Talk:Killing of Elijah McClain/Archive 1

Archive 1

Adding transcript of arrest

All the info is there. McClain:"I just want to go home" & I'm an introvert. Please respect my space" & "You accosted me and I just went to turn off my music" &"I would never judge anyone" Policeman:"You went for my gun" McClain: "I would never do anything like that"

The repeated threatening screaming at him to "calm down" followed by the sound of blows. While no real attempt to calm him down was made. Were the police following a loose script: how to beat someone up&cover your tracks while doing it? Sure looks that way to me.

Will the special prosecutor be able to examine other Aurora brutality cases? And if so will he attempt to show a pattern of brutality and cover up? Practiced lying is hard to crack. Relevant here: https://aclu-co.org/aurora-pays-75k-to-settle-two-aclu-police-misconduct-lawsuits/

A transcript would be welcome. Klasovsky (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Language and Perspective on Introductory paragraph

I've noticed that the introductory paragraph has flip-flopped back and forth between perspectives in the past few days or so. Either being a neutral, but more simple "Elijah McClain, a 23-year-old black massage therapist in Aurora, Colorado, died after being detained by police", or a more direct introduction along the lines of "Elijah McClain, a 23-year-old black massage therapist in Aurora, Colorado, was killed and beaten by police". I think we should reach a consensus on the language/perspective of the introductory paragraph, and if it continues to flip-flop back and forth, I think this page should be nominated to be semi-protected. Uelly (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Given both the inconclusive autopsy report that failed to find a direct link link between death and police struggle as well as no legal action being taken on the police officers at the scene, I would say the original formatting of the text is correct. While the general consensus of people may think that McClain was killed directly by police action (myself included), the nature of the judicial action against the officers (none) and the outcome of the autopsy (inconclusive) should be treated with higher regard than the general thought of the population. Maxmmyron (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Same. I firmly believe the cops are responsible for his death as well, however unfortunately it is not 100% official at this time. If the new investigation of his death that was recently requested by Aurora lawmakers along with anything else new proves the police officers are at fault, then obviously the introductory paragraph should be changed. For now, it should be left as it is. Even though the article is fairly accurate on what were the facts and allegations, I feel most readers can come to their own conclusions and can still get a feeling that how the whole situation was handled was a little sketchy, with the body cameras "falling off" for example. Also again if the introductory paragraph continues to frequently flip flop between perspectives without official sources, I believe this article should be semi-protected. Uelly (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey so they gave him 500 mg right? Recommended dosage for disassociation is 4*63.5=254 mg to 5*63.5=317.5 mg based on his body weight. Just to be clear this is the amount they should have used, like when you have a violent patient and you need to administer a sedative you would give this amount. Anything higher than this is meant for surgery and isn't used otherwise because there can be complications (such as impaired respiratory function) which has a recommended dosage of 6.5*63.5=412.75 mg to 13*63.5=825.5 mg for his body weight. Everyone knows there are significant risks when undergoing surgery, now I'm not aware of what their training/policy is for their paramedics, but I can't imagine this kind of an amount being policy. This would have been a safe dose if he were 220 lbs, this has to be gross negligence if not criminal. What I mean is, it says 500 mg but for those unfamiliar they wouldn't know that this is a dangerously high amount. Reigen A (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ranting not directly related to improving the article, closed per WP:FORUM. Claiming the page is just a "rubber stamp what the police and the State want" is unnecessarily inflammatory. And again, please place your signature after your comment. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lord High Executioner 13 (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)This page adopts the police's point of view. For example, in describing the stop, we are given the police version only when a neutral video version exists and we see they grab him on sight. It is also fair to mention that legally speaking it was an unlawful arrest. There was no probable cause to arrest, nor the reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop (and this was an arrest, not a Terry stop). This is claiming the police and the coroner, and DA, etc, to be neutral, when in fact they are a party to this. This nonsense about Mr McClain dying of his own accord seems to be put here despite the manifest absurdity of this position, and only because the DA insists upon this. Oh, the police was there at the autopsy... which is suspicious in and of itself. To be found guilty of murder it is not necessary to be 100% the cause of death. It is an easy matter to convince the jury that these officers and the EMT they ordered to shoot this person up with ketamine were a significant cause of death sufficient to found a guilty verdict. It is obvious but for the intervention of the police he would have lived. The partisan opinions of State actors are NOT made neutral on account of their being State actors... just saying. Lord High Executioner 13 (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)I totally object to this: "The attorney representing McClain's family accused the officers of purposely taking off their body cameras to support a false allegation that McClain reached for a gun, though this claim was never supported by any evidence during the subsequent investigation.[11]" There is something called CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE... the tone of voice used as well as the way everything else went. And the officer telling the other to keep the camera pointed away. But then again there is that rule... NEVER DRAW A NEGATIVE INFERENCE AGAINST A COP! All negative findings must be based upon direct evidence only. The fact is, a sadist made this claim with a voice indicating it was a pretext. Giving credence to this is stenography... The investigation had no integrity whatsoever. We just have to see the DA'a abominable behaviour. The issue is again we are claiming that we must be mouthpieces for the police and the City, etc, because they are the authorities and this is supposedly neutral. It is not. Lord High Executioner 13 (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)There must be a more critical attitude towards the authorities. The holes in their story must be mentioned. Their claims should be checked against the facts. Claiming a partisan document like the coroner report or police report or DA letter as being neutral is worse than a mistake. Lord High Executioner 13 (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)The LSD factoid is irrelevant. The cannabis factoid is also irrelevant. It does not follow that a person was impaired just because they test positive for that. It sounds like more attempts to defend what cannot be defended. The facts stated neutral are stubborn things and indicate guilt for the police officers and the DA and the authorities in general. That stating neutral and unbiased facts have that effect does not make this partisan. It is partisan to quote the police,etc, as having the final word no matter how absurd their claims may be. First of all, your signature goes after your comments. Second, your comments are approaching WP:FORUM levels of ranting. We get it. The cops effectively killed this guy... but the evidence is inconclusive. That's what the article is saying. We aren't here to build a case against the cops, just report what reliable secondary sources say. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Lord High Executioner 13 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Is it not relevant to mention that he was grabbed on sight? That permits the juridical qualification of the event. It is an arrest. It is also relevant to mention that even if this was a Terry stop the criteria for those are not met. The truth unfortunately looks bad for the DA, the Coroner (who is political), etc. Giving credence to this process is not justified. True objectivity does not mean rubber-stamping the claims of the State. The DA unfortunately has mis-stated the law on all the important points, and that too is relevant. Lord High Executioner 13 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)The claim of taking the gun is just that... a claim... a very dubious claim. In the context it cannot be taken at face value. For one thing this person was trying to not drop the things in his hands. One hand had a telephone through which he listened to music, the other, the shopping bag. Lord High Executioner 13 (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Unfortunately I consider the locking down of this thing and the seizing of this topic is designed to rubber stamp what the police and the State want in terms of the interpretation of this event. Unless a better effort is made to make this objective, then that is the only reasonable conclusion to draw. References

