Talk:Shooting of Chris Kaba

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2023
There is offensive racist language throughout this page. 2A00:23C6:E8C3:E01:DD3:4A38:B9BC:DC1B (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  11:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Photos of the Audi do not appear to show damange to the front of car which would have occurred if it was used to ram police cars as reported by the article. Respect and responsibility (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * His car ended up wedged between a police car and the white Tesla pictured in this article: https://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/21869218.chris-kabas-family-call-see-video-footage-final-moments/
 * Its pretty evident from that damage and the arial photos of the scene that he tried to ram his way through the roadblock, as has been widely reported.
 * -Joey- (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk – police reaction to charge of murder
I have read it to the end – twice – and I can’t find anything saying that the police officers’ refusal to carry firearms was because of concerns that they too would be prosecuted if they opened fire. Please explain your edit. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Commenting on the review, Met Police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley suggested firearms officers were concerned that they would face years of legal proceedings, "even if they stick to the tactics and training they have been given". They didn't just turn in their tickets for the hell of it! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a comment by Mark Rowley, not by the police officers who are/were refusing to carry firearms. And he isn’t even saying that is the view of those officers – he is ‘suggesting’ it i.e. guessing. The amended wording by is acceptable. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I accept they all turned in their tickets for a laugh! It wasn't at all because they were worried about prosecution and the Commissioner was merely voicing their fears. Good grief! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed the point – Wikipedia should only record what is said in reliable sources. And the source does not say that the police officers’ refusal to carry firearms was because of concerns that they too would be prosecuted if they opened fire. You may think that is a reasonable inference, but Wikipedia should not be stating what you (or I) have inferred from the circumstances. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I have not missed the point. Wikipedia editors are expected to be able to use common sense, not just parrot sources. If that were the case, we'd just be a link farm. But we're not. We actually write articles in our own words. "Many are worried about how the decision impacts on them, on their colleagues and on their families," a spokesperson said. Anyone with a grain of sense would know what that means. It doesn't need to be spelled out in painful detail to be valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If I can interject on this. I think it could be included with something along the lines of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Mark Rowley has stated...and then quote from the article.
 * I do think it's wise to be cautious about the motive as I doubt Rowley has spoken to every officer.
 * I can also understand not including it as it's ascribing motive to a relatively large number of officers and it might be wise to see what other sources, independent of his statement say? Knitsey (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp: Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. See WP:OR Sweet6970 (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess this has been resolved, but one thing I should point out is if something is super obvious then there is no reason for us to spell it out either since it's surely super obvious to the readers. The only reason why there is any great need for us to spell something out is if we're concerned readers won't understand without doing so, but in that case, we need to ask whether we're actually reading too much into a source. In other words, if it's super obvious then readers will understand from us saying "to do so over concerns about the implication of the decision to prosecute" that we mean they are concerned they too may be prosecuted, so there's no actual reason we need to point it out. What we say is sufficient to get the point across to readers. And if it isn't, than why is it okay for us to read that in to source when it's doesn't clearly and automatically follow in any reader's mind? Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Naming of police officer
According to Wikipedia policy (see WP:BLPCRIME) we must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. As no conviction has been secured, have we seriously considered that? I reverted the bold edit in which it was added, but that, has been reverted, contrary to WP:BRD, with no attempt made to gain a consensus here. Are there any sound and policy-based reasons for actually including it? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The precedent seems to be set by US examples I’ve read that once news names the accused then it also should appear on the article. “Charged” with mention of when the trial is is also pretty clearly not “convicted”. But this is not an area I have much experience editing, as opposed to fixing per WP:ALLEGED.
 * I think the editor who mentioned you on your talk page has got how the whole optionality thing works mixed up, seemingly believing they can make a bold edit and go unchallenged by simple majority… discussion must come before a consensus is magicked from thin air… EPEAviator (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BLPNAME, which related to this (and suggests only time will tell whether the officer should be named). EPEAviator (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in WP:BLPNAME which discourages naming the police officer in our article. He has been charged, and the court has allowed him to be named, and his name has been widely reported in the media. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @EPEAviator, WP:BLPNAME isn't so relevant here. But as this person has not been convicted of any crime, we clearly, per the WP:BLPCRIME section of the WP:BLP policy, should not be naming him in our article as being charged with a crime for no reason other than because the news media names him. If we are to name him, we need to be able to explain what significant value naming him brings to the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sweet6970 (replying to both in one).
 * More to Sweet6970 first...
