Jump to content

Talk:311 Boyz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


General

[edit]

I lived in Las Vegas from 2002-2006, and I have a pretty good memory of this story and its coverage in the local media. I rewrote this article a couple of weeks ago and I'd like to share my thoughts on it.

  • The term gang is entirely justified in the context of this article. They certainly engaged in a number of acts of collective violence and intimidation; this was not merely a party that went bad. Calling them a "group" is a bit euphemistic. The fact that the judge took them off a "gang list" does not mean they were not a gang; it just means they weren't engaged in large criminal conspiracies that other gangs commonly engage in (drugs, prostitution, etc).
  • The use of "alleged" is an attempt to whitewash. There were 5 felony convictions in the Hansen case, and other convictions in unrelated cases (the "bumfight" videos, another unrelated attack).
  • The details of the attack on Hansen are probably a little too much info for this article. The cited references (LVRJ) provide all this info in better detail; there's no point in copying it here. I'm sure all this is in the court records as well.Simishag 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick response to you...I guess that you believe everthing you read and see on t.v. huh, just because you think you know what happened you dont...I KNOW FIRST HAND the facts in this case, #1 the term GANG is a legal definition and can not be thrown around and labled on people for the fun of it.I THINK that the JUDGE probably knew more about the case than you so who are you to decide that its really a gang...THEY AS YOU CALL THEM are also young men who were not all engaged in your number of acts of violence and intimidation.THOSE WERE OTHER UNIDENTIFIED individuales,with the exception of one.So once again you dont know the FACTS, you only know what you were told by a prejudice media.Yes felony convictions did result ,that was due the the District Attorneys office overcharging these young men,with attempted murder to bypass the juvinal justice system,that way he could get 5 of the nine teens automatically certified to adult status.Due to excessive media attention and fear of a polluted jury pool most of the families were afraid to go to trial.THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A GAME...unfortunatly those families flinched first and took heavy felony raps for their children ages 16-18.Yes one did go to trial, and he was found to be INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES....hhhmmmm IS THAT BECAUSE WHAT YOU READ IN THE PAPER AND SAW ON T.V. MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THE FACTS OF THE CASE....that night was a PARTY , those kids reacted like anyone who was drunk and saw someone run over by a truck that was speeding away would react...throw bottels,cans,yes and A ROCK...to bad the young man that threw the rock didn't think about what type of damage he might do when the rock hits an on coming vehical at 75+ mph...i guess he didn't do well in his physics class...I AM TOTALLY sorry that MR. Hansen SUFFERED SO....but maybe the driver of the truck should have used more care and not hit a parked vehical, and a human, leaving him for dead....or better yet never engaged in a verbal altercation over a girl in the first place.well i guess you dont know everthing do you.....IT was all about money,,,,and politics not justice in this case.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.193.125.45 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 2 February 2007.

What up, My name is Joseph Grill and i was one the three kids that was in the truck during the attack. I would just like to say that who ever wrote the information above is full of bull sh*t. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.247.1 (talk) 19:07, August 24, 2007 (UTC)


Most of what you say above is not cited (see WP:CITE) or at least not sufficiently cited. My edits have essentially summarized the case as reported, with the main paragraphs being a summary of the LVRJ article of 2004-08-07. You, however, have made specific claims about the case and trial that should be directly cited.
Your writing does not conform to a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV), and you have made edits that clearly are intended to tone down the article (the removal of the police statement in the intro; the use of "allegedly"; replacing "gruesome injuries" with "injuries") or are in some cases obviously biased ("Thus another case of the media..." at the end). You use weasel words like "so-called". Furthermore, your editing is not of the formal tone and style expected here, and you use poor grammar and spelling.
I rewrote the article based on the cited sources (Review Journal & CBS Web sites), which are legit sources. They referenced other credible sources, including the Las Vegas PD. If you want to suggest changes or amplify parts of the story, feel free, but ignoring what reliable sources have said about this case is a whitewash. I suggest you propose your changes on the talk page first.
And finally, I see you're bold enough to write a rambling diatribe here, but apparently not bold enough to sign your comments or use a real account. Some of your edits are clearly intended to modify the tone of the article in favor of the 311 Boyz. Perhaps you are a little too close to this story to be objective? Simishag 07:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional response to 72.193.125.45

[edit]

I want to amplify my post from last night and address your comments specifically. Your words appear in bold below.

  • I KNOW FIRST HAND the facts in this case

Given the facts of this case, "first hand" means you witnessed the entire incident, and in practical terms, that leads to only one possibility: that you were part of the group of teens that chased Hansen away from the party. I think this is highly unlikely, and since you've chosen to post anonymously, there's no way to verify it. So I think you have, at best, "second hand" knowledge: what you heard at school from your friends. But, for the sake of argument, let's just say you were really there and witnessed everything. Your account would be useful as a primary source, particularly if you testified in court. However, primary sources are likely too biased to be objective; for example, I don't think Gazlay or Hansen would be accepted as editors.

