Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Killing of Michael Brown. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Criticism of Police Response

I think that some of the bits of this article could use some reworking, in particular the "police" section (which really has been totally supersceded by Darren Wilson's account, and therefore is no longer relevant where it is) and the robbery incident report and video release. Both of these sections are not really written in an encyclopedic manner and involve a great deal of complaining about the timing and manner of release of material at the cost of making these sections a mess to read.

I think that it would make more sense to cut out the police section from the accounts section (which we should probably rename to "Eyewitness accounts", because at least one of the autopsies also contains an account of what happened, and all the accounts there are eyewitness accounts) and to cut out the criticism of the video release from the video release section and create a "criticism of police response" (or possibly "official" instead of "police") section which contains this information, thereby cleaning up the various sections of the articles and factualizing them, while allowing us to simultaneously try and condense the criticism and try and get at what they were criticized for in a more straightforward, coherent, easy-to-read manner. Some of the criticism is counterfactual (for instance, in the video release section, some sources complaining about the release of the video not having been demanded by anyone is then immediately countered by the fact that a newspaper demanded the release of all the material about Michael Brown during that time span, as well as the note about the law which isn't explained in the article at all and definitely needs some expansion), while some of it is not, and we really should try and make it into less of a jumbled mess.

The major criticisms of the police seem to be:

1) Secrecy.

2) Piecemeal release of information.

3) Censorship of information related to the ongoing investigation (if there is any relevant legal principle at work here, that should be noted).

4) Criticism of the release of the video.

5) Criticism of the timing of the release of the video.

6) Criticism of the release of other material which is damning to Brown.

Is there anything else there that I'm missing? I think the Ferguson unrest article covers the issues of the police response to the protests and rioting which ensued, so that probably doesn't belong here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Nothing has been superseded by the leaked testimony. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Should the fracture leaker be referred to as an "unnamed source"?

FOX, ABC, CNN, NYT, all use an "unnamed source" for their information, we can't single out just two media outlets and say they used anonymous sources. They all used anonymous sources, so what's the point of specifically identifying those networks as using anonymous sources when the other media outlets did as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This case differs from the others in that the source provided information that was proven to be false. It was a case of a government agency (or an individual within that agency, which has to be taken as the same thing) deliberately giving false information to the public for the purpose of manipulating public opinion. It's significant that it was a leak, and we should be clear on that point. In the reader comments for a recent NYT article, there are people STILL spreading the "information" that Wilson suffered broken facial bones, which is exactly what the leak was intended to accomplish. The leaker was astute enough to know that many people would see the first report and miss the debunking the following day, and that would be enough to poison the public debate. It's an unusual case that warrants unusual treatment.

Please don't post a statement of explanation (essentially nothing more than an expanded editsum for your revert), and then pretend that you have satisfied BRD. Statement != discussion. I have reverted your revert, and I'm sorry people insist on bringing things to this point. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If I understand the sourcing correctly, all four media outlets are basing their reporting on anonymous sources. So FOX and ABC reported through anonymous sourcing, then CNN reported through an anonymous source, then the NYT reported through an anonymous source. So all four are reporting through anonymous sourcing. Why is one anonymous source given more credibility than another one. Did FOX or ABC retract their original reports and specifically state that their anonymous source got it wrong? If not, then all four media outlets are on the same footing as far as sourcing goes - it is anonymous. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Now let's get more opinions, and please leave the article as per existing de facto consensus until we reach a consensus for change here. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I restored all media outlets used anonymous sourcing, that's the way it was before I removed the unnecessary attributions. It's not necessary to just single out two and describe their sources as anonymous, when all four used anonymous sources. It has not been proven that CNN's anonymous source is more credible or reliable than anyone else's.