 * I was only proposing WP:BLPNAME is more relevant than WP:BLPCRIME, the first reply mostly sets out my belief on what is the precedent of what to do. I am quite open I don't have much experience in this specific area (my involvement in these articles usually comes post-conviction/acquittal, when biased editors [mostly IPs] come in trying to paint the police officer/injured or dead person in a very good/bad light based on their bias, and this tends to involve adding vague, negating "reportedly"s or "allegedly"s, etc., rather than "stated by x to be", as WP:ALLEGED leans towards), but I am keen to participate and be of help. I have engaged here because WP:ALLEGED supports clarifying that Blake is accused of a crime, but not convicted, and I was saying I think the wording makes this quite clear.
 * My point was that WP:BLPNAME suggests that the use of the accused's name in future academic discourse seems to be more important in the long term than the publication of his name in the media currently. I personally doubt his name will be as important as his role whether convicted or not, but this will only be tested by time and what the discourse is once all the information is presented and publicised in this case. I was not changing from my position that the US example's precedent seems to be publication upon naming.
 * The relevant setion of WP:BLPNAME:
 * Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.
 * (As not previously discussed...) Discussion of this on the Talk page is valid caution. We should be cautious.
 * Now more for DeFacto...
 * There is significant value in the police officer being named. This is not an article about Kaba, nor Blake, nor really should it be about any potential problems at the Met... it is about this incident. A fairly significant part of this event (which now I write this I realise should probably be more visibly stated in the article) is the threats against the accused, and the debate over his naming. It is an important discussion point of the event, and has been for some time. I generally dislike reading heavy discussion of the meaning of WP:BLP...s, rather than just suggesting WP:BLP...s that may be relevant, as they tend to not have very useful wording (as in they are unclear) and few concrete examples. I prefer to simply introduce the WP:BLP... and go from there (as I believe I have done with WP:BLPNAME). I believe you are using WP:BLPCRIME here, even though this is not a biography of Martin Blake, and the wording makes very clear he is accused and going to trial (per WP:ALLEGED, which I feel is more applicable here: although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear). It is my reading of WP:BLPCRIME that this is when someone may be notable for some other reason (it makes no mention of people connected to a single event), and you include information about a criminal non-conviction whilst they are not a public figure, meanwhile WP:BLPNAME seems to explicitly discuss mentioning figures connected with a single event.
 * For everyone: my position is that mention of the officer's naming must occur, and mention of their name specifically seems to have precedent to occur. EPEAviator (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 100% agree with everything you've said. Furthermore, just for my opinion, the officer naming is a big part of this case, because of the protests by the police & members of the police federation, and the impact that the naming of the officer has had (eg impact to police AFO recruitment, etc). This is also one of the first cases where an officer involved in shooting a suspect has been named.
 * I'm not sure why @DeFacto keeps reverting / removing his name, when so many people have tried adding it (per page history) and people within this talk page have agreed his name should be added. T9537 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think maybe it's worth writing up a section about the police reaction, the officer naming, how it's different and unusual etc. That's been a massive part of this case and triggered firearms officers handing in their firearms tickets, and while it's not a direct part of the shooting, it's part of the bigger picture surrounding this incident. T9537 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @T9537, I reverted a bold edit per WP:BRD - that is how BRD works. B=the bold edit, R=the revert, then we do the 'D', which is the discussion happening here. If the discussion results in a consensus in favour of the bold edit then it can be restored, but it should not be restored before that happens. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @T9537, we can say that the officer has been named without the need to include his name in our article. The actual name adds nothing of any value. Or can you tell us, which no-one has done yet, what difference knowing the name makes to the understanding of the topic? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you should actually read up on WP:BRD. It clearly states reverting should only be used only when necessary, contrary to WP:BRD itself (the irony). You reverted my original change & provided no evidence or reason that the name shouldn't be included. 