2016 arrest for LSD

Elijah was arrested in 2016 for LSD intoxication with associated erratic behavior. This has nothing to do with his death, marijuana (legal) and ketamine (injected by paramedics) were in his system at the time of his arrest. Including this under the Death heading can mislead the reader into thinking he was on LSD at the time of his death. it only serves to give a negative impression of elijah's character and justify police actions.--Ludacris-tina (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Agreed, that's not relevant to his cause of death. Also removed mention of cannabanoids in the toxicology report, as that did not contribute to his cause of death either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Title

Is there a specific reasoning that this article is called 'death of Elijah McClain' rather than 'killing of Elijah McClain'? effeietsanders 16:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately until the new investigation or anything else 100% officially claims that he was killed by police, it's probably going to stay as "Death of" for now. Don't get me wrong, me and many others working on this article believe the police are responsible for his death. But unfortunately right now, as long as the coroners and other officials that serve as primary sources for what/who killed McClain keep plugging their ears and saying "La la la, can't hear you, his official cause of death is undetermined", the article title will probably stay as "Death of..." until again any higher up officials come out officially saying the police officers killed him that can be used as a source for it. Uelly (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't think that 'killed' was disputed? Even if it was accidental by the medics, that would qualify as such I'd think? Or am I overlooking something? effeietsanders 02:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

According to the present text of the article, the cause of death was marked undetermined in the coroner's investigation report. Do you have reports to the contrary? I agree with Uelly in believing that this was indeed a killing, but the present consensus for cases where the accused is a non-notable living person is to use 'killing' in the title only when the cause of death has been confirmed, and 'murder' in the title only when there has been a conviction. Bubka42 (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that is the Wikipedia rule? Thats why there is no "The Killing of Emmett Till" or "The Murder of Emmett Till" or "The Lynching of Emmett Till"? They lynched the of 14-year-old Emmett, but there was no conviction by that all-white jury in 1955. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media! They sold their story to a magazine the next year and admitted their crime. In Money.

Where and who determined a "present consensus"? Or do you just assume a consensus exists? --87.170.192.71 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The consensus that lies behind all such articles (and there are many, far too many). What it's saying is, the death of George Floyd was not a killing of George Floyd or a murder of George Floyd till reliable sources say it is. We go with RS.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW: This article on The Cut uses "killing": "What We Know About the Killing of Elijah McClain" -Reagle (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In its title, not in the body of the text. The body of the text only has "killing" as a quote from someone else, and then a reference to George Floyd. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding picture of Elijah McClain?

Could we add a picture of Elijah McClain to this article? Uelly (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Uelly: Do you have a suitable picture? I realize it may be easy to find one on the Internet but almost all photos on the Internet are fully copyrighted, and we need one that is acceptably licensed. you can read more here Wikipedia:Image_use_policy, including how to contribute a photograph if you have one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, this is too harsh and I'm going to restore the tag. Wikipedia (not Wikimedia) can make fair use claims of photos as discussed in Wikipedia:Image_use_policy and exemplified in George_Floyd. And perhaps the family or friends would release a licensed photo, though unlikely.-Reagle (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the tag again. There is zero reason for it to sit on this article in the sheer hope that the family releases a licensed photo. If you can find a Fair Use photo, by all means, go for it. But just tagging the talk page isn't getting us anything but... a useless tag. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Reagle, Huh? What did I say that was harsh? Many people think that one can just grab a photo found on the internet. It happens every day. How is it harsh to point out our policies? S Philbrick(Talk) 18:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I've gotten permission from families in the past. In any case, I've uploaded a picture so we need not discuss the presence of the template further :). -Reagle (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to add the responsible officers' names to the article's brief.

