Talk:2009 shooting of Pittsburgh police officers

Appropriate Location?

I have moved the article on the shooter to here and expanded the article into a little more than a stub. Is this the proper location for this tragedy, or is another name more appropriate? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems like the appropriate place for this article, for the time being anyway. I don't think this Richard Poplawski jagoff deserves his own page anyhow. What a freakin' nutty jagoff! I hope they give this jagoff the death penalty. What a nutty fanatical gun freak and a cowardly right-wing jagoff. The chair is too good for this jagoff. I hope they string this jagoff up from the 9th Street Bridge. Yinz know what I'm sayin' in'at? Geneisner (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the right place to me. — brighterorange (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Was not an assault rifle

There is no evidence the shooter used an assault rifle. There was absolutely no mention of automatic fire in any of the news reports. R.westermeyer (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

AK-47 is an assault rifle, it doesn't have to be automatic to be classified as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.42.210 (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Harper said the shooter, identified as 23-year-old Richard Poplawski, fired at the officers several dozen times using a high-powered assault rifle before he was finally wounded and then surrendered." [1] TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 12:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Assault rifle" or "assault weapon" as used in the United States is a political term. For a rifle to be considered a true "Assault rifle" it must be select fire - meaning capable of semi-automatic and fully-automatic fire. There's a very important distinction there. The news stories calling it an "assault rifle" are using the political term. Wikipedia's own article, Assault Rifle agrees with me. In the same vein, his rifle was most likely not actually an AK-47, but a gun patterned after the AK. "Real" AK-47s are capable of fully-automatic fire, and only a very small amount were ever imported. More likely his rifle was an imported, "demilitarized" variant from a country like Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria etc. I doubt we'll ever actually hear what specific variant his gun was, though. R.westermeyer (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The media reports and wording in this article are based on the Chief of Police's account. "Pittsburgh Police Chief Nate Harper said Poplawski was armed with a high-powered assault rifle and a pistol, and he had a significant amount of ammunition as he allegedly fired out of his bedroom window on Fairfield Street." [2] TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It was an AK-47. Officer McManaway identified it. My source, Officer McManaway. And not all Assault Rifles are full auto. The M1 Garand is an assault rifle and it is not automatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.42.210 (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no mention of automatic fire, including "AK-47 assault rifle" in the article is misleading. The Pittsburgh chief of police does not get to change the definition of assault rifle. He was using the political term. TharsHammer, you say in your profile "This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms". You obviously have no wish to understand this issue and you're just using this article as a way to push your anti-gun agenda by inserting bad information into the article. If you're not going to try and understand, please stop editing the article. 71.60.42.210, you do not understand the issue either. All assault rifles are by definition capable of fully automatic fire. The term "assault rifle" is also used as a political term to describe a rifle that resembles a real assault rifle, but lacks the capabilities of one. The M1 Garand is not an assault rifle by anyone's definition. Even going by the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban's definition it does not qualify. It is simply classed as a semi-automatic rifle. R.westermeyer (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not the issue here. The issue is what WP:V and WP:RS sources say. The chief of police has categorized the weapon as an assault rifle. He would have a much better understanding of the weapon used than you. You are attempting to include WP:OR in the article. Please generate reliable sources stating it was not an assault rifle. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My userpage says, "This user knows totalitarians love Gun control." I'm the person who created the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus article. I'm aware of and agree with John Lott's claim that every multiple-victim public shooting that he had studied, where more than three people were killed, took place at a location where guns were banned. I know that the gun ban at the Luby's massacre prevented Suzanna Hupp from saving the lives of her own parents and many other people. I wrote in Ron Paul for President. But even I understand that wikipedia articles have to reflect the sources. If the source quotes the police officer as saying something, then the wikipedia article should say that the police officer said it. That doesn't mean it's true - it just means the police officer said it. And yes, I am fully aware that some people misuse terms like "assault rifle," and that can even include police officers. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that is an assault rifle. Otherwise it would be considered a rifle, meaning not auto fire, or a SMG or LMG. It really depends on what definition but an AK is usually considered an assault rifle. Also COD 4 called it an assault rifle Superbowlbound (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on what definition you choose to use. I've found ALL of the following definitions. I think the term "assault rifle" seems more than appropriate, myself. assault rifle  –noun 1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge. 2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

