Talk:Killing of Walter Scott

CBC documentary
Evidence that walter scott(suspect) disarmed the officer of his taser has been found after analysis and stabilization of the video. The evidence is covered in the "Frame 394" mini documentary by CBC television.

To summarize, this evidence shows walter disarmed, then tossed the taser behind the officer hoping (plausibly) he would get a head start running away while the officer collected his side arm. Sadly, the officers line of sight was above the toss, leading him to (again possibly) believe walter Scott still possessed the taser.

This article should have a counter evidence or criticism subsection to complete the article. Dartman1313 (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Side note, The same analysis showed the "planted" taser was picked back up 30 seconds later.

With this video evidence, "resisting arrest" is the perfect description of the incident.

The article is woefully written in a condemning and biased form, omitting widely circulated counter evidence. Dartman1313 (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources verifying these claims,, feel free to cite them here. One I found related to this claim is this one, which might be worth inclusion in the article. As for the "biased form" and omissions you mentioned, you are free to discuss them here if you want to improve the article. Additionally, given that your two edits contain largely the same information in different sections that are nearly and over a year old respectively, it may be better to refactor and consolidate these posts under a new section at the bottom of the page. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC); last sentence added at 22:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have refactored the talk page for you, . I did not touch the contents of your edits, but you are free to revise them and remove the redundancies. Change the section title if you want, as well. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have found more sources about it, enough for inclusion, so I'll add it to the article. I understand that you probably did not boldly edit the article because of the current semi-protection that was temporarily placed on the page, which blocks an account of your age and edit count and only allows confirmed and autoconfirmed users. Thanks for coming here and bringing this up,, which is just what someone in your position show do. Next time, however, linking to some sources will help and adding it to the bottom of the page in a new section will likely attract more attention. I will be adding a welcoming message to your talk page shortly, so expect a notification there, as well. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As you have already noticed,, I have added a paragraph about the documentary to the article, specifically at . Given the information I found about the documentary and Voshart, both (or at least the documentary) may have enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines and thus may warrant their own articles. I already have a lot on my immediate to-do list, so I doubt I will be doing so anytime soon, but I investigate further and create one or both of these articles in the upcoming months if someone else has not in the meantime.Again, thanks for bringing this up! If you have any other information you think should be included in the article, feel free to provide it with reliable sources supporting it. Once the temporary protection wears off (or you have edited at least ten times by August 21), you can edit the article yourself., why did you revert the edit by  adding a link to the full documentary (which was officially released on YouTube) and removing the redundancies in their initial two edits, both of which are response to my suggestions above to provide sourcing for their claims and consolidate their posts? I understand that the video link appeared to have been malformed, but linking to an external link in these circumstances seems entirely acceptable. I linked to many above. Please also keep in mind that the user is new here, having just created their account today, so they may not understand what is acceptable and treating them like they do will probably send the wrong message. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Revert was per WP:ELNO. I have no objections to its use as a citation if it's an official release. Just saw the external YouTube link and reverted.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought WP:ELNO generally only applied to articles and not talk pages, especially not in discussions. Regardless, thanks for explaining. Given that the full documentary is easy to find on YouTube, I won't provide a link to it, since I trust anyone reading this to be able to find it without any trouble. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

How DARE you call the MURDER of Walter Scott a KILLING.
On the page it CLEARLY states "U.S. District Judge David C. Norton sentenced Slager to 20 years in prison.[72] Although defense attorneys had argued for voluntary manslaughter, the judge agreed with prosecutors that the "appropriate underlying offense" was second-degree murder." We will NOT minimize what Slager did to a Walter Scott or allow it to me white washed.

Please and thank you! Be part of the solution not the problem 2601:142:0:BA40:63C8:7AE6:55F4:DCE0 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "Killing" includes murder. "Murder" is an emotional term, a common law term, and a technical legal term that changes from state to state.  Wikipedia must not be a forum to right wrongs, or reveal the truth.  Wikipedia follows the sources.  The best sources do not predominantly describe a "murder".  If the best sources don't, Wikipedia must not try to lead the way.
 * Please feel encouraged to list sources, especially new sources, that describe the killing as murder, in simple terms. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)