Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Michael Brown: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 30) (bot
Line 181: Line 181:


:Appears to be included in [http://www.wtvm.com/story/27478973/read-case-state-of-missouri-vs-darren-wilson-grand-jury-transcripts this], which we're already using as a reference. Can't see any advantage to using our own copy of it, unless some of us are unable to use the other for some reason. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 22:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
:Appears to be included in [http://www.wtvm.com/story/27478973/read-case-state-of-missouri-vs-darren-wilson-grand-jury-transcripts this], which we're already using as a reference. Can't see any advantage to using our own copy of it, unless some of us are unable to use the other for some reason. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">&#9742;</span>]] 22:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

== Witness Accounts References ==

Hey guys, so i added a bunch of testimonies i found in the [http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf DOJ] file on this case, and some other news websites around the web to add some real depth to this page. Currently the Reference section looks messy because to be honest I didn't feel like going through the trouble of editing them to make look pretty, so the ref's i added are just URL's. Some of the ones in the "Against Darren Wilson" section, there are a lot of repeats and ibids, etc. The witness statements from the DOJ, i put the page page numbers next to the URL for those particular statements. Im going to come back later and fix them, but right now im kind of tired. If someone else wants to give them a whirl before i get back that would be cool too. Either way, its gonna get done :P
([[User:ProductofSociety|ProductofSociety]] ([[User talk:ProductofSociety|talk]]) 10:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC))

Revision as of 10:23, 18 April 2015

RFC  : How should the DOJ report be summarized.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus of the RFC is to expand. There was no consensus on the amount of expansion or what should be included in the expansion. AlbinoFerret 01:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The DOJ investigation report into the shooting has been released, and covered by multiple reliable sources.

link to report, and Some sources discussing the report for evaluation

Report conclusion:

As discussed above, Darren Wilson has stated his intent in shooting Michael Brown was in response to a perceived deadly threat. The only possible basis for prosecuting Wilson undersection 242 would therefore be if the government could prove that his account is not true – i.e.,that Brown never assaulted Wilson at the SUV, never attempted to gain control of Wilson’s gun,and thereafter clearly surrendered in a way that no reasonable officer could have failed to perceive. Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brownas he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. Even if Wilson was mistaken in his interpretation of Brown’s conduct, the fact that others interpreted that conduct the same way as Wilson precludes a determination that he acted with a bad purpose to disobey the law. The same is true even if Wilson could be said to have acted with poor judgment in the manner in which he first interacted with Brown, or in pursuing Brown after the incident at the SUV. These are matters of policy and procedure that do not rise to the level of a Constitutional violation and thus cannot support a criminal prosecution. Cf. Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430–31 (8th Cir. 1997) (violation of internal policies and procedures does not in and of itself rise to violation of Constitution). Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.


Secondaries

How should the report/secondaries be summarized?

  • Just state that there was insufficient evidence (proposed wording below)
    • The investigation concluded that there was no evidence upon which prosecutors could rely to disprove Wilson’s subjective belief that he feared for his safety, and that the facts did not support the filing of criminal charges against Wilson.
  • Provide additional details from the report about the evidence and witness credibility (proposed wording below)
    • The investigation concluded that there was no evidence upon which prosecutors could rely to disprove Wilson’s subjective belief that he feared for his safety, that witnesses who contradicted Wilson were not credible, that evidence and credible witnesses corroborated Wilson's account, and that the facts did not support the filing of criminal charges against Wilson
  • expand into larger multi-paragraph section that can provide more detail/nuance by not summarizing so tightly
  • other

