Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Keith Lamont Scott

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2016 Charlotte riot)

RfC: Scott history of carrying a gun

[edit]
DON'T INCLUDE
As some users have mentioned, this article is about a specific event i.e. the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. This raises the question of whether or not the restraining order incident is somehow tied to Scott's shooting. We can't say with certainty that the two incidents are related and coming to the conclusion that they are in fact related events violates WP:SYNTH. So far, the possibility of the incidents being related is only speculation. WP:PUBLICFIGURE says "if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article" but users have failed to show how this incident is relevant to Scott's shooting. And not everyone would even recognize Scott as a public figure. Although the consensus is to not include the incident in this article, including the information probably wouldn't violate WP:BLPCRIME as long as an accusatory tone was avoided. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.


Should the following be added to the Backgrounds section,

About a year before the shooting, Scott's wife filed a restraining order against him saying that he carries a 9mm gun.[1]

References

  1. ^ Dalesio, Emery P. (September 27, 2016). "Black Man Killed by Cop Had Threatened Wife". ABC News. Associated Press. Retrieved September 28, 2016.
―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott's wife is reliably reported[1] to have filed a restraining order against him in October 2015, in which she said he carried a 9mm gun, the type police say they recovered after fatally shooting him on 20 September of this year. Police say he had the gun in his hand when one of them, Brentley Vinson, shot him. Should the article include this bit of information about the restraining order? This RfC does not address other parts of the restraining order, or any other parts of Scott's history. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC survey: Scott history of carrying a gun

[edit]
  • No - Applicable policy is WP:BDP and WP:BLPCRIME. In the case of BLPCRIME, inclusion does not serve to convict Scott, who is not subject to trial, but it does serve to acquit Vinson, who is subject to trial—even if only in the court of public opinion—at Scott's expense. I see little substantive difference. Our job is not to convict or acquit anybody in any court. This content is not directly related to the actual shooting event, as the police on the scene were not aware of that history, or even of the identity of the person they were dealing with. Therefore it is not relevant to the article subject, and I feel it should be omitted. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per WP:BDP and WP:BLPCRIME. North Carolina is an open carry state. Unless he was violating the law in possessing the gun, which is unlikely, it's not relevant to his shooting, which is the subject of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He was in violation of the law by possessing a gun because he was a convicted felon, and federal law bars felons from possessing firearms. Natureium (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here we have a wikipedian who voted the way that did, at least in part, because they did not know the things that readers of this article would not know as a result of the information that is being kept out of it. This is one example of a reason why people should be provided with this information. MathEconMajor (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes – I think this item about Scott having a background that included carrying a gun, is relevant since this article is about an incident where Scott was repeatedly told by police to drop a gun. The previous filing of a restraining order by his wife that included information about him carrying a gun, is a fact about his background which appeared in the given ABC News/Associated Press article about Scott and the shooting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Wikipedia does not decide what is relevant. Multiple RSs have mentioned the restraining order information. Whether or not editors think the RSs *should have* mentioned it, the article should mention it unless preempted by another wikipedia policy. The newspaper articles are about the shooting, and the consensus of RSs decides that his prior record is relevant to the shooting. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. This article is about a specific event - his shooting. The attending police who shot him had no knowledge of his identity or his priors. His history played no part in the decision to shoot him, and so it should not be used now to somehow explain, justify or ameliorate that shooting. WWGB (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - I understand the rationale that because RS mention we should too. But we are not obligated to mention everything that RS say. In these cases, news outlets seem to scrounge for any info at all to fill in the gaps, and publicly available info is the first stop. Here it doesn't provide info on the event itself, as there was no warrant or knowledge of past actions by the officers. If they were serving a warrant for him, I'd say include it. But here it is was unrelated and, to some, used to justify actions after the fact. Now if this ever went to trial and was admitted as character evidence, then it's relevant to the case and events and should be considered for inclusion. But at this point it's not. Exclude for now. Side note: I think we might need to go to VP and purpose some guidelines for these specific cases as it comes up over and over. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Known history of carrying a gun should be included in the article about him being shot whilst police say he was holding a gun. Jim Michael (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It is disputed by his family whether he had a gun. The fact that he had a history of carrying a gun illegally is relevant. Natureium (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The mention of a gun isn't here for the purpose of bending the tone to favor the police officer, but given that a core part of the dispute here centers on whether or not he did in fact have a gun, a neutral fact on the record that may indicate he had a gun at some point is a crucial part of the story. WP:BLPCRIME is fairly clear - as long as we're not using the fact in accusatory manner, it's a perfectly legitimate note. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Relevance of something to the subject of article (the shooting) should be established by sources. If multiple RS on the subject of shooting provide any kind of personal information, so should we. Same is about the police officer or anyone else related to the shooting (relatives, investigators, whoever). This info could be included in a BLP page about the person, but we do not have such page. Of course we have no obligation to include everything what RS say. But... "police say Keith Scott had this gun on him when he was shot". Obviously, it is highly relevant if this man ever had a gun. Hence include.My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Whether he had a gun recently is the best evidence we have to evaluate whether to believe the claim that he had a gun at the time of the shooting. This article contains claims by police that Keith Scott had a gun. It also contains claims by his daughter that he did not have a gun. In order for him to have a gun on him at the time of the shooting, he would have to possess a gun. This evidence would tend toward showing that he did. Whether the officers at the scene knew about this history or not, it is relevant to the factual question of whether he had a gun at the time of the shooting. Some wikipedians are arguing that this evidence is not relevant now, but might be relevant later if it is introduced into evidence in a trial. I would argue that in a way, it is actually more relevant now than it will be later. At some point, there will probably be definitive evidence introduced showing that he did or did not have a gun at the time, so indirect evidence about whether he had possessed one recently will be less necessary. Right now, though, this article basically just has assertions that he did and did not have a gun at the time, with evidence about whether he had possessed a gun before being disallowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathEconMajor (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Stop whitewashing the article by keeping valid information form it. This is clearly relevant. Dream Focus 21:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - His history of carrying a firearm is not relevant to this specific event. Meatsgains (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No – Per Mandruss, this is not relevant to this particular article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC discussion: Scott history of carrying a gun

