Talk:Killing of Rigoberto Alpizar

Merging in American Airlines Flight 924
There seems to be no real point in having two articles on the same incident. I suggest merging into this article and redirecting American Airlines Flight 924 here. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree regarding merging this article. In addition much of this information in this article conflicts with what is in the Flight 924 article which is the most accurate/up to date. Dustimagic 22:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems wise, at least until we find out more information about Mr. Alpizar. However, that info seems to be forthcoming. iKato 22:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think we should merge this article into this AA 924, instead? -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 22:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is really too early to make that decision. We don't yet know enough about Alpizar or the incident. We can always merge in a week or so when the dust has settled somewhat. --Benna 22:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Even after a few minutes, I have to change my opinion. We're starting to get a lot of info on this man, even a picture. I think we can keep two articles and have most of the details of the shooting on the AA 924 article. iKato 22:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I have to agree too. Dustimagic 22:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Shall We go ahead and revert the redirect? -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 22:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think it's prudent, sure. iKato 22:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Two seperate articles is best now. Dustimagic 22:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've restored the page. -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 22:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd keep the article, if only to keep a direct link from the frequently-viewed Recent Deaths page. --207.127.128.2 13:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this fits the deletion policy. A merger seems appropriate keeping both index entries pointing to one article. Why would it be deleted?

Image of Rigoberto
Try and be on the lookout for an image of Mr. Alphizar to add to this page. Thanks. Dustimagic 22:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I added an image which appears to have come from the family. I am not sure exactly how to deal with the licensing on this though. --Benna 23:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the image. Dustimagic 00:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Jean Charles de Menezes link?
Not to come across as the crazy man who finds patterns in everything, but it's probably the most similar event to this (at least recently). Perhaps it can wait until, as many have suggested, we have more information on Mr. Alpizar, but, again - they are, admittedly, kinda' similar. --67.165.87.40

in the menezes case there were a lot of initial claims made that were later found to be false (eg he jumped the barrier). by claiming menezes acted suspiceously they defered critisism until the story had faded out of the news. ie you make a mistake, lie, hope everyone is bored by the time the truth comes out. the "he claimed to have a bomb" meme sounds similar, they are very careful not to officially state that he said it, to give themselves slack later.
 * Two different governments, under two extremely different situations, make it a very, very weak case to link the two to be related to be similar to each other. Conflicting reports about exact details from both cases also bring it into view of why there shouldn't be a link, as there is barely any concrete evidence about either incident.  --Mrmiscellanious 06:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mrmiscellanious, your argument is weak. Both incidents feature government security agents shooting people, then unleashing a barrage of accusations against and lies about the deceased to unskeptical, government friendly media (e.g. NPR/BBC). Only much later, when the public's attention is elsewhere will diligent, independent journalists get to the truth--that Menezes did not flee or jump the turnstile, that Alpizar did not say he had a bomb. The important thing for the security agencies is to get the lie out there as soon as possible so the public says, "Yes, it's a tragedy, but what choice did they have?", and so lying, evil scumbags like Sean Hannity can convince their audience of simpletons that Alpizar got what was coming to him. That way nobody's budget is threatened, no official faces public outrage, and the powerful stay powerful, even when anyone who cares to look can see what murdering cowards they are.
 * Agreed. (mostly) WP 10:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bomb claim
AFAIK there is no evidence whatsoever that Rigoberto Alpizar ever claimed to have a bomb. The sky marshals say so, but according to witnesses questioned Alpizar didn't talk at all. Word against word, I suggest we delete the "fact" that he claimed to have a bomb and replace it with "Is said to have" or "sky marshals say Alpizar claimed to have a bomb" until the investigation is finished. By the by - large parts of this article is just 1:1 news feed published by the major news corporations (ap for example). --Madayar 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying and the changes made to the article regarding the "bomb". The same changes need to be made to the Flight 924 article as well if they haven't already. Dustimagic 04:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The importance of the Eric Weiner quote is to show how the mainstream media works to broadcast the government's story after such events. Hours after the shooting, Weiner told the NPR audience that Alpizar made a bomb threat. He didn't say the Marshalls are claiming that Alpizar made a bomb threat. All you have to do is listen to the linked segment. So that's just fact, but it also illustrates an important dimension of how the goverment and media work together in the wake of such events. "Reporters" who owe their careers to schmoozing and currying favor with government officials are more likely to make these kinds of mistakes than ordinary citizens or bloggers.