3 or 4 people have tried adding it, @EPEAviator explained clearly why it should be added, @Sweet6970 gives more reason for it to be added. That's 5 or 6 people against one. I for one (I can't speak on behalf of the others) believe addding the officers name adds value in many ways. It's shows how unique this case is, with it being unusual for an officer to be named. It goes into the challenges faced, by the police, CPS, courts and suspects family. Furthermore, Martyn was the officer that shot Chris Kaba. Adding the name adds value in that it informs people who actually shot Chris. I could go on and on but so far, the general consensus is that his name should be added. According to you, we should wait an infinite amount of time but so far every person commenting on this talk page has agreed the name should be added. I reckon, until anyone disagrees or gives reason to remove it, you just respect the opinions of myself and others, and leave his name in the article. T9537 (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how adding a name shows how unusual it is. It doesn't. You'd need to actually say that with sources. Ditto for it somehow "It goes into the challenges faced, by the police, CPS, courts and suspects family", no adding the name doesn't do that in any way. You need sourced content which explains how them being named does that. And in both cases that's all you need to do. Adding the name doesn't in any way shape or form actually demonstrate any of that so it serves no purpose in that regard. The other arguments have pretty much been rejected whenever this has come up. There is little value in knowing the name of a non-notable person accused of a crime. Perhaps there are unique reasons to include the name here, e.g. since the accused is a police officer or because the basics of the case are I'm sure undisputed (there's no dispute that the person shot Chris Kaba the dispute is whether it was a crime). But I'm far from convinced. Note that the norm in one country can also easily be different from the norm in another country based on what sources do etc. So what is done in US articles has very limited bearing with what we do here. Although it's definitely not true we always name people charged in US cases anyway. One thing is that is clear is that DeFacto has given reasons for their reversal, so the claim "no evidence or reason" is false, and could even amount to a WP:NPA. Also whatever WP:BRD says, WP:BLPUNDEL makes it clear that there needs to be consensus to restore material which has been disputed on good faith BLP grounds which definitely applies to any case when we're naming a person. While consensus is not unanimity, it does require reasonable discussion based on our polices and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While I'm not saying this is a reason to exclude the name since I don't think it is, I'd argue that if anything not mentioning the name is more likely to make readers think about the uniqueness of this case. Readers from the UK might be surprised to see the name since it's unusual. But readers from the US, and elsewhere where naming the accused is more common might just see the name and not think much of it. It's when they don't see the name that they might be a bit surprised and read more carefully and find out that it's fairly common that such people are not named in the UK although they were here. Of course since plenty of our articles do not have names of accused even when they are in RS and in the US, in reality it's not so simple, and ultimately all this is based on stuff we cannot assume would actually be understood by any reader nor or in the future. Hence why as I said, if we want readers to actually know any of this, we need to tell them not assume they'd somehow understand just from seeing (or not seeing) the name. Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, i don't check my wiki account often.
 * Everything you've said is fair enough - but sources have already been given in the article about how and why it's unique that the officer has been named.
 * As for the challenges faced, again that has been sourced in the article. There's a BBC news article about officers handing in their firearms tickets in protest, for example.
 * Otherwise i agree with your point regarding consensus, my point is only one has objected to adding the name. There's 5 or 6 people, maybe more, wanting / saying his name should be added. To me, that's the consensus. T9537 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @T9537, WP:CONSENSUS is very clear about what 'consensus' means in Wikipedia: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
 * We have not yet achieved anything like that in support of the addition. If you still think the addition is essential, read that policy to see what else you can do to attempt to achieve a consensus. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached"
 * Everyone bar you is in agreement it should be added. We're going round in circles and this isn't productive. If anyone else wishes to further add to the discussion, they should do and maybe this decision can be revisited, should the need arise. T9537 (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @DeFacto Furthermore, your point regarding "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" is great - 4 people have provided sound and decent arguments as to why it should be included. Your original point was, have we actually considered the changes, etc. This talk page shows the consideration and editor's views on it.
