  In fact, police use tasers  to avoid the use of deadly force . It's time you follow the First law of holes stop digging, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BetsyRMadison—1.5 million Americans per year are arrested for DWI. What percentage of them do you think take the cop's taser? Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Bus stop - Stay on topic. This article is about the "Killing of Rayshard Brooks" - this is not an article about DWI arrests. If you'd like to write a WP article on DWI arrests, then do so on a different page and not on this talk page. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's time to just stop responding to Bus Stop, Jim Michael, and ProudOfYourMan. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - Paul Howard stated on 2 June 2020 in a press conference that Stun guns are considered deadly weapons. PatNPatN (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BetsyRMadison—thank you for pinging me. I don't know from where you are deriving that we can't include background information on the individual who was shot. Can you explain that? Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bus stop - It's been explained to you, repeatedly. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's time to just stop responding to Bus Stop, Jim Michael, and ProudOfYourMan. Pointless. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Why are the charges upon which he was sentenced relevant to his killing? In other words, why does it matter if he went to jail for credit card fraud, or car theft, or something else? And for the love of God, please nobody say "because if he was a bad person then it was OK to kill him" or any variation of that. That argument is not going to fly. Are there any others? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Levivich—I don't see the point in suppressing information here that is readily available in multiple good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you say things like that? You know that's a bad argument. Wikipedia 101: - WP:NOTEVERYTHING. So "readily available" is not an argument for inclusion. That's why I asked why it's relevant to the topic of this article, which is the killing of Rayshard Brooks. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's time to just stop responding to Bus Stop, Jim Michael, and ProudOfYourMan. Pointless. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —we don't don blinders when we address a subject; we should not be contrivedly omitting material. Our article should be thoroughgoing rather than contrived to omit material which may be objectionable to some sensibilities. We serve the reader best, by providing an abundance of pertinent and relevant material. The article already includes much material that is not "relevant to his killing", to use your phrase. Bus stop (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * et al., please note that I blocked ProudOfYourMan for their unacceptable comments here, and redacted them. I wonder if they should get a topic ban from AP2 material. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Turns out ProudOfYourMan was just another sock. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Post mortem

 * The comments removed are exactly the reason I believe Brooks background needs to be expanded. Readers will find the information on Brooks criminal history elsewhere and come to the (misinformed) decision that he was a violent offender. Im tired of hearing that Brooks was a child abuser when one sentence in this article could help clarify what actually happened. P.S. I am not a sock, just a new user unfamiliar with wikipedia. I wrote the comments of "unsigned from 67.213.143.123" and "unsigned post by someone or other" but have now made an account and trying to sign my posts. Stickywu (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's a valid consideration. It can be hard, though, to know whether we're countering misinformation or just giving it wider exposure. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * EEng—we are neither "countering misinformation [nor] giving it wider exposure". Wikipedia is at its best when it reflects reliable sources. We omit flimsily-sourced material but we endeavor to include adequately sourced material. Bus stop (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Jesus, will you quite bludgeoning this discussion? As explained OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER to you, WP:ONUS. Now will you put a lid on it?For everyone else, it's time we just stopped responding to Bus Stop. Pointless. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No - I do not support including it - No connection to his death which is the subject of this article. Once again, we all have to remember that this WP article is about the "Killing of Rayshard Brooks" and not the "biography of Rayshard Brooks." Therefore, because of WP guidelines like WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE (and possibly more): since any "child abuse" is not relevant because it has zero to do with with his being killed by the police, it should not be included in this WP article. It is not the job of WP editors to clarify anything about things that are not relevant to Brooks being killed by police. It is the job of WP editors to use RS on discussing the killing, not his bio.  BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One more thought on "clarification": That issue is not included in this WP article because is has nothing to do with his death, and that is the only clarification regarding that issue that is needed. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, article content doesn't have to be directly connected to the article's nominal subject (in this case the killing). Other material can be included -- for example, background on the people involved -- to the extent that we believe it serves the reader's understanding. One of the reasons we often omit details on someone involved is that there's a separate article on them; in this case there isn't an article on Brooks, so there's more of an argument for inclusion. It's a matter of editorial judgment. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> - In the case of George Floyd, there is a WP "Killing of George Floyd" page and a separate "George Floyd Jr" bio page. Because of WP guidelines, Floyd's criminal history is not on the "Killing of George Floyd" page, but can be found on his bio page.  Perhaps a draft of Brooks bio page should be considered? BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, let's take it slow. People often forget that when a subject (in this case, Brooks himself) is notable (i.e. has sufficient reliable, independent coverage), that opens the gate for a separate page on Brooks himself, and typically there would then be a separate page, but it's not required and not always the best choice -- see WP:NOPAGE. All other things being equal, an integrated presentation is preferable; when the biographical part added to everything else makes an unwieldy article, then it's time to think of a split. Of course, a survey of coverage on Brooks (himself) right now might convince us that a separate article on him is inevitable, and if so we might as well split it off now as a way of encouraging contributions of that material. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC) P.S. I wouldn't say that certain material is not on the Killing of GF page simply because, as you say, of guidelines. There's very little that's cut-and-dried like that. It's editor judgment interpreting the guidelines.
 * To <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> - It makes total sense that guidelines are not cut-and-dried, and I know practically nothing about when or how to split a page, so I will listen & learn from you and the other talented, experienced editors on here on that. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Such flattery! Please go on. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 11:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) —you write "Because of WP guidelines, Floyd's criminal history is not on the "Killing of George Floyd" page, but can be found on his bio page." I don't think this is correct. After lengthy RfCs, a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was reached to divide material on "criminal background" in that particular way between George Floyd and Killing of George Floyd. (Agreeing with the postscript added by .) Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting we add that he was a child abuser (even though that is the current information ciculating the internet) since he was never charged with that. He was charged with child cruelty twice: Once when his child witnessed a domestic dispute Brooks had with his wife and a second time when his child witnessed him driving away after being stopped by police. He never touched the child but for some reason is being labelled a child abuser. I don't believe we are incorrectly "giving this more exposure" since Brooks mugshot has already become a meme. When googling for more information I just find pages with his arrest warrant or criminal conviction printout. These pictures could spread further when the court issues their ruling. This article needs more than just mentioning an interview he did in February. He had a lifelong problem with police that was serious enough for him wanting to do a public interview and I think we should have more on that as it was a big part of his life.67.213.143.123 (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm starting a new thread with some sources and quotes, below, in part so we can archive this mess and have a clean fight :-) Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Rolfe's other options?
Many people have said that Rolfe shouldn't have shot Brooks. Should the article state what media sources, lawyers etc. say he should have done instead at the time of the shooting - or should those suggestions/assertions/claims not be added until the trial (if it goes ahead)? Jim Michael (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They already said what Rolfe should have done: not shoot Brooks. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's likely that Brooks would have outrun them - so that would have meant them allowing him to run off with a police taser, after having tested over the drink-drive limit and punched a police officer. If that's what some lawyers in the case & the mainstream media sources say he should have been allowed to do, then those suggestions of theirs should be in the article. Jim Michael (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How many times does it need to be repeated before you're able to hold it in your brain? It's not legally allowable to shoot someone because they punched you, are drunk, and have a taser (especially not a spent taser that can't fire again)? If you have trouble remembering this, maybe you could have it tattooed on your body or something. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not even trying to offer an alternative suggestion for what Rolfe should have done, let alone suggest what to add to the article in regard to it. You're merely repeating your assertion that the shooting shouldn't have happened. He was not a victim, or even a suspect; he attacked the cops after a breathalyser proved he'd been drink-driving. He was shot a second after trying to attack Rolfe again by firing the stolen taser at him. The vast majority of people would say that the shooting was in response to Brooks raising the taser at him. The idea that in the space of a second, he worked out how many times the taser had been fired, thought Brooks was no longer a threat, then decided to fire anyway isn't believable. The footage from the Wendy's cam shows Rolfe drawing his gun a split-second after Brooks fires the taser at him. Jim Michael (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Jim Michael - It is not the job of WP editors to "try to offer an alternative suggestion for what Rolfe should have done" -Ex-officer Rolfe is the attacker who chose to use deadly force against the unarmed Brooks. Brooks is the victim who was shot in the back twice, and died, the second Rolfe unnecessarily & deliberately chose to use deadly force against the unarmed Brooks. Recall that even Rolfe's lawyer said Rolfe unnecessarily chose deadly force, Rolfe's lawyer said, "Officer Rolfe dropped his taser and fired his service weapon " three times. I'd be remiss if I didn't remind you that Rolfe knew that his own life was  not  in danger because 1) Rolfe knows/knew a taser is not considered a deadly weapon, and 2) Rolfe also knew there were no more darts left in the taser Brooks had.
 * Finally, your comments seem to violate WP:GASLIGHTING by trying to reinvent the legal standard for deadly force by falsely imply that it's Constitutionally ok for police all around this country to use deadly force, shoot and kill an unarmed man who is running away. The truth is, police do  not  have the right to kill us if we run from them, or even if we punch them before we run from them, or even if we have a non-lethal taser aimed/firing toward them. The US Supreme Court has already ruled on this in (1985) Tennessee v. Garner. In a 6-3 ruling SCOTUS wrote, “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is Constitutionally unreasonable." In this case, Rolfe (attacker) unnecessarily and deliberately shot and killed Brooks (victim). BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's time to just stop responding to Bus Stop, Jim Michael, and ProudOfYourMan. Pointless. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —you say Recall that even Rolfe's lawyer said Rolfe unnecessarily chose deadly force, Rolfe's lawyer said, "Officer Rolfe dropped his taser and fired his service weapon" three times. I find a source saying "Ahead of the district attorney’s announcement, Rolfe’s lawyers issued a statement saying the officer feared for his safety and that of others around him and was justified in shooting Brooks." These are two very different sentiments, BetsyRMadison. Perhaps these are different lawyers. I don't know. But they both apparently are lawyers of Rolfe. You are citing one claiming Rolfe "unnecessarily chose deadly force" and I am citing one, Boston.com, saying Rolfe was "justified in shooting Brooks". Bus stop (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is a Sheriff Alfonzo Williams explaining to CNN that the shooting was justified. Note: "One day before charges might be filed against the ex-officer who killed Rayshard Brooks, a black Georgia sheriff said the shooting was justified." Please watch the video. In it Sheriff Williams explains in detail why this shooting may be justified, in his opinion. This is a more extensive interview with Georgia Sheriff Alfonzo Williams. It is on YouTube. In it Sheriff Williams says "What happened in the Brooks case is completely justified, one-hundred percent." And by the way, pertinent to this section of this Talk page, that same source offers other options available to Rolfe. For instance "You've got the car. You've asked for his driver's license. You know who he is. So even if you don't get him right now, you can get him later," Ramsey said. We are discussing here in this section the other options available to Rolfe. Bus stop (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "We are discussing here in this section the other options available to Rolfe." How does that help in the improvement of the article? The discussion seems forum-like to me, and I have not seen any suggestions of improvements to article content. Dimadick (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If by worked out how many times the taser had been fired you mean counting to two... well, if Officer Rolfe has trouble doing that maybe he should find a less mentally demanding line of work. He should have just let the guy go. They knew who he was. Now please, as I've said before trying to help you think logically isn't worth the trouble. Let's stop. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The video actually shows him reaching for his gun before Brooks turned around. We also cant conclude he was "proved" drunk either, since his reading might have come down by the time he got back to the station. -- {unsigned post by someone or other?}
 * He doesn't raise the gun until after the taser is fired. Jim Michael (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I admit to not having much knowledge in this area, but isn't a cop allowed to and expected to use deadly force in some circumstances? I'm neither a legal expert nor a law enforcement expert but a cop is armed so that they can take down suspects under certain circumstances. I'm not going to attempt to present a rationale for this shooting. That is not my role as an editor. But we report reliable sources to readers, that is, we digest and paraphrase that which is prominently found in good quality sources. Please don't tell your fellow editor that they have "trouble remembering" or ask them "How many times does it need to be repeated before you're able to hold it in your brain?" Rational, reasonable discussion is preferable. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's better if editors inform themselves instead of just wondering out loud. You might start the process with this interesting fact: in Britain police don't even carry guns. And yet their murder rate is about 1/5 that of the US, even without all the armed "taking down" (ghastly offhand way of referring to killing someone) of belligerent drunk drivers. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I chose the language "taking town" because sometimes shooting doesn't result in death. Bus stop (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Bus stop (In reply to your comment at timestamp 23:01, 26 June 2020) The US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution protects The People from police using deadly force during arrest, to prevent the escape of arrest, and while in custody. In a 6-3 ruling of (1985) Tennessee v. Garner. SCOTUS wrote, “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is Constitutionally unreasonable." In this case, Rolfe (attacker) unnecessarily and deliberately shot and killed Brooks (victim). BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You could say "stop him" instead of adopting the casual language of police-work-as-video-game. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Backup had been called and arrived only 1 minute after the shooting. Rolfe should have just waited and only used his gun in self defence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickywu (talk • contribs) 15:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Brooks could have fled the scene with the taser by then. Jim Michael (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Remember when I asked you How many times does it need to be repeated before you're able to hold it in your brain? I guess it's going to take a few more times. You're not allowed to kill someone because you want to prevent them from "fleeing the scene", even with a taser. I assume you're not a police officer, but if you are, please check with your supervisor before killing anyone; it will save a lot of trouble for everyone. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * —I don't think we know whether or not Rolfe "used his gun in self defence". I think that is a question that may be resolved in a court of law. Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Early in the altercation, should the police have arranged for alternative transportation for Brooks to his home while impounding the car? Later in the altercation, should the police have allowed Brooks to run away, perhaps even before the fight grew more serious? I think sources have suggested these possible alternatives and possibly other alternatives. The question raised was whether or not the article should address such material. I'm not looking at relevant sources at the moment so I can't give a definitive answer but in principle I favor this suggestion. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Some potential sources on this: USA Today, PBS, NYT, Fox. See also this AJC article speculating about why Brooks ran. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Many sources states that Rayshard Brooks indeed turned toward the officer and fired the taser as he was running away.PatNPatN (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Criminal history
Right now, our article says: The fact that Brooks was on probation and had been incarcerated in the past is arguably relevant to his killing because, as sources point out, it may have motivated his reaction to being handcuffed. There's the question about whether we should expand this to include more detail about the subject's criminal history. makes the point that there is a lot of misinformation circulating about this topic, and Wikipedia could, or should, include the accurate information. Personally, I'm pretty persuaded by this, and would normally write a footnote, as was done at George Floyd. However, in this case, the criminal history is complex and reliable sources are contradictory. Here's what I've found:

AJC #1 - It's an op-ed, but it is the product of actual investigation by journalists and it divulges its sources.

AJC #2 - this is already cited in our article, and it's a straight-news feature the AJC published after it ran the above op-ed. (It's mentioned in the op-ed as the upcoming Sunday story.) It provides a shorter summary. We can use it, but it doesn't strike me as complete.