  • the term GANG is a legal definition

No, it isn't. See gang. It has specific applications in a legal context, as in "gang enhancement" statutes that increase penalties. But when justified by violent actions, and when the term is used by the media, the police and witnesses, it's fair to use it here.

  • the group was removed from the gang profile (from your previous copy in the article)

This is uncited, and after a quick Google search, I can't find a reliable source for this. What's your source?

  • you dont know the FACTS, you only know what you were told by a prejudice media

So, we should accept your account of things without question? Where's your proof of media prejudice or bias? Were the LVRJ's accounts of Hansen's injuries, Gazlay's assaults, or the ensuing trials biased? How so?

  • the District Attorneys office overcharging these young men... most of the families were afraid to go to trial

In collective cases like this, with lots of defendants and witnesses, it's a common prosecutorial tactic to seek the most serious charges possible. It gives the DA leverage and forces defendants (who are sometimes the best witnesses) to consider testifying against each other. Whether this tactic is "fair" or not is a matter of opinion, and its use is not unique to this case. Also, it's not our place to provide commentary on why the pleas were accepted. The relevant fact here is that they WERE accepted. Whether a defendant is convicted by a jury or accepts a plea deal does not matter: either way, he is guilty in the eyes of the law.

Also, these were not poor families getting screwed by the system. They had good lawyers, and they knew what they were doing. IMHO, the plea deals they got were pretty sweet deals. The families knew that although they probably weren't all going to jail, someone was, and they elected to remove the risk of hard time.

  • maybe the driver of the truck should have used more care and not hit a parked vehical, and a human, leaving him for dead

Maybe the group of teens shouldn't have chased the driver back to his truck and surrounded it, leaving him with no other option to escape. Under the law, this is known as duty to retreat. The driver and his companions clearly took all reasonable measures to escape and avoid a fight. The 311 Boyz were spoiling for a fight and tried to prevent their escape. If the driver had been charged, he likely would have been able to claim self-defense. And even if you don't accept that, it is no justification for what happened next.

  • or better yet never engaged in a verbal altercation over a girl in the first place

Ah, so it's their fault. They should have known better than to tread upon the 311 Boyz' turf or mess with their girls. And you say this isn't a gang?

Anyway, I think it's pretty clear what side of this you are on. I've attempted to cover this case in an unbiased fashion using the available sources; I cannot say the same for you. Simishag 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

I have revised the article again, this time to include proper citations and footnotes. Simishag 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe blanking the page was wrong, and maybe I am too close to the story to be totally unbias as I am a parent of a defendant in this case,but you see all I ever see is alot of the same story repeated over and over from the beginning, never a view of how the story changes as more of the facts came to light,I just want a truely unbias look at the way the artical changed,I also have actual court documents to support my beliefs, which you will never have access to because the case was sealed...as you must understand this was a very tramatic issue for every family involved,and when people like you continually rewrite old news it hits home.You seem like a very intellegent writer,why dont you look for the story within the story and tell that one ,,I think you will be very surprised at what you find ....once again I am sorry... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.193.125.45 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first say that I sympathize with your situation. No parent deserves to be put through something like this. Also, understand that my attention to this article is not driven by a desire to make anyone look good or bad. Yes, I lived in Vegas during this time, but I don't claim to know more than anyone else about the story. It just happens to interest me since a) it occurred not long after I moved there; and b) it occurred fairly close to my neighborhood (Centennial Hills). I personally don't have anything invested in this story, other than the time I spent on this article. I don't know any of the kids, their families, the police, the attorneys... I don't even know anyone else who knew any of these people. I think you'll find me to be mostly unbiased, and even if you don't, I'm more than willing to engage in reasoned debate on either the issues or the wording in the article.

You say that I am "rewrit[ing] old news." For better or worse, this story is now a part of history, and posterity demands that we give it a fair treatment. This story is more than a mere footnote about a party that went bad. In particular, I think the fight videos that were discovered are important in the larger context of media violence, especially among teens. Perhaps this is naive, but I believe that by working together to write this history, we can prevent future generations from going down the same path.

You suggest that I "look for the story within," but that's not what Wikipedia does; we're editors, not journalists. See original research. Wikipedia relies on external sources for everything; we don't create our own knowledge here. If there's really another story, find someone to tell it, and then we can include it in our coverage here. You also mentioned that you know the real story but that the records are sealed. Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about that; we have to rely on published sources.

Finally, although I think you have an inherent, and probably permanent, bias in this article, there are still ways you can help us. We don't have easy access to the public records in the case. If you have relevant records and you are willing to share them, you can scan them as PDF files and upload them here. And despite the bias issues, you are probably correct in your belief that you know the story better than we do, since you experienced the whole thing first hand. If you are willing to identify yourself, so that other editors are aware that you might be a biased source, I think you'll find that we are willing to listen to your side. Simishag 18:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 311 Boyz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:311_Boyz&oldid=1256554838"