Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Justine Damond/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The lead

The lead states: Occurring only weeks after a high-profile June 2017 manslaughter trial acquittal in the 2016 police shooting of Philando Castile prompted mass protests in the Twin Cities metro, the shooting of Damond exacerbated existing tensions and attracted national and international press. This sentence is way too long. And it is trying to say "too many things" all at once. It should be reworded. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I have trimmed it. I think that's better than a sentence split in this case. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

A nitpick about the dates

Did she get shot on July 15 or July 16? Did she actually die on July 15 or July 16? The exact times were either right before midnight or right after midnight. Does anyone know for sure? Also, a related side question. Did she die instantly upon being shot? Or did she die at some later point? I need this information before I make some changes to the article. Like, for example, the very first sentence of the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"At 11.51pm, officers pronounced Damond dead at the scene." [1] WWGB (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this truly a notable incident?

This is a pretty ordinary news story. Unless it has big ramifications for the law, international relations, space exploration, or police procedures, I think it should go. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Americans might tolerate trigger-happy cops blowing away innocent victims but Australians do not. That is why Australia's leader has weighed in with a strong condemnation. Multiple sources from various nations easily pass WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:COVERAGE. WWGB (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
As an Englishman, I have never met an American with such views, however, mulitple sources do not an encyclopedic topic make. Nor is Wiki a place for soapboxing. Agree with rapid delete of this article.50.111.42.37 (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC) — 50.111.42.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Re: "mulitple sources do not an encyclopedic topic make". Really? I suggest you read WP:SIGCOV. WWGB (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This has received massive RS:N coverage in the US and abroad. We have a lot of articles on single incidents of police brutality Category:Police brutality in the United States andCategory:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States. With the amount of high-level coverage, this certainly fits in there. Perhaps HammerFilmFan is just upset that a black officer shooting a white woman doesn't fit his political narrative. --Pudeo (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

um, Pudeo, you are being reported to ANI for personal attacks, which is completely unwarranted, and I have no "political narrative," you jackass. HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.42.37 (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@HammerFilmFan:, when you report a user to ANI, you're required to properly alert them on their talk page with a link to the ANI discussion. I note that you have not done so.--Froglich (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC) (BTW, I am the editor who created this article.)
It's also unhelpful to call out an editor for a personal attack, then refer to them as a "jackass". WWGB (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Ordinary story, but extraordinary potential for retelling. She's as blonde as JonBenet Ramsey (star of three notable films), as white as Natalee Holloway (of book and movie fame) and as woman as Elizabeth Smart (three 2004 Young Artist nominations). Add to that she's a pajamaed Australian friend of baby ducks, killed by a black Muslim cop with an alleged backstory against women and (undocumented) links to the Pirate Kingdom, and the scripts write themselves.
In the meantime, the real legal and political controversy is significant enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Australia's Prime Minister has commented on the incident and it has received wide, international news coverage. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Clean it up, make it more neutral

Can someone clean up this mess? This looks and sounds like it's written by the attorney representing Ms. Damond's family. "Three weeks before Damond was killed, video was recorded that showed her rescuing eight ducklings from a storm drain." Really? And the attorney statements only seem to include Damond's family attorney. Make it neutral, or biased sections need to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchfan07 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If the attorney wrote it, it'd straight-up call up her the most innocent victim. We're relatively objective. As that link notes, media coverage exceptionally cheers the victim here and boos the killer. While it may seem counterintuitive, the neutral thing to do is faithfully reflect this prevalent perception, rather than actively tip the balance toward the middle. If Noor and his team aren't talking yet, we can't give them equal time. The duckling bit is a tad undue, and she didn't exactly rescue them, so much as boost them. Firefighters are the real heroes of storm drains. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Missing Bail, "Tensions", Attorney, and Other Information

Standard practice in the US is that after someone is charged with a crime they are required to post bail, or failing that they are put in jail. The Article fails to mention this fact, despite the fact that it is certain Noor was required to post bail, nor does it mention the amount. Or if he is currently in jail pending trial, that fact should also be included. It does not mention the name of the "private attorney" that Noor retained, or whether or not the attorney is being paid for by Noor himself, or if he is getting his legal representation through the Police Union (which is standard practice), or if his private attorney is being paid for by some other source (gofundme, NGO, or whatever).