What constitutes "murder"?
I feel that Rigoberto Alpizar was, in fact, murdered. He was shot multipule times, what else is required to classify a death as a murder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.91.3 (talk • contribs) 12-22-2005 04:39:13 UTC
 * Well, from Wikipedia's own murder article, it requires "one human being [to] cause the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm" (emphasis added). As far as I'm aware, there's been no trial for the FAMs yet, so calling it murder is POV. Saying he was killed is describing the facts as they are known so far (IMO). -- nae'blis (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've reworded some similar biased wording by the same anon, and sectionalized that part. I left a emssage on his talk page, and I'm tempted to remove the bit about expanded FAM powers following his death, as it seems irrelevant to this article. However I don't want to be entirely unilateral on this... -- nae'blis (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your position is that it is lawful to shoot and kill and unarmed person, presumably in the back? I don't believe that it is lawful to do this even if one is a police officer. There have been many trials where an innocent person was killed by a law enforcement official and the official was tried for the charge of murder or manslaughter. I feel that charges should be brought against the official who murdered Alpizar. Otherwise, there is no longer any accountability for the very people entrusted to protect our rights as citizens. I bet you know where I am going with this, so I will leave it up to you to attempt to justify a citizens murder at the hands of an overzealous, power-drunk, police officer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.91.3 (talk • contribs) 12-23-2005 11:42:43 UTC


 * My position is that it has not been shown to be an unlawful killing, yet. The FAMs say that Mr. Alpizar was reaching into his bag, defying orders, and posing a threat. Whether or not they were working under false assumptions, it has not been PROVEN yet that they acted with malice aforethought. I encourage you to check your POV at the door until this is resolved. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Murder is a legal term, and a killing is not a murder unless it is found to fall within the bounds of that legal term. In this case, no charges have been brought and no examiner or other similarly empowered authority has deemed the death to be a murder. I have no objection to the article noting the controversy, and noting that many have viewed the death as wrongful - but it's simply not a murder, as defined by law. bd2412  T 18:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your contention is that this is a "justifiable homicide"? If so, I qoute Wikipedia's own definition of justifiable homicide: "Pre-emptive self-defense, cases in which one kills another because they suspect the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal, no matter how likely it is that they were right. Justifiable homicides are always initially assumed to be criminal until the evidence warrants a change, as justifiable homicide is one of the most common defenses for homicides both justified and criminal." Therefore, the attacker should be charged, unless you feel that the U.S. courts should revert to presumption of guilt as "Justice". Without lawful excuse? I didn't know that Wikipedia user nae'blis is now considered as "the law". Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.91.3 (talk • contribs) 12-23-2005 14:49:22 UTC


 * Let us be clear, I am not contending that this was "Justifiable homicide", but simply that it was not murder under the law. If a person picks up a hat off a rack and walks out of a store with it, it may be "larceny" or "shoplifting" depending on the value of the hat and the arbitrary number determined by the legislature; or it may be no crime at all for a wide variety of reasons. I'm not definitively saying that no murder has been committed, but the status of the death remains too ambiguous to say so in the article - the most we can accurately say here is "a hat was taken, and it may have been a theft".  bd2412  T 20:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me requote a part of the Wikipedia definition of justifiable homicide that was not bolded: "homicides are always initially assumed to be criminal". This means that the killing should, in truth, be considered a murder. A killing that is criminal is what a murder is defined as, correct? Also, the actual definition of murder in the Wiktionary is "The crime of deliberate killing." The person was deliberate, and criminal concerning the killing of Rigoberto. This is what we must assume, until a judge or jury finds otherwise, as per the article about justifiable homicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.91.3 (talk • contribs) 12-23-2005 15:03:27 UTC


