Talk:Philip Workman

NEUTRALITY DISPUTE
I would like to challenge the neutrality of this article; it is slanted towards one side of the argument (Workman's), is cited using only one source (an anti-death penalty website), and is historically innacurate with regards to how many people HAVE been executed in Tennessee since 1960.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individuals_executed_in_Tennessee

Proteas 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have corrected the error cited. The source article was from early 2000, when the last execution was in 1960.  Feel free to cite evidence or witness testimony.  Evidence is not always balanced between two sides.  By your standards, someone should challenge the neutrality of the Ted Bundy article.  Justice Denied is not specifically anti-death penalty.  It features non-capital cases and does not to my knowledge have any articles on the wrongness of executing the guilty.  Even death penalty proponents can be against executing the innocent.  Danras 10:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have also corrected the error cited, as 1976 must be the correct date. See my post below. User Talk: MenerbesMenerbes (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)20:16


 * According to the Tennessee Dept. of Corrections web site, it executed William Tines on Nov. 7, 1960 and did not execute anyone until it executed Robert Coe on Apr. 19, 2000. Therefore 1960 is the correct date.  Many people were executed in the U.S. between 1960 and 2000, just not in Tennessee. --Danras (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

REASONABLE DOUBT
No one should ever be executed in a case with this much reasonable doubt. I am personally against the death penalty but in extreme cases I can be somewhat more sympathetic for the use of lethal force. This case definitely DOES NOT meet any criteria I would ever consider to warrant the death penalty. I think anyone in America who is for the death penalty should ask, after fully reviewing this case, if he would be comfortable administering the lethal dose to this man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.107.196.176 (talk)
 * I'd have to agree. This guy shot 1 policeman in an armed robbery. If he'd shot some random hobo I doubt he'd be dead. The state of Tennessee now looks like a bunch of jackasses for denying a charitable last wish. I am not against the death penalty and would rather be executed than spend my life in prison, if I could choose. I think both punishments should be a last resort for *repeat* criminals, who are beyond help. This guy looks like he could have been helped, could have changed. Or he may've just been a psychopath, anyway, this is my care cup: c|_| note how it is now empty. 69.19.214.183 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense, but who gives a damn WHAT the two of you believe? Wikipedia is not your personal political forum.  It's supposed to contain facts, not opinions.


 * Which is why it's here in the talk page, where we talk about the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.158.51 (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just add this here (hopefully to keep any similar conversations from resurfacing on this page, even though it has been a few years - and please know that I am personally 100% opposed to the death penalty, so I'm not shutting you down because I disagree). The talk page is not a place to chat or comment about the subject of the article. Talk pages are not forums. The talk page is meant to discuss suggestions for improving the article within Wikipedia's rules. Afddiary (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY DISPUTE
Dispite wether or not an editor feels a certain way about an issue, the facts must be weighed and presented acurately and without bias. If there is a story to be told on one side or the other of an issue, quotes and sources should be included. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes merely an opportunity to stump speach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.221.142.78 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I too feel that this article is less than neutral, and hope it will be tagged as such. - Pento2000

I also feel this article is biased, it should be rewritten by a competent and unbiased journalist who is very familiar with the case. You can sense an anti-death penalty bias throughout the entire article. As to the statement that there are no facts or evidence against this man stretches the sense of truth and fairness.

I can understand your thinking that--- But there's a reason no strong evidence against Workman is presented. It's just not there. The only eyewitness turns out not to have been there. They can't tie the body to the gun. And the laws of physics say the fatal shot came from behind Lt. Oliver, not from in front. The prosecution contends that the exit wound is smaller because the bullet fragmented, but they've not been able to provide so much as an x-ray indicating that.