AP:

CNN 1:

CNN 2:

Snopes is long, detailed, and complicated:
 * [c. 2007] age 14, spends 2 years in youth detention
 * 2010 [age 18] arrested on supicion of making false statement to police for telling them he didn't know anything about a robbery (to which he was not connected by police), sentenced to 1 year probation, which court records show he violated
 * 2011 arrested and sentence to 1 year probation and $300 fine "for allegedly causing physical bodily harm to a member of his family, though it’s unclear whom ... [we don't know] why, or under what circumstances, Brooks was involved. We also don’t know who contacted authorities to begin with, or the severity of the victim’s injuries. We know, however, the offenses on Brooks’ criminal record and for which he was charged were: battery family violence, battery, simple battery family violence, and simple battery"
 * Jan 2012 charged with possession of marijuana and being in the presence of a gun, sentenced to 1 year (but actual incarceration time not specified)
 * 2013 - this one is complex per Snopes: he was sleeping in a car with a woman and child in it, an officer woke him up, Brooks immediately drove away; police later found an unoccupied car that matched that car's description and it was registered as stolen. "Three months later, police accused Brooks of committing the following crimes during what started as the 911 report of a suspicious vehicle mentioned above: theft by receiving stolen property, interference with police custody, false imprisonment, obstructing an officer, and cruelty to children. The latter offense includes any time children witness severe crimes or family violence, which is what seemed to have happened (based on available records) in Brooks’ case. He pleaded guilty in August 2014 and was sentenced to one year of prison and more than six years of probation."
 * 2015 and 2016: Brooks out of jail but arrested multiple times for theft/credit card theft, which violated his probation in the above cases. "He was sent back to prison for one year, fined $2,000, and issued more years of probation — sentences that surpassed the date of his death."
 * Snopes points out: "All of that said, in reference to online claims against him about family violence, it is accurate to state that Brooks at one point was charged with battery family violence, and one criminal allegation against him involved one or more child. But there’s no evidence to prove he physically harmed the children, and Brooks never faced allegations of child abuse, which is often the category of offense when people “beat” children."

As you can see, Snopes, AJC, AP, and CNN are reporting slightly different things. So I'm having trouble figure out a paragraph-length footnote that summarizes this. Thoughts? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, some info on this should be included in the article. The footage from the bodycams, dashcam & Wendy's clearly show that, after a long & civil conversation with Brooks, he suddenly attacked both officers as they tried to handcuff him. That was undoubtedly a major turning point, so Brooks history - including behavior during previous arrests - is relevant. It's as relevant as the officers' previous conduct, which in the case of Rolfe is included. Jim Michael (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To Jim Michael - No, none of it is relevant to Rolfe choosing to, as Rolfe's lawyer's says, "dropped his taser and fired his service weapon" three times to kill Brooks. I have not seen any RS report that say Rolfe shot & killed Brooks because of Brooks' past crimes - so it's clear that his past crimes are irrelevant and do not belong in this article about Rolfe killing Brooks. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh, that's funny, because what I get from the bodycams and so on is that after a long & civil conversation with Brooks they suddenly tried to handcuff him as he was asking them to let him get home so he could sleep it off -- and in doing so violated their own procedures for carrying out arrests. Prediction: Now you'll circle back for the 100th time to say (a) that officers were required to arrest Brooks (which is false); or (b) that officers were allowed to arrest Brooks (which is true, but beside the point – see (a)); or (c) that Brooks punched them and had a taser and might have got away (which is all true, but isn't a justification for killing someone). But really, I'm breaking my own rule: it's time to stop responding to Jim Michael. Pointless. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

To Levivich - I think you're a fine, thoughtful editor and I think you've done a great job in your research but my position is the same: this is an article is about him being killed by ex-officer Rolfe, not about his life, & not about his bio. So, in order to follow WP guidelines, since none of that has anything to do with Rolfe killing him, it does not belong in this article. To underscore that point, is the fact that RS write different things, "Snopes, AJC, AP, and CNN are reporting slightly different things. So I'm having trouble figure out a paragraph-length footnote that summarizes this." is all the more reason those things, which have nothing to do with Rolfe killing him, belong in this article. As for "motivation" for him fleeing, that is total speculation so also does not belong in this article. We have no idea what was going in his head and no one except him would be able to answer that, but he was Rolfe killed him before he could. I can't emphasize this enough, ex-officer Rolfe did not kill him because of any past crimes so none of his past crimes belong in this article about Rolfe killing him. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sorces linking the shooting of Brooks to him running away, and his running because probation would have meant a return to jail. Therefore the reason he was on probation is relevant to this article. Stickywu (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To me that only means that the fact he was on probation is relevant. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact of his probation is relevant. Exactly. Although that fact is shrouded in mystery within this article Stickywu (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not responding on behalf of another editor, these are just my own thoughts. I believe the main problem with adding information about Brooks criminal history is that it adds undue weight to that section. If there were a way to accurately summarise in a paragraph then it could be put in a footnote. However, the probation spans 8 years and is difficult to summarise since it is multiple charges and has been extended. I can understand why people dont want it on this page and I kind of agree but I really want that information available "somewhere". Im happy if its just the snopes and ajc articles added as references.

One more thing to Levivich - You cite the footnote on WP "George Floyd Jr" biography page but not on the WP "Killing of George Floyd" page. So perhaps you could start a draft article on Brooks' bio and include the information you've gathered there? Just a thought. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think "footnote", "expand the body", "no change", and "spinout a biography" are all reasonable options here. I can see pros and cons with each and am undecided, but I appreciate you and others sharing your thoughts. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 00:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Why is the reason for Brooks' incarceration not given in the article? Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. We want to inform the reader of the types of criminality pertinent to the individual that died in this incident. The individual bears responsibility for their own death. Engagement in criminal behavior increases the likelihood of bad outcomes. This applies to all people—including cops, bystanders, and criminals. No one benefits from criminality. Innocent bystanders are at a higher risk of being harmed if they happen to be in the presence of criminal behavior. The lives of cops are put in harm's way, in the presence of criminal behavior. And of course criminals are more likely to be harmed when they engage in criminal behavior. Rayshard Brooks engaged in other criminal behavior besides the one which directly led to the loss of his life. The reader should be apprised of the types of criminality pertinent to the life of Rayshard Brooks. Reliable sources support descriptions of the types of criminality pertinent to the life of Rayshard Brooks. Criminality is a theme in this article. It is a contrivance to consider suppression of Rayshard Brooks' history of criminal behavior. Bernard Kerik opines that Rayshard Brooks "would be alive today if he didn't resist and he didn't disarm the police officers". Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik is telling us "You could see in the video where he actually grabs the Taser from the officer's hand, jerks it out of his hand and runs. At some point during (the) running, while a cop is chasing him, he turns to fire at the cop. The cop fires three shots. He's hit twice, he goes down. If he didn't resist, if he didn't fight the cops, if he didn't attack them, didn't run, didn't attempt to shoot them with a Taser, he'd still be alive today." We are not discussing extraneous information. The criminal background of Rayshard Brooks is very pertinent to this article. Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that in quoting disgraced former NYC police commissioner, tax cheat, perjurer, bribe recipient, and all-around general felon Bernard Kerik, you failed to link to our article on him, which reads in pertinent part ...
 * Kerik pleaded guilty in Bronx Supreme Court on June 30, 2006 to two ethics violations ... On November 8, 2007, Kerik was indicted by a federal grand jury ... On November 5, 2009, Kerik pleaded guilty to eight felony tax and false statement charges ...
 * ... because it sure explains why he's your go-to guy on the wages of sin. Thanks for playing our game, however, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * —you say "you failed to link to our article on him". But I of course I did "link to our article on him". The sentence reads "Bernard Kerik opines that..." Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, gosh darn, you're right! You mentioned his name twice, and indeed linked the first of those two mentions, and I didn't notice that. I deeply and humbly apologize.Now that we've cleared that up, do you have anything to say about the fact your star witness is a corrupt and utterly immoral creep who (had he a normal conscience) would be embarrassed to show his face anywhere outside a monastery, but in fact is so shameless as to still hold himself out as a spokesman for law and order, social responsibility, and civil obedience? (To be fair, of course, that's on Fox News and... well let's face it... he probably knows that morons are unlikely to notice the incongruity.) His excuse for carrying on like that is probably that he's a sociopath. What's yours for quoting him? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't even one of Fox's actual news shows he was talking to. It was Ingraham Angle. —valereee (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh. I can't remember what the mental classification is below moron. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 11:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's Fox Evening Lineup. —valereee (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is a Sheriff Alfonzo Williams explaining to CNN that the shooting was justified. Note: "One day before charges might be filed against the ex-officer who killed Rayshard Brooks, a black Georgia sheriff said the shooting was justified." Please watch the video. In it Sheriff Williams explains in detail why this shooting may be justified, in his opinion. This is a more extensive interview with Georgia Sheriff Alfonzo Williams. It is on YouTube. In it Sheriff Williams says "What happened in the Brooks case is completely justified, one-hundred percent." Bus stop (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The charges are that the officers used unnecessary force. "Following the announcement of the murder charge on June 17, Atlanta police officers reportedly called out sick en masse, protesting the charges by refusing to do their jobs." Clearly not all agree that the officers used unnecessary force. Bus stop (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "The director of Georgia’s police training center said the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks was tragic, yet justified ... "You’ve got the George Floyd case where everyone in America saw a murder on TV,” Wigginton said about the man who died in Minneapolis after a police officer pressed his knee into his neck. "And you will not find a police officer who will look at that video and say that was OK. But they want to take Mr. Brooks’ case and put it in the same category as that crime that was committed on Mr. Floyd. And they’re not." Bus stop (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, the era in which the police are the ones deciding whether it was OK for other police to kill someone is over. Now, do you have any suggestions, other than those already soundly rejected, for changes to the article? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 12:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess we could report this as, "Many police and former police said the shooting by police of a black man who was running from police was justified," but that seems just sort of WP:DOGBITESMAN. Does it really add much? —valereee (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the era in which arrest for DWI does not mean fighting with cops, . Why? Because 1.5 million Americans per year are arrested for DWI. What percentage of them do you think take the cop's taser? Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —what does it have to do with "a black man"? Why are you specifying the man's race? Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to AGF here, but I'm trying to think of any way to take that other than "disingenuous to the point of disruptiveness." Please forgive me, I'm sure you must mean that some other way. —valereee (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope your AGF reserve tanks are full. You're going to need them. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No one's arguing that it was OK for Brooks to take the taser, so your response is, as usual, irrelevant. Bus stop, do you have any suggestions, other than those already soundly rejected, for changes to the article? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * —it is not "the shooting by police of a black man who was running from police was justified" but just "the shooting by police of a man who was running from police was justified". There is no known racial motive in this incident, or at least I am not aware that any has been established. I am not aware, for instance, of charges against the police of a hate crime. Please bring sources. Was something said by anyone indicating racial animosity? Did any of the participants have a history indicating racial animosity? Did any of the participants belong to any organizations espousing racial hatred? Does scouring of social media turn up indications of racial prejudice? We shouldn't perpetuate a "racial" narrative unless it is solidly founded. We can and we should mention the races—but that is because the races are mentioned in sources. But we should not be constructing sentences such as the one you suggested. Bus stop (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You are seriously saying that someone has to be alleging actual racial animosity by a white cop who shoots a black man who is running away from him before their race is relevant? I find that...astonishing. To the point that I'm really wondering why you're here. You have been bludgeoning discussion at multiple articles surrounding race and the police. You need to consider stopping that. —valereee (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Valereee—you are gratuitously inserting "race" into a discussion that has nothing to do with "race". This is a discussion about possible inclusion of information pertaining to Brooks' past interactions with the legal system. Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Not that I've been taking this advice myself, but as I've been saying for some time we're well past the point where we should all simply stop responding to Bus stop. It's hopeless. Let's renew that commitment so we can get back to improving articles. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just arrived at that station. Getting off now. —valereee (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When I said last week "I'm not taking the bait", this is what I meant. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well no wonder no one understood you. You were using the wrong metaphor. It's transportation, not fishing. —valereee (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How about that old journalistic standby, the Bus plunge? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you insinuating that User:Bus stop has a plunging neckline? Bus stop (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ouch. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Brooks' girlfriend
Should the article mention her? She was of significant relevance to his life & is claimed to be relevant in multiple ways to the events surrounding his death. The footage of him talking to the police minutes before they tried to arrest him shows him talking about her, during which he says that she drove him there & that he's getting food for her. She's been arrested in connection to the fire at the same location. Jim Michael (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly would you like to include about her (and where), and what are your sources for it?
 * Whatever is included must be balanced against the possibility of people using Wikipedia to get information on someone and harass, as this is a controversial topic. Whilst we can't remove information already out there, we don't need to make it easier, or provide it with a platform. So imo whatever is added shouldn't include anything identifying, unless it's so blown up that we can't avoid it and it's particularly relevant. And we can't speculate or conjecture. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I added some info along with a mainstream media source, but it was reverted. There are many other media articles which mention her. For the reasons you mention, I didn't include her name, age etc. Jim Michael (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Special:Diff/964994957, I think you were reverted because you used The Metro as your source. See WP:RS/PS: The Metro is generally considered unreliable. I don't think your edit is controversial, should you be able to find a better source for it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems strange not to include anything, for the reasons Jim Michael mentions. Here's a source: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/23/us/natalie-white-wendys-arson/index.html. I would suggest something in the first line: "He was also in a relationship with another woman, Natalie White, who he described as his "girlfriend". (Link to article)". I don't see the need to be coy about her name. Brooks mentions her multiple times in the bodycam footage. News sources have reported it. Atlanta fire dept posted a reward for her on social media when she was wanted in connection with the arson. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The topic is the killing of RB, not the life of RB. She is not a significant part of the killing of Rayshard Brooks (and, anyway, we don't actually know how significant a part of the life of RB she was). Look:
 * Relevant to the topic, the killing of RB:
 * How he was killed
 * Who killed him and who was accused of killed him
 * What happened to them afterwards
 * Where he was killed
 * When he was killed
 * Why he was killed
 * What happened that resulted in his killing
 * What effect his killing had on the world
 * Irrelevant to the topic:
 * The name of his significant other
 * The name of the person he said drove him there
 * The name of the person whose house he offered to walk to
 * The name of the people he had been drinking with
 * The name of the person who burned down the Wendy's
 * I'd keep it out per WP:BLPNAME. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 01:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't added or suggested adding her name.
 * I disagree that she's not being relevant to him being shot. She was (according to him) the reason that he was at Wendy's on that night while drunk - which is the reason that the police tried to arrest him there & then. The restaurant being burned down was in reaction to him being shot, so it's strongly linked to it. We don't (yet) know who burned Wendy's down, but we know it happened & that RB's gf has been arrested for it. A serious crime being committed in response to an event is important enough to include in the original article. For example, the 1992 Los Angeles riots in response to the beating of Rodney King & the murder of Peter Nielsen in response to the 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision. Jim Michael (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Event deserves a mention imo, and that CNN article is a better source. Whether we wish to name the individual or state their relationship is a different matter. But a mention of the fire in the restaurant in response seems reasonable. Levivich must agree that we should cover significant reactions usually, just as we cover the arson of the police precinct re. George Floyd in his killing article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A reader would be deprived of a possible insight into what transpired by the omission of material relating to the "girlfriend". Therefore I would say "include" this information. Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , that cnn story doesn't seem to say she's his girlfriend, just that they knew each other? —valereee (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Reactions section mentions the fire, but not the arrest.
 * Sources vary in regard to her relationship to him. Some don't say anything about it, some merely say that they knew each other, some say they were friends, some put ' ' or " " around girlfriend. We should say that he described her as his gf when talking to the police - that's true & already sourced. Jim Michael (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , indeed, only that they had some kind of relationship. When asked by CNN whether his client knew Brooks, Findling said, "Yes, but I will not comment on the extent of their relationship." In body camera video released by police, Brooks can be heard telling the officers who questioned him that Natalie White was his girlfriend. As far as I can see at a skim of Google, only tabloid media (unreliable per WP:RS/PS) is definitively stating that she was his girlfriend. RS' tend to state the two facts separately.
 * Just for clarity, I had slightly misunderstood Jim Michael's proposal (skim reading on phone after waking up wasn't the best idea) and presumed we were talking about including the Wendy's fire as an event (doesn't help we have multiple discussions on how much to include going on here). If I now understand correctly,, your proposal is to include something along the lines of "An individual, whom Brooks said to be his girlfriend, was arrested in connection to the arson."? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my comment was mostly in response to FirstPrimeOfApophis's comment about not seeing a reason to omit the name. I'm opposed to the name being included; I'm not opposed to any/all information about her being included.
 * I don't agree that she was the reason he was there; he said she drove him there, that doesn't mean she was "the reason", as in the cause, of his being there. If he had taken a taxi there, we would not be writing anything at all about who the taxi driver was. It doesn't matter if he was driven there by his girlfriend or his brother or a friend or a taxi driver.
 * The fact that the Wendy's was burned down obviously is worthy of inclusion. I'm not sure how much of the "Wendy's fire investigation" is DUE. If someone were convicted, sure, we'd add that detail in. I think two people have been arrested for it IIRC (I haven't read the latest news about it), and that might be worthy of inclusion. That one of the people has been identified (by who?) as his girlfriend... maybe, depending on how solid that identification was. IIRC the woman's attorney said she knew him and had a relationship with him but did not say "girlfriend" or romantic partner; Floyd's Brooks's family I think had no comment on their relationship. I may be misremembering, but I'd be curious to see exact proposed language and sources before making up my mind. I'm a "solid no" on including her name though. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 12:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: It doesn't matter if he was driven there by his girlfriend or his brother or a friend or a taxi driver. and If someone were convicted, sure, we'd add that detail in.: I believe we often include when subjects are charged, and their name(s) unless it's quite a number of individuals. Just to give a wild unrelated example, Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Someone being arrested in conjunction to a crime is relevant, especially if that person is not unrelated to the rest of the events. If someone is killed by a family member, we'd obviously include that fact, as it seems particularly relevant. If a wrongful event happens, and someone related to the person who was wronged takes a notable action, that fact in itself is notable. The proposal to mention her isn't in virtue of her role in driving him down to Wendy's, it's in her role as being the suspect of a directly reactionary crime of arson plus being (likely?) related to the subject.
 * I think the main reason this is contested is because she was (likely?) his girlfriend, and we then have to consider the adverse effects of mentioning her in this controversial case, but I see some troubles with the argument that it isn't relevant or is undue. I think it's relevant and not undue, we just need to consider how much of it can be properly backed by reliable sources, and balance inclusion against our responsibility when writing highly visible content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME: This suggests not identifying the suspects in the Wendy's fire, even if we had an article entirely about it (Wendy's restaurant fire). This article is one step removed from that, so I think it militates even more against identifying suspects. The CNN article above says  I'm still unsure what RS support there is for identifying one of the people arrested for the fire as the "girlfriend" of Brooks. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 13:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not stating that there is yet RS support for the girlfriend part, or that ultimately the 'balance' I referred to means that I'm on the side of inclusion (as far as name goes, at least, I'm against, and on the rest I'm not sure yet). I'm just trying to logically follow, in order, the specific consideration needed for inclusion/exclusion. I don't think the issue here is lack of relevance or undue-ness, but rather due to other policies / responsibilities. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , it appears your point is indeed strong, regarding BLPCRIME. Having spent (probably too much) time digging across the archives of BLP and BLP/N, particularly the discussion behind its original implementation, and the concerns raised since, especially on its conservatism, it appears there has never been a consensus over the years to interpret BLPCRIME more lightly. Policy seems unambiguously clear to avoid mention of name, and in my view that should extend to a specific enough descriptor such as "girlfriend of ___". The original footnote also stated Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement do not amount to a conviction. The points of substantial coverage in RS have been raised before, and said to not warrant exception to the rule. Seems like BLPCRIME is just poorly enforced on some articles, but that doesn't negate the fact. Hence, my view is not to include name, or the relationship as that would amount to effectively giving the name. I think BLPCRIME should settle the matter, if other editors agree. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Levivich—I don't think you mean "Floyd's family I think had no comment on their relationship". Are you sure you are not mixing up two articles? Bus stop (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Heh, yeah, Brooks, not Floyd. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 13:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The important thing is to alert the reader to a dimension of the topic. We need not include her name if this is some kind of bugaboo. But the reader should be apprised that Brooks mentions her by name and that she is arrested in conjunction with the fire. We should take care not to imply guilt unless in the future she us convicted in relation to the fire. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ProcrastinatingReader—I don't understand "or the relationship as that would amount to effectively giving the name". How would the "relationship ... amount to effectively giving the name"? Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , because it's a specific and narrow reference to a particular individual. It's not the same as saying "an individual was arrested in conjunction with the arson" (and that vague statement wouldn't be relevant here, because this isn't an article about the arson). This wouldn't be a reference to a wide characteristic, e.g. "a sex offender was arrested for X" or "a local resident" or similar. It's more akin to saying "the village's priest was arrested for X", though this is even more specific than that, and the priest might meet WELLKNOWN whereas this individual doesn't. In my view, such a reference strays over the spirit of BLPCRIME. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ProcrastinatingReader—you cannot say "this isn't an article about the arson". The current title is merely the most appropriate title of many possible titles. There is an understood subject being addressed, and it isn't limited to the strictest possible interpretation of the title. We can allude to the arrest of an individual, possibly related to Brooks, on suspicion of arson relating to the Wendy's fire. The justification for this is the fairly prominent presence of this information in sources. The point is not to be definitive—as might be evidenced by citing her name, or asserting her guilt—but to alert the reader to this facet of the event. Wouldn't the reader leave this article poorly-informed if this article did not inform the reader that the "girlfriend" referred-to numerous times in the video preceding his death, was arrested subsequent to the incident? Brooks speaks so much about his girlfriend that the cop even interrupts him and says "I don't know who she is; I don't care who she is." Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added the arson charge of someone acquainted with Brooks to the article without "girlfriend" or her name. —valereee (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Should she be mentioned in the Persons involved section as part of the description of RB? Jim Michael (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , is anyone saying she was there and had a part? If not, then no. Literally the only reason we're mentioning her is that she both knew him and has been charged in the Wendy's fire. If either of those were missing she'd be completely irrelevant as far as I can tell. —valereee (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RB said she drove him there, but I'm not aware of any evidence proving or disproving that. Jim Michael (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Reversion to Investigation and Charges July 05 2020
On July 5, Levivich reverted changes made to the Investigation and Charges section. The dif can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks&type=revision&diff=966087087&oldid=966045604.