 * Please sign your posts. Anyway, you are the one presuming "guilt" here, because you are judging the FAMs guilty of murder (a legal term) rather than having killed someone (a verifiable fact). I appreciate your passion in this matter, but you're introducing opinion. Please stop reverting the article! Murder is a very specific term, different from JH or voluntary manslaughter or any number of other legal terms. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not presuming guilt, you are the one presuming unequivocal innocence, without a trial. A trial is the least that Alpizar's family deserves, do you not agree? Would you want a family member to be murdered without any repercussion for the people responsible? Please statically define the term murder so that we are on the same page. I am not introducing my own opinion here, I am merely stating fact. Not only was Alpizar killed, he was murdered. Nae'blis, please stop reverting the article!!! I stand by my contention that Rigoberto was murdered. -- 24.11.91.3 21:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, I'm presuming innocent until proven guilty on both sides. Okay, assuming that the Alpizar situation falls under Florida statutes and not Federal ones: "Florida Statute 776.05 - Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.--A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force: (snip) (1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest; (2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or (3)  When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and: (a)  The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or (b)  The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person. (emphasis added)"I don't know what the facts of the case are. Neither do you! All we know for certain at this point is that Mr. Alpizar is dead because of the FAMs' actions and that there is disputed testimony on whether or not he said he had a bomb. There will probably be an investigation in the future, but for right now that's what the article says (or did before your edit), and what it can say, factually and NPOV. It already acknowledged all of those facts, did it not? -- nae'blis (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Murder is murder like it or not
Murder is murder like it or not. Just because it is legal to murder doesn't mean it isn't murder.--tequendamia 06:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly! I believe we have a consensus here. Allow me to prove that this should be considered a murder, and not simply a death. From wiki-definition of justifiable homicide: "homicides are always initially assumed to be criminal." In addition to the fact that murder is "The crime of deliberate killing.", produces the logical conclusion that Rigoberto's death is a murder. - VinnyCee


 * The term "murder" implies an act of malice. Can we show that this terrible act was a malicious and intentional one? By the way, Vinny, two people does not make concensus, and somebody making en edit you do not agree with is not vandalism. – ClockworkSoul 19:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A killing can certainly be both intentional and criminal without being murder (hence the existence of the crime of voluntary manslaughter). Still, I don't think the sentence would quite work that way: "Six days after Rigoberto's manslaughter, the U.S. government..." bd2412  T 19:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't recall promoting such an opinion or mentioning ciminiality, but yes BD2412, indeed you are right, which is why I advocate the more neutral "death". As I said above, murder is something malicious, regardless of its legal status. – ClockworkSoul 19:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I realize we're arguing with the faithful here, but in the interest of good faith, would the word "killing" (with its more active connotations) be more acceptable? I still feel murder is unwarranted until a legal finding has been published, just trying to stop the madness... -- nae'blis (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Killing is fine - it's certainly more specific than "death". bd2412  T 22:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy with "killing"; it is more specific than "death" without the baggage of "murder". – ClockworkSoul 23:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently our 'murder' pusher is back. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

