Talk:Killing of Stephon Clark

Use of force legislative proposal
"'Two California lawmakers on Tuesday introduced legislation to restrict when police officers in the state can use lethal force, requiring them to use such force only when there is no opportunity to use a non-lethal means. The bill would also make clear that the use of lethal force would not be justified in circumstances where an officer’s “gross negligence” contributed to a situation that made that level of force necessary. The bill, introduced at a press conference at California’s state capitol in Sacramento, comes amid continued protests in the city over the police shooting death of Stephon Clark in March.'"
 *  Comment - Post to facilitate archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Closure of discussion at WP:BLPN
That discussion has now been closed. The closer comment was Reading through the discussions, both here and on the article's talk page, there does seem to be a weak consensus that some mention of the convictions should be made, but as it was not central to this case, they should not be covered in any great detail. … As for the exact wording, I think a fresh discussion into this may be best, if ultimately the decision is not to go with the previous line included in the article.

So, consensus at BNPN was that we SHOULD have a general mention of his convictions. Since we were told the BLPN discussion would be a more authoritative reading of BLP policy than a local consensus at the talk page, and since that discussion approved mentioning it, it appears that "don’t mention his convictions at all" is no longer an option. The closer saw "the previous line included in the article" as one of the options, but exact wording was to be determined by discussion. They were probably referring to this, which had been in-and-out of the article and had more-or-less achieved consensus on this talk page in early April: Sacramento County court records show that Clark had a history of convictions for robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense. At the time of his death he was on probation for a 2014 robbery conviction. I am proposing that we add that to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree that it seems reasonable to add this sentence to the article. The next step after this would seem to be deciding what to add regarding the community leaders reaction to Clark's criminal record, in stating it shouldn't matter, and where to add this (biography or responses section) (scratched because a sentence regarding the community leaders is already in the biography section.)--DynaGirl (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The closer finds that we can mention Mr. Clark's record. I think the "it shouldn't matter, it's irrelevant" bit should be removed. In its place we can put something minimal along the lines of the closer's finding. That does not mean we should list each item by name, maybe not calling them "convictions", just that we mention this record briefly, in summary, and not in irrelevant or undue detail irrelevant to the subject of this article.  SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the suggested wording is too detailed. We should list each item by name. That is a review of the criminal record. Criminal acts were repeatedly committed. Repeated criminal behavior is likely to eventually result in a negative outcome. The police record is not entirely irrelevant to the fatality even though the police record was unknown to the responding officers. In the narrative of the story of the shooting of Clark a sequence of criminal acts eventually results in a fatality. Relevance is obvious. This, despite the fact that the responding officers were unaware of previous run-ins with the law. We provide the reader with well-sourced material as found in good quality sources. They, readers, see things through their own lens. Different readers will focus on different facts. But if we contrive to omit facts we do a disservice to all readers. No one benefits from ignorance. Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're going to ignore the words of the closer, it's only going to make a big mess of this simple discussion. The closer did not say to list everything by name. Full stop. Misrepresenting something so easily checked is just plain -- what's the word for it? --- pointless. Your disparagement of Mr. Clark in the above post is itself exactly the kind of SYNTH BLP-smear that every other editor at BLP/N rejects. Keep that up and you'll be asked to exit the discussion.  SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I disparaged anyone. Let me reiterate something I've said on various occasions. I harbor no negative sentiments regarding this issue whatsoever. Inclusion of this information is just to present a complete picture of the situation for the purposes of informing the reader. And it is obviously in keeping with the information included in articles by some although not all good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Your proposed sentence is well crafted and in keeping with the closer's finding of consensus. Marteau (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

USE Sorry, but you are all ignoring the BLPN discussion and close. This will need a formal RfC. SPECIFICO talk 07:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - required for NPOV, reflecting balance in external sources (which, per BALASP, is what decides relevance - not editor OR or opinion) as well as BLP issue vs. The officers involved. Proposed wording is short and concise and does not go into unneeded details.Icewhiz (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the inclusion of the language that was previously in the article. It is neither too detailed nor lacking in informative value. Bus stop (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I think this is a good addition to the article which brings up information related to this incident and discussed in sources, without giving too much weight to prior convictions. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, actually, it won't. The closer said we should not go into "great detail".  Listing his convictions is not "great detail".  Two sentences is not "great detail".  Stop stonewalling. Marteau (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NPACloser said RfC. SPECIFICO talk 07:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, actually the closer said "a fresh discussion into this may be best" and that's what this is. And saying you are "stonewalling" is not a personal attack.  