And it would be nice to see a source for this statement: " It was a case of a government agency (or an individual within that agency, which has to be taken as the same thing) deliberately giving false information to the public for the purpose of manipulating public opinion." That would solve this debate if we had a source for that statement in that we could just include that piece of information. Seems relevant to me. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, said source would be needed if we wanted to include something like that in the article, but it's ok to do that kind of (unsourced) editorializing in article talk. As it is, we don't even say "leak". We state the facts neutrally and let the reader figure it out. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The facts were stated neutrally with my first revision of the content - FOX and ABC reported a fracture/serious injury to face, CNN reported x-rays negative, NYT reported punches and scratches. That's neutral and factually correct. That's what they reported. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with claiming that the person is lying is that we don't actually know if they were lying or just misinformed and playing a game of telephone (game); it is not uncommon for repeated information to change in the telling, and Wilson was definitely punched in the face. He may have just been repeating office scuttlebutt; someone said he was punched in the face, someone speculated that his eyesocket might have been broken, Mr. or Ms. I-like-to-leak-stuff-to-the-news repeated the idle speculation as fact. I mean, let's face it - some people online are claiming that Michael Brown was gunned down while he was running away, but I don't think any of the eyewitness testimony claims that his back was turned when he was killed (and goodness knows, the eyewitness testimony agrees on pretty much nothing), and Brown was definitely not shot in the back according to every autopsy report. If there was evidence that they were lying, that'd be one thing, but, as they say, never assume malice when you can assume stupidity. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your reasoning is that any adult acting in good faith would be careful to get the facts right before making such a statement to the press. They didn't qualify it in any way, according to the reports; they stated it as fact. Ergo, they were not acting in good faith.

But let's pretend that a grownup working for a police department could be stupid enough to make such a mistake honestly. A Barney Fife, if you will, "close to the top brass". If Ferguson PD had been acting in good faith, they would have canned the person immediately, informed the public that had been done, with some way for the press to verify that, and issued a very public apology (e.g., press conference or at least an official press release). They did not do that; ergo, they were not acting in good faith. It would be absurd to suggest that perhaps Ferguson PD doesn't know who the leaker was. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Officer Darren Wilson

The sub-section currently named “Officer Darren Wilson” in the Testimony section is presented as if the material was directly from Wilson, when in factor it was from a selective leak by anonymous sources. We don’t have yet a testimony from Wilson, and presenting it as if this is his testimony is not NPOV. We need to add context and edit that section accordingly, including the controversy of the leaks and the reaction from the DOJ and others about the selective leak. I would also advice editors here to be extremely careful when using Wikipedia’s voice instead of attributing properly the material we add. It may be also a good idea to move that section under the Police section, and not in the witness section, until Wilson’s witness testimony is published by authorities. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That's easily fixed with attribution. According to this source "Police Officer Darren Wilson told investigators that in a struggle for his pistol inside a police SUV, Michael Brown pressed the barrel of Wilson’s gun against the officer’s hip, according to a source with knowledge of his statements."- Mr X 18:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added some context about the leak, feel free to improve the attribution. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel We pretty much have a consensus to not use repeated attribution inside each account. If you notice none of the other statements include repeated "according to" style wording. Its not neutral to do that just to one account.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd state that more strongly, striking "pretty much". There has been zero objection on this point. First, it's unnecessary since it's quite clear that it's one person's account. Second, it makes for some pretty difficult reading. It gets extremely tiresome after the first two or three, even if you use all possible ways to say "according to". ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I left the initial context for testimony and leaks in, but removed the repeated "According tos" later in the section. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but this particular leaked testimony is difficult to present in an NPOV manner. For example, we have this: Brown grabbed Wilson's pistol while punching him repeatedly in the face, and Wilson could feel Brown pushing the weapon back towards his body, and it was at one point pointed back at the hiss hip. - That statement is made in Wikipedia's voice rather than in Wilson's voice, and it is troubling. So, it may be a good idea to attribute it to Wilson such as Wilson said that Brown grabbed his pistol while punching him repeatedly in the face, and he could feel Brown pushing the weapon back towards his body, and that at one point the gun was pointed back at his hip. I'll let you give it a try and see if you can improve the attribution. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I note that you're a lot more concerned about (excessively) clear attribution in Wilson's account. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

its apples to apples. Similarly, in Dorians section, we say without attribution (except for the initial introduction attribution)