Levivich's edit summary reads "these expansions seem WP:UNDUE; please seek consensus for these changes on talk before restoring"

The principles referred to are:

WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered)."

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery.

WP:CONSENSUS: "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

The changes
Levivich can expand on which specific changes seem WP:UNDUE to them, but my guess is it's mainly the material regarding the reactions to the speed and severity of the charges filed.

Every source which discusses the charges brought in relation to this shooting also mentions that they were brought ahead of the GBI investigation, and describes this as unusual. Multiple viewpoints which are significant to the case (see below) have commented on it. A US Congressman called for the DA to be removed from the case. These facts are significant and notable. A reader going away from this article without knowing them will have an incomplete understanding of the article's subject-matter. In fact, the article is now in violation of WP:UNDUE by not including these facts, and gives the false impression that these prosecutions are routine and uncontroversial.

The other changes were background re the GBI investigating officer-involved shootings in Georgia, and the issue with Brosnan agreeing or not agreeing to cooperate with the prosecution. The first (GBI) is relevant as background, because not all police forces in the US have a policy of external investigation, and the reader may incorrectly infer that it was unusual for APD to request it. The second (Brosnan) is an unusual fact about the DA's investigation, significant enough to be raised in multiple news sources. This change is only 2 sentences, so it is hard to see how it is not "in proportion".

How these changes comply with WP:UNDUE
(1) Fairly represent all significant viewpoints - the new viewpoints represented are those of the legal teams of the defendants, the Georgia Bureau of investigation, two statewide police associations, and a US Congressman. All these viewpoints address the case specifically. Currently, the section gives disproportionate weighting to the Fulton County DA's statements and the results of his investigation, to the exclusion of virtually all other viewpoints.

(2) Published by reliable sources - the sources are mainstream news organisations, mostly local to Georgia (which is unsurprising) but also the Tennessee Star and Reuters.

(3) In proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources - reading the sources cited shows this is true.

Regarding WP:CONSENSUS
As I understand it, WP:CONSENSUS gives each editor the right to express legitimate concerns and have those addressed in the content. It does not give editors a veto over changes they don't like simply by expressing disagreement. Editor consensus cannot supersede WP:NPOV or other overriding principles.

If an editors express disagreement but no legitimate concerns, the changes can be made without their agreement, and if they still revert the changes, this is handled via the WP procedures for handling disruptive editing, for example WP:3RR.

Editors notified [WP:APPNOTE]
I have sent appropriate notification to the following editors: , {{User|BetsyRMadison]], {{User|Quaerens-veritatem}}, {{User|Jim Michael}}, {{User|Bus stop}}, {{User|ProcrastinatingReader}}, {{User|Valereee}}.FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If you did not receive an APPNOTE, please contribute to this discussion anyway.
 * No way, it's already too long! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't know that length is a criterion. The reader comes first. We should strive for succinct but thorough coverage of notable occurrences. Compare Killing of Ahmaud Arbery. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not talking about the article, just this discussion, see WP:TLDR. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * None of those pings worked because you didn't sign your post. There is no frickin' way I'm going to try to figure out this ridiculous wall of text. Let's talk about the changes individually and stop making it impossible for anyone to actually follow a discussion. —valereee (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually {{u|FirstPrimeOfApophis}} your invitations wouldn't have pinged even if you signed your notification sentence. I noticed you added the invitation to each invitee's talk page, but as {{u|Valereee}} wrote, even though you added the invitation to invitees' talk pages, you should ping (two left curly { brackets, then u| editor name, then two right curly } brackets) per WP:PING. Also, I think to "talk about the changes individually" should involve one topic first, the reaction by multiple state legislators, a congressman, a fellow DA and former head of the GA DA's Council, legal experts, et al. to the Fulton DA for him prosecuting the case under the circumstances and not waiting for the GBI report. Thanks. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry folks, I really managed to screw that up. Is it right now? Quaerens-veritatem, yes I agree that that is the main change to be discussed, and thanks for you comments below.FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * {{u|FirstPrimeOfApophis}}, I'm afraid not. :) You can't fix a bad ping. In order to ping the person, you need to start a new post, ping them in it, and sign that post. Read WP:PING. Also, it's best (except in certain cases) not to edit a post of your own that has been responded to; it confuses other editors. Info at WP:TALK. There's a lot to learn. As long as you're trying, you're good. —valereee (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, take 3: I have sent appropriate notification to the following editors:

, {{User|BetsyRMadison}}, {{User|Quaerens-veritatem}}, {{User|Jim Michael}}, {{User|Bus stop}}, {{User|ProcrastinatingReader}}, {{User|Valereee}}.FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary
Omitting significant and reliably-sourced facts about this shooting or its aftermath is not acceptable, but there might be better ways to include them. Please post below how you would like these issues addressed. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:TALKPAGE and WP:PING. —valereee (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
Thanks for raising this here. My responses:
 * That's an overstatement; not every source. BBC's article about the charges doesn't mention GBI; neither does The Guardian or AP. Other sources do mention it, like NYT and AJC. However, those sources are relaying the criticisms of others (like the police union and defendants) more than making any judgment in their own voice.
 * I disagree that a politician's opinion of the DA is significant or worthy of inclusion in this article.
 * I agree insofar as the article is missing information about the unusual speed and severity of the charges. I have collected sources and quotes on that point at User:Levivich/sandbox8, but haven't added them to the article yet (if anyone else wants to, please feel free). See especially the three sources quoted at User:Levivich/sandbox8. However, note the difference between unusual speed and severity, on the one hand, and saying the DA should have waited for GBI on the other. The sources say the former, not the latter.
 * I think that's a good point; it is in fact routine; and because it's routine, it's not worth mentioning that APD asked GBI to investigate. I have edited the article to take out the "asked" part (the rest remains).
 * It would be an unusual fact (that one of the officers agreed to testify against the other), if it were true. But apparently it's not. That the DA said Brosnan would be a cooperating witness, and that Brosnan quickly denied it, are, in my opinion, not worth mentioning at all. "The DA said something mistaken and was quickly corrected" is not significant.
 * I don't understand the use of the word "viewpoints" in this sentence. The DA is the government agency that is prosecuting this crime. Of course we're going to spend a lot of time talking about the DA's investigation and prosecution. That's not a "viewpoint", that's facts. We don't spend a lot of time discussing what every thinks about the investigation (reactions), or at least, I don't think we should.
 * Not in proportion to each source individually, but in proportion to all the sources collectively. Local news sucks as a source; they will cover every detail of a local story, and they have the lowest journalistic standards and resources. To figure out DUE, I look at global sources, in this case international-scope foreign media like BBC and international-scope domestic media like NYT. Even AJC is really just a regional paper.
 * True, but WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Anyway, I don't have final say, but I am allowed to revert, at which point it's up to you to get consensus for the changes... which you've started doing by making this post, so I think we're right on track here.
 * Per above, I definitely think the article should be expanded to summarize what RSes have said, in their own voice, about the unusual speed and severity of the charges (e.g., User:Levivich/sandbox8).
 * I'm not opposed to expanding the article to say a little more about GBI's investigation. I am opposed to rewriting the entire section to make the GBI investigation its own subsection, and to place it first (before the DA's investigation), and to suggest that the DA did something wrong by not waiting for GBI.
 * I oppose including the part about the DA saying Brosnan would be a cooperating witness and Brosnan's attorney clarifying that meant that he would cooperate with investigators, not that he was a "state's witness". Mostly because that's a distinction without a difference, and seems trivial to me. The important content is/will be whether Brosnan takes the stand and what he says.
 * As with all disputes, it's not up to me, it's up to the consensus of all editors participating. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 18:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Response to Levivich
Thank you for your comments, Levivich. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an overstatement; not every source. BBC's article about the charges doesn't mention GBI; neither does The Guardian or AP. Other sources do mention it, like NYT and AJC. However, those sources are relaying the criticisms of others (like the police union and defendants) more than making any judgment in their own voice.
 * I have not cited these opinions to the news sources. I have cited them to the people or organizations being quoted. News sources don't typically make any judgement in their own voice except in editorials, they mainly report what other people said and did. Also, your recourse to overseas publications is strange - this issue is primarily of US domestic interest. I would guess most readers of the BBC or Guardian would not know (or care) what the Fulton County DA or the GBI does. The legal system works differently in the UK.
 * I disagree that a politician's opinion of the DA is significant or worthy of inclusion in this article.
 * I agree, his opinion of the DA would not be worthy of inclusion. However, the fact that a US Congressman publicly called on the Attorney General of Georgia to replace the DA in the case is clearly significant. How often does that happen in criminal cases? Clearly not often, or it wouldn't be reported in the news...
 * I agree insofar as the article is missing information about the unusual speed and severity of the charges. I have collected sources and quotes on that point at User:Levivich/sandbox8, but haven't added them to the article yet (if anyone else wants to, please feel free). See especially the three sources quoted at User:Levivich/sandbox8. However, note the difference between unusual speed and severity, on the one hand, and saying the DA should have waited for GBI on the other. The sources say the former, not the latter.
 * If there are other things you want to add, I fully support that. However, reliable sources consistently mention how unusual it is for the DA to file charges before the GBI investigation is over, and the criticism he has received for that. This is a critical aspect of the subject matter and we cannot exclude it.
 * I think that's a good point; it is in fact routine; and because it's routine, it's not worth mentioning that APD asked GBI to investigate. I have edited the article to take out the "asked" part (the rest remains).
 * This would be a strange way to write an encyclopaedia. "Because it's routine, it's not worth mentioning". No, because it is routine and the reader may not know it's routine, we add a short single sentence explaining it. We're here to inform, not to steer the reader towards a set of conclusions.
 * It would be an unusual fact (that one of the officers agreed to testify against the other), if it were true. But apparently it's not. That the DA said Brosnan would be a cooperating witness, and that Brosnan quickly denied it, are, in my opinion, not worth mentioning at all. "The DA said something mistaken and was quickly corrected" is not significant.
 * Again, it was considered to be worth mentioning by multiple news sources. I am only proposing adding 2 sentences.
 * I don't understand the use of the word "viewpoints" in this sentence. The DA is the government agency that is prosecuting this crime. Of course we're going to spend a lot of time talking about the DA's investigation and prosecution. That's not a "viewpoint", that's facts. We don't spend a lot of time discussing what every thinks about the investigation (reactions), or at least, I don't think we should.
 * Viewpoints seems to be the term used in WP policies covering due/undue weight, neutrality, etc. See the definition for WP:UNDUE. The proposed changes do not include "what every (one?) thinks", they include significant viewpoints as reported by reliable sources, in proportion to their coverage. You, EEng and BetsyRMadison have done a great job in presenting the viewpoints of the Fulton County DA and Brooks' family and supporters. That is absolutely right and correct, and I don't want to undo that. Now it's time to make the article compliant with WP:NPOV and include other significant viewpoints.
 * Not in proportion to each source individually, but in proportion to all the sources collectively. Local news sucks as a source; they will cover every detail of a local story, and they have the lowest journalistic standards and resources. To figure out DUE, I look at global sources, in this case international-scope foreign media like BBC and international-scope domestic media like NYT. Even AJC is really just a regional paper.
 * I think we come to the crux of the issue, which is what sources are considered to be the "published, reliable sources" for the purposes of DUE/UNDUE for this article. Is there any WP policy you can point to to support your argument that "local news sucks as a source"? The killing of Rayshard Brooks is fundamentally a US domestic issue. It is natural that most of the coverage will be local and regional news sources. It also seems natural to me that international news sources will omit much of the detail in the case, simply because international readers aren't that interested. But we can't write encyclopaedia articles if we are afraid of detail.
 * True, but WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Anyway, I don't have final say, but I am allowed to revert, at which point it's up to you to get consensus for the changes... which you've started doing by making this post, so I think we're right on track here.
 * I don't want to labor this point, but there are apparently limits to how far editor consensus can block WP:DUE edits (see WP:STONEWALLING). I am not accusing you or any other editor of this right now.
 * Per above, I definitely think the article should be expanded to summarize what RSes have said, in their own voice, about the unusual speed and severity of the charges (e.g., User:Levivich/sandbox8).
 * I appreciate this. Unfortunately, also per above, omitting the facts that the DA's filing ahead of the GBI investigation was (1) unusual (2) strongly criticized is simply a non-starter. It would omit the single most significant aspect of how this case is being handled.
 * I'm not opposed to expanding the article to say a little more about GBI's investigation. I am opposed to rewriting the entire section to make the GBI investigation its own subsection, and to place it first (before the DA's investigation), and to suggest that the DA did something wrong by not waiting for GBI.
 * If you believe the article itself uses biased wording, let's have a go at using different wording. There are significant viewpoints that state that the DA not waiting for the GBI was unusual and even improper, albeit not illegal. Not fairly representing those viewpoints is bad for the article. I completely agree that we must keep the tone of the article itself neutral. And if there are significant, well-sourced countervailing opinions, we should fairly represent those too, per WP policy.
 * The split of investigations followed usage in another WP article Shooting_of_Michael_Brown, and made sense to me, because there are 2 separate investigations into the same incident. Literally my only reason for putting the GBI one first was because it started earlier (by 1 day); I have no objection to moving it to after the DA investigation. Or we can get rid of the sub-sections altogether.
 * I oppose including the part about the DA saying Brosnan would be a cooperating witness and Brosnan's attorney clarifying that meant that he would cooperate with investigators, not that he was a "state's witness". Mostly because that's a distinction without a difference, and seems trivial to me. The important content is/will be whether Brosnan takes the stand and what he says.
 * Addressed above, but in the interest of consensus, I am happy to leave this out.

My 2 cents
I think the matter should be entered in Killing of Rayshard Brooks. The controversy over charging before end of GBI investigation was widespread, was covered by media such as CNN and The New York Times, the discussion of the matter involving members of the state legislature, a congressman, police organizations, a fellow Georgia district attorney and former head of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia, a law school professor, and other legal experts. On June 24 I noted: "The District Attorney’s actions were criticized and there were calls for him to step aside https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/us/rayshard-brooks-atlanta-shooting-friday/index.html  including by multiple members of the Georgia House and Senate https://patch.com/georgia/atlanta/georgia-da-rejects-calls-step-aside-rayshard-brooks-case  the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association condemning his actions as  a “... grandstanding vote seeking tactic...", https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/interim-atlanta-police-chief-will-not-fail-this-city/J8fki6yYXq8ycFWCgm7eVM/  and by U.S. Representative Doug Collins, he stating, “Charging an Atlanta police officer with felony murder before the completion of the GBI's investigation was a political decision, not a legal one.” https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/district-attorney-politics/85-20817347-98c7-43f0-ab2a-d7f7f62be110

I further noted: "We were not consulted on the charges filed by the District Attorney. Despite today’s occurrence, the GBI will complete its mission...” https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/gbi-officers-charged-but-investigation-into-rayshard-brooks-shooting-not-complete “Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard took the unusual step Wednesday of charging the officers in the Brooks case before reviewing that third-party investigation, ... .” “Porter the former head of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia, added the move is still unusual.””He said prosecutors across the state agreed those investigations were critical to their parallel investigations.” “Paul Howard was included in that. The DA’s office co-signed that, and that’s been the process all along.” https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/many-question-das-decision-charge-officers-brooks-case-before-end-gbi-investigation/TB2ZUMLR4VAKBHZLVOFCFGUOUQ/ The GBI “... said it was surprised by the announcement ... caught the agency off guard.” https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/rayshard-brooks-shooting-gbi-didnt-know-of-officers-charges/85-62fcd2c5-fe12-41f8-b736-8475a263f21a “G.B.I. said in a statement on Wednesday that the agency had not been consulted ...””Legal experts said that the charges came surprisingly quick... .” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/us/garrett-rolfe-rayshard-brooks-atlanta.html

Also on June 24, I noted this independent, expert, reaction: “Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard is investigating the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks at the same time he’s the subject of an investigation himself. The confluence of two ongoing GBI investigations — one that Howard says is helping him, another that targets him — has sparked calls for Howard to get out of the Brooks case altogether.” - “He should step aside as Fulton County DA until the GBI investigation of himself is complete,” ''said Georgia State University law professor Clark Cunningham. Atlanta’s chief law enforcement official should not be making unreviewable decisions about who to prosecute in this critical moment — for example in the Brooks shooting — while under the cloud of possibly being a felon himself.” https://www.ajc.com/news/local/fulton-county-leads-one-investigation-and-the-subject-another/SCcg7PBghbcMzb0Za0L4UN/

I, also, suggest looking @ Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery & how it could apply to inclusion suggested here.

All this could be included in a briefer entry with citations.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That was $3.75. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Ha!Ha! ㋛ Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just giving my proxy to Levivich. He seems to be following it all. —valereee (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No way, I already said it's not up to me, no backsies. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 22:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

My view on the topic

 * I think that we can not ignore the prevailance of this view in available sources. It is one way that the legal process can be questioned, and seems rather consequential to how the case is handled.
 * The request might have no impact of its own. But it is indicative that the case is part of a political game, like most examples of a cause célèbre. Excluding the "heated public debate" from such an article is a disservice to readers.
 * I think the reaction of the Atlanta police already points out that this is not seen as a routine case. However, there is room for expansion on this point.
 * We can not assume how much the reader knows about relevant policies. Do the sources cover the policies relevant to the Atlanta Police Department? It has been implicated in previous controversies, but we do not really mention how it handles investigations on internal corruption or excess use of force.
 * So far the DA's statement has been disputed. Whether Brosnan will co-operate with the investigation is uncertain. The statement may have no lasting impact on the case.
 * I agree here. We are excluding the legal responses of other involved parties.
 * A more detailed coverage of a legal case is not detrimental to reliability. The rules on Reliable sources on News organizations do not exclude local news. They simply state: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I support the Revert made by Levivich

 * I do not support the edits made by . From what I read in the diff, FirstPrimeOfApophis made substantial edits without consensus and edits that seem to violate BLP, REDFLAG, FALSEBALANCE, UNDUE, and possibly other WP guidelines. The many issues within the edit made by FirstPrimeofAphophis had already been discussed on this talk page. If FirstPrimeofAphophis had read this talk page prior to making the edits he/she would have seen those discussions. If FirstPrimeofAphophis still wants to make edits regarding those issues, then he/she should reach consensus in advance.
 * For those reasons, and others, I support the revert made by . BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Could you be more specific as to how you believe my proposed changes may violate those policies? WP:REDFLAG in particular surprises me.FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To - You're welcome.  Once you post your proposed edits on this talk page I will be happy to discuss them in detail with you.  So far you have not done that. The topic you started here was to discuss the revert by  - which is what I responded to, the revert.  I do not feel it makes sense to discuss, in detail, any proposed edit you may have for this article without you posting your proposed edit on this talk page for discussion.  BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes
OK, , , , , , , , , , and anyone else, what do you think of the following changes:

(1) Delete the sentence "Following standard procedure, the GBI..." from the first paragraph of #Investigation and Criminal charges, and add the following paragraph below that paragraph:


 * On June 12 (the night of the shooting), the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) was requested by the Atlanta Police Department to investigate the shooting. Since 2015, the GBI has routinely investigated officer-involved shootings in Georgia. The following day, the GBI issued a press release outlining the preliminary information they collected.

(2) Replace the current second paragraph (On June 17 the Fulton County...) of #Investigation and Criminal charges with the following 2 paragraphs.


 * On June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced that he had concluded his own investigation. He said Rolfe should have been aware that the taser Brooks had taken posed no danger, as after being fired twice it could not fire again; that Rolfe and Brosnan did not provide timely medical aid to Brooks and that before they did, Rolfe kicked him and Brosnan stood on his shoulders; and that it was a violation of department policy for Rolfe to begin handcuffing Brooks before telling him he was being arrested.


 * DA Howard announced eleven charges against Rolfe: felony murder, five counts of aggravated assault, four police oath violations, and damage to property. Brosnan was charged with aggravated assault and two counts of violation of oath.

(3) Add the following paragraph below the current second paragraph (On June 17 the Fulton County...) of #Investigation and Criminal charges:


 * Later on June 17, the GBI released a statement via social media, saying that they had not been consulted on the charges filed by the Fulton County DA earlier that day. Regarding their own investigation, they said "Although we have made significant progress in this case, we have not completed our work", and that they would continue their investigation and submit the results to the Fulton County District Attorney's office when it is complete. GBI officer-involved shooting investigations usually take between 30 and 90 days to complete.


 * (Responding to at 07:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC) below) then how about:
 * Later on June 17, the GBI released a statement via social media, saying that they had not been consulted on the charges filed by the Fulton County DA earlier that day, and that their own investigation was ongoing. GBI officer-involved shooting investigations usually take between 30 and 90 days to complete. 
 * I think it is worth quoting the GBI that they were not consulted on the charges and that they are still investigating, because this is the basis of the criticisms in (4). But I agree it doesn't need to be direct quotes. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

(4) Add the following paragraph to #Reactions:


 * The Fulton County District Attorney's decision to file charges before the GBI investigation was complete was criticized by Rolfe's legal team, the Georgia Sheriffs Association, the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police, and U.S. Congressman Doug Collins. Rep. Collins described the felony murder charge specifically as "a political decision, not a legal one", and called on the Attorney General of Georgia Chris Carr to appoint a special prosecutor to take over the case. Carr responded that the Office of the Attorney General can only appoint another prosecutor if a district attorney disqualifies him- or herself or is disqualified by a court.