Origin: 1970–75 Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009. Cite This Source

assault rifle n. Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

assault rifle

noun any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.36.103 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Stormfront connections

This article states that Poplawski "was a frequent poster to the site" in the sentence on Stormfront. This is extremely misleading and the source does not support this statement. I'm removing this particular clause. He only posted a single time on the site. 129.25.17.195 (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am restoring the essence of this statement. The article cited is titled "Poplawski frequented right-wing Web sites" and the New York Times article added indicates he visted Stormfront at 3:32 AM saturday, only hours before the shootout. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 18:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Numerous sources have confirmed that he posted, some state his usernames and others the actually content of his posts. He posted dozens of messages and several images. Grsz¹¹ 18:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cite these sources please. As far as I know, he only posted once on Stormfront in particular to show off a tattoo. Lurking!=Frequent-Poster either. His posting on numerous sites around the internet and once on Stormfront (which is what the sourced article states) != frequent poster on Stormfront. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.25.17.195 (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the ADL press release, [3]. I think you are being confused by the two seperate accounts that Mr. Poplawski had on stormfront. The ADL states:

"He found expression for his hateful opinions on Stormfront, the world's largest white supremacist on-line discussion forum. Poplawski first created an account in late 2006 or early 2007, but only posted once, sharing pictures of his tattoo (which he described later as a "deliberately Americanized version of the iron eagle").

It was almost a year later, in October 2007, that Poplawski created a second Stormfront account, using the screen name "RichP." This time, Poplawski felt more comfortable sharing his feelings with the other white supremacists on Stormfront. Ascribing his racist beliefs to his "solid upbringing" by his mother, Poplawski stated that "Negroes especially have disgusting facial features. The fat nosed flaring nostril look is putrid. Nappy hair makes me want to gag." He followed these comments with insults against Hispanics, Asians, and Arabs. However, after a burst of racist posting, Poplawski went silent. It would be a year before he posted again on Stormfront.

Poplawski's last collection of posts on Stormfront, from November 2008 through March 2009, are more disturbing, as they indicate an increasing desire to be confrontational. Rather than "retreat peaceably into the hills," Poplawski urged his fellow white supremacists in November 2008 to achieve "ultimate victory for our people" by "taking back our nation." Stating that he believed they were running out of time, he noted that "a revolutionary is always regarded as a nutcase at first, their ideas dismissed as fantasy." In another posting that month, he said that he would probably be "ramping up the activism" in the near future.

Following the Super Bowl victory of the Pittsburgh Steelers in early February 2009, Poplawski used the celebrations that occurred in Pittsburgh as an opportunity to "survey police procedure in an unrestful environment," and reported the results of his reconnaissance to fellow Stormfronters. "It was just creepy seeing busses [sic] put into action by authorities, as if they were ready to transport busloads of Steeler fans to 645 FEMA drive if necessary."

So multiple posting on the website. Are you satisfied now that the term "frequent poster" can be used? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The ADL is an agenda-biased source, but I'll accept that for now. Also the article starts out with: "An ADL investigation". Wouldn't the police be the ones checking his computer and such? 129.25.17.195 (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes the ADL has an agenda against anti-semitism. We could also use the Post-Gazette article as a source. [4]. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• All those articles are bullshit and antiwhite! The guy was a catholic, not a member of the CI movement, nor was he racist, since he hated Nazis and Skinheads... He posted his concerns on gun rights and a tattoo that ain't even racial, that is all!!

What do you mean "anti-white", do you debate the factual accuracy of the articles as they are used in this wikipedia article, mainly are you arguing that the postings attributed to Poplawski are in his? What articles do you suggest instead? As for your "racist" comment, The wikipedia article does not state that he was a racist. It states 2 points of fact. Point of fact 1 is that he posted to Stormfront. Point of fact 2 is that Stormfront is white supremacist website. Those are two points of fact, backed up with sources. If you are debating those are factually accurate please state why. The article does not make the jump to call Poplawski a racist, or that his postings were racial, so there is no reason for you to debate something that is not in the article. As an analogy it would be like if I stated that I like coke, and I like red wine. That doesn't mean one should infer that I like to mix red wine and coke. I know that concoction tastes vile, so it would be factually inaccurate to say that I like to mix wine and coke. So you see that is why we have not made the jump to call him a "racist", we would only call him a "racist" with proper sourcing from a WP:RS and so far none have been added to specifically call him a racist.