Wilson grabbed brown around his neck
Brown did not reach for the weapon
shot while fleeing
brown saying "I don't have a gun stop shooting"
etc

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

<s?>I see, but it is not different here? Dorian is referring descriptions of actions by others, while Wilson is referring to his own. I am not trying to split hairs here, but I think it is very different. Just read Dorian's account again, and compare. It seems quite obvious to me. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I agree with both of you. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What is puzzling, is who is behind the leaks. Neither the prosecutor's office, nor Wilson's defense team. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I see you have conceeded, so just putting this here so I don't waste my time, and for others who come along) I think they are quite the same, but if they were to be different (and different in the way you describe) , it would be more important to attribute Dorian's statements, because he is in fact commenting about other's actions which raises additional BLP issues (following the underlying logic of WP:BLPSELFPUB)

Its subtle, but I think there are some strong hints that the leaks are from the DOJ Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Chris King (Of www.stlamerican.com) said he got it from both feds and locals (but didn't run with it) https://twitter.com/chriskingstl/status/524993408763310080 and the times article attribution is "according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter" also several of the leaks are specifically about stuff revealed in the FBI investigations that would not be available to the defense yet (no discovery until charges/trial) and may well not be available to the locals Gaijin42 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

How can it be from the DOJ, when the DOJ is reportedly upset about the leaks? Maybe someone in the DOJ with an agenda? Anyway, speculation will not clear this up. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question (How can it be from the DOJ, when the DOJ is reportedly upset about the leaks?). Holder has to be "politically correct" and "claim" (that is, feign) that he is so upset. He is pandering to the Brown supporters (the Wilson haters). Then, when the grand jury (rightfully, in my opinion) does not indict, Holder can go through his theatrics of being "upset" in order to continue pandering to certain people. Perhaps this can be added to improve the article? Let me go find a source, first. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: I think you are crossing a line you should not with these type of comments. I suggest you redact your appalling comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, beyond them SAYING they are upset (which may be different than actually being upset) its not a monolithic org. But you brought it up, not me :) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how it is okay for Joseph A. Spadaro to refer to Brown supporters as "Wilson haters" and why when he does, I see no evidence of concern on the part of any other editors. Isn't that forumizing and borderline trolling? Alice is once again confused by this curious apparent WP:DOUBLESTANDARD.

I'm sure if he keeps up the soapboxing, someone will say something. But he is suggesting on ways to improve the article, which is rather the purpose of the page. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 21:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, with some background. I reverted Spadaro on NOTFORUM grounds, Gaijin42 suggested a different approach, and I self-reverted. The difference? I guess it's that Spadaro doesn't make a habit of it. And you do it less than you used to, so you might get results similar to Spadaro's today. Not that I suggest testing that hypothesis. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

useless supposed witness statements

seven or eight witnesses have given testimony consistent with Wilson's account. Details of the testimony were not reported.

so basically, this is whats being said here.

7 or 8 witneses said something which supports at least some part of wilsons side of the story.in what way or to what extent is not being reported.

did I read that right?.99.235.56.10 (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You have a point, and feel free to discuss how to clarify, bearing in mind that we know nothing about the specifics. We're largely limited by what the sources say, and "consistent with Wilson's account" is verbatim what that source says. Trying to help the reader understand what that means, without support from reliable sources, would be inconsistent with Wikipedia policy—even if we thought we had a clue what it means, which I don't.

In your excerpt above, you omit an important part, "According to several people close to the grand jury investigation...". So the "consistent with Wilson's account" is not in Wikipedia's voice.