N.B. including the information in change (4) seems pretty non-negotiable to me, per WP:NPOV and the comments of editors above. However, I can see there still being scope for legitimate concern around wording, sources, etc. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I find proposed changes 1, 2, 4 to be good additions. Concerning change 3, only the typical length of a GBI officer-involved shooting investigation seems to be useful. The quotation does not add much information, other than the continuation of the investigation. Dimadick (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not support any of the proposed changes by due to: WP:SCOPE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:BALASP, WP:REDFLAG.  I found your (4) proposals were presented in a very disorganized manner that put a large time-consuming burden on other editors to try to decipher the changes, deletions, and additions you are proposing. So, in my detailed answer, I have organized your (4) proposals in a manner that makes more sense and is less confusing to other editors.
 * 1) Your 1st proposed change violates WP:SCOPE WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:REDFLAG. I'll explain
 * The CURRENT paragraph reads: The county medical examiner ruled Brooks' death a homicide.[26] Following standard procedure, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) opened an investigation;[27] as of June 17, 2020 that investigation was continuing.[28] The two officers were removed from duty;[29] soon after, Rolfe was fired and Brosnan placed on administrative duty.
 * YOUR PROPOSED CHANGE is to ADD condensed history of GBI <B>DELETE</b> the Medical Examiner ruling Brooks death homicide: On June 12 (the night of the shooting), the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) was requested by the Atlanta Police Department to investigate the shooting.[1] Since 2015, the GBI has routinely investigated officer-involved shootings in Georgia.[2] The following day, the GBI issued a press release outlining the preliminary information they collected.
 * MY RESPONSE: Your proposed change leaves out the medical examiner ruling Brooks' death a homicide - which violates WP:SCOPE WP:NPOV. Your second sentence gives WP:UNDUE weight to an insignificant, minor aspect of GBI in regard to the killing of Rayshard Brooks. Also, your second sentence is not supported by RS so it's WP:REDFLAG.
 * The current paragraph is: well written, includes important aspects of the killing of Rayshard Brooks (which is what this article is about), is not out of scope. So I do not support your edit.


 * 2) Your 2nd proposed change violates WP:NPOV WP:SYNTH WP:UNDUE WP:V WP:REDFLAG
 * The CURRENT paragraph reads: On June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney announced eleven charges against Rolfe: felony murder, five counts of aggravated assault, four police oath violations, and damage to property.[32] He said Rolfe should have been aware that the taser Brooks had taken posed no danger, as after being fired twice it could not fire again;[33] that Rolfe and Brosnan did not provide timely medical aid to Brooks for over two minutes and that before they did, Rolfe kicked him and Brosnan stood on his shoulders;[33] and that it was a violation of department policy for Rolfe to begin handcuffing Brooks before telling him he was being arrested.[21] Brosnan was charged with aggravated assault and two counts of violation of oath.
 * YOUR PROPOSED CHANGE is to reword the 1st sentence with an untruth, a falsehood, a fib: On June 17 the Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced that he had concluded his own investigation.[3] He said Rolfe should have been aware that the taser Brooks had taken posed no danger, as after being fired twice it could not fire again;[4] that Rolfe and Brosnan did not provide timely medical aid to Brooks and that before they did, Rolfe kicked him and Brosnan stood on his shoulders;[4] and that it was a violation of department policy for Rolfe to begin handcuffing Brooks before telling him he was being arrested.[5][6] DA Howard announced eleven charges against Rolfe: felony murder, five counts of aggravated assault, four police oath violations, and damage to property.[3] Brosnan was charged with aggravated assault and two counts of violation of oath.[7][8]
 * MY RESPONSE: The first sentence of your proposed edit is false, untrue, a fib, a lie. DA Howard did  not  "announce he had concluded his own investigation;" Therefore, since your proposed first sentence is untrue, it violates all kinds of WP guidelines like WP:NPOV WP:SYNTH WP:UNDUE WP:V WP:REDFLAG WP:SYNTH it should not be included.
 * The current paragraph is stable as it is, and the current paragraph does not include lies, untruths, and falsehoods there is no reason to change the current second paragraph at all.
 * 3) Your 3rd proposed change violates WP:UNDUE WP:BALASP
 * YOUR PROPOSED CHANGE is to ADD the status of the GBI following: Later on June 17, the GBI released a statement via social media, saying that they had not been consulted on the charges filed by the Fulton County DA earlier that day, and that their own investigation was ongoing.[9] GBI officer-involved shooting investigations usually take between 30 and 90 days to complete.
 * MY RESPONSE: The status of the GBI investigation is not relevant and an insignificant detail to the arrest/charges being made so that tends to violate WP:UNDUE & WP:BALASP by giving undue weight to an irrelevant, insignificant, minor aspect to the charge/arrest of the officers. Here's why I say those things:
 * According to WSB-2 tv in Atlanta reports, "there’s no legal requirement" and "the GBI does not make charging recommendations" and "The district attorneys have the power to bring charges or to announce that they intend to bring charges on any case that they find probable cause that crimes been committed,” Therefore, since GBI does not make charging recommendations, there is no legal requirement for the DA to wait on GBI to finish their investigation before arresting/charging murder suspects, and the DA has the power to bring charges where they find probable cause a crime has been committed; the status of GBI investigation is irrelevant, not significant, and minor aspect that is WP:UNDUE & WP:BALASP by giving undue weight to an irrelevant aspect of the officers being charged/arrested.
 * Therefore, I do not support adding your #3 proposal.
 * 4) Your 4th proposed change violates WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV WP:V WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE WP:REDFLAG
 * YOUR PROPOSED CHANGE is to ADD the following: The Fulton County District Attorney's decision to file charges before the GBI investigation was complete was criticized by Rolfe's legal team,[2] the Georgia Sheriffs Association,[10] the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police,[10] and U.S. Congressman Doug Collins.[2][11] Rep. Collins described the felony murder charge specifically as "a political decision, not a legal one", and called on the Attorney General of Georgia Chris Carr to appoint a special prosecutor to take over the case.[11] Carr responded that the Office of the Attorney General can only appoint another prosecutor if a district attorney disqualifies him- or herself or is disqualified by a court
 * MY RESPONSE: The unsupported accusations, criticism, and complaints from politicians, like GOP Rep. Doug Collins, who themselves are in political election races, has nothing to do with the "killing of Rayshard Brooks" and is WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV WP:V WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE so does not belong. I found no reliable source that accuses the DA of the things that politician Doug Collins is accusing the DA of so it is also WP:REDFLAG. The unsubstantiated political-opinion of Doug Collins are not supported by RS articles so do not belong in this WP article about the killing of Rayshard Brooks. The criticism from Rolfe's legal team is also WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV & WP:FALSEBALANCE.  As for the criticism from GA Sheriff Assoc & GA Assoc of Chiefs - The Georgia Police Chiefs and Sheriffs have a long history of using deadly force against unarmed people.  According to Atlanta Journal,  "Nearly half the 184 Georgians shot and killed by police since 2010 were unarmed or shot in the back." The Journal goes on to write, "Those findings emerged from the most extensive review of police shootings ever undertaken in Georgia, and cast doubt on claims by police that deadly force was always justified." In the killing of Rayshard Brooks, the police chief, Erika Shields resigned. WFTV reports Shields had been under fire for complaining about DA Howard arresting two Atlanta police officers "for using excessive force on two college students during protests in May.  Video showed officers yanking the students out of their cars and Tasing them."   I suppose it's nice for the officers who are arrested for excessive force and unnecessary deadly force against unarmed people that two police Associations support their police buddies to use of deadly force against unarmed people, but, their complaints are NPOV WP:V WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE & WP:REDFLAG so do not belong in this article.
 * Therefore, I do not support adding your #4 proposal.
 * While responding to your #4 I was reminded of what points out in this diff
 * Levivich diff uses RS and says the following bullet points:
 * "The swiftness with which a white police officer has been fired and then charged with murder in the killing of Rayshard Brooks is just the latest sign of how rapidly and dramatically police agencies have shifted strategy when it comes to dealing with deadly force cases. Historically, not only have police chiefs been reticent to take action against officers involved in in-custody deaths until a "full investigation" had taken place, they've been quick to defend the officer's use of force if he or she "reasonably" believed that a person had a deadly weapon or posed immediate danger to the officer ... What is already clear is that police departments are not feeling nearly as confident relying on the old strategies and rhetoric that historically have allowed them to slow-play their response to a police-involved killing. "
 * “These are hefty, hefty charges,” said Jimmy Gurulé, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and a former federal and state prosecutor. The swiftness, he said, reflected a sense of urgency fueled by recent protests and broader efforts to shine a light on shortcomings in the criminal justice system. "
 * "The charges reflect a potential “sea change” in tolerance for violence by police, said Caren Morrison, a Georgia State University law professor who used to be a federal prosecutor. Morrison said the view until now has generally been that officers are justified in using deadly force. "
 * To summarize: I do not support any of the proposed changes due to: WP:SCOPE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:BALASP, & WP:REDFLAG BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a misunderstanding. I am not proposing to delete the first paragraph, only the second sentence (Following standard procedure, the GBI...) of the first paragraph, because it would be rendered superfluous by the proposed second paragraph. I fully agree that we should keep the verdict of the medical examiner and what happened to the officers.FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC) misunderstanding resolved FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks for taking the time to respond. I am sorry you found how I presented the changes confusing. If you don't mind, I will wait for other editors to contribute before replying to your remarks in detail. I must tell you though, I can't see any of the reasons you bring to reject these changes as reflecting "legitimate concerns". You just list WP Policies, then declare that this or that change violates them. That's not good enough to establish a legitimate concern for WP:CONSENSUS. The only time you go into detail, it is to give your personal opinion that something is "insignificant", "minor" or "not relevant", despite them being covered extensively by the reliable sources for this article's subject. Then there are the tirades against police and politicians, and long quotes from unrelated news stories and journal articles. You take me to task for confusing presentation, and now you have created a new section deliberately misrepresenting the changes I am proposing. How is that helping anyone?FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, this is re change #4 specifically: The fact that the DA filed charges ahead of the GBI investigation seems to be the single most notable aspect of how this case has been handled so far, if RS are any indication. The criticisms of the DA from significant people or organizations cannot be excluded from this article. The opinion of the accused's legal team is obviously significant in a criminal case. The opinions of the GSA and GACP are significant for an article involving policing in Georgia. A US Congressman making a public request to the AG of Georgia to remove the DA from this case is significant to the case, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. And from this, Collins' reasoning and the AG's response are worthy of inclusion. And everything here is cited to reliable sources, and presented in proportion to how they appear in those sources. Unless I am mistaken, at least 2 editors ( and ) support change #4 or something very similar, and have given detailed reasons why it is necessary. is strongly against it, but has not supported his/her allegations that this change violates WP policies. So I will implement change #4. Thanks. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * To - You do not have consensus to make the edits you want to make so <U>do not make them</U>. Your comment above is misleading and disingenuous. I have given detailed explanation why all four of your edits violate at least nine (9) WP policies</U>: WP:SCOPE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:BALASP, WP:REDFLAG.
 * There is nothing notable about a DA charging and arresting a murder suspect prior to GBI finishing their investigation. In fact, it happens in murder cases all the time in Georgia and all the other 49 U.S. states so it does not belong in this article due to WP:UNDUE & WP:BALASP by giving undue weight to an irrelevant, insignificant, minor aspect to the charge/arrest of the officers. The criticisms about the DA arresting the officer for killing an unarmed man are not</U> from from significant people or organization so they should be excluded because they violate WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV WP:V WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE WP:REDFLAG. In fact, the criticisms about the DA arresting the officer for killing an unarmed man are typical & expected from the: a politician up for re-election, the murder suspects lawyer, and 2 organizations that have a history of justifying police killing unarmed men/women. Their complaints are WP:UNDUE WP:NPOV WP:V WP:VALID WP:FALSEBALANCE WP:REDFLAG so do not belong in the article.
 * The 1st edits you made on wikipedia since January 2018 was July 2, 2020 were on this article, and only this article. There's nothing wrong with this, but since you've been dormant from wikipedia for 2 years, and then come back only to post only on this article, that leans toward you being a "Single Purpose Account" WP:SPA - which is fine, but just something noticeable, (I was considered an SPA once myself). All of your edits on this article were reverted by for good cause. Then you proposed 4 edits, that I view as violating at least 9 WP policies, and you seem to think that after 24 hours you can just go right ahead and make the edits. You can't. In fact, if you want to make the edits, I would suggest that you propose them in an RfC which will allow people the time to respond and an independent editor will "close" the RfC and that independent editor will make the decision on whether the edits can be made.
 * Since you were active on WP in 2018, (and have been inactive for 2 years until this article) I feel that you should already have an understanding of the nine (9) WP violations I listed, and if you don't, then the ONUS is on you to read them. (The onus is not on me to teach them to you).
 * I have not seen any response under your "proposals" from so, as of this moment, it seems you may be mistaken to say she/he supports any of your edits. And, a consensus has not been met even if Quaerens-veritatem were to support #4. Therefore, a  consensus has not been met so you cannot make the edits.   So, do not make the edits at this time.
 * We're all here to work together to build and improve WP articles - it's all good - so just slow down and if you build a consensus fine, and if you don't then, that's ok too. Just shake it off and continue to work together. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * you're not saying anything new. Your first and second paragraphs just repeat your earlier objections. I have explained why you are not correct to characterize the people and organizations quoted as "not significant". Multiple RS disagree with you about it not being notable that the DA charged the suspects ahead of the GBI investigation, so as per WP policy, we go on what the RS say, not on the opinions of individual editors. Your third paragraph is a false accusation that I am a WP:SPA, presumably created in 2014 by a far-sighted editor who predicted this article being written 6 years in the future. Your fourth paragraph makes no sense - you cannot just list WP policies and demand that other editors guess what aspect you are referring to. The closest you have come to supporting your assertions is in claiming that the people and organizations quoted are "not significant", but I deal with that above. gave his views in Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks, and  at Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks. Re not having WP:CONSENSUS - no, what I don't have is unanimity, which is "ideal, but not always achievable". That's fine. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - I reverted your edit. You have no consensus for edits you made. The edit you added seem UNDUE & BALASP: by that I mean it gives undue weight to minor, insignificant detail of the arrest. The edit you gave of GOP Rep. Collins, who is seeking reelection, are UNDUE & REDFLAG: by that I mean they are views that are contradicted by the Attorney General of Georgia, unverifiable points of view, views held by a small minority, & views not covered by RS so should not be included. The murder suspect's lawyers & his work association have a conflict of interest WP:COI and their views are UNDUE, FALSEBALANCE & REDFLAG: by that I mean you are giving undue weight to people with a conflict of interest, views that are held by a small minority, unverifiable points of view.
 * Look, it's great that you've decided to start editing this article and only this article after your 2 year hiatus off of WP, but you need to do your own homework and learn the WP guidelines that your edits seem to be violating. You seem to be very confused on what UNDUE, BALASP, FALSEBALANCE REDFLAG & CONSENSUS mean so I urge you to figure out what they mean. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of Proposed Edits by FirstPrimeOfApophis
Above made the observation that this section is way too long. I agree with Hulk on that. So for those who don't have the time required to decipher all the deletions, additions, and rewrites of  proposed edits, I've summarized them here: I hope this summary of the proposed edits by FirstPrimeOfApophis helps editors save some time as they sift through them. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1st proposal: He/she wants to  DELETE the Medical Examiner ruling Brooks death homicide from the article all together & replace it with give a condensed history of the Georgia Bureau of Investigations.
 * 2nd proposal: He/she wants to reword sentences that, intentionally or unintentionally, imply an untruths, a falsehood about why/when/how the DA charged and arrested the officers.
 * 3rd proposal: He/she wants to add status of GBI and wants to add more history of the GBI while, intentionally or unintentionally, giving the false implication that the DA does not have authority to arrest/charge suspects with crimes unless the GBI gives permission, input, & concludes their work.
 * 4th proposal: He/she wants to add political talking points from a politician running for office even though the political rhetoric from that politician is not supported by RS. He/she also wants to add complaints about Rolfe's arrest by Rolfe's lawyers and two police Associations.