Also, there is a big difference between being a member of a website and a member of a movement, so we have not classified him as part of a particular movement based on his postings, we have only said that he made postings or was a member of a website. Lastly, what does his Catholicism have to do with anything? It was my understand that Catholicism teaches "thou shalt not kill." TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 07:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Poplawski was not racial in any way. He simply hated big government. He posted that he did not like racism as a belief system, and his tattoo is non-racial. He did not believe in Skinhead ideology, nor in any JEWISH control, only Zionist control, which could mean anything from Mormons controlling the US to JEWS to christians to even Nazis, if ya read Jim Marrs's crap! He was only into protecting civil rights, and could have cared less about White Racial Loyalist ideology! Can I site a source? Yes... The Stormfront boards back this up, as well as his Myspace, and his friends and family, and the fact that he did not join any local racial groups, like Hardy Lloyd's White Pittsburgh Front IN SIDE Pittsburgh, or the KKK in Southeast Ohio, or the National Alliance in West Virginia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.214 (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't say he is a racists. We say he visited Stormfront, which is irrefutable. Now, the manner of your posts reveal that you are here to push some kind of agenda; please do not continue to do so. Grsz¹¹ 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• What agenda is free speech? I am not an american, so explain your concept...? Also, OR WHAT? I've been banned 20 times!! LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.112 (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The concept of freedom of speech is that the government does not censor speech, you have the right to say whatever you want - but you don't have the right to say it wherever you want. The individuals who own the space in which you speak (in this case the wikimedia foundation) has the freedom to stop you from speaking in their venue. Also you seem to know an awful lot about Pittsburgh area hate groups for a non-american. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 04:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Por que? I do not understand what that last sentance meant...?!? Also, I believe in total free speech! Period, end of sentance! But, explain that last thing, gringo...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.254 (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good for you, then setup your own online encyclopedia where you can have total free speech and allow total free speech for anyone in the world. No one's stopping you, move along, get going on it. Oh, and your IP address traces to Baltimore, so don't play dumb. Is there something in particular you find misleading about the article? Is there something you think needs to be improved? Suggestions? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 19:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Por que? Listen, gringo, answer my question!! Pinche americano!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.131 (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

External links in body of article

Per External links - important points to remember, external links should not go into the body of the article. It is best to observe this. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Age of Richard Poplawski

Is this guy age 22 or 23? Sources are all over the map on this. Does anyone know for sure? Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

22 Superbowlbound (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. How do we know that for sure? I have seen a lot of sources that say 22 and a lot that say 23. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

I have no idea if he is 22 or 23. My best guess is that he recently turned 23, but some media is going off old information from when he was 22 (maybe a myspace page, or maybe from friends who were unaware of his true age.) Are there any court documents yet on Poplawski? Those might spell out his birthdate. Oh, and I moved the political views section and removed your comment about that, I hope that is okay. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

His birthday is September 12, 1986 ... making him 22 years old ... see this article:[5]. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Article proving Poplawski isn't racist...!

• From a Pittsburgh media source:::

http://kdka.com/search/Link.ashx?R=http%3a%2f%2fkdka.com%2flocal%2ffallenheroes%2fRichard.Poplawski.friend.2.978138.html

http://kdka.com/search/Link.ashx?R=http%3a%2f%2fkdka.com%2fvideo%2f%3fid%3d55750%40kdka.dayport.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.100 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Good point! Poplawski is being slandered by the jew groups simply because he is a gun nut. The fact that he has black friends and jewish friends makes those claims of racism very hard to believe in!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.100 (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I meant to add that good point here... lol - Richard Poplawski is no racist! His posts on Stormfront are very anti Nazi, and he has jewish and black friends! Plus, he has no racial tatts nor any racial flags!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.100 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• It should be noted also that being an anti Zionist means you are against those who follow Zionism, which can include, but not only, the following: Mormons (both LDS and FLDS), Jews, Christians, and even some Wiccans claim to believe in Zionism, though their idea of it is different, but they use the same name!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.100 (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol, dude, what's your stormfront username? Also, you know that everyone can see the IP address you used to post the messages pretending to reply to your own original one? Also, even in his mugshot you can clearly see the top of a "Reichsadler" tattoo on his chest. R.westermeyer (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Political Views