 * You're the only one in disagreement with this - and i'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by saying a consensus hasn't been reached and trying to indefinitely prolong this addition / change. T9537 (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what's going on here, but I'm definitely not in agreement it should be added. As I said, from where I stand the name is useless to everything you keep saying it's useful. If you believe there's something special about the officer being named as reflects in sources then please add this to the article without the name. That is what matters, not the name. The fact it's in sources is completely irrelevant if you do not actually add these detail to the article. Again adding the name to the article does not in any way help the reader to understand that naming them is an unusual situation. You need to instead add these details about how it is unusual, based on these sources you say cover it. Note also that the handing in the permit thing is irrelevant to what we're discussing here. It happened well before they were named, before it was even clear they going to be named. There is therefore absolutely zero reason that readers are gong to think it happened because these officers had concerns over the person being named. It was earlier argued it was because of concerns over the person being charged, which is easily possible and at least makes sense; and is sort of what we imply at the moment although with debate over whether we are clear enough on it. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Brought here by request at BLPN. Agree completely with Nil Einne and DeFacto. This name should be omitted. If it is relevant that he has been named, just say that he has been named and why that is relevant. Also, reading this discussion, there seems to be some misunderstanding about onus. WP:BRD is a voluntary process for gaining consensus through discussion, but WP:ONUS is policy. The onus is on you to gain consensus before re-asserting challenged material and without such consensus, it stays out. Especially in a BLP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I tend to lean towards excluding the name but the question is well within editorial discretion. It's certainly relevant to say that the officer has been named, because that's unusual in the British system, but the name itself doesn't really add much at this point. I've written a few articles like this one (I'd like to get this one to FA standard once it's "history£ and not "current events") and grappled with this question a few times. In Shooting of James Ashley, I included the officer's name because the officer made himself a party to the case when the family sued the police but I didn't name the other officers involved because it wouldn't add to the reader's understanding and one of the things BLP is concerned with is that the top Google result for the name of a non-notable person should not be an event they were involved in ~25 years ago. I included the officer's name at Northolt siege because the officer is borderline notable and has spoken publicly about the event and written a book about his experiences with this and other incidents. At Shooting of Stephen Waldorf I included the surnames (only) of the officers who opened fire because they're widely named in the sources and it was very difficult to write a coherent narrative without naming them. At Death of Mark Saunders and Chandler's Ford shooting, I excluded the officers' names because they weren't widely named in the sources (if at all); of course, it helps that in those two incidents the people shot were armed and committing criminal offences, even if there were other considerations.Which I guess is a long-winded way of saying don't include just because you can, but don't omit it if there are good reasons to include it. Personally, I'd leave the name out for now and see how events develop. If the officer becomes a public figure in relation to this shooting, then absolutely name him. But if he's acquitted and disappears into obscurity, he should be allowed to remain obscure. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @HJ Mitchell I am not commenting on whether to name the officer at this time, but I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to explain your reasonings behind similar cases and what steered you towards naming or not naming.
 * I think more often than not, a lot of editors see BLPCRIME as a full stop to naming while seemingly confusing 'should consider' with 'do not name UNLESS convicted', so it's nice to see some rationale explained on how it can go either way.
 * Awshort (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have reversed the latest addition of the police officer’s name, as there is not currently consensus to add it. However, this is a bit pointless when it is in the title of the BBC source. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Correction – I thought I had reversed it, but it looks like someone else got there first. But my comment still stands – this is pointless when the name is otherwise shown on this page. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yep, I think I beat you to it. We are not trying to suppress the name. The personal data is in the public domain, and once released in the public domain, it cannot be unreleased again. But that was never the point. The question is whether an encyclopaedic article needs to follow the primary source (the news article) in naming him, or whether our article is sufficient, informative, and neutral in simply stating that he is named. Is the name encyclopaedic information? Whilst it is tempting to answer that with a "yes", because an encyclopaedia means "everything", we need to bear in mind that what we are writing is a tertiary sourced summary of secondary (not primary) sources. As long as we are serious about writing in encyclopaedic style, the question on naming lies in whether that information belongs in our summary of the events, or whether the reader's information need is met with the information that he has been named, with references that give the details (including the name), should the reader wish to delve deeper. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced allegation of criminality