I believe that including a link to Doug Collins’ letter and also including some information on the case of the 6 officers mentioned earlier is necessary information since the letter is relevant to the “Investigation and Criminal Charges” section of the article. Something like “ Rep. Collins described the felony murder charge specifically as "a political decision, not a legal one", and called on the Attorney General of Georgia Chris Carr to appoint a special prosecutor to take over the case.” Collins writes, “ DA Howard also failed to mention that Mr. Brooks fired a taser at the officers immediately before the officer fired his weapon at Mr. Brooks. Notably, two weeks prior to this incident, DA Howard stated, ‘a taser is considered a deadly weapon under Georgia law,’ leaving reasonable minds to wonder why he stated Mr. Brooks ‘never presented himself as a threat to the officers’ if he believes a taser is considered a deadly weapon.” (Link to letter),(link to article on officers being charged with aggravated assault), (link to Georgia definition of aggravated assault). Goki-chan (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

District Attorney's statement
Those 2 elements should be included in the investigation sub-paragraph. They are not WP:Original research. Do not suppress or collapse.

In a press conference on 2 June 2020, Fulton's County District Attorney Paul Howard stated that, quote: "Stun guns are considered deadly weapons".

According to ABC News, quote: "[...] the Atlanta Police Department Policy Manuel regarding the use of force, specifically one governing what officers can and cannot do to apprehend a suspect. The rule reads that lethal force can only be used if an officer "reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others." .PatNPatN (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The "quote" you attribute to DA Paul Howard is false, not true. You should be much, much, much more careful.
 * From ABC affiliate WSB-tv "As a matter of law, a Taser is not a deadly weapon. It’s not listed as a deadly weapon in any state in the Unit[ed States,” this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Your repeated misquotes regarding tasers and deadly weapon seems to be reaching WP:TENDENTIOUS levels. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "Yet a few weeks ago, Paul Howard, the Fulton County district attorney whose office will try Rolfe, acknowledged in a separate matter that, according to Georgia law, 'a taser is considered . . . a deadly weapon.' That means, generally speaking, cops can use deadly force in countering their hostile use." Opinion seems to be divided. Bus stop (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - The New York Post is not a reliable source. Also, it seems you and are violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR by trying to SYNTH two completely different cases together to form one article. For this article, we go by what RS say regarding the events around the killing of Rayshard Brooks (which is what this article is about).
 * This is not an article about a separate case (that you two keep trying to SYNTH and mesh with this one) where 6 officers were arrested and charged in an "excessive force" case  where
 * (1) officer Streeter is charged with: pointing or <b>aiming a handgun</B> (not a stun-gun but a real handgun with real bullets) at Young as well as aggravated assault for using his stun gun on Pligrim and,
 * (2) officer Jones is charged with pointing or <B>aiming a handgun</B> (not stun-gun but real gun) at Young and aggravated assault and aggravated battery for allegedly dragging Young from the vehicle and slamming him to the ground and,
 * (3) officer Claud is charged with criminal damage for allegedly breaking the window of the car and,
 * (4) officer Sauls is charged with aggravated assault and criminal damage and,
 * (5) officer Hood is charged with simple battery and aggravated assault for his alleged use of a stun gun on the students and,
 * (6) officer Gardner is charged with aggravated assault.
 * In short, in the case you two are trying to SYNTH & OR, two officers are charged with pointing a real handgun at students, and one officer is charged with aggregated assault for unnecessary use of his stun-gun.
 * It's best if you two avoid SYNTHING the two cases together, especially since a real gun (a real deadly weapon under GA law) was, in fact, used in the case that you're trying to SYNTH with this article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, and . Although DA Howard flip-flopped on the issue of a Taser as a deadly weapon ("Earlier this month, Howard charged six Atlanta police officers with using excessive force in pulling two college students out of a car during a protest. In justifying charges of aggravated assault against some of the officers, Howard said a Taser is considered a deadly weapon under Georgia law."), a Taser is considered a firearm and an  offensive weapon in Georgia (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-106(a), Harwell v. State, 512 S.E.2d 892,894, 270 Ga. 765(1) (1999)) but  "[W]hether a weapon is deadly or one likely to cause serious bodily injury is a question for the jury, which may consider all the circumstances surrounding the weapon and the manner in which it was used[.]" "...we recognized that there were devices which, though not deadly weapons per se, could be found by the jury to be deadly weapons depending on the circumstances." Harwell v. State, 512 S.E.2d 892,894, 270 Ga. 765(1) (1999) (this Harwell case involved a taser). Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

BTW, as to Rolfe's actions, use of deadly force by police officers is primarily governed by O.C.G.A § 17-4-20 (b), requiring deadly force be used only 1)  "...to apprehend a suspected felon..." (here, Brooks, under O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24(b), "...knowingly and willfully resist[ed], ... by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer..." [he punched Rolfe, etc.] "... in the lawful discharge of his official duties... is guilty of a felony...") then 2a)  "... when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury..."  (jury questions: did Rolfe shoot in reasonably close time to be considered instantaneous to when Brooks fired the Taser he had at Rolfe; or, if not, did Rolfe reasonably believe the Taser Brooks had was still able to be discharged [it has been reported the Taser couldn't discharge again after it was shot over Rolfe's head]; and, in any case, was a Taser a device "likely to...result in serious bodily injury..."); 2b) or "when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others..."  (this is questionable at best, but since Brooks struck the officers already, he arguably would continue physical violence if and when the officers caught up with him, but is this "immediate"?); 2c) '''or "when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm." ''' (this seems the biggest problem for the DA since Brooks had already committed "violence to the person of" Rolfe and Brosnan in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24(b). Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I assume the purpose of all this is to illustrate that for editors to make any kind of blanket statement about what is or isn't a {firearm, offensive weapon, deadly weapon}, or to think they've caught the DA in a contradiction, is OR of the first water.In addition, somewhere in the above there's mention of the NY Post not being an RS for most purposes; that's true, but there's something more fundamental, which is that the piece linked isn't even a news piece, but rather an opinion piece; those are never RSs except in the extremely narrow case where an established expert makes uncontroversial assertions within their area of expertise. The USA Today piece linked at the start of Q-v's post is also an opinion piece, so the same applies. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Possibly extraneous information about Garret Rolfe
has edited the Garret Rolfe section of Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks. Diffs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks&type=revision&diff=966545068&oldid=966450061.