If you're suggesting the passage should be removed entirely, I think that would be inconsistent with WP:NPOV. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important. The fact that they're all black and have not spoken out publicly out of fear for their safety does imply the 'consistency with Wilson's account' is not trivial. Saeranv (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Disagreed. More strategic leaks, which we should not promote beyond what sources say. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hence, "We're largely limited by what the sources say." Or, if you're replying only to Saeranv, I don't think they suggested going beyond what the sources say. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know if there's anything we can do about it. It is important and notable, and per WP:BLP, we must be fair to living persons at all times. That a large number of people refused to talk to the media due to fear of violent reprisal is unfortunate, but there is little we can do but report on it; given that grand jury testimony is generally sealed, we may never acquire more information beyond this, and we're limited to what these sources have told us. There is no particular reason to believe that they are less credible than other eyewitnesses who we know more about. After everything calms down, we may end up condensing down the eyewitness testimony section anyway, so more of it may end up looking like that in the end. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism by a forensic expert of how her comments were reported

Forensic expert urges caution on Michael Brown autopsy analysis Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion: This needs to go in the lede. Also, this and the many other complaints and criticisms about the impropriety of the selective Wilson-friendly leaks deserve a full section.

Justice Department Condemns Leaks In Michael Brown Case As Attempt To 'Influence Public' Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly coverage of this is important. There is also the latimes link I provided above. I do not think its appropriate for the lede at this time as we already mention controversy over the official actions in the lede. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is considerable controversy over people trying to sway public opinion in this case, both for and against Officer Wilson. Maybe we should just make a "controversy" section instead of a "criticism of official response" section, seeing as the controversy is not only over the official response but also over media coverage of the incident? Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In general, we should put criticism near the action it is criticizng, and also near defense or praise of that action, per Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies - however, this may be a situation where the controversy is such a large part of the story that it would swamp the actual details if done in the normal fashion. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Seens like the bulk of the criticism/controversy content in the article now is in relation to the Ferguson PD and/or Chief Jackson and his/their handling of the case and other issues. DOJ is investigating them. We should sort through it and condense what we have into a section appropos titled. Include the PD/Jackson's response to criticism/controversy there. Just an idea to consider, a little organization and trimming wouldn't hurt. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That was my thought as well; the controversy is a big part of the story, and it kind of junks up some parts of the article, as well as being harder to read about and understand because it isn't all in one place. Given that there is an actual investigation into it, it seems like it would be worthy of its own section. I do agree that generally it is best to put criticism inline, but I think in this case there is too much and it would make the article read much less coherently; the sections with the criticism in them are much harder to read than the more straightforward sections. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it is a good idea to separate the controversy as that would break the narrative. We need to keep material within its proper context for NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to the stated topic of this section, there is this: I read it as a pretty hard slam on the St. Louis Post Dispatch reporter who got repeated hundreds of times in other second-hand journalistic reporting, including Wikipedia.

Dr. Judy Melinek wrote on her own blog in an article she titled Forensic Sound Bites & Half-Truths:

 A reporter from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called me earlier this week, saying she had Michael Brown's official autopsy report 
 as prepared by the St. Louis County Medical Examiner, and asking me if I would examine and analyze it from the perspective of 
 a forensic pathologist with no official involvement in the Ferguson, Missouri shooting death. 
 I read the report, and spent half an hour on the phone with the reporter explaining Michael Brown's autopsy report line-by-line, 
 and I told her not to quote me - but that I would send her quotes she could use in an e mail. 
 The next morning, I found snippets of phrases from our conversation taken out of context in her article in the Post-Dispatch. 
 These inaccurate and misleading quotes were picked up and disseminated by other journals, blogs, and websites. 
 This is the text of my actual email exchange with Post-Dispatch health and medical news reporter Blythe Bernhard:

I believe that Ms. Berhnard's mishandling of this interview and her misquotes are notable and that they deserve prominent mention in our article. As virtually every one of my edits to the article in the last month has been summarily reverted, (along with not a few of my comments on the talk page) I trust you will appreciate that I have no confidence that I, acting alone, can make this happen. I appeal to those of you who are in the in crowd who believe that fair reporting is a virtue that should be upheld in Wikipedia to carry a flag that I cannot (and have never been able to) carry. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

A few comments. In the autopsy section, something may be appropriate, but unless the dispatch has issued a correction (or other RS have picked up on this blog post), we are going to be somewhat limited in what we can do. This falls under WP:SPSBLP and WP:SELFPUB. The important bits would be "Never [Bold in original!] use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." and "[self published sources can be used if] it does not involve claims about third parties". As this stuff is about multiple 3rd parties (wilson, the reporter, the other examiners, the police, brown (via WP:BDP)) we can't do much with it. Also I suppose a lot depends on what "prominently" means. If we can find better sourcing I think a sentence or two in the autopsy section could be appropriate - but its also important to note that while she adds extra context and other possibilities to her analysis - the core of what was printed in the dispatch remains true. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Although this talking points memo source is probably not directly usable, the MSNBC story it refers to may be. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Or this Wapo story http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/10/24/st-louis-post-dispatch-editor-on-ferguson-leaks-theyre-public-accountability-journalism/ Gaijin42 (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

None of what was quoted was wrong, as was noted in the Washington Post; she said all that stuff and believed all that stuff. She was complaining because of the wording, fundamentally, not because of the content - she felt that they were presenting her opinions with too few equivocations, not that they weren't accurate. The hand wound, for example, does indeed support the idea that Brown's hand was shot when he was reaching with the gun. The lack of stippling but presence of gunshot residue is very important, because it helps establish range. Stippling is caused by gunshot residue flying through the air and striking the target alongside the bullet; distant shots do not exhibit stippling because the gunshot residue does not travel so far. The fact that there was gunshot residue in the wound but no stippling indicates the opposite - that the injury was inflicted at such close range that the gunshot residue had no opportunity to spread out in the air before it struck Brown, and therefore struck the same region where the bullet impacted. This indicates a range of less than one inch, because at greater distances, the residue has more opportunity to spread out through the air. The location of the wound on the inside of the palm of his hand further supports the idea that Brown was reaching for the gun when he got shot, because given the angle of the wound, it indicates that a good portion of his hand extended past the tip of the barrel of the gun - the injury, rather than being a straight-on impact, cuts across the base of his thumb and the very bottom of the palm of his hand. If you have some long, thin object, hold your hand out so that the tip of said object is pointing across the palm of your hand as was the case with Brown, and you can see the possible angles that the wound could have been inflicted at - they're entirely consistent with the idea that Brown was grappling for the gun. Evidence consistent with eyewitness testimony supports said testimony. And that was basically what she was saying - that Wilson's testimony was supported by the physical evidence. That does not necessarily mean that it is the only possible explanation, though some other explanations were ruled out by the evidence. We may want to rephrase the section slightly, but the problem is that "supported" is the word that she actually used.

The problem is, more or less, she didn't like how they quoted her saying what she said - by the sounds of things, she was trying to put together quotable quotes which she felt would be superior to her conversational remarks, and was annoyed because they quoted her when she asked them to wait so she could put together quotes they could use. I'm not surprised it annoyed her; if you're trying to comment on something important in some sort of official or semi-official capacity, you generally want to have the time to properly compose your response before it gets quoted everywhere.

MSNBC freaked out over it because, fundamentally, this makes them look bad - they've been sensationalizing this stuff for months and putting together a narrative which even the physical evidence we had prior to this point in time did not support. I have zero sympathy for them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice opinion, but there is a simpler explanation. That there are other possible explanations that may not be consistent with other leaks. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I changed it from "supported" to "consistent with", as she has used both terms in different interviews, and people are less likely to misunderstand "consistent with" than "supported". And what inconsistencies do you see? Pretty much all the leaks I've seen from the grand jury have been noted as being consistent with each other in various RSs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Independent Autopsy

The article states that:

Forensic pathologist Dr. Judy Melinek said that the autopsy supported the idea that Brown was reaching for the gun at the time he was shot.