There's a section on his political views, I tried to add a sourced statement on the fact that he had voted in both the '04 and '08 presidential elections and was a registered member of the United States Republican Party. However, another user (grsz) removed my edit, saying it has "little relevance to the subject at hand". Actually it's very relevant, given that the section itself is dedicated to Richard Poplawski's political views, and the fact that he is a Republican (as opposed to a Democrat, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, or other party), is certainly an important part of his political views. I'm adding it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.155.200 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The night before he returned home, he swam in a nearby lake, ignoring the danger of alligators.

What's the story with this? Is this vandalism? 131.193.146.101 (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just realised that what I said was ambiguous. The passage "The night before he returned home, he swam in a nearby lake, ignoring the danger of alligators" appears in the last line of the 'background' section, and it doesn't seem to be relevant or sensical. 131.193.146.101 (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

From a story here

"Something bad happened to his mom, and he had to go back to Pittsburgh," Mr. Carrano said. Mr. Poplawski wasn't happy about returning home. The night before he left, he swam into the middle of Lake Wellington, Mr. Carrano said, despite warnings of the alligators there."

So its true, but I don't think it belongs in the article. Its more trivia than encyclopedic. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. It shows his risk-taking nature ... his devil-may-care attitude. No? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

Maybe the warnings about alligators are based on rumor, not fact. Alligators are cold blooded - I don't think they could survive the cold Pittsburgh winters. I seriously doubt there are any wild alligators in Pittsburgh. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The alligators were not in Pittsburgh ... they were in Florida. According to that article ([6]), Poplawski was living in Florida at the time of this alligator incident. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Would this picture be OK?

This article has a picture that was taken in police custody. Although it looks like a mugshot, it says "KDKA" at the bottom, which is a local TV station. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also ... this page ([7]) has a photo with the caption Richard Poplawski photo from Pittsburgh police. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

The photo that you are linking to was already deleted. Apparently Federal Government works are free use images, while most state and local government products are not automatically. You could consider sending an email request to the Pittsburgh Police. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 10:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmm ... I don't understand. Isn't the work of the public government (e.g., the Pittsburgh Police Department) simply a matter of public record? Or am I missing something? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

I ran across the same issue when trying to get a picture of Rush Limbaugh into his article (his mugshot, which was actually pretty good). I found Template talk:Non-free mugshot which discusses the issue pretty well. I gather from that discussion that we CAN use the images, but we SHOULDNT because of licensing. They aren't copyrighted, but they aren't free use. Too confusing for me. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 13:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a good picture anyway, his face is all swollen from the police beating the shit out of him after he surrendered. Find one of his stormfront pictures, maybe? R.westermeyer (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

September 11?

Was 9/11 an attack on law enforcement?

New fiancée

[also posted to User talk:Ashpop]

Hello Ashpop, welcome to WIkipedia and thank you for your efforts to improve our coverage.

Unfortunately, your correction can't be accepted for the time being. Wikipedia has a very firm policy on verifiability: everthing we say must be backed up by reliable sources. This is especially important when it comes to biographies of living persons; we'd rather report outdated information than "corrected" versions which we have no way of checking. That way, we avoid a great deal of potential harm to peple's lives and to the encyclopedia which could come of false information about living persons.

In this case, the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, which is a reliable source, has reported in 2009 on Mr. Powlaski's legal trouble relating to Ms. Gladish. As far as I can tell, that's all reliable sources have said on the subject of his personal romantic life. I did, however, leave out the information about his supposed first wife, as I did not see her mentioned in the published sources.

If you can't provide a similar, more recent source proving what you have to say, I'm afraid we have to leave the old version up for now. Regrettably, we have no way of knowing you are who you say you are, and I'm sure you can understand how important it is not to let invisible strangers determine the article's content in opposition to what published sources have reported. If we let that happen, anyone could say anything, and a lot of it might be very nasty. FourViolas (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2016 shootings of Des Moines police officers which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)