The names of the officers; Nathan Woodyard, Jason Rosenblatt and Randy Roedema should be in the article's recap in bold. No need for censorship because they quite literally murdered the man with no consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoverGuy (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

“I can't breathe properly!”

I think that the wider context and timing of McClain's plea “I can't breathe properly!” is too obvious to be ignored. Please link the phrase. TY.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.9.59 (talk • contribs) 06:07, June 29, 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can't breathe --93.211.208.76 (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"Excited delirium" does not exists

What's "excited delirium" supposed to be? No reputable medical organization in American — not the American Medical Association or the American Psychological Association recognizes "excited delirium" as a medical or mental-health condition. That controversial, vague, unscientific catch-all diagnosis that does not appropriately explain anything. "Excited delirium" entered into the public and media lexicon around the time that increased use of electrical weapons ignited controversy in the United States, Canada, and the UK. As a result, both "medical task forces" and "public inquiries" into the connection between police use of force, excited delirium, and in-custody deaths have recurred throughout the decade 2000-2010.

The most extensive of these public inquiries was the Braidwood Commission of 2008-2009. The inquiry was held after the death of Robert Dziekanski, who was killed after four Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers deployed their electrical weapons on him. The Braidwood Inquiry disputed the medico-legal value of the diagnostic category "excited delirium" and several experts at the inquiry challenged the existence of the medical condition. Yet it continues to be cited as a cause of death in some provincial fatality inquiries and it continues to appear in police trade literature.

To be very clear: "excited delirium" is a euphemism for "death by excessive police force"! --93.211.222.113 (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This is just reporting what the police & EMTs have claimed. And we do have a linked article to the term, including its dubious origins & use. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Why is there no reference in the introductory paragraph to the chokehold applied by police to unconsciousness of Mr. McClain prior to the injection of ketamine? I think it is a key, stipulated fact. https://www.nytimes.com/article/who-was-elijah-mcclain.html I stopped editing wiki-articles outside of my direct expertise because of the strident wiki-scolds. So, someone with the proper cred please add it. Thank you brimcmike (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I added it to the lead and added more info to the body of the article as well. Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Alleged "Reaching for Gun"

If you watch the entire video an officer can clearly be heard stating he didn't feel Elijah Reaching for his gun. That would contradict the current narrative portrayed in this entry. 68.204.51.125 (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This seems to already be in the article, which, after describing the allegations by officers that McClain reached for one of their guns, currently states, "However, the cameras continued to audio record their conversations and one officer can be heard to later say he did not remember feeling McClain go for his gun." Lester Mobley (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate known for edits

2600:8801:f100:3dd0:b8c7:7bb:27fa:f90b is attempting to shift the image's "known for" from "Death after apprehension by police and sedation by paramedics" toward death from "police brutality" and "choke hold." This seems substantively less accurate to me, but does carry greater import on the significance of the killing. I would not be opposed to "Death after chokehold by police and sedation by paramedics" except that none of the sources on Elijah's death mention a chokehold. That said, I suspect there was a chokehold since other officers were subsequently punished for emulating a chokehold in a photo. If I can find a good source on the use of a chokehold in this case, I'll add it and probably shift the "known for" to my suggestion above. -Reagle (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. -Reagle (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

regarding the death of Elijah McClain

In your article summarizing the death of young Elijah McClain you said that he died "...after an altercation with the police". The word "altercation" implies two or more parties engaging in an adversarial encounter. I submit to you that Mr.McClain in no way was being adversarial. In fact he was pounced upon by the police, subdued, injected with an overdose of ketamine and subsequently killed. Please make the proper edits to your article so as to not smear Elijah McClain's memory.— Preceding unsig===ned comment added by 104.172.110.87 (talk • contribs) 11:03, June 29, 2020 (UTC)

"Altercation" is a commonly used term for any kind of violent police event. It does not imply he was the one who caused it, just that he was involved in it. Finding a properly neutral term for this situation is difficult. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for neutrality here, Elijah was accosted by police. Using the term altercation implies elijah was adversarial, he was not. Words that can be substituted can be: accosted, attacked, jumped on, or even approached.--Ludacris-tina (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality is still necessary. We'd need reliable sources to use any of those terms, most of which are very loaded. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed

I second the fact that we shouldn't use a loaded euphemism only because it's the official version of a specific government, especially when said governement is constantly questionned on racial matters. This article clearly describes what matches the definition of an homicide. We're not following the official Turkish version of the armenian genocide even though the Turkish governement is the one having ultimate jurisdiction on that matter. The article should use the term killing and "killed by law enforcement" Ostream (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Added quote from news conference

I like to " read" refs, and watched the video of ref#29,

I was very impressed with Vanessa Wilson, per her demeanor , sincerity and articulate remarks.

In response to a question from the floor, she addressed aspects of future officer training, and noted: (at @ 12:10) "I shouldn't have to teach this. There is no training that should [have to] teach human decency."