Dr. Melnik later appeared on MSNBC and said:

"I'm not saying that Brown going for the gun is the only explanation. I'm saying the officer said he was going for the gun and the right thumb wound supports that," Melinek. "I have limited information. It could also be consistent with other scenarios. That's the important thing. That's why the witnesses need to speak to the grand jury and the grand jury needs to hear all the unbiased testimony and compare those statements to the physical evidence." http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/judy-melinek-ferguson-autopsy-report-msnbc

I did not read the original articles that supposedly quoted her out of context. Perhaps reword to add "but could also be consistent with other scenarios"?

There was also something one of the independent autopsy experts said about not being able to confirm something (GSR?) because tissue had been removed from Brown's body. Anybody catch that? Is it relevant? Ileanadu (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes we can add the "could be consistent" wording or some such, since the new source covers both possibilities (and therefore we don't have to worry about Synth). Could you be more specific about where you saw the other expert talking about removed tissue? That certainly would be important, as it explains discrepancies between the autopsies. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Baden has since given an interview where he explains why there may be discrepancies between the autopsies. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Michael-Ridgway: Source? Is there anything useful/interesting in there? Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: I took the liberty of modifying the section to note that it was consistent with rather than "supports", as noted above; she has used both terms, and given the confusion people have expressed on the talk page over the difference between the two, I felt that it was appropriate to amend it. She has apparently spoken to a number of press sources; the AP has still another quote from her on the incident, quoted in the Washington Post here:

“You don’t just look at one piece of evidence. You have a witness statement, the officer, saying that Michael Brown is reaching for the gun and it goes off and hits (Brown’s) hand. The physical findings (in the autopsy) are consistent with the officer’s statement.”

Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a subtle difference, imo, "supports" being a little stronger. "Consistent with" merely says it could have happened as Wilson described, based on the autopsy, and it leaves a lot of wiggle room. Since she was sloppy and expressed it both ways, we can't know what her intent was, and I'm thinking we should express it both ways, too. The only argument against that would be that the distinction would be lost on most readers, but in that case the old language would do as well. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement, but to be NPOV we need to include a statement saying that it could be consistent with other scenarios as well - that is the core of the objection. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds a bit like SYNTH to me. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Let's thread with caution, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Whose caution are you agreeing with? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would be synth, as Melnick said pretty much exactly that in her MSNBC interview [1] " Based on the physical evidence thus far presented, said Melinek, other scenarios are possible." From talking points (repeating MSNBC, find a real transrcipt) " I'm not saying that Brown going for the gun is the only explanation. I'm saying the officer said he was going for the gun and the right thumb wound supports that," Melinek. "I have limited information. It could also be consistent with other scenarios. That's the important thing. That's why the witnesses need to speak to the grand jury and the grand jury needs to hear all the unbiased testimony and compare those statements to the physical evidence" Gaijin42 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I missed that above. Must work on reading skills. Sorry, and I withdraw the objection. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Melinek: "I'm saying the officer said he was going for the gun and the right thumb wound supports that"

Very wrong reasoning. A thumb wound does not support that. Putting your thumb under the hammer is a very effective way to prevent someone from shooting you, and survival is the most basic of animal instincts. It doesn't mean you're "going for the gun". In fact, taking a gun away would probably be easier without putting your thumb under the hammer. I'd want to have my hand closer to the barrel end of the gun, for greater twisting leverage against the other's guy's grip. So it would probably be more accurate to say, "the right thumb wound does not support that". This person is clearly an idiot on this subject.