Survey

  • additional details or expand The report repeatedly and unambiguously says that the evidence and credible witnesses supported wilson, and that contrary witnesses were not credible and contradicted evidence. Secondaries have also put significant coverage into this aspect. It would be a gross violation of NPOV and BLP to bury this, and imply that the report says something along the lines of "Hes getting away with it, because we couldn't prove otherwise" Gaijin42 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand. The report is not particularly unclear about its conclusions: "Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson's account and are consistent with the physical evidence" (emphasis added). However, the report is more ambiguous about the specific details of Wilson's account. For example, the report concludes that Wilson's account of the struggle in the car is consistent with forensic evidence and can't be disproved, but the report doesn't explicitly back Wilson's story that Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun. Same for the "charging" narrative; the report notes that the credible witness accounts and evidence support the fact that Brown had turned around and was moving toward Wilson, but it doesn't explicitly endorse the notion that Brown was charging. So the material aspects of Wilson's story are supported (there was a struggle in the car with Brown's hands inside the vehicle, Brown was facing and moving toward Wilson when he was killed), but the report is agnostic on some of the details that would be more damning for Brown. We shouldn't suggest that the report is agnostic about the overall account, though. Dyrnych (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limit to conclusion of the report - We need to cover the main findings as reported in the conclusion, without paraphrasing with out own syntheses, in a short and concise sentence. The conclusion is exactly that: that there was no evidence to disprove Wilson's claim. See for example how it is presented here [1]. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand into larger multi-paragraph section that can provide more detail/nuance. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand per WP:DUE. Do NOT cherry-pick. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand, but don't get carried away with minute details. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Details - I wouldn't spend a great deal of time on the DOJ report. Frankly, I think those who would are probably motivated by WP:RECENTISM. Looking back on this event 10 years from now the DOJ report will be a footnote. Let's treat it like that now. NickCT (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional details and expand The report states numerous times that the evidence and credible witnesses supported Wilson, and that contrary witnesses were not credible and contradicted evidence. It would be a gross violation of NPOV and BLP to hide this, and imply that the report says something along the lines of "Hes getting away with it, because we couldn't prove otherwise" XavierItzm (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : The above !vote quotes mine exactly. For the record, I have no relationship to XavierItzm and (to my knowledge) have never interacted with him in any way on or off wiki, I think he just liked my argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaijin42: - Lolz. Maybe just a coincidence? NickCT (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. —Charles Caleb Colton, 1820 ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : This also sums up my position perfectly. Additional Details Pistongrinder (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional details, integrate findings, do NOT use the above summaries First things last - the above summaries would be fine had there been a trial and Wilson be found not guilty. The vague weasel-word would fit to a description, as trials never exonerate, nor weigh in on evidentiary detail. Both the DOJ and the Grand Jury decisions, unlike a trial, are absolutely emphatic that there is no "there" there - no basis to even ask the question of whether Brown was dangerous or Wilson acted in self-defense. However, while there should be extensive use of the detail in the DOJ report, it should be used by integrating it into the rest of the article, as it is both itself, the narrative, and an "event" within the narrative that needs a heading. Put the details about credibility of witnesses and accounts should be in the sections about the witnesses. The parts about Brown trying to take the gun in those sections, the parts debunking the surrender story with those sections, and movements that led to the Brown "charging" Wilson included in that section. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a single paragraph summary of the subject (like an executive summary) should be sufficient to adequately present the findings of the report. Reaction both in support and opposition of it should take no more than a paragraph each; providing the report context.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I concur with Gaijin42, above, in every respect. As for the exact wording, I leave that to normal editing consensus processes over time. The issue for me is that hiding the fact that the report also clearly questions the contradicting witnesses, not just the evidence, would be an NPOV violation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some of the proposed expansions of the section on the DoJ report place undue weight on parts of the report which do not explicitly implicate or exonerate Michael Brown of responsibility in his own death. Without mentioning the politically driven atmosphere in the current administration (several allegations of pervasive institutional racism on the part of DoJ management), those analyses would definitely be placing undue weight on those parts of the report. loupgarous (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Threaded discussion

There seems to be a consensus of a lot of editors who say that the DOJ section should be expanded, but none of them have added anything in the section since this RFC started and the section is essentially still the same as when this RFC started. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@loupgarous: I find your comment in the above Survey section cryptic and unhelpful. What precisely are you suggesting? Dyrnych (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Precision of section heading

Issue is with User:XavierItzm, who wishes to change the section heading "Wrongful death lawsuit" to "Announcement of wrongful death lawsuit". The user is edit warring and their last edit summary was: "This has not been brought to talk page", as if they are incapable of opening a talk discussion. They are the editor who wants to make the disputed edit, so it is their responsibility to start the discussion. But I'll let that pass because the editor is inexperienced. Since the user is clearly not interested in understanding and following BRD procedure, I'm left with two choices, either take them to WP:ANEW or allow the edit to stand while it is under discussion. I lack the energy for ANEW at the moment, so the edit stands.