If my addition is unacceptable, or needs copyediting, pls advise. But I decided to "be bold" and add this (unscripted) remark by V. Wilson. My thanks to all who have worked on this article. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Also added subsection heading to break up this now very long section. Corrections, etc welcomed. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Good edits... I think I was the one that added her other remark and I was very impressed with her as well. I just wish they could all be like her. Gandydancer (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the original remark. Your "ref" provided me with the chance to hear her speak. I absolutely agree with your last stmt above. I believe that V. Wilson is not only a good model as a "cop", but as a human being.

Another point that stood out to me, in her address, was that the three officers in the photo had all been on the force for @ three years. (Cannot remember abt the "ha, ha" commentator.) Was this a "nature vs nuture" situation, or the other way around? Thoughts to ponder. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Worth mentioning the arrest of protest organizers?

Is this relevant? Majority of these protests were seeking justice for Elijah McClain: https://www.denverpost.com/2020/09/17/aurora-denver-police-protesters-arrested-riot/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.47.206.156 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This is very relevant, as these arrests and the charges levelled are highly controversial, considered in many circles to be politically/revenge motivated. The charge of Kidnapping is extremely punitive given the actions taken at the protest on July 3rd, 2020. Allegations of a protesting crowd "Kidnapping" police without prior warning to disburse, or the protest being declared unlawful(neither of which happened until much later in the protests, indicating a desire to allow the first amendment rights of the protesting crowd to continue to be expressed) would be unprecedented. https://denverite.com/2020/09/17/six-demonstrators-charged-after-their-involvement-in-protests-in-aurora/ DavidSmith72 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Car Drives into Elijah McClain Protest on July 25th, 2020

At a protest attended by several thousand protestors rallying for Justice for Elijah McClain, a car drove aggressively through the protest group which had blocked both lanes of freeway I-225. In later developments, in what has been considered a controversial stance by the District Attorneys Office involved, the 18th District headed by DA George Brauchler, Brauchler elected not to proceed with charges against the driver of the Jeep that drove at the crowd endangering thousands, but did elect to pursue charges against Protester Samuel Young, who fired upon the vehicle in an attempt to defend the Protesters who were in the vehicles path. https://www.newsbreak.com/colorado/aurora/news/2041018039502/supporters-of-samuel-young-who-allegedly-fired-at-jeep-during-protest-want-all-charges-dropped https://www.denverpost.com/2020/09/23/aurora-protest-jeep-driver-charges/ DavidSmith72 (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

cause of death: dying?

the cause of death listed doesn’t exactly make sense, perhaps we should reword it from what it is now Camdoodlebop (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What improvements do you suggest? Gandydancer (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A minimal change would be to simply remove "dying after", though rewording is probably better. I agree that the current phrasing is more appropriate for "known for" rather than "cause of death".

All that said, the #Death section says that the coroner listed the cause of death an undetermined, so perhaps we should remove the Cause of death field from the infobox and simply replace it with the Known for field. Armadillopteryx 21:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit: I've WP:BOLDly made that change. Armadillopteryx 22:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Changed something editorially

I changed 'was a black massage therapist' to 'was a massage therapist', I didn't think it fit to specifically list him as a black person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awahl1138 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

His race is clearly shown as important to the context of his death in the sources (see WP:DUE). We must reflect that here. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awahl1138 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Opponents argue that there was no finding of homicide, and the coroner did not rule out other causes of death. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Death of Elijah McClain → Killing of Elijah McClain – – Per WP:DEATHS: 'Death of...' should only be used when the person in question did not die from a homicide. In these cases, page titles should be 'Killing of...' 'Murder of...' or 'Execution of...' depending on the circumstance. This convention was published as part of WikiProject Death in December 2020 to establish a neutral and consistent naming convention around deaths on Wikipedia. All killings by police officers listed on Wikipedia since December 2020 have adopted this naming convention, including Duante Wright, Ma'Khia Bryant, Christan Hall, Adam Toledo, Dolal Idd, Andre Hill, and more. There is a growing community consensus to move older articles similar to this one to conform to the new convention published at WP:DEATHS; see Killing of Breonna Taylor, Killing of Eric Garner, and Killing of Tamir Rice. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 15:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: WP:DEATHS is neither a policy nor a guideline. It has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. This proposal is also actually contrary to WP:DEATHS, since there was no finding of homicide in this case. The cause of death was undetermined, and the coroner said it could have resulted from an idiosyncratic drug reaction or an asthma attack. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above, the coroner's report did not indicate that this was a homicide. 162 etc. (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Also read this section from the article:

n December 2020, John Dickerson, working for the television program 60 Minutes, investigated the use of ketamine in McClain's death. Dickerson said that the medical community is highly skeptical about whether "excited delirium" is a real medical condition and voiced concerns about the use of excited delirium as "a shield to protect police from charges of misconduct." Dickerson spoke with County District Attorney Dave Young, whose jurisdiction covers Aurora. Young justified the use of ketamine. He also felt that because the diagnosis of excited delirium was not ruled out as a cause of death, he was convinced that he could not win a homicide case against the officers because "you can't file a homicide charge without cause of death."[34]

Gandydancer (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Subject did not die from natural causes, but from being placed in a chokehold and injected with a substance, one or both of which killed him. Thus his case amounts to a killing and is listed under List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, August 2019. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Your statement contradicts the coroner in this case, who stated The manner of death (...) may be natural if (McClain) had an undiagnosed mental illness that led to excited delirium, if his intense physical exertion combined with a narrow coronary artery led to an arrhythmia, if he had an asthma attack, or if he aspirated vomit while restrained. [1] 162 etc. (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 6 November 2021

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.