Further, the "tensions" referred to in the Article are also left conspicuously undescribed. Not only are there the normal tensions that one would expect to find in areas where government programs have created communities of immigrants, but, particularly in Minnesota, there are tensions between the general populace and the media, to a great extent due to a concerted effort by the media to refrain from giving certain, politically controversial information about people charged with serious crimes, to include details such as race, ethnicity, etc... The belief in this type of allegation (that the media is biased, withholds details of, fabricates or exaggerates details of politically-charged stories, etc...) is common, widespread and pervasive. President Donald Trump calls CNN "fake news" and his statements have broad resonance and agreement within his very large voter base. Meaning that this isn't some fringe "conspiracy theory" (that the mass-media is biased and attempts to manipulate public opinion by distorting their reporting to influence public opinion); this is a widespread sentiment shared by millions of people.

Failing to confront this reality only perpetuates, and exacerbates it.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is "not censored". This characteristic, and imperative, exists whether the "reliable sources" used by Wikipedia are censored, or not. This information exists, and it should be included within a supposedly "uncensored" Wikipedia Article, even if that information is "under-reported" (and by this I mean censored) by the mass-media. Specifically, the previously mentioned details about Noor's race, ethnicity, etc..., as well as the details about his bail, his attorney, and any and all other information that would normally be included in a Wikipedia Article of this type (about someone charged with a crime that has achieved a certain level of notoriety) should be included in this one, in order to Improve the Article.2605:6000:6947:AB00:49D2:79EC:1362:5C96 (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

9-1-1 call about a possible rape

Does anyone know what became of the underlying events that prompted the original 9-1-1 call? Was there a rape? Were those people ever found? Those details seem to have been lost, once the shooting took place. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"Officers searched the area and found no suspects or signs of the suspected rape." [2] WWGB (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
<dry sarcasm> ...well, let's just say that the MPD had two fewer officers searching the area than it thought it had when they were dispatched. Those two of being the only two dispatched, until one of them gunned down the reporting citizen -- at which point it had a worse outrage to deal with. (As they used to say back in the 80s, smooth move, ex-lax.)--Froglich (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. Well, that was sort of my point. After the shooting, the whole initial "rape crime" got placed on the back burner, it seems. And I wondered if the police actually found a victim or perpetrator or whatever. Or if it was simply a case of two people having (consensual) sex outdoors, as Damond herself had speculated. What a very strange twist and turn of events, such that it lead to an innocent person being killed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Froglich: I am wondering what you meant by that, as it sounds as if you have some knowledge that the two Officers that supposedly "responded" to the call did so without being officially dispatched. Is there some kind of gap in the Police Record, or other irregularity that might imply that they were there without being sent by the MPD? Failing to provide this kind of information (if it exists) opens the door for Readers to speculate the possibility that the "sex sounds" heard by the victim may have been between the two Officers, which then may give motive for why Noor shot the victim. Please note that is not what I'm suggestiong. What I'm saying here is that if this kind of information exists (whether or not the Officers were dispatched, or if it is possible they were in the alley at the time the "sex sounds" were reported, should (or at least could) be included in order to allay, minimize, reduce any kind of "wild speculation" on the part of the Reader. Once a Reader gets the idea that information is being deliberately distorted or withheld, they naturally start to create their own (uninformed) theories and opinions of what "REALLY" took place. More information is better, is my point. "Does it exist?", is the question.2605:6000:6947:AB00:49D2:79EC:1362:5C96 (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Psychiatrists and "Other Training Officers" Needs Tweaked.

"In September 2018, it was revealed that in 2015 two psychiatrists and other training officers had raised questions about Noor's fitness for police duty."

As I read this sentence, it sounds as if the Article is including "psychiatrists" in the same group/class as "training officers". The implication hinges on how the word "other" is used. Psychiatrists are not Police Officers, and so they cannot be "Training Officers". "Two psychiatrists, and more than one Training Officers" (given that "other Training Officers is plural) sounds better to me, but the exact number of training officers would be better, if available. But even that is clunky, and possibly inaccurate. Also I think "Training Officers" should be capitalized, but could be wrong. And maybe even "Psychiatrists" since they are working for a government authority, but I'm less confident of this opinion.

It would also improve the Article if more information about the psychiatrists could be given. Who they were, was it a routine evaluation, part of Noor's training, or did some kind of incident provoke the evaluation(s), and what exactly were the questions. Was it something relatively minor, such as being chronically late, or something more concerning, such as an inability to control his temper? How much of the psychiatric information is available? Also, how many other Training Officers had "questions", and in what context did their questions occur? Prior incident, routine performance evaluation, etc... Also, given that two seemingly separate "functions" within MPD had questions, what was the result? i.e. probation, or did someone within MPD make the decision that despite the "questions", Noor was still fit for duty, and if that was the case, who was it that made this determination.2605:6000:6947:AB00:49D2:79EC:1362:5C96 (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 May 2019