My position is that (1) the shorter heading does not imply anything about the status of the lawsuit, and (2) the extra two words amount to unnecessary precision, as I said in my first edit summary. Other opinions? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. I edited based on what the WP:RS actually states.  ;Mandruss then, instead of following WP:BRD "Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one" as a recommendation to the reverter, began to revert indiscriminately.
Well, now that this has been addressed: the WP:RS only refers to an announcement. Why would a Wikipedia subsection headline not state that an lawsuit has been announced?. Are 12 bytes too much to ask of the servers? Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a general editing principle, we omit things that are unnecessary, and the load on the servers is not a consideration. If you look at the other section headings in the article, many of them could be called ambiguous in the same way. For example, the "Backgrounds" heading doesn't say what backgrounds are being discussed there, as that becomes obvious enough when the reader reads it. Are you going to go to battle to change that section heading to "Backgrounds of Brown and Wilson"? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:RS only refers to an announcement. In fact "a gearing up" to file a lawsuit. In fact "a plan" for a lawsuit (direct quotes from the RS). How the headline can turn such potential future into Wikipedia fact boggles the mind. With regard to the "Backgrounds" section, the material there is not speculative ("gear up" "plan" etc) and therefore no qualification is needed. XavierItzm (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if the heading leaves any room for doubt, it is eliminated upon reading one sentence. People aren't going to read the table of contents and then leave. It's a matter of editorial judgment, and you're entitled to yours, as am I. I am awaiting other opinions, and I urge you to do likewise. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierItzm: That little one-sentence section could be removed until RS reports the filing. Would that be acceptable to you? If so, go ahead and see if it flies. But, when it's re-added, I'll have the same objection to titling it "Filing of wrongful death lawsuit". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: Thank you for seeking to identify a collegial solution. As not a proponent of "Less is more" in the Wikipedia, I would prefer to not remove what is probably an interesting piece of information to readers, and would much rather see an accurate section title. With regards, XavierItzm (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved
 – Awaiting other opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I see the OP's point, I agree with Mandruss that that level of precision in the section title is unneeded (and probably a net loss), as long as the prose text accurately describes things. Over time, the status of the suit will/could change (proposed, filed, served, in process, settled, ruled, etc). We don't need to be changing the section title every time it does so. Keeping a constant title works better as a stable target for wikilinks from other articles, or use in talk page discussions, as well as ease of searching in the history log. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brown's hands weren't up

"They have also forced me to deal with two uncomfortable truths: Brown never surrendered with his hands up, and Wilson was justified in shooting Brown." --12.180.133.18 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@12.180.133.18: The article's current position is that this is a matter in dispute. We never state in Wikipedia's voice that his hands were up. Your source is a blog, as indicated in its URL. It's one man's opinion, which by itself does not warrant inclusion in the article. If it could be established that his views are widely held, then perhaps an attributed opinion could be added. See WP:USERG. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above opinion article published by the Washington Post[2] and its author Jonathan Capehart were discussed in a Mediaite article titled, Jonathan Capehart: ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Was Built on a Lie,’ I Was Wrong, that began,
"On Monday, Washington Post liberal columnist Jonathan Capehart joined an ever-growing chorus of pundits who are embracing the Justice Department’s most recent claims that, based on “credible” evidence, Michael Brown did not have his hands up in a mode of surrender when former Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson fatally shot him."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with Mandruss that wikipedia's voice will likely not be used to say if the hands were or were not up, the "oops we got it wrong" viewpoint is highly notable (along with the counter "even if the facts are wrong, its still a symbol for the movement" argument).