---

Death of Elijah McClain → Killing of Elijah McClain – This topic was visited in June of 2021, with limited participation. Opposition to the move was exclusively based on the fact that the original coroner's report of McClain's death did not explicitly list homicide as the cause of death. In September of 2021, a Grand Jury issued an indictment against the police officers and paramedics who contributed to McClain's death. The Grand Jury report (which can be read in its entirety here) determined that the manner of death was indeed homicide. This determination was made by a forensic pathologist and can be found on page 14. The Grand Jury goes on to charge the officers and paramedics with five counts of negligent homicide and five counts of manslaughter. Quote included below:

Mr. McClain was a normal healthy 23-year-old man prior to encountering law enforcement and medical response personnel. A forensic pathologist opined that the cause of death for Mr. McClain was complications following acute Ketamine administration during violent subdual and restraint by law enforcement and emergency response personnel, and the manner of death was homicide.

In light of this development, I would like to reopen the discussion on moving the page. The facts at this point are clear that homicide was the cause of death. Elijah McClain did not simply die - he was killed.

For reference, I have included the original rationale for moving the page below:

---

'Death of...' should only be used when the person in question did not die from a homicide. In these cases, page titles should be 'Killing of...' 'Murder of...' or 'Execution of...' depending on the circumstance. This convention was published as part of WikiProject Death in December 2020 to establish a neutral and consistent naming convention around deaths on Wikipedia. All killings by police officers listed on Wikipedia since December 2020 have adopted this naming convention, including Duante Wright, Ma'Khia Bryant, Christan Hall, Adam Toledo, Dolal Idd, Andre Hill, and more. There is a growing community consensus to move older articles similar to this one to conform to the new convention published at WP:DEATHS; see Killing of Breonna Taylor, Killing of Eric Garner, and Killing of Tamir Rice.

---

And to add one more layer of discussion here, WP:DEATHS requires a conviction for murder in order to rename pages to 'Murder of...' but it does not require a conviction for homicide to rename pages to 'Killing of...' All that is required is the determination that the cause of death was homicide, not an official ruling on who was legally responsible for that homicide. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 21:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: To my understanding, a grand jury and "a forensic pathologist" do not have the last word on whether a death was a homicide or not. A grand jury can express an opinion and produce an indictment, but not a conviction – they do not have the final say, and as Sol Wachtler and Tom Wolfe famously said, a good district attorney can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich". I'm sure the defense attorneys can also find several other forensic pathologists (apparently including the coroner in this case) who think differently from that one. For the record, my opposition in the prior discussion was not exclusively based on the lack of a homicide finding. I also am opposed to titles of "Killing of" as a generally recommended practice on Wikipedia, as the phrase is awkward in English and tends to imply intent (e.g., according to several major dictionaires). I'm especially opposed to it when the matter of whether the cause of death was a homicide remains under dispute. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if I misconstrued your comment from the last discussion. It seemed like a big part of your opposition was because there was "no finding of a homicide" in this case. In response to your point dismissing the forensic pathologists opinion in the Grand Jury Report, I'd also like to point out another fact that hasn't been discussed thus far: that the coroner met with the police department before the autopsy, and that there were police officers present in the room during the autopsy (source). I'll mention too that the coroner's report does not contradict the report from the Grand Jury's forensic patholigist; the coroner did not endorse some alternative manner of death, he simply refrained from listing it as a homicide by listing it as "undetermined." We can accept both that the coroner could not determine the cause of death (or simply did not want to), and that the independent forensic pathologist in the Grand Jury Report could determine the cause of death and determined that it was a homicide. But denying the professional determination of the cause of death over a distaste for Grand Juries really doesn't seem reasonable to me. The manner of death was determined to be homicide. That is now a fact. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 02:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Your interpretation of my previous remarks was very understandable. I was intentionally emphasizing the part of my objection that was about the manner of death because I thought that was likely to be a more influential argument. My more general opposition to "Killing of" titles has not been especially persuasive in some recent discussions. I don't think I really have a distaste for grand juries – it is just that they are clearly not authoritative on matters of fact. A grand jury generally meets "at the instigation of the ... prosecutors", and "in secret deliberation" and "the accused has no knowledge nor right to interfere with their proceedings" (quotes from the Wikipedia Grand jury article). They do not provide any opportunity for presentation of an argument from the defense perspective – they only consider what a prosecutor presents and what they themselves choose to further study. The accused person(s) are ordinarily not even informed that the grand jury is considering their case. A grand jury is a one-sided tool for consideration of a prosecutor's argument, but since they do not consider perspectives presented by a defendant, they cannot possibly be considered entirely authoritative or well informed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I will simply have to disagree that the determination of the manner of death by a professional forensic pathologist in the Grand Jury report is not authoritative. We need not accept the charges of the Grand Jury to accept the determination of the manner of death by the professional who is an expert in that area. If this professional testimony is not enough to determine the manner of death, I can't understand what could possibly be an authoritative determination of the manner of death. There seems to be an implicit assumption in your argument that the judge in the trial will make the final determination on the manner of death; my understanding is that the judge will not make any such determination. The judge will only determine whether the defendants are guilty of the charges. The professional forensic pathologists who contribute to this legal proceeding will determine the manner of death - in this case, the pathologist determined the manner of death was homicide. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 00:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Subject is listed under List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, August 2019 as well as under Category:Deaths from asphyxiation, Category:Asphyxia-related deaths by law enforcement in the United States, Category:Deaths in police custody in the United States and Category:Police brutality in the United States. Subject's death was thus not a natural one, but was the result of being the victim of a chokehold and being injected with a drug that has the potential of causing death. Since the independent forensic pathologist did in fact determine homicide, then "killing of..." is indeed the intuitive titling form. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself, so Wikipedia lists should not be used to support matters of fact for Wikipedia content. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support This was a homicide, not a death by natural causes. Dimadick (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support for the proposed title While it was happened due to homicide, the penetrator was convicted, so i prefer Murder of Elijah McClain over the proposed title. Unless that, the proposed title sounds fine. 180.254.164.201 (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