I will tell you that I oppose the death penalty, and I'll make no bones about that. But that's a bigger fight for another day--- This is about a case where there's not only room for reasonable doubt, but for a heaping helping of "You've gotta be kidding me". I'm not affiliated with Workman, his family, or any of his defense attorneys. I'm just a guy that thinks the punishment has to fit the crime. The guy stuck up a fast food restaurant and shot one policeman through the arm, and there's a good case to be made that that particular shot was fired accidentally. And so far, he's been in state custody for 26 years. How long a sentence do you usually find for that? Rick Maynard 00:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Rick Maynard

The anti-death-penalty bias of this article is obvious, presenting none of the considerable evidence against Workman while holding up dubious evidence as proof of innocence. Attepting to have a pizza given to a homeless man and having a dramatic religious conversion to not erase the gravity of past actions, nor return a deceased loved one to their family. These sort of biases especially show on articles where the victim was a police officer Mumia Abu Jamal. It's important for the article to contain facts of the case and trial, not conduct its own one-paragraph indictment of the judges and prosecutors.

NPOV
Most of the article, as it is now, reads like a laundry list of why the case against him is frivolous, and why he is a victim. I have no idea whether or not he is, but the current wording is pretty slanted. (In other words, the first of Proteas' April 1 complaints is still quite valid.) dcandeto 05:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is pro-murderer biased.68.211.77.10 10:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, ummm, who is pro-murderer? Tim010987 (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
Quoting the article's very first sentences: "Philip Ray Workman was a death row inmate executed in Tennessee at 1:00 AM on May 9, 2007 (CST). He was pronounced dead at 1:38 AM (CST), after 38 minutes. [1] He was convicted in 1982 for the murder of a police officer following a botched robbery of a Wendy's restaurant in Memphis, Tennessee, and sentenced to death by lethal injection." For which reason does the time Workman took to die appear in the first sentence of his Wikipedia article? Is there no information concerning himself that is more important than the duration of his death? Please, someone change this to a less drastic introduction. 85.197.23.173 10:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY DISPUTE
This article is as neutral as possible. It presents all the facts. It just so happens that when we read the article we find that we do think he is a victim. It is impossible to avoid this. If their are other facts to be added, or specific wording to be changed, add/change those things, but do not say the article is not neutral. I mean even the DA wants the case discarded.

whubbard 01:41, 9 May 2007 (EST)


 * As someone generally disgusted by his execution, the article does seem pretty biased toward Workman. For example, the Smith "live bomb" inclusion serves only to discredit Smith, and I'd argue that it's not completely relevant, at least as written now.  I could probably find more examples along similar lines.  Ral315 » 07:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can, to some extent, agree with Ral315 on the relevance of the OC Smith portion of the story. If I had written it, I would likely have left him out, as he is widely regarded around the Memphis area as being a few slices short of the loaf.

This case is problematic when it comes to neutrality disputes. Workman's original conviction was based on very little in the way of evidence; No ballistics evidence was presented, and only one eyewitness claimed to have seen the fatal shot fired. That person is the Harold Davis referred to in the original article. Police couldn't even place him at the scene (Crime scene photos didn't even show his car where he said it was). He has recanted, explained that he originally told the story to get the reward money, and claims to have been threatened if he changed his testimony.

I'd like to have done an article presenting the evidence against him and presenting the evidence that creates reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, no evidence exists that points the finger at Workman. You can present everything 100% accurately and still look lopsided.Rick Maynard 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, I think that, when the main witness called by the prosecution to dispute a major point of new evidence is found to be a compulsive liar, that is more than a little relevant. CNN, at least, thought it relevant enough to include in their article on the case.140.247.153.190 20:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is incredibly far from being neutral. Even the section titles are POV.  dcandeto 16:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is biased from an Anti-Death Penalty point of view. Also, it serves to glorify workman as some sort of crusader, rather than present the facts. I think it needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view, absent of pro or anti-DP Stances. The main factor in this is over 50% of the information presented is taken from Anti-DP websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.178.41 (talk)


 * I do not know at all how you draw the conclusion that the article is written from an anti-DP point of view. The article makes no reference to the legality or morality of the DP, but rather presents points of interest pertaining to this particular case. The fact that so much of the information is drawn from the websites of organizations opposed to the DP is a symptom of the lack of alternate web-based sources. Nonetheless, these organizations cited are reputable and are not known to publish misleading information. I challenge you or anyone else to quote a single sentence which does not dispassionately present the points of interest relating to this case.140.247.153.190 20:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are we arguing neutrality? A man was condemned to die for allegedly killing an officer while firing two shots during an attempt flee after the burglary. Doesn't it seem odd that this kind of case would receive the death penalty at all? The real tragedy of the entire story is that our judicial system is broken and an innocent man was condemned to death in a big cover-up by police and judicial corruption at its worst.