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say that, after reading the Mediaite piece, I'm not opposed to an attributed opinion, but that I wanted to hear from others including Dyrnych, Gaijin42, and Isaidnoway ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this more appropriate for the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" article? We note that there is dispute over whether Brown's hands were up, that there are witnesses who support the "hands up" narrative who have by and large been found to be unreliable, and that there are witnesses who dispute the "hands up" narrative who have by and large been found to be credible. Capehart's article is interesting, but he's not himself an authority on which we can base a claim that Brown's hands were or weren't up (which is I think what the IP editor above is suggesting we take him as). That said, I agree with Gaijin42 that we should note that the DOJ report has had the effect of changing opinion among former supporters of the "hands up" narrative. Dyrnych (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dyrnych's proposal of "We note that there is dispute over whether Brown's hands were up, that there are witnesses who support the "hands up" narrative who have by and large been found to be unreliable, and that there are witnesses who dispute the "hands up" narrative who have by and large been found to be credible." should be fully explained in this here article and greatly expanded and explained in the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" article. XavierItzm (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the idea that the article needs to include that "hands up don't shoot" did NOT happen, but in summary at the section, and interwoven in the "Testimony" section and wherever the issue comes up. The PRIMARY exposition should be at the Hands up, don't shoot article itself. Dorian Johnson's testimony was both extreme and frequently changed and inconsistent with every reliable witness and the forensic evidence, BUT, while critical to the "hands up don't shoot" narrative, was only one of many articles of evidence within the larger investigation.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look, we don't make our own judgments of the credibility of witnesses and write the article to reflect those judgments. We report what reliable sources have to say about these things. So while reliable sources have called Dorian Johnson's credibility into question, we should certainly reproduce those evaluations (and I'll note that there are more that question his credibility than support it). But the notion that we should state in Wikipedia's voice that Dorian Johnson was not a credible witness is incorrect. Dyrnych (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't suggesting that we COULD put it as plainly as it is. Of course, need to put it in terms of what reliable sources say, HOWEVER, it is also clear that the more reliable the source, the more dismissive of Dorian Johnson's testimony, and the consensus acceptance by even leftist commentators of the conclusion the facts lead to. We obviously can't say, no matter how much evidence, that someone lied, but equal treatment of overwhelming reliable consensus and facts with what borders on WP:FRINGE opinion is also not appropriate. Agree that going with the DOJ report is the easiest way to resolve.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I was referring to the conclusions of the DOJ report, not suggesting that Wikipedia take a position on the credibility of witnesses. Dyrnych (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capehart is a notable columnist, and his admission that Hands up, don't shoot was built on a lie, should definetely be included, with appropriate attribution, in this article. I would defer to consensus on the amount of weight/details it should be given here. I thought it also significant that he called out the culprit behind the lie. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Isaidnoway: "admission that Hands up, don't shoot was built on a lie, should definetely be included, with appropriate attribution, in this article." XavierItzm (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely fine with me. Dyrnych (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the Washington Post today fact-checked the "hands up don't shoot" urban legend and gave it four pinocchios, which is the maximum designation for something that is entirely false. The WP wrote today: "“Hands up, don’t shoot” did not happen in Brown’s killing, and it is a characterization that deserves Four Pinocchios." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/19/hands-up-dont-shoot-did-not-happen-in-ferguson/ XavierItzm (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a blog post, not an editorial let alone an article, so it's inaccurate to say "the Washington Post today fact-checked". The Post does not stand behind that blog post, they merely host it and presumably pay the reporter for work including that blog. I'm not saying don't include it, but don't give it more weight than it merits, don't use Wikipedia's voice, and don't attribute it to simply "the Washington Post". In line with Dyrnych's comments above, it might be better placed in Hands up, don't shoot. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re "While I agree with Mandruss that wikipedia's voice will likely not be used to say if the hands were or were not up" — Why not? Isn't it now an accepted fact that his hands were not up? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that it's insufficient to attribute the conclusion that Brown's hands were likely not up to the DOJ report? Dyrnych (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob : Its generally accepted that they weren't straight up in an unambiguous surrender certainly. Furhter, there is no credible evidence/testimony as to if, or exactly how high, how long, and when his hands may have been up. But to say categorically they were not up (period) I think is probably too far. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Dyrnych's comment and maybe Gaijin42's as well, I think it's insufficient in some places. For example in the second paragraph of the lead that has accepted facts about what happened at the shooting, there is the sentence,
"Witness reports differed as to whether Brown had his hands raised, and whether he was moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired."
I think this should be replaced by,
"Brown was moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired."
The part about the witnesses is not about what happened at the shooting but rather injects the possibility that Brown had his hands up, which is based on witnesses who were found not to be credible. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing "Brown having his hands up" with "Brown unambiguously surrendering." The DOJ report concluded that the latter is inaccurate, which is what the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative was about: not just the "hands up" but also the "don't shoot." It is accurate that "witness reports differed as to whether Brown had his hands raised," and that doesn't conflict in any way with the DOJ report. As to "inject[ing] the possibility that Brown had his hands up," yep, that still exists as a possibility—whether or not Brown was surrendering. I have no objection to noting that the report concluded that it was unlikely that Brown was surrendering, but that's not the same thing as saying that the report concluded that he didn't have his hands up. I think that's what Gaijin42 is getting at above. Dyrnych (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support saying the moving towards bit, as I think thats fairly conclusive and covered by many sources. Regarding hands, we could say something such as "Some witnesses had stated that Brown had his hands raised and was trying to surrender, but the DOJ investigation found their claims to not be credible" or something, which covers the possibility, but does not lead down a path of misleading. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the two of you and I are too far apart on this, so I'll stop here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought Gaijin42, although we are too far apart on "hands up", regarding the part of your comment, "I'd support saying the moving towards bit, as I think thats fairly conclusive and covered by many sources." — Would you support the following change of the sentence?
From,
"Witness reports differed as to whether Brown had his hands raised, and whether he was moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired."
to,
Brown was moving towards Wilson when the final shots were fired. Witness reports differed as to whether Brown had his hands raised."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with this as an incremental improvement. There is probably more that could be done. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
Dyrnych, What do you think about making this change? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine. Dyrnych (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. [3] --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