There has been no conviction AFAIK. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:DEATHS. The policy says "determination of the manner of death should be made by some official authority"; I'd argue a state-convened grand jury counts as an official authority, and , after hearing expert testimony, returned an indictment for manslaughter, then it would apply. It is my understanding that police officers are not lightly charged with manslaughter.-Ich (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, WP:DEATHS is not a policy (or a guideline) of Wikipedia. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as before. The coroner is the person who determines the cause of death; in this case, the cause of death was listed as "undetermined." An indictment only outlines what the defendants are accused of - whether any of the accusations are founded has not yet been determined by the court. Should any of the defendants be found guilty of manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, then the "Killing" title would be accurate, per WP:DEATHS. 162 etc. (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe you are misreading WP:DEATHS. The "Killing" title does not require the defendants to be found guilty or homicide or manslaughter, nor does it require any conviction at all; it merely requires that the manner of death is homicide, which has now been confirmed by an official authority. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 17:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The indictment, which you are basing your arguments on, contradicts the finding of the coroner. The allegiations contained in the indictment - including the determination that it is a homicide - have yet to be challenged in court. Too soon. 162 etc. (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. The coroner did not determine the manner of death in August of 2019. An independent forensic pathologist who worked with the Grand Jury did determine the manner of death, and determined that it was a homicide in September of 2021. The only allegations are that the specific police officers and paramedics involved committed any crimes in their involvement in the homicide. The manner of death, as far as I know, has not been disputed. If you're aware of any professional forensic pathologist disputing the manner of death (including the coroner), please share. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 22:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what a grand jury is. A grand jury is a tool for evaluating the strength of a prosecution's argument, primarily as a filter to avoid obviously meritless prosecutions. However, they generally provide no opportunity for a presentation of a defense perspective. They meet at the request of the prosecutor and they consider what the prosecutor presents to them. They cannot be considered a fully informed and objective body that has the authority to make decisive rulings on any matters of fact, since that would be obviously unfair. In any fair system, a defendant would be allowed to present their case – not just a prosecutor. We would not simply accept what a prosecutor says to be true – there is a difference between an accusation and a verdict, and a grand jury is only a tool for considering whether an accusation is worthy of proceeding to trial, not for making an authoritative decision about anything else. Some forensic pathologist, probably one selected by the prosecutor, "opined" to the grand jury about the cause of death in this case, and I am confident that the defendants' legal team can find other forensic pathologists who will opine about a different cause of death or will at least say there is reasonable doubt about the cause of death. The coroner seems to be one of them, and it is not our job to decide for ourselves whether the coroner was improperly influenced or not. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A forensic pathologist has determined that the manner of death was a homicide. You say you are confident that some other forensic pathologist could potentially dispute the manner of death, but do you have evidence that any forensic pathologist has disputed the manner of death? I hardly think we can take your hypothetical situations as part of our analysis here. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 23:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You described the (unnamed) forensic pathologist who "opined" about the cause of death as "independent". Do we have any indication that this pathologist was actually independent and not someone hand-picked by the prosecutor to support their case? Did the grand jury say this person was independent? Who is this person and what are their exact credentials and who is paying their fees for their involvement in the case? (I'm not necessarily a big fan of taking coroner opinions as gospel either, by the way – we should simply be cautious about such matters.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I used the word independent to indicate that they were not (as far as I know) collaborating with a police department which was actively engaged in "stretch[ing] the record to exonerate the officers rather than present[ing] a neutral view of the facts." (source) This distinguishes them from the coroner. What we know about their qualifications is that they are certainly a medical doctor and that a Grand Jury which is empowered to conduct legal proceedings and investigate criminal conduct found them to be a credible professional in the field. If you have any evidence or reasoning to specifically discount this forensic pathologist - reasoning beyond a cliche quote from a convicted felon dismissing the legitimacy of all Grand Juries out of hand - I'm all ears. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 02:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the situation is rather clear at this point. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The grand jury finding is sufficient to support the fact of killing, whether or not the officers are eventually convicted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, there was no "grand jury finding" that the cause of death was homicide. As far as I know, grand juries are not even legally empowered to establish "findings". The grand jury only said that a forensic pathologist (probably one hired by the prosecuting attorney specifically for that purpose) "opined" that the cause of death was homicide. The word "opined" refers to having an opinion, and different people can have different opinions. The grand jury report does not use the word "finding" or "found" in that sense of the word at all, and a grand jury is not a body that is obliged to consider the evidence on both sides of a case. The defense is not even given the opportunity to present their perspective to a grand jury, so whatever the grand jury said clearly cannot be considered a fully informed and objective conclusion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