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: No consensus to move. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Shooting of Justine Damond → Murder of Justine Damond – The shooter has now been convicted of the murder of the victim. It is accepted practice in such cases to move the article to "Murder of ... ". See Murder of Jordan Edwards, Murder of Jimmie Lee Jackson, Murder of Michelle Busha, Murder of Brian Glick, Murder of Dennis Jurgens, Murder of Katherine Ann Olson etc. WWGB (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nomination. Since the police officer who shot Justine Damond was indeed found guilty of third-degree murder, the move is warranted. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the officer was convicted of third degree "murder" that is a legal term specific to only a few states. In most U.S States and probably abroad it would be manslaughter. "Murder" doesn't meet Wikipedia's Naturalness or Precision requirement and "Manslaughter of Justine Damond" is unwieldy. The most precise and natural title is the one it already has. In some states, driving drunk and killing someone is a 2nd degree murder charge. But we wouldn't title the article for that victim as the "Murder of ..." Colloquially, murder is understood to meet a plot, plan or some malice and carrying that out. Tridacninae (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Noor was indeed convicted of Damond's murder thus murder is the correct title. Of course, should he successfully appeal his murder conviction then the titel would need to change once again.Shakehandsman (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Having considered the "Oppose" argument submitted by Tridacninae, I have decided to strike my "Support" vote above and change it to "Oppose". Taking into account the circumstances of this case and very likely, the circumstances of all "third-degree murder" convictions, I came to the conclusion that "Murder of..." main headers should be reserved only for first- and second-degree murder convictions. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Shooting" doesn't even tell us she's dead. As for the weirdness of american legal terminology, Noor has legally been convicted of murder. Obviously the degree needs to be explained in the article, but for Wikipedia to presume to describe as something that it isn't is simply not encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk)
@WWGB: There's also several articles with "Shooting of" in the title that are indeed fatal. DA1 (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@HiLo48: Michi81: Mass "shootings" don't tell us there's been mass deaths either, and yet every mass shooting article on Wikipedia is just titled "... shooting". If you're going to make this semantic case (you have some merit) then go to the appropriate outlets and try to propose a mass-move across the board, that makes far more sense than selectively treating the 'Justine Damond' article as different from others. DA1 (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
How long might that take? We can change things quickly in Wikipedia. Surely we should reflect the situation as it is today, then change it again in future as required. I don't know how many here will be familiar with the case, but this was the approach taken recently in deciding whether to describe George Pell as guilty of child abuse charges. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@HiLo48: The article was "Shooting of", then changed to "Murder of", then reverted to "Shooting of", now the move proposal wants to move it back to "Murder of". Can you just stop for a second? The original title and original revert (both the same) stays until agreed otherwise. DA1 (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose
Murder of Jimmie Lee Jackson - Not a shooting
Murder of Brian Glick - Not a shooting / Not a police killing
Murder of Dennis Jurgens - Not a shooting / Not a police killing
Murder of Katherine Ann Olson - Not a shooting / Not a police killing
Murder of Michelle Busha - Not a shooting
Murder of Jordan Edwards - Is a shooting / Is a police killing
Only one of these examples is an actual shooting, so of course they don't have shooting in the title! The difference between this article and the one cited above is: that one was convicted of murder alone, whereas the Justine Damond case is a second-degree manslaughter and third-degree murder. To choose "murder" for the title over "manslaughter" is a DUEWEIGHT issue and possible NPOV issue.
Also note that a third-degree murder exists in three states: Florida, Pennsylvania and Minnesota. It is clearly POV/soapbox pushing to try to use a fringe "murder" label on the title and not the "manslaughter" as well. Why not ask for the title to be Second-degree manslaughter and third-degree murder of Justine Dammond? Either that, or keep it to "Shooting" so readers can read the details for themselves in the article body. DA1 (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
If we stick with how actual police shooting articles have been historically titled on Wikipedia, see the category here; most of them have "Shooting of" in the title, not "Manslaughter of", "Wrongful death of" or "Murder of". The few that have 'murder' in the title, the accused were convicted of murder and nothing else (eg. Laquan McDonald, Cara Knott), not "second-degree manslaughter and third-degree murder". DA1 (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved page to "Killing of Justine Damond"

My move to "Murder of Justine Damond" was reverted by WWGB, who cited the controversy on this talk page. I think it's best to use "Killing", which is what I just did, similar to Killing of Rayshard Brooks and Killing of George Floyd. Fa suisse (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this move is in line with the other two articles. A Thousand Words (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I’m ok with Killing of. WWGB (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Shooting of Greg Gunn § Requested move 3 September 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shooting of Greg Gunn § Requested move 3 September 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Killing of Lizzie O'Neill § Requested move 4 September 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Killing of Lizzie O'Neill § Requested move 4 September 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Why did you remove "black" from Noor's description?