recent edits
Not sure where the errors creeped in, but I crosschecked this article against others on Wikipedia, and enws reports. "DeJames Bauer" is actually "James E. Bauer" (SAIC in Miami), and the quote in the last para was taken somewhat out of context. -- nae'blis (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Shoot-to-kill, 100% failure rate
Not impressed by the removal of "100% failure rate" as a minor change and without a comment. Can I please have a list of acts of terrorism averted since 9/11 (or earlier) by the pre-emptive killing of a suspect which was about to blow himself up? In the meantime I'll assume there have been none. On the other hand I can count two innocent people killed by shoot-to-kill policies. Now, (2-0)/2 = 100% failure rate, so NPOV, thank you very much. PizzaMargherita 15:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * NPOV-check yourself, please. 2 cases is not a representative sample. Israel has been shooting pre-emptively for years, and I think they would argue that it's helped prevent some acts of terrorism. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The only source of such a claim would (I presume) be appointed spokespeople of the government of Israel. Naturally the Israeli government would tend to issue official statements to the effect that Its policy is effective. It wouldn't tell people living their lives far outside of Israel if such a claim is true. Israel is a small country surrounded by societies with a high incidence of hatred of Israel. Of course... the Government wants to shoot first and ask questions later. That policy may discourage acts of terrorism; but, it doesn't tell me that the ones killed as a precaution were in fact guilty, or just the unfortunate cost of national security. I'd be curious to know how many terrorists have been killed by legal acts in the name of the national security of Israel.
 * Of course they would. Can I please have a list of acts of terrorism averted since 9/11 (or earlier) by the pre-emptive killing of a suspect which was about to blow himself up?
 * Although it may be working for Israel (though it doesn't give the me a warm fuzzy impression of something that has worked), for whatever reason it is clearly not working for US and UK.
 * On the representativeness of 2 samples, consider that we are led to believe that the policy makes us safer. Both killings have been dismissed as "unfortunate accidents". So I say two fuck-ups out of two is very bloody significant. Not convinced? Let's play this game. You draw a ball from my jar. I tell you that my jar has 999 white balls and 1 black ball. You draw 1 ball, and it's black. You put it back, I shake the jar and you draw another black ball. How much money (or in this case, innocent lives) would you bet that the ratio is actually 1/1000? Were they just "unfortunate accidents"? Are you still convinced that 2 cases are not significant? PizzaMargherita 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Pizza, I'm afraid he's right. To say 100% when the sample size is only 2 instances is misleading. For example, if I flipped a coin, and it landed on heads both times, would I be right to assume that all subsequent coin flips would also land on heads? Of course not. Really, the "100%" label adds nothing to the article except to insert the point of view that the tactic in question is wrong. – ClockworkSoul 17:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a point of view that the tactic in question is wrong. But it's a hard fact that it has been unsuccessful two times out of two occasions in which it's been put to use. PizzaMargherita 17:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We are led to believe that the probability of success of that policy is way above 50%, so your coin-tossing example is misleading. PizzaMargherita 17:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The coin is an just example of misapplication of statistics, and that's all I'm saying this "100%" thing is. Plus, I'm not writing in the main article space. – ClockworkSoul 17:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see your point. So can you please help me reformulate with no POV? How about this: 2 "unfortunate accidents" out of 2 occasions in which the policy has been put to use. Maybe this stuff would be better suited for the shoot to kill article instead? PizzaMargherita 17:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a little out of place here. I think that it would live most happily in deadly force and/or shoot to kill, as long as absolute numbers are used. – ClockworkSoul 17:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Self-correction: deadly force and shoot to kill are the same article. – ClockworkSoul 17:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool, see you there. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 17:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Nae'blis pushing police state POV
Nae'blis, you too are pushing your own POV. The fact is that all homicides are to be initially considered as murder. To do otherwise would mean that some are above the law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.11.91.3 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-24 13:03:05 (UTC)


 * Although recent American/western history suggests otherwise, I think presumption of innocence is still a pillar of modern jurisprudence. PizzaMargherita 18:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We have already been through this issue. About 3/4 of a page up, I introduced the definition of murder. According to this definition, and tequendamia, murder is murder. Therefore the article should be as specific as possible as to the manner of Alpizar's death. VinnyCee


 * Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware of this (debatable) American facet. Though I'm still not convinced. "Initially" presumably means "at the beginning of the trial", and to my knowledge nobody has been indicted yet. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see some justice done (and airports made safer by getting rid of armed thugs) as much as the next guy, but before a charge is made I don't feel we can say "murder". PizzaMargherita 07:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether there is a conviction or even a charge, a murder still occured. "Murder is murder like it or not". -- VinnyCee

Merger revisited
The merger tags are still hanging around on this page and American Airlines Flight 924. I think things should now have settled down enough for us to reach a verdict. I think the pages should be merged into Rigoberto Alpizar and American Airlines Flight 924 redirected here. Kcordina 11:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. The flight is only notable for the incident, which is centered around the person. Therefore the person should be the article, which cuts down on redundancy/vandalism creep. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. For any significant event, there are also pages related to parties involved in that event, why shouldn't it be the case for this situation? Smorter 11:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Language
Uhm, so which language were all the alleged statements made in? I believe that's definitely notable, even if everything said was in English. Spanish is pretty much an accepted language in all of Miami, Orlando, and Costa Rica ...