different people can have different opinions. The only opinions that matter in determining the manner of death are the opinions of licensed medical doctors. Because courts do not hold "manner of death trials," or issue "findings" on the manner of death, the professional opinions of licensed medical doctors are what we use to determine the manner of death. While it's true that different licensed medical doctors could hypothetically have different opinions on the manner of death, in this case none do. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 12:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• "In this case none do" is an interesting phrase. The MD whose job is to determine cause of death in that jurisdiction says it is not clear what is the cause of death and thus there is reasonable doubt about the question, and the MD hired by a prosecutor "opined" that it was homicide. I call that a clear difference of opinion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this statement [the coroner] says it is not clear what is the cause of death and thus there is reasonable doubt about the question is overreaching. The coroner simply did not determine a manner of death in their initial report in 2019. That suggests that it was not clear to that professional at that time - it is not an indication that the cause of death is somehow undeterminable and that it could never be discovered another professional. The coroner, as far as I know, has not contradicted the MD cited in the Grand Jury report. The "professional debate" here is entirely imagined. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 17:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The indictment puts it succinctly: "Mr. McClain was a normal healthy 23-year-old man prior to encountering law enforcement and medical response personnel." Regardless of the exact degree of culpability on the part of the arresting officers, he would not have died if they hadn't accosted him. Therefore it's a killing, not something that just passively happened. .froth. (talk)
• Oppose per Barrelproof and 162. There is not yet sufficient certainty in the verdicts reached to move the title to the more specific "killing" name, given that the coroner has not determined it to be such. Whichever way you cook it, this is a death, so the current title is no inaccurate, but an extra bar of someone being convicted or the coroner giving a definitive ruling would be required to be certain that it is a "killing" rather than some other sort of death. Also, the statement in the nomination that "death should only be used when the person in question did not die from a homicide" does not appear to be in our policies and guidelines. Where does that come from?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This comes from WP:DEATHS. It is not a policy or guideline, but a framework which was published in December of 2020 as a part of Wiki Project Death to provide a more consistent naming scheme around deaths on Wikipedia. All killings by police officers listed on Wikipedia since December 2020 have adopted this naming convention, and it has been brought up and supported frequently in similar RMs for older page listings around deaths, killings, and murders. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 20:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

Photo with infobox is misleading

Someone has incorporated McClain's photo into an infobox with the accusers info and what they are accused of, which is potentially confusing and unfair. I think his photo should consequently be moved to the background section and will likely do so soon. -Reagle (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• This isn't unusual, see the infoboxes at Death of Freddie Gray, Death of Kelly Thomas, etc... 162 etc. (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• This is common practice. It doesn't make that implication IMO. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll defer. Death of Freddie Gray was better for me because there's so much info to make it clear there's an incident: cause, outcome, etc. Perhaps those can be added here. I'm still a little disappointed that a victim's photo is so closely associated with the details of their death, but that's a different/larger issue I suppose. -Reagle (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Reagle: You may want to clarify the charges by associating them with the officers names, like on the Freddie Gray page. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Cause

Time to change that cause of death 66.170.198.39 (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)A

Ref please Sectionworker (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Background section reads like an autobiography

The background should be strictly education, job, no criminal background. Now it looks like a puff piece. Tallard (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see the George Floyd article which includes a great deal about his private life. Sectionworker (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Title Change

Per Wikipedia's naming conventions, the title of this article should be changed to "Killing of Elijah McClain" as his death was ruled a homicide. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(violence_and_deaths) Waterfire (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

If you read this article you can see that it's too soon for us to say he was killed. Sectionworker (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The article was updated since I made this statement. Yesterday the article and some early news reports indicated that the legal manner of death was updated, but subsequent reports show this was not the case. As the manner officially is still undetermined, it is indeed too early for a title change. Waterfire (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Dosage commentary

Under the "Death" Section of this article, the following is stated:

"[P]aramedics injected him with 500 mg of ketamine, a dose that would have been too much for a 200-lb individual."

I don't doubt the pertinence of explaining the significance of his dose, but there are two major issues with the above statement.