That said, if we omit the above quote or equivalent language, without watering down, someone is going to cry POV, and I think they'll be right. We have to follow the sources even when it hurts. The article is full of quotes, and we can't cherry-pick the ones that suit our view of the facts. We need to include that quote and "other scenarios are possible". ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You're confused about what the wound is; I'd recommend rather strongly against calling someone an idiot. The wound in question is a gunshot wound which extends across the base of the palm of the hand, from the thumb about a third of the way across the palm. It is a lateral gunshot wound which was inflicted at a range of less than one inch (as indicated by the lack of stippling but the presence of gunshot residue in the wound). It indicates that the palm of his hand was directly in front of the gun (less than an inch away) at an angle which would place the rest of his hand around the barrel of the gun when the gun was fired; according to eyewitness testimony, this was immediately after Officer Wilson jerked back inside the vehicle, trying to pull the gun away from Brown during the struggle after Brown had tried to point the gun at Wilson. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: If you look at this, you can see the injury in question; it is the long gash along the palm of his hand, running from his thumb towards his wrist. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again I appear to be full of shit. I'm seriously losing it here. I could have sworn I read the under the hammer thing here, but it looks like I unconsciously deduced that. I think I'll sit out the rest of this discussion. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: According to Officer Wilson's leaked testimony, Brown did at one point jam the hammer of the gun with his hand; however, it was not the cause of the wound being discussed by Melnick. You're not going crazy, you're just conflating separate parts of the incident. This is, incidentally, why eyewitness testimony is oftentimes problematic; when you see or hear or experience something, it is very easy to conflate separate incidents into one event and your memories become very vulnerable to suggestion when you hear things and then incorporate them into your memories. Don't be too hard on yourself; it is very likely that most of the eyewitnesses are doing the exact same thing. This is why physical evidence is so important; people have found that even under non-stressful circumstances people have a great deal of trouble remembering incidents. That's why I try to double-check myself, to make sure I'm not doing the same thing. It is very easy to do. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Amnesty International report

Due to conflicting reports, what happened between Brown and Wilson remains uncertain. According to one witness, Brown and his friend attempted to walk away when the officer fired his weapon, shooting the unarmed Brown, whose hands were in the air. According to police statements, a physical confrontation between the officer and Brown resulted in the officer shooting the unarmed Brown. Regardless, international standards provide that law enforcement officers should only use force as a last resort and that the amount of force must be proportionate to the threat encountered and designed to minimize damage and injury. Officers may only use firearms when strictly necessary to protect themselves or others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury. Even then, the intentional lethal use of firearms is justified only when "strictly unavoidable in order to protect life." Irrespective of whether there was some sort of physical confrontation between Michael Brown and the police officer, Michael Brown was unarmed and thus unlikely to have presented a serious threat to the life of the police officer. As such, this calls into question whether the use of lethal force was justified, and the circumstances of the killing must be urgently clarified. Also troubling is Missouri's broad statute on the use of deadly force. Amnesty International is very concerned that the statute may be unconstitutional and is clearly out of line with international standards on the intentional use of lethal force as it goes well beyond the doctrine that lethal force only be used to protect life.[2], [3]

- Cwobeel (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading the seven pages of their report is quite something. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think their summary of the case is important, I think we have that covered. Regarding being a serious threat or not, that's a matter for the jury to decide (grand jury for now) their opinion on that matter isn't super relevant or notable.