It  is an accurate description of your behavior. Our "fresh discussion" here does not seem to be aligned with your desires, so rather than accept it, you wish to throw a monkey wrench into the works and ditch it and find another venue.  You're becoming borderline disruptive at this point. Marteau (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Specifico, you yourself rejected holding an RFC just 10 days ago in favor of using the BLP discussion to assess consensus. That has occurred, at your request. Consensus supports including some material about his convictions, following a discussion about what material to include. We are having that discussion. And now that the consensus has been determined via the method you yourself requested, you're demanding an RFC to reassess that consensus. How are we supposed to assume good faith on your part? It appears that you're just doing whatever you can to prevent this material from being added to the article, regardless of consensus or policy. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the close. I am not opposing it. Saying otherwise makes no sense. SPECIFICO talk 08:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have asked the closer, on his talk page, if he would clarify his words and intent. My request is here Marteau (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I apologise if this was unclear.my intentions when referring to an RfC is where "local" consensus cannot be obtained - in this case, if a discussion here can't reach an useful conclusion, then move it over to an RfC. I didn't think an RfC here was automatically needed, especially due to the existing discussion on a high-traffic noticeboard. Mdann52 (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So now where are we? The same local group that was considerably rejected at the BLPN -- whose "unanimous agreement" here became only "weak consensus" at BLPN with more objective and informed discussion -- this group now repeats their former POV and claims it should be accepted without amendment. Well this is not the upshot from BLPN.  So instead of an informal poll, which resolves nothing and does nothing to invite uninvolved review, we will need to go to RfC.  For starters, all those who commented at BLPN should be notified and the RfC template will notify additional helpers.  SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak consensus is still a consensus, and this discussion here follows the spirit of the closure, so not sure what else you want me to say. As this is now at an separate RfC, I think my involvement here is done - I'm not going to follow this discussion any further, so please ping me if my input is needed. Just going to add - if I saw this discussion at this point while closing, it would be a WP:SNOW close. Mdann52 (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi The problem is that this is not an RfC. It's a kangaroo poll of the sort we see increasingly on difficult articles where folks jump to a poll before the issues have been clarified sufficiently for a binary choice to make any sense or have lasting significance. If this were an RfC, it would be announced to the larger community, from which additional uninvolved help would arise. It would also stay open for a month to ensure broad participation. And it would not be summarily declared "closed" by a motivated, involved editor rather than getting a formal close by a dispassionate editor. So your suggestion that an RfC was the likely path to resolution has been thwarted by this informal self-affirming poll, which again evinces an inability to parse the BLP issue that led to the BLPN thread -- a thread where much more informed and well-articulated concern was in evidence. Once again, I have not challenged the inclusion of some very limited reference to the victim's personal history. But the informal !votes here manifestly ignore the sensitive discussion at BLPN.  SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A short, quick sequence of events: when there were seven !votes in "Support" with you being the only "Oppose" you then said you were going to "...launch an RfC if/when I have time within the next 24 hours if there's no progress on this" with no indication you would wait for a closure. That would have mooted this debate; would have effectively shut it down. You showed no intention of respecting the debate here unless it went your way, and promised to do what appears to me as WP:FORUMSHOP. The effect of launching a simultaneous RfC would be to moot this debate... to then complain about the actions of a "motivated, involved editor" allegedly subverting process appears to me to be a textbook case of projection. Marteau (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Can we put this to rest already? Gee fizz.  G M G  talk  11:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I think MelanieN's proposal is fine. -Darouet (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Y'all need to take account of the BLPN thread. Not just use it to revert to what the BLPN folks showed was at best a weak consensus for some limited inclusion. The current 2 sentences are already a limited inclusion in the article. I will launch an RfC if/when I have time within the next 24 hours if there's no progress on this. Repeating yourselves really adds nothing to the soup. Y'all should be able to understand that much.  SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone just convert this into an RFC. The existing !votes can just as well stand. The whole thing is getting a little silly. Christ  almighty, we could've written three or four GAs by now easy. I've  got a couple articles in the works if anyone is interested.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  16:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you are OK with an RfC. I have still not had time to do it and meanwhile suffered a preemptive attack here, but an RfC can be started at any time, regardless of the excessive list of violations having been pushed back into the article. There's no rush about any of this. It would be better not to go the 30-day RfC route, but that seems to be the direction this is headed because the same old group has now insisted on its content being put back in without responding to the issues raised by uninvolved editors at BLPN - some of them even more pointedly than I have done. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing silly about this besides SPECIFICOs insistence that their interpretation is correct and everyone else's is not. An RfC is not indicated.    If SPECIFICO thinks policy is being violated, or if the closer's opinion on concensus was wrong or violates policy, let them take it to WP:ANI or challenge the closure using the process as discussed at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but creating a new RfC when there is nothing wrong with this discussion beyond their stubbornness not indicated.  Letting them subvert the current process and WP:FORUMSHOP should not be tolerated. Marteau (talk)