1. The Colorado Sun article that is cited here does not say anywhere that such a dose would be 'too much for a 200 lb.-individual,' it says that it would be "McClain should have received about 315 milligrams of ketamine because he weighed roughly 140 pounds, but medics estimating his weight injected him with 500 milligrams, enough for a person of about 220 pounds [emphasis mine]." That's an extremely different statement.
2. Even with the cited source from the Colorado Sun attesting that McClain should have been given 315mg, and that 500 mg was enough for a 220 lb-person, I don't believe the source is satisfactory here, as per WP:MEDRS. The Colorado Sun is not a medical publication, and it's easy to confirm via other sources that the veracity of this claim is questionable if not equivocal. For example, according to official Aurora, CO EMS protocols (see protocol 9175), exited delirium patients are to be given 5mg/kg ketamine (see protocol 9175), which would come out to 325 mg for a 140 lb-person (i.e. ~65kg) like McClain. That said, this doesn't necessarily represent a medical consensus; in NYC, for example, protocol stipulates 2-4 mg/kg for excited delirium patients. In light of such a lack on consensus, I think saying he 'should' have received any specific dose is overly vague. If any reference is made to dosage, it should be clearly stating what local protocol stipulates.

So, in light of this, I'm going to remove the clause in question immediately, first and foremost due to its being unsourced.

I do, however, see how this sort of information offers important context and think it should be given with updated sourcing and corrected information. I would possibly include a reference to the Aurora protocols, correcting the numbers to be more accurate and specifying that we're talking about protocol...but I'm not sure whether or not this strays too far into the domain of original research. I would love to hear the opinions of anyone who reads this.

For now, I'm going to delete the clause in question. If no one on this page has any opinions about this, I'll probably ask in teahouse or something.

Emptybathtub (talk) Emptybathtub (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Upon review, the cited article from the Sun does later explicate the local protocols, so I'm just going to go ahead and change the clause to reflect that, and rephrase slightly to more closely reflect the info from the source and minimize the editorialization I pointed out in my above posting. Sorry for writing so much above! Emptybathtub (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

So sorry for being so ignorant

I am so sorry for again and again reverting a correct fix by another editor. I have caused another editor to waste his/her time by needing to correct my mistakes. I was too quick to judge and this is what happens. Sectionworker (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

No one's perfect! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Citation 24 Link broken

It appears the page linked to for citation 24 no longer exists 98.156.108.152 (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged it as a dead link. Thanks for spotting that and pointing it out. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No support for the proposed move at this time. Death/Killing can be discussed in another RM immediately after this closure. (closed by non-admin page mover) — MaterialWorks 16:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Death of Elijah McClain → Elijah McClain – This article is about Elijah McClain and not merely his death. Elijah deserves to be remembered for more than just his death.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 16:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:1E. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Move to Killing of Elijah McClain - per WP:NCDEATHS as one of the officers involved has been found guilty of "criminally negligent homicide".[2] estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Probably best to make that a separate proposal after this one closes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  For those who may have missed it, Randy Roedema was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide yesterday, October 12, subsequent to this RM being opened. This would indeed make "Killing of" a likely article title - but I'm also inclined to have that as a separate discussion. This one will be at seven days tomorrow, and should probably be promptly closed at that time, given that the proposal has had no support. 162 etc. (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agree 100%, and I would absolutely back a move to "Killing". TheXuitts (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:1E. The fact is that what made him notable is his death. We have countless other examples including Murder of Sarah Everard, Death of Mahsa Amini, Killing of Breonna Taylor, Killing of JonBenét Ramsey, etc. These people were not notable individuals while they were alive and neither was the subject of this article. Keivan.f^Talk 13:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. This is a single event, and Elijah himself is not notable outside the circumstances of his death. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. TheXuitts (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:1E. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, though I would also support moving the article to "Killing of Elijah McClain". ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  See my reply above. 162 etc. (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 13 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved, consensus is that the proposal is supported by the naming conventions (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Death of Elijah McClain → Killing of Elijah McClain – Per WP:NCDEATHS as one officer has been convicted of "criminally negligent homicide" in McClain's death. [3]. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping of those involved in the last RM @Keivan.f @HandThatFeeds @Rreagan007 @TheXuitts @A. Randomdude0000 @The Green Star Collector @162 etc. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per DEATHS EvergreenFir (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per the reasoning already provided. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per DEATHS. I'm not seeing any evidence of clear common name, so we should go with the most precise descriptive title. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DEATHS. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DEATHS. 162 etc. (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per DEATHS and the discussion in the previous section. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Keivan.f^Talk 23:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and the unanimous "support" votes. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DEATHS. Combefere ★ Talk 05:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly support per WP:DEATHS. TheXuitts (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DEATHS. cookie monster 755 02:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

Coroner's report regarding drugs in McClain's system

Shouldn't we add this basic information to the article, in an effort to be more properly encyclopedic?

The atomoxetine test, forensic toxicologist Michael Lamb said, revealed there were 13 ng/mL (nanongrams per mililiter) of ketamine in McClain's blood the night of his arrest. Other panel testing that was performed to test for synthetic cannabinoids, bath salts, LSD, psilocybin, amphetamines, benzodiazepines or cocaine, as well as fentanyl did not detect any levels of these drugs within his system the night of his encounter with police, he said. Source: https://www.koaa.com/news/covering-colorado/elijah-mcclain-case-blog-updates-from-thursday-september-28 98.123.38.211 (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, see the Archives. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)