You have reinstated material making an allegation of criminality without a source. Your edit summary says: Rap group / criminal gang 67 - source provides mention of multiple members being criminals, arrests being made due to the group running county line drug operations, etc. Please read the source. but there is no source, either in this article or in the article on 67 (rap group) which justifies saying in wikivoice that this rap group is a criminal gang. See WP:BLPCRIME and wp:BLPREMOVE. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah that's clear a problem. I'm lazy to dig out diffs, but an earlier version said it was a police labelled criminal gang. Our article 67 (rap group) says something similar. I don't know much about the UK but is this some sort of formal process with I guess public lists of such gangs, or does it just mean police go around calling them criminal gangs in press releases etc? If there is some sort of formal process then IMO it might be worth adding back if it can be sufficiently sourced in relation to the shooting. (To be clear, I mean calling it a police labelled criminal gang, not one point blank.) I tried to search about this briefly without success but did find [//www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/09/police-gang-lists-racist-black-matrix]. I think a wider issue is whether there has been any suggestion from sources that the police especially the officer charged were aware that Kaba was a member of the group, and that this and their perception of the group, might have influenced how they handled the situation. In that case, I can definitely see some justification for including mention of what the police consider 67 in some fashion along with mention of this influence. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is some inf on this in the 67 (rap group) article, which has a link to Form 696, a procedure which has now been discontinued. There is a source in the 67 article which includes that the police have labelled 67 as a criminal gang . But I don’t think that it is appropriate to include this in our article on the shooting of Chris Kaba, because it reads to me like an attempted justification for the shooting, whereas Wikipedia should not be commenting on what is an accusation of murder not yet tried in a court. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, "police-labelled criminal gang" is quite relevant to the shooting. Afaik was being tailed in part because of his membership of six seven. However, it is very important to stress (per WP:ALLEGED) who labels it as a gang. That is the police, a officer of which eventually shot him... "criminal gang" is not a good statement, as I find no reports providing police evidence for it being a criminal gang, other than their report that it is. But "police-labelled criminal gang" makes quite clear to me the context of why his membership of 67 is mentioned in the lead. (My understanding is the controversy is over his shooting [an element of which was his membership of this group, which may not have help Kaba due to the police's view of the group], rather than his fame as a musical artist, or apprentice architect (!), which you will note I removed per the policy on people notable as individuals for one event.) EPEAviator (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think my "afaik" is wrong, he was being followed due to the Audi being registered as being involved in the shooting a bit before. It is not clear whether the people charged over the firearms incident (it may be worth now re-labelling this as "shooting", given we now know this is what it was) the day before were 1) 67 members/connected in any way and 2) known to the police at the time they persued the vehicle. My apologies. EPEAviator (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I should add that I am not so sure you can have one and not the other in this case, regardless. If his membership of 67 is irrelevant to the shooting, it should not be in the lead. If 67 is mentioned later, the police context should be mentioned as context to the group (and, if we are frank about the average reader, I expect these connotations sadly come simple from the word "drill" as is, so arguments about "justification" are sort of null upon mentioning).
 * I have some views about this whole justification thing, but they need some time to stew (in effect, the line between avoiding justification and providing full context seems very narrow, and perhaps fluid based on our personal beliefs about this incident and the world in general [we should examine and maybe even be open about these things whilst editing such contentious articles]). EPEAviator (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in so late - i barely check my wiki account.
 * @Sweet6970 I re-instated it because the source used and the wiki page says it's a police labelled criminal gang. Furthermore, the wiki page goes on to detail criminal allegations and convictions, including one whereby the group itself was caught running county drug lines. Therfore (and it feel it's difficult as frankly, it's a matter of opinion), with the number of sources and the groups own wiki page detailing the criminal activites by the gang, they're a criminal gang. The gang is formed of criminals, breaking the law and being accused and / or convicted of criminal behaviour.
 * @EPEAviator Completely agree, however my understanding is that the firearms incident the vehicle was involved in, involved members of the "67 gang". Hence i believe the context is relevant, as the incident that started this entire set of events, involved the gang and the original shooting / incident which led police to follow / tail / surveil, and the police knew this.
 * I think, in my opinion, it should mention they're a police labeled gang - and maybe include some context about how that's relevant (per what i've said above) and the context it gives to the Chris Kaba shooting. T9537 (talk) 19:15, 15 March 20:24 (UTC)
 * The Background section has a mention of the allegation that the group is a ‘gang’, and I think that is all that is due in this article, which is about the shooting of Kaba, not the rap group. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It did, but that was removed hence this discussion. @EPEAviator brought up the relevance, which i think is fair, hence i explained it in my above reply. T9537 (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, nevermind i see what you mean - i'll leave it at that then. T9537 (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I still am not very convinced that a need to mention the group at all (given a click to the hyperlink gives lead to an article that mentions other criminality, its mention hardly avoids “justification”) in the lead is yet clear. There seem to be no sources yet indicating this is relevant to why he was shot, rather than being of biographical interest to Kaba. If it doesn’t include the whole “police-labelled gang” stuff as it wasn’t important to the shooting, then under this logic the same therefore goes for mentioning the group until we have a source. (I also want to stress the whole drill-gang average reader mental mixing point and avoiding seemed justification. Although I must add that, technically, stating a fact/claim somewhere should be the extent of this, we shouldn’t shy away from anything for fear of justification/condemnation pre-trial. [In effect, if we avoid notable things that might be seen as justifying the shooting, we are not assuming innocence; if we include these/avoid notable things that make it justified, we are in a way not assuming innocence for the victim… it is late (even for me) and there is probably a solution that unifies stating the facts and innocent until proven guilty that I just can’t see.]) EPEAviator (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)