 * I suggest you read up on the meaning of forum shopping. Why do you think BLPN exists? For forumshopping? You don't add to the credibility of your position with such statements. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The closer noted at WP:AN that he expected an RfC would be necessary to sort this out, so you seem to be barking up the wrong tree here. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are intentionally leaving out important context and misrepresenting what the closer intended which, given that you just pinged him to this discussion, I find astounding. He made clear what his intent was when he clarified it with ...if a discussion here can't reach an useful conclusion, then move it over to an RfC. I didn't think an RfC here was automatically needed, especially due to the existing discussion on a high-traffic noticeboard. Marteau (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm going to put it in the article. We do NOT need an RFC. The issue has been thoroughly discussed at two different venues. The conclusion was to mention the convictions but "not cover them in any great detail". That is what this material does. I'll have more to say in a minute after I put the material in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I added it. Now I have this to say: User:SPECIFICO, this has got to STOP. You have tried for weeks, to the point of BLUDGEONing, to keep this information out of the article. You could not get agreement with your position here. Then someone took it to BLPN, where you contributed to that discussion more than 20 times by my count. Despite your best efforts to claim the information would constitute a BLP violation, the majority of people at that board (which is specifically about evaluating BLP issuues) did not agree. An uninvolved closer said to include the information. And yet when someone added conviction information to the article, citing the BLPN close, you reverted it! It’s time for you to drop the stick, accept the verdict of the community, and move on. To persist any further in this would likely be seen as disruptive. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've responded to this nonsense on MelanieN's personal talk page where such stoof belongs. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - the wording implemented in MelanieN's recent edit. Consensus is near unanimous, this section can be closed. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per Icewhiz. The proposed sentence looks fine. - DoubleCross (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Convicted Pimp
this is the second time i have created a section on this topic, please dont change the section name again. the blpn close prescribed a brief mention of his convictions. Stephon plead, instead of standing trial for pimping. pimp has a specific meaning, i suggest we use that instead of a prostitution related offense which leaves the reader with several options of how the crime transpired, did Stephon hire someone, or was he himself a prostitute? The sources clearly describe the police report of the crime. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We just got done with a process which determined the exact verbiage of the sentence in question, and what we have now should stand as it is. Changing the verbiage from what we have now would require another finding of consensus, and I personally would be opposed to any change in the status quo.  Furthermore, the closer of an RfC for this issue determined consensus to be that mention of his record was acceptable, but too much detail was to be avoided... the current detail is enough for the reader to get the point, and if our description for some reason piques their interest and they just have to know more they can go to the provided source.  Marteau (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, do you have access to a source which links the police report for the prostitution related offense or describes it in detail? I ask because I've seen inconsistency in terms of clarity among the sources with respect to the prostitution related offense. For example, this source describes it as "procuring someone for the purpose of prostitution" which isn’t clear if he’s acting as the john or as someone trying to get a prostitute to work for him, while these sources do specifically use term pimpimg they don't go into much detail regarding the police report ,. Attempting to clarify what the sources say regarding the prostitution related offense might be getting into detail that goes beyond the BLPN recommendation to keep it brief, so it seems if we’re going to attempt to clarify what the sources say about the prostitution related offense, it perhaps should be done in a footnote and not in article text.--DynaGirl (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no clarification needed if we publish the actual offence, the one he was charged, plead, and convicted.   In late 2015, Clark was charged with “pimping” Darkstar1st (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When a person mentions "pimping" to someone who is not a lawyer or in the field of law enforcement, it leads them to assume certain things, namely, that the individual is in the business of providing people to have sex with paying customers. The reality of the situation is, with California's "pimping" law that is not necessarily the case.  Here is the text of California's pimping law. As you can see, if someone is living in the apartment of a prostitute, and that prostitute is paying ANY of the bills, to ANY degree, a person can be convicted of "pimping" even if they did not set up encounters between the prostitute and the customer.  I have not seen anywhere what, exactly, Clark was alleged to have done to warrant a charge under the pimping law.  But for the sake of argument, it is possible that he could have just been knowingly living with a prostitute, and she or he was the only one making money, with him receiving benefit from her income TO ANY DEGREE, and he could be charged with pimping.