non-Arbitrary break

Dyrnych and Gaijin42, What do you think about deleting the last sentence of paragraph 2 of the lead?

"Witness reports differed as to whether Brown had his hands raised."

The reason I ask is that it isn't about reliable info regarding what happened at the shooting, as the rest of the paragraph is, but rather is about conflicting witness statements afterwards. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob K31416 Hrm. While I see your point, everything is either witness/evidence based to reconstruct the scene/event. Some of that reconstruction is very solid. Some of it is more shaky (to the point of non-credibility). I think its tough to justify not mentioning the hands up allegation in this area (as one perception/version of the events), because it was such a major part of the story. However, I am entirely open to wording this sentence to reflect the fullness of information we now have. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point about hands up being a major part of the story, although it has now been discredited. We could move the idea to the next paragraph which is about protests. One possibility is to remove the sentence from the 2nd paragraph and add something like the following to the next paragraph.
"Protestors claimed that Brown had his hands up in surrender when he was shot."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

testimony

This exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be included in this, which we're already using as a reference. Can't see any advantage to using our own copy of it, unless some of us are unable to use the other for some reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Witness Accounts References

Hey guys, so i added a bunch of testimonies i found in the DOJ file on this case, and some other news websites around the web to add some real depth to this page. Currently the Reference section looks messy because to be honest I didn't feel like going through the trouble of editing them to make look pretty, so the ref's i added are just URL's. Some of the ones in the "Against Darren Wilson" section, there are a lot of repeats and ibids, etc. The witness statements from the DOJ, i put the page page numbers next to the URL for those particular statements. Im going to come back later and fix them, but right now im kind of tired. If someone else wants to give them a whirl before i get back that would be cool too. Either way, its gonna get done :P (ProductofSociety (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Michael_Brown&oldid=657020059"