RandomP 21:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging Sections of Federal Air Marshal Service
It has been proposed on the Federal Air Marshal Service discussion page that section 6 "Incidents" be merged with this article, Rigoberto Alpizar. The incident involving Mr. Alpizar is covered on the FAMS page extensively, and being off-topic, needs to be eliminated or extensively shortened. So that no information is lost, merging the section with this article may be the best option. Any thoughts? AuburnPilot 01:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have begun editing and shrinking the Federal Air Marshal Service sections concerning Rigoberto Alpizar. With no objections here, or on the FAMS discussion page, I will move the portion of the article concerning the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office report. AuburnPilot 05:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The section from the FAMS has merged with this article. I welcome everyone to edit the new content as they see fit. AuburnPilot 17:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Photo of Corpse
Does this article need a photo of his corpse? I feel it doesn't serve any purpose. It doesn't contribute to a better understanding of the events or person. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.132.224.226 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, Wikipedia is not censored, and I'd disagree that it doesn't serve a purpose or better the understaning of the article's topic. The image clearly depicts the location and severity of the incident.  Auburn Pilot talk 23:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fact is Alpizar would not be in wikipedia if he were not shot. That is the picture of the singular event that caused his unfortunate inclusion in Wikipedia.  Geo8rge 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fact is, it's disgusting and may be offensive to some of the public. Image removed. 172.202.155.43 (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You may find it disgusting, but I encourage your to read WP:CENSOR. We do not censor our content or "think of the children". This is an encyclopedic project, and the image depicts the sole reason this subject is notable. - auburn pilot   talk  22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted post mortem photograph out of respect for the deceased and the family thereof. "They" may not censor Wikipedia, but I do. And its not that hard to guess the "severity" or "location" of the incident, because common sense tells that when one is shot, the results are predominantly death, also, both peices of information are clearly stated in the first sentence of said article. M173627 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the photo is back. I would ask that it be covered over to prevent even queasy adults from seeing it without intending to. I would ask that it be removed out of respect for the dead and for the family, but I know no one is going to listen to that. So please mask the photo so only those who choose to go on to look at it have to. I do also agree that this was murder, and find it unfortunate that air marshalls resorted to violence immediately when dealing with someone with a mental illness. 71.234.109.192 (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The photo is gone as of the date of this comment. I would like to see it brought back. Rayne117 (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Bipolar Disorder
The fact the Alpizar had bipolar disorder is probably one of the single most important facts pertaining to the shooting, if not the most important. However, for some reason, it isn't mentioned in the article at all. The closest the article comes to mentioning it is in the links, and that the article is included in the people with bipolar disorder category. Is this bias, or just a terrible article?122.18.235.121 23:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also found that very odd, considering the various news articles I've read about this incident all clearly identify Alpizar's having bipolar disorder as a relevant fact. The shooting has even been used as a springbord for media discussion of mental illness. The article needs to include this information. I added an expansion request template to the article, so with any luck I, or someone else, will come back and fix this shortly. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Suicide by cop
I suggest to link Suicide by cop here and to list Rigoberto Alpizar there.Randroide (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. Aldo L (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture
I removed this picture as unnecessary for article. Do we have to put blood and gore in the article.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the world is scary but as has been mentioned before, Mr. Alpizar is known for one thing and one thing only: his death. Including a picture of this can be seen as offensive, or disgraceful. This I will not disagree with. It should be seen as pivotal to the understanding of the situation.

Would you also agree with the statement that we don't need pictures of victims of concentration camps? Rayne117 (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Death of Rigoberto Alpizar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070313190616/http://abcnews.go.com:80/US/wireStory?id=1387695 to http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1387695
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100717191719/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/12/14/state/n113935S72.DTL to http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/12/14/state/n113935S72.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 13:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death of Breonna Taylor which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)