I would like to undo these changes, because (1) BetsyRMadison's version includes irrelevant detail about Rolfe's alma mater and when and how he took training in 2020 (2) it covers the 2016 complaint in too much detail (3) it leaves out information relevant to Rolfe's presence on-scene as a DUI specialist. Thoughts? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * —add my support to the information is trying to bring to the article. You are trying to keep information out of the article. I think you are going too far with "There is nothing notable about a DA charging and arresting a murder suspect prior to GBI finishing their investigation." The article should be permitted to develop. FirstPrimeOfApophis is trying to do that. You are throwing every acronym in the book at them instead of allowing them to edit the article. Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like the fact a cop's legal team and two police associations criticize charges against that cop is definitely extraneous, and it looks like only local reporting. The Congressman's criticism is fine to leave in, especially since it isn't hyperlocal coverage. Tennessee Star qualifies, barely. It's certainly not national news, and I suspect that ten years from now some editor will remove it as trivia, but fine, leave the congressman in for now. Def no on the other criticism, it's WP:DOGBITESMAN. —valereee (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed trivia and overlinking, plus recast for an NPOV concern. —valereee (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * -- I feel the congressman's views seem to violate UNDUE, FALSEBALANCE & REDFLAG and here's why: His views are contradicted by the Attorney General of Georgia, are unverifiable points of view, views held by a small minority, and views not covered by RS & so I feel they should not be included. That is why I reverted them. And, you bring up a good point regarding WP:10yt and I would add that, given the congressman's views have been rejected by the AG of Georgia, and are a minority view not covered by RS, his views may not pass a 1 month test, time will tell.  Anyway, if you have time, I'd like to read your thoughts on UNDUE, FALSEBALANCE & REDFLAG regarding the congressman's views. Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think they'll probably end up that way, and likely sooner than 10 years, but I have no particular objection to risking that for the short term, little interest in battling over it for the short term, and since I suspect it'll become pure trivia pretty soon, I'm willing to compromise. We don't have to get it perfect immediately. We just need to keep improving it. As soon as the GBI finishes their investigation, we'll know whether it was worth including. If the GBI agrees with the DA, the congressman's opinion immediately becomes trivia IMO. If they disagree with the DA, it's probably worth including. —valereee (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "I feel like the fact a cop's legal team and two police associations criticize charges against that cop is definitely extraneous" That which is very much on-topic should be included in the article. There is a highly politicized environment as a backdrop to that which is transpiring in which influential participants drown out voices of dissension. We should allow a variety of opinions to find representation in our article. Rolfe's lawyers for instance should be allowed to articulate in our article their misgivings with the way the wheels of justice are turning in this case. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not everything about a topic needs to be included. If none of those objections received anything but local coverage, they're not noteworthy IMO. —valereee (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - This is a reply to your comment to me at timestamp 14:09 9 July - Yes, your underlying sentiment makes sense, and I agree with you on that. My only concern at this point is with wording.  Right now the article gives Doug Collins' view as: "the felony murder charge as "a political decision, not a legal one". That view, "a political decision, not legal one" seems to be a clear situation of: unverifiable, minority view, and a view not covered by RS - which would go against WP guidelines - UNDUE, FALSEBALANCE, REDFLAG and maybe even NPOV & BLP. Also not mentioned in the article is Doug Collins' possible conflict of interests: his father is a former Georgia state trooper and he's running for a Senate seat in a "hotly contested race." So, if we have to mention Doug Collins, perhaps we could reword the sentence to be something more neutral like this:
 * U.S. Congressman Doug Collins, whose father is a former Georgia state trooper, criticized the Fulton County District Attorney's decision to file charges before the GBI investigation was complete and said "While we seek justice for George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and the many lives lost, we cannot turn our backs on the majority of law enforcement officers who are simply doing their jobs and putting their lives on the line for us each and every day.”
 * Or, if we have to leave in Collin's unverifiable, minority held views, then perhaps the sentence could read
 * U.S. Congressman Doug Collins, who is in a hotly contested race for U.S. Senate criticized the Fulton County District Attorney's decision to file charges before the GBI investigation was complete, describing the felony murder charge as "a political decision, not a legal one".
 * Or,
 * U.S. Congressman Doug Collins, who is in a hotly contested race for U.S. Senate and father is a former Georgia state trooper, criticized the Fulton County District Attorney's decision to file charges before the GBI investigation was complete, describing the felony murder charge as "a political decision, not a legal one".
 * Whatever the wording ends up being, I feel we have to be very cautious to not turn this article about the killing of Rayshard Brooks into a U.S. Senate campaign food-fight. The link in the article regarding Collins' complaint writes, "In the midst of a hotly contested race for U.S. Senate, Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA-09) ..." NPR is reporting that Collins sent a letter to the DOJ about the DA and NPR writes "His note to the Justice Department comes a day after Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., who was appointed to that seat in December and is running against Collins, herself wrote a letter." And, if the article is going to have comments by any politician seeking election in GA, then we need to disclose the political conflict of interest of each politician.  I feel that mixing political rhetoric in this article about the killing of Rayshard Brooks may be a tough balancing act and could easily end up violating many WP guidelines. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , please avoid walls of text. The quote is in the source, so it's clearly verifiable. Your suggestions are undue and npov, it doesn't matter what his dad did or that he's up for re-election or that it's hotly contested; all of that is a non-starter here. You could maybe take it to Collins' article. What NPR is reporting looks to be about Collins, not about Brooks' death? We are not going to write anything to ensure we make it clear that Collins has political motives in saying what he said. The reader can figure that out for themselves. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * please avoid walls of text :pray: -- same goes for other sections on this talk. Let's make our points in less than a dozen sections and a plethora of paragraphs, especially when it can be summed up in a few bullets :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Current wording is UNDUE and removes relevant information. He was called to the scene because he was an officer specialising in DUIs, and has been part of DUI units for years. Why is that omitted? Why does his degree matter? If I knew nothing else, the current wording makes me feel "killer cop on a fuse", rather than tell me directly relevant information. This isn't a biography, nor is it our job to push judgement on this person. I much preferred the previous version. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * per your edit summary, can you point me to the discussion establishing consensus on the wording you've reverted to? I don't see it at a glance of the talk archive. In future, when you're claiming consensus as a reason to revert a change that has been standing for several days, it'd be helpful to link to the discussion you're relying on. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * per your edit summary, can you point me to the discussion establishing consensus on the wording you've reverted to? I don't see it at a glance of the talk archive. In future, when you're claiming consensus as a reason to revert a change that has been standing for several days, it'd be helpful to link to the discussion you're relying on. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * - You misread my edit summary, I wrote, "The original text is DUE & had been discussed on talk page. The current text being removed did not have CONSENSUS and is UNDUE, FALSEBALANCE, & unnecessary detail." BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , where is the discussion on the original text? When you say the text being removed did not have consensus, it kinda implies the previous text did, otherwise invoking the "consensus" argument to remove the text is a bit redundant since if neither versions had 'consensus' it's kinda a poor justification to restore a previous version which also didn't have explicit consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * - (I'm replying to your comment to me at 15:29, 9 July.) Can you tell me what part of Collins' view that you put in this article mentions the killing of Rayshard Brooks (which is what this article about). All I see is Collins' view on the DA, but nothing about the killing of Rayshard Brooks. So perhaps Collins' view of the DA belongs in an article about the DA or Collins' article, but certainly not this article. The suggestion I gave is also in the article, adheres to NPOV, and shows Doug Collins at least said something about black men being killed by police (unlike the current wording).
 * Collins' view, as worded, is not verifiable & it's a minority view. so therefore his view is WP:UNDUE and gives undue weight to his unverifiable, minority held view. I have found no RS that supports Collins' view that "the felony murder charge as "a political decision, not a legal one." Can you point me to an RS that supports that view, that the DA only arrested the officers due to politics and not because of legal probable cause? If not, then his view is clearly not verifiable and is "UNDUE: "For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it .".
 * The NPR article is about Brooks and the killing of Brooks. NPR illustrates Collins using Brooks death in his political campaign. I'll go with whatever the consensus is, even if the consensus is to riddle this article about the killing of Rayshard Brooks with unverifiable political views & unverifiable political rhetoric about the DA then so be it. Doing that will invalidate the reliability of this article, but if that's the consensus, that's the consensus. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Rolfe is innocent until proven otherwise. Trying to skew the article just to make him look bad is against WP:BLP. Rolphe deserves the same respects as Brooks. Saying things like "at least said something about black men being killed by police" seems very spiteful. Stickywu (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * to - Wow! You misread my comment in the biggest way possible. No worries though, I've misread stuff before too. To be clear, my comment was talking about Doug Collins (not Rolfe). In fact, I did not even mention Rolfe in my comment at all. And it is not "spiteful" for me to suggest that if we are going to use any of Doug Collins comments, that they be his comments where Doug Collins at least said something about black men being killed by police (unlike the current wording). Recall, this article is about the killing of Rayshard Brooks. This is not an article about the DA, so us currently using Collins' political comment about the DA does not belong in this article because it violates WP:SCOPE UNDUE, FALSEBALANCE & REDFLAG.
 * Using Collins' comments that are only about the DA (as we currently do) violates WP:SCOPE because Collins' comments about the DA have nothing to do with the killing of Rayshard Brooks, which is what this article is about. Collins' comments about the DA should be moved to either Collins' page, or the DA's page. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't misread your comment, in fact, you misread mine. I was trying to draw attention to your blatently racist view that any quote from Collins must include "black men being killed by police". The article must conform to WP:BLP and therefore you can't insist on portraying the police as murderers when they haven't been found guilty of any crime.67.213.143.123 (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To (also posting as )- You just called me a " blatant racist " and you falsely accused me of " insisting on portraying police as murderers. "  This is not Twitter. I urge you to read WP:UNCIVIL and either remove the personal attacks you lodged against me or put a strike through them. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow! You misread my comment in the biggest way possible. No worries though, I've misread stuff before too. To be clear, I was commenting on your view, not you as a person. I apologise and will strike it through. My point was that insisting comments must include something about black men being killed by police is offensive and I would like you to review your stance on this. Stickywu (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * - You calling my views racist is the same as you calling me a racist - which is a personal attack. And, you're still misreading my original comment. Try again: This article is about  the killing of a black man by a police officer.  (Do you understand that?) This article is not about Collins & not about the DA. (Get it?) So since it seems we have to use a quote from Collins (because he's a Congressman) the Collins quote we use should not be about the DA, but should at least pertain to the topic this article which is the killing of a black man by a police officer . Do you understand my comment now? Oh & WP:UNCIVIL applies even when you have trouble comprehending/understanding a comment. So read WP:CIVIL and stop personally attacking editors.  BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologised and struck out my comment. The simple fact is, the charges against Rolphe are being reported as unusually swift and severe. This has been widely reported by many RSs on local and international media, is relevant, and should be mentioned in the article. Your attempts to warp this to fit your agenda dont conform to WP:BLP. Rolphe is innocent until proven guilty. The article must remain WP:NEUTRAL  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickywu (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BetsyRMadison—just speak your mind but don't insist that the article has to be shoehorned into your definition of what this article is about. You are defining this article as being about "the killing of a black man by a police officer" but there is nothing special about your definition. It is merely your definition. (One of several definitions of "shoehorn" is "To force some current event into alignment with a some (usually unconnected) agenda, especially when it is fallacious".) Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with BetsyRMadison, that we don't lightly toss around terms like "racist". I don't think they called you a "racist", BetsyRMadison, but they referred to your "view" that way. I would hope we can move beyond this, because I have to ask you a question along similar lines—why would only comments from Doug Collins that reference black men and police be acceptable? You say "if we are going to use any of Doug Collins comments, that they be his comments where Doug Collins at least said something about black men being killed by police". Isn't it possible that Doug Collins could say something worthy of inclusion in this article that fails to address black men and police? Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —you say "if we are going to use any of Doug Collins comments, that they be his comments where Doug Collins at least said something about black men being killed by police". Why? Why should it be something Doug Collins says "about black men being killed by police"? And you say "Recall, this article is about the killing of Rayshard Brooks" and you tell us "comments about the DA have nothing to do with the killing of Rayshard Brooks, which is what this article is about". Most of us know what the article is about. While article titles indicate subject matter, we are not confined to the strictest possible scope implied by the title. We are permitted to explore related information. Bus stop (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BRM, I think you may be misunderstanding verifiable. Lincoln said blacks weren't equal to whites; we report that. It's not necessary that Collins' opinion statement be the truth. It's necessary that RS are saying he said it, and that we attribute it to him. Is it rhetoric? Of course. That doesn't make the fact he said it unverifiable. Is it worth reporting is the real question here. He's a US congressman. I think it's arguable that his opinion, stated in a single sentence, is worth considering reporting. Please try to be brief in your arguments. —valereee (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - Ah ha! I see you are correct and I misunderstood. Thank you for showing me that. The Collins' comments under "Reaction" to the killing of Rayshard Brooks seems to violate WP:SCOPE because Collins' comments are only about the DA and nothing about the killing of Rayshard Brooks (which is what this article is about). So, I feel we should use Collins' comments where Collins' at least says something about black men being killed by police. Something like this: U.S. Congressman Doug Collins said "While we seek justice for George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and the many lives lost, we cannot turn our backs on the majority of law enforcement officers who are simply doing their jobs and putting their lives on the line for us each and every day.” -- This version will keep Collins' comment within scope of the article, is inline with it being under "Reaction" section of the killing of Brooks, and is neutral. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , again that feels like trivia here to me. This article isn't about Collins. —valereee (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - Yes, that's my point. This article is about the killing of Rayshard Brooks, not Collins & not the DA. So since it seems we have to use a quote from Collins (because he's a Congressman) the Collins quote we use should at least pertain to this article, and not the DA. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is about many things. The article certainly could include comments from Doug Collins. In a highly politicized atmosphere we want to give voice to many reasonable voices from many reasonable sources. NPR writes a levelheaded article with the headline "Ga. Congressman Calls For Investigation Of Black DA Handling Rayshard Brooks Case" saying for instance I don't think such expressions can be dismissed as "trivia". Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To This article is about one thing: the killing of a black man by the police. This article is not about Collins, not about the DA, and not about politics. Since it seems we have to use a quote from Collins (because he's a Congressman), to avoid violating WP:SCOPE the Collins quote we use should at least pertain to the topic of this article: the killing of a black man by the police. That said, I agree with Valereee, Collins' comments are trivia. I'd be surprised if anyone puts any stock in what any politician says about anything. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No,, you don't get to define what the article is really about. You cannot foist upon me that "This article is about one thing: the killing of a black man by the police." Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What? I'm going to regret asking this, but what else is it about? Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 18:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * About a guy killed in what turned out to be a DUI traffic stop. Everything else is up to the courts.--TMCk (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Levivich—you ask what is the article about? That is a meaningless question. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with BRM and Lev, it's about the killing. —valereee (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Valereee—is it about resisting arrest? "Some in law enforcement have argued that the officers’ conduct in the case is more ambiguous than in the George Floyd case because Brooks resisted arrest, grabbed an officer’s Taser and then fled, turning around at one point to deploy the Taser." Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's certainly different in that Floyd wasn't shot in the back twice--let's not leave that out. Drmies (talk)
 * Assuming we are following the pattern of similar articles, it is about the shooting and what follows on from that. This would include the investigation, the criminal case, popular reactions, references in popular culture (if relevant). Look at Killing_of_Ahmaud_Arbery and Shooting_of_Michael_Brown: most of the article is spent discussing these things. Why should this article be different? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This current sentence (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks&type=revision&diff=966837428&oldid=966837146) seems worse than not saying anything at all. Now it gives the impression that this is only some pet peeve of Doug Collins, instead of a concern which many organizations and notable people have expressed, including the interim-Chief of Police of Atlanta (two days ago). And most importantly, it omits Collins' public request to the AG of GA to appoint a special prosecutor and the AG's response. This is not "trivia", it's significant enough to be reported on in multiple RS in relation to the Killing of Rayshard Brooks (the subject of this article, I thought). FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Attempted arrest errors
A long IP comment was posted & reverted yesterday for being a forum post. I don't agree with everything in it, but some valid points were made in regard to mistakes & not following the correct procedure when the officers attempted to arrest RB. The IP asked if these points should be included in the article, which is a fair question. Should we add criticism of the attempted arrest that's been reported in RS to the Reactions section? Jim Michael (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , like that the procedure is supposed to be to tell the person "I'm going to handcuff you now"? —valereee (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The correct procedure is to tell the suspect that they're arresting him, which they didn't do. Jim Michael (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's already in the investigations section? Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 13:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Much of it is, but there are some omissions - for example, a police taser being close enough to RB for him to be able to take it from the officer. Jim Michael (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming it's well sourced, etc., I think yes, we should expand the "incorrect procedure" content if there's stuff missing. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 14:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the "IP comment...posted & reverted yesterday" was incorrect in saying "Both the officers and the suspect were physically, evenly matched both in height, weight and age." Rayshard Brooks overpowered the two cops. In the moments constituting hand-to-hand grappling there was a clear dominance of Rayshard Brooks over the 2 cops. The word "overpower" is important. Our article should include it. Sources support the use of the term "overpower". "But when Brooks failed a breath test measuring his blood-alcohol level and Rolfe tried to handcuff him, Brooks resisted, overpowered the two officers, wrested away Brosnan's Taser and ran away. Rolfe chased him and, just as Brooks aimed the Taser at him, shot him twice in the back." As I think Jim Michael is pointing out, the IP is asking "Should there or shouldn't there be a section on tactical errors in police procedures made during the arrest of the suspect?" If this is reliably sourced I think points relating to this should be included. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm the editor that made the reverted talk section. Yes, it wasn't a "forum" topic for discussion. Yes, I was suggesting a new section for the article on tactical errors that could have been avoided and saved the suspect's life. Thanks for making this an item in this talk page. I do know that handcuffing techniques vary from precinct to precinct and this is easy to document. I also looked up the height and ages of both Brooks and Rolfe, and they actually were both about the same height and age (I know, it is unbelievable). The fact that the stun gun was unholstered while in the reach of the suspect is definitely something that needs to be cited; for example, current prison tactics require that prison guards are unarmed - for this very reason; inmates will steal weapons from prison guards. It is worth pointing out that Rayshard Brooks may still be alive today if that stun gun had remained holstered. In any case, please feel free to continue this discussion. I will participate. בס״ד  172.250.237.36 (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Officer Garrett Rolfe's height and weight, age: 5'7" 177lbs, 27 yrs Suspect Rayshard Brooks' height and weight, age: 5'7" 185lbs, 27 yrs  Officer Devin Brosnan's height and weight, age: 6'1" 212lbs, 26 yrs. So, either one of these men, properly trained, should be more than a physical match for an untrained civilian. All were of similar age, height, weight. With proper self-defense techniques/proper police training, there is no reason to assume that under the conditions in the parking lot, with an enebriated suspect, there should have been 1) any altercations; 2) any difficulty administering handcuffs. Without that training, as you might expect a shopping mall security guard or any other type of security personnel without extensive background in handcuffing techniques, yes, definitely, you'd expect that there could easily be a loss of control of the situation, to the point of the suspect fleeing the scene. In this case, we have "supposedly" trained officers, who had a number of years on the force, only performing, as if their training level was, that of a shopping mall security guard (from an unbiased perspective). Thanks for participating. Keep up the good work!  בס״ד   172.250.237.36 (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Utter POV. What point are you trying to make? That the police deliberately let Brooks run away so they could shoot him? If every confrontation was as simple as comparing the height/weight of the combatants, we can do away with every football and boxing match and just let a computer work out the result based on "stats". Please stop adding "Keep up the good work!" to every post. It is condescending. WWGB (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge/redirect discussion
All: I propose the 2020 Atlanta police sickout be merged/redirected into this article. All the meaningful substance of that page can be expressed in a few sentences in this article - and in fact all the substantive material in already in this article. Neutralitytalk 20:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as nom; tagging who alreafy had the same idea. Neutralitytalk 20:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If alreafy isn't a word, it should be. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Not enough content out there for a separate article. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 20:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons already stated. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support doesn't, and won't, have enough content for a separate article. Not even sure there's enough for a full section here, given most of that article is filler content and background. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support coatrack'd trivia. ——  Serial  14:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support because great minds think alike, plus when the lead + "Background" section of an article are twice the size of the material actually about the subject of the article, and the background is drawn 100% from another article, then obviously the actually-about-the-subject material should simply be presented in the where-the-background-was-drawn-from article. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Amount of material not so voluminous as to necessitate a separate article and the subject of the partial police walkout derives its relevance from the subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Deny I agree that the material here is not very large at this point, but I do not see that as a rationale due to two other factors: 1) This was the first sickout of many that followed in New York, Los Angeles, and other precincts; 2) This issue, which stems from the "DEFUND THE POLICE" trend, is going to continue and this article, small as it is now, is due to gain size as this year continues. There is lots of anticipation that more civil unrest is coming, especially during November 2020. If anything, this should be merged - not into this article, but SHOULD be merged into the Blue flu article. I'd live with that. In fact, the Blue flu article is currently shorter than the 2020 Atlanta police sickout is, and needs more material, at that. So, I'll support merging with the Blue flu article.  בס״ד   172.250.237.36 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Repetitious. Not separately notable. Not a coordinated work stoppage like the 1981 Milwaukee Police Strike and 1971 NYPD Work Stoppage. No indication it will continue or more information would come later to supplement scanty present content. Already covered adequately in Blue flu and this article. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There has been more than enough coverage of the police strike to merit a separate article. Furthermore: isn't this WP:Forum shopping? Juno (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - there's a single paragraph of info that can be added - not enough for a content fork. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