There needs to be consistency across these articles. You can't say white officer on one page but leave out black on another. Either remove race entirely (it really serves no purpose to these articles) or include it in all of them. DBC90119 (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@WWGB Go change the rest of the articles to German-American or French-American. Consistency is key. DBC90119 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence that race played a part in the shooting. Mentioning the officer’s race in the first paragraph is excessive. WWGB (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
There is no evidence that race played a part in the death of George Flyod, yet we did it. We shouldn't hide the murder of an unarmed white women at the hands of a black police officer, least we are accused of trying to support a specific racial narative in all the cases we do mention the race of the victim and of the officer. Francis1867 (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

No Relationship

The link to George Floyd had no purpose or would shed any additional light on this incident; there already was a link to a list of people killed by police officers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.183.219.12 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There is relevence due to these two incidents happening in close proximity, in the same city, and having a policemen involved in the death of a civilian of a different race. These two cases have been heavily compared. Francis1867 (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Article title

What about "Killing of ..." or "Death of ..." or "Homicide of ..." ...? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I would completely support any of those. At present we have a title that doesn't tell us she's dead. Silly. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Why is only Damond's name in the title? 1Kwords (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Because she was the only one killed. WWGB (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Why is the killer's name not in the title? 1Kwords (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
We don't want to make a hero or a martyr of him. HiLo48 (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

How about Murder of ... similar to Murder of Stephen Lawrence. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed already, and the term is not as well defined as what actually happened, which was that Justine Damond was shot. And the issue is what happened to the subject of the shooting, so the title is fine as it stands. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Its because she is a white women, and he was a black muslim. Doesn'T fit the media narative, and apparently we have to parrot the media narative because sometimes the media give accurate and reliable information. Francis1867 (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 23 April 2021

