Talk:Murder of Renisha McBride

Racism
Personally, I feel a description of the racial aspects belongs in the lead as it seems to be the main reason the case is getting any press at all. When I google "Renisha McBride", most of the articles mention the racial issue. The NAACP has even gotten involved. Clearly the racial aspect is first and foremost on people's minds when they hear about the case. :-) Bali88 (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This case is about some white guy who did something stupid and shot an innocent girl, nothing more. Currently racism is not part of it.  The prosecutor isn’t claiming racism, the defense isn’t claiming it, the police are not claiming it, and even Renisha McBride’s mother stated this isn’t about racism.  Let the opening statement of this entry be about the case and nothing more.  I therefor think any questioning of possible racism should be left under the reaction section.


 * As you have noted some people are claiming racism; but some people always claim it, no matter who is involved in an interracial confrontation. This includes when white people are victims, Asians, Hispanic, or anyone else.  (This also happens when you bring in religion, gender, or sexual preference).  I agree that this case got its notoriety because of the question of the racism via the press, News agencies report it because they’re looking for viewers and cash and racism is a hot topic. Although most of the articles via Google mention racism, it's because of opinion or reaction to the case, not the case itself.  These articles generally state that people think (again opinion) racism may be involved, not that their is racism involved. Unfortunately, as noted in the edit page (I believe by Bali88), some (if not most) people only read the top section without reading the details of the event, leaving the reaction of racism in the top will just help self-actualize continual focus and claim of racism at every negative event.


 * We have spent so much time teaching ourselves (and then teaching our children) that any time something negative happens, it’s because we’re black. Didn’t get the job you wanted, it’s because you’re black; got pulled over, it’s because you’re black; bad grade in school, it’s because you’re black. It’s at the point that we look for racism and complain, even when it’s not there. Personally, I don’t think it should be part of the entry at all but because some people reacted with allegation of racism I can accept it placed under the reaction section, but it has no place in the opening statement.


 * (side note: It's a shame that indentations are not a part of the talk page.  This block writing look wrong.5k61htv9l (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You can indent your writing using a colon . :-)


 * You do have a good point that the part in the lead leaves people thinking it's a more important aspect of the case than it is. But I think the solution to that is to flesh it out a little more and say "He denies it and the prosecutor is not using that in his case". While I agree with you that race was not likely a factor in the shooting, to remove that aspect because we don't personally feel it is a racial case, is original research. We can't taper the article based on how people will react to it. Let me do some research. I'll see if I can find some quotes from him, his attorney, etc. to balance it out. Bali88 (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's tapering the case (if I'm using the phrasing correctly) by leaving it out of the opening, so long as it is described in the reaction section. I am a little hesitant that although it states prosecutors are not using it doesn't say it's not part of the case; but that may be a level of detail beyond Wikipedia.   Overall, I don't see anything majorly wrong with how you edited it.


 * Thanks for the notice of using the colon. I really hate not indenting paragraphs.5k61htv9l (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Mention of BAC in the lead is biased. If you are going to mention that as "an important part of the case" shouldn't the fact that she was unarmed, disoriented and looking for help also be mentioned. If you mention one without the others it biased. That's giving one sided information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.207.112.226 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Length of Roderick Scott section
It seems like a very lengthy description of this unrelated situation. I'm wondering if it would be better to link to an external site about it instead of describing the whole thing here. Bali88 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Because Chris is white their is almost no external sites on him. Since everyone knows racism and Trayvon was reported all over the world everyone knows of it.  I tried to give a full picture to show a similar reaction to the current case, (as oppose to the Trayvon case whose only similarity is that one person is black).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BatHunter (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a couple of concerns: first of all, a white kid being shot by a black kid isn't really all that similar. The reason Trayvon is being compared is because the public is saying they were a case of racial profiling. Whether they are or aren't isn't relevant, people are saying they are. That is the similarity. Do you have any sources that people are comparing the two cases? Message board comparisons don't really count, it has to be written in a newspaper or magazine or other reliable source. Secondly, I'm concerned about the length of that section. It is very long and it dominates the article. It would be different if that section contained a detailed analysis of how those comparisons impacted this case, but a list of descriptions of other crimes that are somewhat similar distracts from the article. For now, I'm going to delete that section for now, but we can add it back if we can find sources linking the two cases. Bali88 (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Title
Should this not now be "murder of Renisha McBride" as the perpetrator has been convicted and sentenced for that crime? At the very least, it should be "killing of Renisha McBride", as that encompasses both the fatal result (which "shooting" does not) and the fact that her death was a homicide (which "death" would not), and would be applicable even if the verdict is successfully appealed in the future. 108.34.206.74 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You could start a Requested Move discussion. As a sidenote, does Michigan law allow a person to be convicted of both murder and manslaughter for the same homicide? I would have thought that in most jurisdictions you could be convicted of one or the other, but not both.--Muzilon (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2019

 * 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: Moved per consensus. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Shooting of Renisha McBride → Murder of Renisha McBride – The accused was convicted of second-degree murder. There has been some Talk page discussion and bold editing to the article's lead by IP editors, but nobody has formally suggested a move, so I'm doing it now in the hope of reaching a consensus. Muzilon (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support since he have a conviction I can’t see any reason to dispute that this was a murder.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't have strong feelings either way, but see Talk:Shooting_of_Justine_Damond where there was insufficient support for changing the title to "Murder". Apparently some editors felt there should be a distinction between first/second/third-degree murder cases, the laws regarding which differ between the various U.S. states. (As I mentioned in the section above, I am unclear how the accused in this case could be convicted of both murder and manslaughter. A quirk of Michigan state law, perhaps?) Muzilon (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Taking a closer look the main issue with that article was that it was a conviction for third degree murder which only exists in 3 states and that that particular person was also charged with manslaughter as well. Neither of these issues apply here so I don’t see it as relevant.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand this case was a second-degree murder plus manslaughter charge, but I make no claim to be an expert on U.S. law, much less Michigan state law. Muzilon (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose: When in doubt, I think Wikipedia should tilt toward being less judgmental rather than more judgmental in its choice of titles. The fact of a conviction does not mean that all trace of doubt and dispute has been removed. And regardless of the degree of doubt, Wikipedia is not under an obligation to choose the most judgmental possible way of phrasing its article title. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. There is a second-degree murder conviction, so it's a no-brainer to me. --MaeseLeon (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.