[edit]
It wasn't suddenly but after he became well known. According to that link public figure, he would be an involuntary public figure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the definition of "public figure" that I have always understood. Politicans and celebrities are public figures, subjects of passing news stories are not. Our article public figure, which both you and MrX have linked, attempts to clarify this point: "(such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader)". Not even Michael Brown is a public figure, and I suspect Scott will never quite reach his level of prominence in this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those were some examples for the lead and not expressed as the only cases. Farther down the page is the part I was referring to. Here's an excerpt from a source that the public figure article used,[2] "The concept of the 'public figure' is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an 'involuntary public figure' as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention." The second sentence in the excerpt was used in the public figure article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting perspective, but I'm pretty sure it's one that is contrary to widespread practice on Wikipedia. Shall we inquire at WP:BLPN?- MrX 19:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide to, let us know. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think it's necessary. I assume that whoever closes this RfC will be familiar with our content policies.- MrX 20:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the No !votes that say the item is not relevant because the policeman who shot him did not know about Scott's history of carrying a gun – That's not the point since the policeman thought he had a gun from his observation at the scene. The point is that the claim of the police that Scott had a gun is consistent with Scott's history of carrying a gun, and that the material is informative and appropriate for this article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And that's textbook SYNTH. You're making that connection, not the sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SYNTH applies to the article, not discussions on the talk page. (See the end of the first paragraph of WP:NOR.) The proposed edit is consistent with policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale for inclusion is SYNTH though. Not supported by rs. You need a rationale that adheres to policy send guidelines, not just ILIKEIT. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think my previous comment adequately addressed your response. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the fact that a media source contains information that it deemed worthy of inclusion; and the fact that a logical reason that it is relevant can be provided (whether or not this reasoning itself should be placed in the article), is insufficient for some wikipedians unless an outside source specifically explains its rationale for including something. This would require us to find an outside source that does not follow wikipedia-like policies regarding whether to explain the logic of why something is relevant rather than simply including the evidence. Most news sources are like wikipedia articles in that they try to be unbiased by including evidence that is deemed relevant without explicitly explaining the reasoning of what deduction the reader is supposed to make that would make the evidence relevant. Nevertheless, even this standard can more or less be met. Here is a CBS article that mentions the restraining order filing that claimed that he "carries a gun" from October 2015 in the same paragraph that it mentions police claims that he was carrying a gun on the day of the shooting in September 2016. It mentions the controversy over whether he was carrying a gun at the time of the shooting in the next paragraph.[3] Essentially, CBS made the connection (through immediate proximity of information placed back-to-back in the same paragraph) that the restraining order filing about him having a gun is relevant to whether he carried a gun at the time of the shooting. MathEconMajor (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This postdated message is to prevent automatic archiving of this RfC before close, and may be deleted after close. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]
No objection to an early close. I think all legitimate arguments have been well articulated and there is nothing gained by waiting for (1) more "me too" !votes using previously-stated good arguments, and (2) more bad arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with early close too, but hope the reviewing admin thoroughly reads the points made. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you each clarify what you mean by early close? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs - "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." I'd guesstimate that 80% of RfCs run for the full 30 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think that clarifies for me what you two meant. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2016 (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.

To add to article

[edit]

To add to this article: crime scene photos of Scott's handgun and holster. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Keith_Lamont_Scott&oldid=1256743090"