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus for a move, but a sharp division as to which of two move targets is appropriate. Reasonable arguments have been raised on both sides of that issue - that the responsible party was convicted of murder; that the law of the state is unusual in using that term for something that in other places would be labeled manslaughter. At some point, however, there must be finality, so all else being equal, I am moving to the target in the original proposal. BD2412 T 18:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Shooting of Justine Damond → Killing of Justine Damond – Per the flowchart at WP:DEATHS, "shooting" is not appropriate because the subject is deceased. While WP:DEATHS is an explanatory supplement, I think the chart logic makes sense here--Damond wasn't just shot, she was killed. Enwebb (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 05:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:DEATHS is neither policy nor guideline, it is merely opinion. So we do not have to follow its logic. WWGB (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:DEATHS is indeed a divisive subject. Many editors, myself included, believe that it is helpful. When there is no undisputable common name, we should strive to be consistent in how we apply labels such as "Killing" and "Murder". WP:DEATHS accomplishes this by looking at verifiable facts rather than editor opinions and interpretations. In this case, there was a homicide, and a conviction for murder. 162 etc. (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The WP:DEATHS discussion was mostly driven by agreement on "shooting". Shooting is ambiguous with death or not, and it was easily agreed to avoid the ambiguity, and it was agreed that "shooting" by itself implies no death. "Killing" vs "Murder" is more complicated, but the worst thing is that people are taking the prescriptive reading and are completely ignoring, certainly not mentioning, sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
There was no agreement that "shooting" implies a lack of death, much less that such was "easily agreed". — BarrelProof (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
In some jurisdictions, abortion is considered to be murder. On that basis, should we label abortionists as murderers? WWGB (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
That's a straw man argument if I've ever seen one. 162 etc. (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
That's a corner case hypothetical, which doesn't inform this situation. In this case - and virtually all cases - common use English language is consistent with the legal definition. If somebody is convicted of murder for killing a 40 year old adult, that killing will commonly be called a murder - hence the standard at WP:DEATHS. Moreover, common use English Language is typically much more lenient than legal; often the word "murder" can be used commonly even if there is no conviction, or if there is a conviction for lesser crimes like manslaughter (although RS news outlets usually just follow the legal description). But I'll play along... if somebody were hypothetically convicted for murder over an abortion, it is very unlikely that this would be universally called a murder (there would surely be an extremely charged political divide over whether to call it a murder), and COMMONNAME would likely override WP:DEATHS. I imagine this would involve most RSs adopting a COMMONNAME "abortion" and a few fringe sources using the name "murder" (or maybe vice, who knows?) followed by a very calm, rational discussion on the talk page where all of the Wikipedia rules and guidelines are followed to the T ;) Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 06:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
What is and isn't murder isn't something that a panel of Wikipedia editors decide. It's what the courts decide. And the court decided it was murder. 162 etc. (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
And as described above, I'm sure this means you would be perfectly happy if a couple of rogue states decided abortion is murder, and we titled an article about an abortion as "Murder of ...", right? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
This seems like a strange point to make. What could have happened if he was tried in another state is unknown (consider in another state the acquittal for second-degree murder might not have happened) and irrelevant. This didn't happen in "most US states and overseas jurisdictions" - it happened in Minnesota, and Noor was convicted of murder. The title "murder" is appropriate. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 06:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to Killing of Justine Diamond per Smokey Joe and WWGB.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to Murder of Justine Damond - A third-degree murder conviction is still a murder conviction. Love of Corey (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to “Killing”, Oppose “Murder”, a third-degree murder conviction is not a murder conviction in common parlance. Only three of the 50 states of the US have such a charge: Florida, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. This would not be murder in the vast majority of US states, so the title is unacceptably misleading. Third degree murder in the state of Minnesota is simply not what is meant in common parlance by murder at all. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose 'Killing', support 'Murder' Perpetrator has been found guilty of murder, so it is a murder. Very clear-cut.Melmann 21:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support "Killing", oppose "murder", according to Minnesota law third-degree murder is committed "without intent to cause the death of any person". This is the opposite of the common English definition of murder, "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".[3] I do think that titling the article "murder", when readers may not read down to find the technicalities of what that means in this particular case, is misleading and doing our readers a disservice. (t · c) buidhe 19:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the common English definition of murder:
Dictionary.com: Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder, or murder one ), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder, or murder two ).
Mirriam-Webster: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought (Note that "especially with" != "exclusively with".)
If we're going by the "common definition", it would seem to qualify, and if we're going by the legal definition, well, there was a murder conviction, after all. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Both of these are WP:SYNTH. The question is what do the sources use, and there is no dearth of sources commenting. WP:COMMONNAME is the applicable policy, and it calls for looking at sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support "murder of". The shooter was convicted of murder, so it would be WP:CONSISTENT with WP:DEATHS. The "but what if abortion?" counterargument does not impress me, and here's why. The DEATHS conversation was happening in a time when third degree murder charges already existed. Considering the RfC leading to the current form of DEATHS began at a time when Derek Chauvin was facing third degree murder charges, it's unlikely editors who would choose to participate in such a conversation would be unaware third degree murder was an available charge in some U.S. jurisdictions. In the event of couple of rogue states decid[ing] abortion is murder and someone performing one anyway and a jury agreeing to convict for murder and the conviction not being overturned by the federal judiciary and there being sufficient coverage of not just the trial, but the death (And what would that article be called prior to the conviction, anyway? Death of unnamed unborn child of Jane Doe?)... if all of that happened, I'm sure we would have another RfC re:DEATHS to find out what the consensus was in this new legal world. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Egsan Bacon: The shooter was convicted of murder, so it would be WP:CONSISTENT with WP:DEATHS: Note that WP:DEATHS is not a Wikipedia guideline, though it's your prerogative if you agree with it or not.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support "murder" oppose "killing" It is clear outcome that the Perpetrator has been convicted despite being only "third-degree". "Killing" can only be used if there is no conviction of the Perpetrator. 180.243.211.58 (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
    • ""Killing" can only be used if there is no conviction of the Perpetrator" is nonsense. "Killing of Justine Damond" has strong use in sources, and ghits, and can be used with COMMONNAME justification. WP:DEATHS is only supposed to be referenced if there is no COMMONNAME, so per WP:DEATHS, WP:DEATHS is irrelevant. Only "third-degree" murder is pretty critical here. Most people, most places, do not consider the local definition of "third degree murder" to be "murder". Wikipedia should look at what reliable sources call it, except that there was a consensus to not call deaths "shootings". The WP:DEATHS consensus on "killing" vs "murder" was unclear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Leave it where it is, or move to "Murder of". Nothing is really wrong with the current title – it is simple and objective – and neither of the suggested alternatives is clearly better. Here the word "murder" seems to differ from the colloquial definition, although the same could be said for the Murder of George Floyd. The police officer in that case was convicted of unintentional murder, but the title of that article uses "murder", and using it here would seem similar. "Killing of" would also imply intent, but here it seems that the officer did not really intend to kill Ms. Damond – he was just shooting blindly and carelessly without knowing who or what he was shooting at. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination – seems grounded in reason and policy. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Justine_Damond/Archive_1&oldid=1074307763"