Workman only stole $615 from the Wendy's Corporation. His gun could have killed or injured someone, but it is irrelevant because it did not. Perhaps some could claim pain and suffering from being frightened by it, but if I were a victim I would have have concentrated on handing over the money and would not have had time to reflect on the dangerousness of the situation.


 * Workman committed an injustice, but such an injustice is not a barrier behind which to commit a much greater injustice. If police officers in their quest to be heroes end up shooting each other, that is not Workman's fault.  The state was not concerned about justice and would have laughed if someone showed up at Workman's execution with $615 to right the injustice.


 * Drug addicts and other two-bit people are not always perfectly moral. However, they are not public authorities.  I do think it is right for authorities to engage in fraud and injustice and to excuse such actions because they commit them in their campaign against petty crimes.  It the U.S. President lost his temper when talking with a White House janitor, it would not be the janitor that I would focus on.  --Danras 12:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not anti-DP. I originally wrote this entry although it has been substantially changed.  I would be against Workman getting a long prison sentence.  It costs the state at least $40 a day to imprison someone.  I do not know how much should be spent to protect Wendy's, but I doubt I would favor spending more than 10 times the amount stolen.


 * I probably do not feel too much compassion for the owner of Wendy's because he is presumably much wealthier than I am. Apart from Wendy's, there are no real victims (of Workman) to feel compassion for, just imaginary ones:  The victims Workman "might have" or "could have" shot.  The victims a drunk driver might have hit.  I suppose a traveler who puts down his suitcase in an airport and then forgets it should be punished.  After all it might contain a bomb.


 * I think the officer who shot Lt. Oliver should own up to what he did. I do not think we should have officers who fire weapons in response to accidental gunfire.  Stealing $615 is wrong, but it is not worth having a gunfight over. --Danras 14:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, this guy brought a loaded firearm to a restaurant. He didn't need the firearm to take the $615. He needed it to threaten to kill people if they got in his way or did not comply. The police responded to an alarm. Shots were exchanged. A police officer died from one of the bullets fired. Workman was singularly responsible for the officer's death--we're not talking about an officer being killed in an accident while repsonding to the scene, we're talking about gunfire exchange involving the criminal at the scene. It's a no-brainer. Workman paid the correct price. The law was upheld in Tennessee. Such anti-DP rhetoric as seen on this page should be saved for cases where there is doubt concerning the proof that the condemned was even at the scene to begin with.Consequences2 (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From watching a video on Workman, I got the impression that some who supported Workman's execution, had a similar opinion and accepted the idea that he did not actually shoot Oliver. So there seems to be agreement on both sides that Workman did not personally kill Oliver.  Thus, there is no real neutrality dispute on the facts.  In some states, possibly Tennessee, Workman conceivably could have been convicted of murder under a felony murder theory.  If someone dies non-intentionally during the commission of a felony (i.e. armed robbery), the felon can be charged with felony murder.  However, Oliver was not shot inside the Wendy’s during the robbery, but outside after the robbery was over.  Therefore, a felony murder law might not apply.  Even if Workman was convicted of felony murder, he would only receive a light sentence typical of manslaughter or third-degree murder convictions.  In no state could Workman be executed for felony murder.  --Danras (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

1976 - NOT 1960 for TN executions
Yes: there was a mistake. 1976 is the correct date, not 1960. 1976, because it is the year where DP has been reinstated in the USA, after 4 years of "moratorium" due to Furman V Georgia. See: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/part-i-history-death-penalty. User Talk: MenerbesMenerbes (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)20:23

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Philip Workman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061029003431/http://www.web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR510092000?open&of=ENG-USA to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510092000?open&of=ENG-USA
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tcask.org/press-releases/20040825

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)