bloat
So now we have two paragraphs on the opinions of politicians on various sides about whether or not the DA should have filed charges before the GBI investigation was completed? I think that's way over the top. We ought to remove all of it until the GBI issues a statement. Honestly if it deserves even a mention, it deserves no more than "The Fulton County District Attorney's decision to file charges before the GBI investigation was complete was criticized or defended by politicians along party lines" and frankly that seems not that useful for readers. If we can't agree on something that short and to the point, we just need to cut the whole thing. It's trivia until/unless the GBI finds there was actual wrongdoing. —valereee (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. If anyone objects, please BRIEFLY say why. Please no walls of text or using bolding to emphasize your point. No pointers at or discussions of policy are necessary unless someone questions your argument. No one should need more than two or three sentences to discuss their preliminary opinions. No one should need to repeat their opinion every time someone disagrees with it. —valereee (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And I've restored it. The GBI will not find there was "actual wrongdoing", because nobody is alleging the DA did anything illegal by charging the officers before the end of the investigation. But there is a discussion, reported in RS, about whether it was right for Howard to file those charges at that time. There is no reason at all for not presenting that in the article. It's good that added some material on support for Howard (although the quotes are probably too long) and the sourcing may need to be improved for the criticisms, but this article wouldn't be helping readers by pretending that these charges are uncontroversial. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —unless there are article space constraints I don't see how it is "bloat" to include that prominent individuals are arguing that there is a hurriedness in bringing charges against the police officer. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And indeed the counter-position that Howard was justified in filing charges, which is also represented in RS. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree,, that this is an issue that should be flesh out. This is the aftermath of the incident in the Wendy's parking lot, in which justice is either found to prevail or in which justice is contravened. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In which case are you happy to restore those two paragraphs again? When I restored them earlier, 2 well-synchronized accounts  and  simultaneously re-deleted the paragraphs and accused me of edit warring. One of them is an admin, so I don't want to restore the paragraphs myself at the moment. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , what do you mean by '2 well-synchronized accounts'?
 * FPoA, I removed the paragraphs and opened a discussion here. The next step is NOT for you to simply revert the content. It's not for you to skirt the rules against edit warring by encouraging someone else to revert them again. It's to discuss here until we reach consensus about what if anything to add back. There is pertinent policy at multiple places, and I'd highly HIGHLY recommend you read WP:AC/DS, WP:ONUS, and WP:EDITWAR. I'll also advise, as I have advised you before, that new editors and contentious articles are a very bad mix. —valereee (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * please make your aspersions at the relevant noticeboard, or retract it. Thank you. ——  Serial  15:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * please make your aspersions at the relevant noticeboard, or retract it. Thank you. ——  Serial  15:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * please make your aspersions at the relevant noticeboard, or retract it. Thank you. ——  Serial  15:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know how construes the material as WP:MILL in their edit summary. I would counter-argue that the steps taken to achieve justice in this high-profile incident are the most important part of this article. Omitting the machinations of both sides reduces the usefulness of the article to the reader. These details matter and they are anything but run-of-the-mill. Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The legal proceedings and the public debate should be covered in the article. This is what makes the case stand out from a common crime story. Dimadick (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We ended up with two paragraphs about a side issue that has almost zero to do with the subject of this article. A politician made a possibly politically-motivated move in filing possibly-overhasty charges against the cop (finally, a connection to the article.) Politicians on his side of the aisle defended the decision. Politicians on the other side of the aisle condemned it. Yawn. —valereee (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , if he's charged or censured, maybe. If we can come up with a single sentence, maybe. Two paragraphs about politicians yapping at each other about politics, no. —valereee (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * —this isn't a "a side issue" that has "zero to do with the subject of this article" and this is anything but "bloat" unless there are space constraints within the article. Prominent individuals allege impropriety. Note that I did not say "illegality". As pointed out by "nobody is alleging the DA did anything illegal by charging the officers before the end of the investigation". Our article is not restricted to only claims of illegality. And Doug Collins is an exceptionally prominent individual weighing in on the point concerning the hurriedness in charging the officer. I believe he alleges impropriety. You are saying "It's trivia until/unless the GBI finds there was actual wrongdoing", but no one is saying there was "actual wrongdoing", because that implies "illegality". Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with decision to remove the two paragraphs & I agree with Valereee's reasoning: bloat, trivia, and self-serving comments from two GOP politicians trying to get the "endorsement" from police union for their 2020 election -- total Yawn. The 2 politician's endorse me! comments have literally nothing to do with the topic of this article: "Killing of Rayshard Brooks by police." When they actually make a comment about the actual killing of Rayshard Brooks by police, let me know. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See, topic, below: "RfC: Including criticisms of the DA's decision to charge ahead of the GBI investigation" Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not have everything on the table? Your decision to remove details of this case are completely subjective and not objective. EVERYTHING should be out in plain sight. Not require the readers to search other sources that may be completely biased. Truthisthelightthroughdarkness (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi,, and welcome to Wikipedia! We don't include everything that's ever been written about a subject. There's information about why, including links to the various policies that apply, at this link: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion —valereee (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the RfC discussing this below is ongoing. You can still add your views there. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Including criticisms of the DA's decision to charge ahead of the GBI investigation
&#32; FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Should the article mention criticisms of the decision by the Fulton County DA to file charges before the end of the GBI investigation, if these criticisms come from politicians or senior public officials, and are cited in reliable sources?
 * 2) Should the article mention that Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) requested in June 2020 that the Attorney General of Georgia transfer the case to a special prosecutor?
 * 3) Should the article mention that Collins requested in July 2020 that the United States Department of Justice investigate the Fulton County DA's handling of the case?


 * No, it's all trivial bullshit-politics. This article is about the killing of Rayshard Brooks by the police; it is not about politics, and it is not about politicians, Doug Collins, who's running for election and seeking the endorsement of the police unions. Don't get me started on all the bullshit surrounding Doug Collins' & other politician's self-serving calls for this or that -- cuz it could ugly.  To be clear, the DA charges murder suspects without GBI finishing their investigation all the damn time. And, GBI does not give charging recommendations so the politicians bullshit-onesided, self-serving comment are UNDUE and NPOV and may even violate BLP for Rayshard Brooks. You seem to forget: This article is about a man who was killed by the police and self-serving comments by politicians do not belong on this page. When Doug Collins actually makes a statement about Rayshard Brooks being killed by police, let me know.  Until then, stop disrupting this article and this talk page with UNDUE & NPOV trivial political bullshit. Thanks  BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the article should mention these things. In similar articles such as the Shooting of Michael Brown and the Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, the articles do not only cover the events of the shooting itself. They also cover the investigations, legal proceedings, public reactions, and references in popular culture. Regarding the killing of Rayshard Brooks, a significant fact about the investigation and criminal case is the decision of the DA to charge the officers before the conclusion of the GBI officer-involved shooting investigation. Significant people and organizations have criticized this decision, and reliable sources have reported this criticism. Further, it is unusual and significant for a US Congressman to request the state AG transfer the criminal case to a special prosecutor, and well within the scope of the article. The same applies to a US Congressman requesting the Department of Justice investigate the conduct of the District Attorney in the case. To omit these criticisms would fail to inform the reader of important facts about this case, and make a less useful article. Of course, we should ensure that we describe these criticisms objectively and cite to reliable sources. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FPOA, you've made this type of argument before, so just letting you know most editors find the argument 'some other article (includes/doesn't include) this kind of information, so we should do the same' to be a very weak argument. It's not policy, but there's an essay at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that explains why. —valereee (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FPOA, in the two articles you mentioned, statements about the actual killing of the men are included - not trivial political endorse my 2020 campaign comments - see the difference? Like I said, when the politicians make a statement about the actual killing of Rayshard Brooks by the police, let me know. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe the article should mention these things. It should be included in this article that many question the District attorney's decision to charge the officers in the Brooks case before the end of the GBI investigation. In my opinion this would definitely warrant inclusion. There is a question raised by the public and legal teams over why the Fulton County district attorney did not wait for the result of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation probe before charging the officers who shot and killed Brooks. Even though there is no legal requirement for that, there is a public debate over whether the case was charged properly or too quickly. The article should apprise the reader of this. The article needs to make plain a public debate because the number one question is whether or not justice is served. The article should mention also that there is a call for a special prosecutor in this case. The problem as seen by many at this juncture is DA Paul Howard taking what many consider the unusual step of charging the officers before reviewing a third-party investigation from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Gwinnett County District Attorney Danny Porter has stated "For my purpose as the prosecutor, I get a better product out of the GBI...The GBI does a better job than most local agencies can do. They have the technology, they have the skills, they have policies and procedures that have been honed over the last five years." That is a strong statement by the Gwinnett County District Attorney that a proper investigation may have been compromised by charging the officers too quickly. Adding to the voices calling for a special prosecutor is Georgia representative Doug Collins who has argued "Charging an Atlanta police officer with felony murder before the completion of the GBI's investigation was a political decision, not a legal one...I'm calling on Attorney General Chris Carr to appoint an independent district attorney in the case of Rayshard Brooks to ensure Georgians have complete confidence that this case is devoid of any and all political influence." An excerpt from Collins' statement warrants inclusion because one of the biggest concerns is whether or not justice is served. Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, no, and no. Until/unless 1. GBI finds wrongdoing or 2. a special prosecutor is appointed or 3. something else happens that indicates independent bodies think something isn’t kosher, this is all just politicians sniping at those on the other side. Also the longer your argument, the less likely anyone will read it. —valereee (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * POINT 1) YES. Include it. There is a lot of support in the media, multiple reports on this, which point out that the sequence of events were not normal; that normally the GBI investigates and produces a report, before, any indictment. This is pertinent, thus should be included. I'm not sure why this is even a question. POINT 2) NO. Do not include this. POINT 3) NO. Do not include this. If the consensus results in POINT 1 being included in the article, I am in support of reconsidering inclusion of POINTS 2 & 3. My rationale is, that without POINT 1, the second and third points are moot (from a reader's perspective, will be confusing). Thanks for the interesting topic. Keep up the good work. בס״ד  172.250.237.36 (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for responding. Can you clarify: if Point 1 is accepted, would you then support or oppose Points 2 and 3? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. I support Point 1. Not 2+3. Also without 2, then is 3 moot? I doubt that supporting Point 1 has that much of an effect on 2+3, but in any case, I would support making those a separate issue. I would have to see more information on 2+3, but it's clearly set out in many media reports that point 1 is very topical and very pertinent, and would be clearly of value to the article. It will be easy to find many references to support point 1. Thanks for your feedback. Keep up the good work. בס״ד    172.250.237.36 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * YES on 1 Theory that comments by the subject politicians should not be used because they are just commenting because they are running for office - they are always running for office. Using the reasoning that the comments by the subject politicians are not relevant because they are running for office would prevent all politician comments everywhere. Their running for office doesn't discount their importance. They are all presently elected leaders. I believe it is notable and not WP:UNDUE or against WP:NPOV because there are widely held views by so many important people: the mayor, acting police chief, a former head of the state DA council, state legislators, a US congressman, a US senator, etc. all commented. Also, many comments are not just related to GBI investigation, but to the charges brought by the DA. Any comments directed to the absence of the GBI investigation can be deleted if the GBI information supports the charges and comments made by the DA to support the charges (although the GBI doesn't necessarily recommend charges when they don't make the arrest, the report will impact the "facts" the DA used to support the charges). The article will need to be edited when the report comes out anyway. While I understand the position (not policy) in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I still don't see why the comments are not placed in this article while similar comments are included in Killing of Ahmaud Arbery. They have stood the test of time and seem reasonable. Suggest WP:DRR if comments are not added. No 2 In Ga, the Atty Gen cannot transfer w/o voluntary recusal by DA or a court order. The request by the congressman is useless. No 3 The basis of the request doesn't seem legally grounded sufficient for federal jurisdiction, but include it if, for some reason I don't presently see, the DOJ acts.   Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * YES I view the case as cause célèbre, and these are defined by "widespread controversy, outside campaigning, and heated public debate". We should not avoid mentioning criticism of the case's legal proceedings and efforts to oppose the DA's authority. Whether "justice is served" is less significant here than 1) how do authorities handle killings at the hands of police officers, 2) what will be the lasting impact of the case. Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, include all, because this has been widely covered. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, no, and no. Politicians' opinions are not DUE. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 16:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Friday
I added that the killing occurred on a "Friday", which was reverted by, and I wanted to bring it up for discussion. I think it's important to specify that the killing occurred on a Friday night (when a Wendy's would be busy, and when people are more likely to be out drinking), as opposed to, say, a Tuesday afternoon. I also think it matters that the events of the following day - such as the firing of Rolfe and resignation of the police chief - occurred on a Saturday, a weekend, when typically people aren't working (and, these days in US cities, often protesting). The autopsy was performed on a Sunday, the results announced on Monday, and charges announced by Wednesday, only five days after the shooting. Further, I think the sources point this out (see, e.g., the collapsed "Protests" section above, which includes some examples where sources specify "Friday night" and "early Saturday morning", and the other collapsed sections include quotes from sourcing pointing out that five days was very fast). It's a little detail, but I think one that aids the reader's understanding of the topic, and there is no way any reader is going to know what day of the week June 12, 2020 was, unless we explicitly tell them. So, I think the inclusion of the one word, "Friday", is worth it. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 18:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If sources explicitly call out the day-of-week, we can include it according to editor discretion. It's a bit of an odd situation since sources are liable to mention the day of the week just in passing without meaning to give any special significance, or they may mention it assuming the reader will make the kind of inferences Levivich mentions. I think we're justified in these cases in reading between the lines a bit. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I make the following points in reply:
 * (1) reliable sources do not consider it remarkable that the incident occurred on a Friday
 * (2) claims that Wendy's is busier, or more people drink (?), on a Friday hover between personal opinion and original research
 * (3) if you want to emphasise the proximity of events, just use terms like "the next day", "three days later" etc. WWGB (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A fact doesn't have to be called out as remarkable by sources for it to be worth including, and no one's suggesting including anything about Wendy's being busier and so on. But it's like if the article mentioned that Brooks was 6 foot 6 (he wasn't -- just a hypothetical) but said nothing else about that; clearly they're communicating something by that, and we're justified in including it in our article. Same thing here with day of week, except that (a) it's a little vaguer what's being communicated and (b) a dateline that includes the day of week isn't enough, because depending on house style a dateline may include the day of week routinely; it should be called out in the article. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think like every source mentions days of the week: that it happened on "Friday night", and other things on "Saturday", "Sunday", etc., e.g. . But that's just news writing; they're referring to days by day-of-week instead of date because it's easier for readers to follow that way. However, I think the fact that the initial events occurred over a weekend is something that is mentioned by (some) reliable sources, either as an example of the speed of events, or simply as "setting the scene", e.g.:
 * "Reaction to Brooks’ death was swift — by the end of the weekend, the officer who shot him, Garrett Rolfe, had been fired and the Atlanta Police Department chief had resigned. The other officer on the scene, Devin Brosnan, was placed on administrative leave. Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced 11 charges, including felony murder, against Rolfe on Wednesday."
 * "So it was somewhat of a surprise that after the killing of Mr. Brooks on a Friday night, by Saturday morning, the NAACP of Georgia was calling for her to immediately step down. And then by 4:00 in the afternoon, she offered her resignation to the mayor."
 * "While the protests’ overall peak appeared to have passed, weekend unrest flared in Atlanta after police on Friday night shot and killed a 27-year-old Black man, Rayshard Brooks. The police chief, Erika Shields, resigned the next day, and on Sunday, authorities announced the firing of the white police officer who shot Brooks in the back, Garrett Rolfe, and a second white officer was being placed on administrative duty in connection with the shooting."
 * "a weekend of unrest in Atlanta, leading up to the charges against Atlanta police"
 * See also: "Experts hail swift moves in wake of Atlanta police shooting"
 * I think the simplest way to communicate to the reader that this happened over a weekend is by including the single word "Friday". Without it, the reader doesn't know that it was the weekend. They lose that context. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that day of week/time of day provides valuable context in this case. —valereee (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can think of no reason to omit the day of the week. I find the argument that "reliable sources do not consider it remarkable that the incident occurred on a Friday" unconvincing. Were this a contentious piece of information we might defer to the prominence of this information in reliable sources. (Or conversely the absence of prominence of this information in reliable sources.) But the day of the week is a particularly anodyne piece of information. It is not likely to provoke offense. Bus stop (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree Friday should be included for the reasons already given including that it provides valuable context as stated. It seems to me a reasonable consensus has been reached to include it. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I added "Friday". Thanks everyone for your input. Le v ! v ich 05:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Killing of Lizzie O'Neill which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)