 * I completely understand the Wikipedia mantra of "we go with the sources". I also am an advocate of using common sense and good judgement.  The way our article currently reads is completely accurate.  He was convicted under a prostitution related offense.  But for us to label him a "pimp" would lead the reader to a conclusion that may not be accurate, and I am not an advocate of always using the exact verbiage a reliable source uses when it could serve to mislead a user of the encyclopedia. I would be more willing to support inclusion of such a loaded term as "pimping" if the particulars of the situation were available.  Marteau (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * perhaps if you read the entire source provided above you would learn the details which I am not opposed to adding as well, and no he wasn't living with a prostitute according to the report. I think we may be wandering into synth if we try to determine what a reader may or may not infer based on state law. he was not convicted of an anything-like offense, his crime has a specific designation, pimping. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't logically say he wasn't living with the prostitute based on the story you linked. The story says they were stopped while riding in a car. It does not detail the nature of the relationship between them.  Marteau (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, despite your assertion, the "specific designation" of the crime is not "pimping". The word "pimping" appears IN the law, and is casually referred to as "the pimping law" but the word does not appear in any heading or table of contents entry of the actual law, see my link above. Marteau (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In late 2015, Clark was charged with “pimping” after sheriff’s deputies stopped him and a woman while they were driving in a “high prostitution and crime area” in North Highlands. At the time, both Clark and the woman were on probation, records indicate. Clark pleaded no contest to the charge.
 * In 2015, Clark was arrested for what police called "procuring someone for the purpose of prostitution." He pleaded no contest to a lesser misdemeanor charge of loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution.
 * These are thee most detailed descriptions I've seen of his conviction. They really don't say much about what actually happened. The one that mentions the word "pimping" even use quotation marks, usually an indication that they're using a term outside its everyday meaning. It's possible that pimping means something different in the context of formal criminal charges according to California law than it does in regular English, just as many legal terms are very different from their ordinary meanings. More importantly, the other one says he wasn't actually convicted of pimping. He was convicted of an entirely different crime, which doesn't use the word "pimping" in its legal definition. The sentence as-is describes his convictions, not criminal charges that were dropped or reduced. Adding the word "pimping" to this article would require lengthy qualifications, giving too much weight to a subject that is currently a small part of a single sentence. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * good point, feel free to hat/archive, i will not pursue the edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Must be a full moon. Dark has changed his spots. Thank you Dark. Hat at will. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * that was kind of you <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>, I have learned much more from wp than i have ever contributed, how to debate sans strawmen, non-sequitur, ad hominem, etc. this has spilled over into my offline world and made me an all around better person. everyone here seemed to have a genuine interest in creating an article sensitive to the horror this family has endured. i sincerely believe all of us want to help prevent such from happening again and maybe our work here is a reflection of that desire. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I certainly share your belief. (I have learned much more from wp than i have ever contributed. I'll keep that in mind and look at your work with fresh eyes. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Domestic incident
Someone added a long section about Clark's domestic incident with a girlfriend to the article, see.

Previously there was a discussion about adding few short sentences about Clark's legal troubles, including probation, that is now included in.

The new section includes very detailed account of certain incidents before the shooting. According to The Sacramento Bee, "[girlfriend's] tumultuous relationship with Clark ... was highlighted throughout the press conference as [District Attorney] Schubert explained Clark's state of mind the night of March 18". Some content is redundant with the previous section, but how much is relevant? Politrukki (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As there have been no comments and I cannot see anything that seems particularly relevant for the shooting, I am removing the section. Note that the same information is already summarised in section. Politrukki (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)