Their comment about general international standards and Missouri law may be a good addition though. The conflict with Fleeing Felon is not a new critique, but Amnesty may be a better voice than what we have now. Hunting for page 7. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the 7th page of the pdf (which says its page 4), the page marked 7, or the 7th page of the website version? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Bah, nevermind, I thought you were pointing to a specific page, you were just referring to its entire length. I accidentally the whole thing! Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing, LOL. Good read, anyway, no? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Tow comments on mainstream sources: Time: [4], WaPo: [5] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The fist time ever that Amnesty International documented human rights abuses inside the U.S. Wow. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think they are on the strongest footing (and most relevant to their mission/expertise) when discussing the unrest and protest/free speech/civil rights issues. Thats really where they are a notable and expert voice, and I think there is probably quite a bit that could be used in the Unrest article. On the specifics of the incident, they were not witness to anything, don't have access to any information other than what we the general public have, nor are they experts in the narrower legal issues that would control if its a justified shooting or not (And at this point its the grand jury's opinion that matters). At most I would say them calling for a transparent process/due process etc is valuable, but not their more specific opinions of the shooting itself (which although they lean to Brown, are still fairly neutral on the whole)Gaijin42 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Its absolutely not the first time they've accused the US. They regularly criticize death penalty (especially of mentally disabled) as human rights abuses, general prison conditions (especially the Supermaxes and isolation), and other issues. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The Times thinks otherwise: It's the first time the human rights group has documented abuses inside the U.S. [6] - Cwobeel (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

From the end of the Time article:

"The original version of this story misstated the nature of Amnesty International’s work in the United States. The group has researched human rights abuses in the United States previously. This August was the first time the organization sent a delegation of observers, advocates and trainers to document unrest anywhere in the United States."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems they updated that after I read the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Officers are allowed to use deadly force to subdue fleeing felons if they pose a significant threat of bodily harm to officers or others per Tennessee v. Garner (as a few sources have noted, including Daily Kos and CNN). According to several eyewitness accounts, and consistent with the physical evidence, Brown both punched Wilson in the face repeatedly to the point where Wilson feared he might pass out, and went for his gun; assuming that is the case, then deadly force would be authorized to subdue him in any case under Garner, but given that several accounts (and the blood spatter patterns) indicate that Brown was approaching Wilson at the time of his death, it may well be that it was a simple case of self defense. The idea that his being unarmed meant that he was "unlikely" to pose a threat to Wilson's life is just wrong; if Brown did indeed go for Wilson's gun (and the physical evidence is consistent with that idea), then his being unarmed is utterly irrelevant - someone who goes for a gun is always going to be considered a lethal threat. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You say that - "According to several eyewitness accounts, and consistent with the physical evidence, Brown both punched Wilson in the face repeatedly to the point where Wilson feared he might pass out..." I only know of Wilson saying this, who else has supported this claim. Also, I can see you're already involved in this discussion re: the autopsy leaks [7] but it is disingenuous to start claiming Wilson's account is consistent with the physical evidence, there is too much uncertainty about the events to start making strong claims like this. Saeranv (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That language could be cleaned up a bit, as no person or physical evidence can speak to what Wilson feared, aside from Wilson himself. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Brown Family Autopsy by Baden and Parcell

I happened across this is a blog post by Dr. Judy Melnick (the same forensic pathologist who commented on the county autopsy, and who wrote an oped for CNN about the family autopsy report) about the Brown family autopsy on Brown's body; it is pretty damning. This article in Pathology Blawg makes note of Parcell's involvement and does an interview.

A few salient notes:

Melnick questioned the release of the autopsy report as it could potentially contaminate testimony.
The diagram which was released was incomplete or very sparse compared to the autopsy reports she prepares.
Baden apparently only did his autopsy after Brown's body was embalmed, which is problematic because it can distort wounds.

Parcell's questionable credentials have been noted in at least two places; I'm not sure about whether or not the other things have been noted in reliable sources. Anyone know of any? At least some of this may be relevant to the article. Admittedly Judy Melnick is a forensic pathologist, but generally it is preferable to not cite someone's blog on stuff like this, no matter how much of an expert they may be. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon This is discussed a few sections up. Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Criticism_by_a_forensic_expert_of_how_her_comments_were_reported Gaijin42 (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I created a new talk section for it because the other one was talking about how her comments had been misrepresented about the county autopsy. I suppose they could be put together, but I thought it would get lost. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

johnson, appear to hit

Mandruss There are a few sources that have Dorian saying he saw Brown hit prior to turning

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I was looking for the quote that was in the article. Fixed, I think. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: Regarding the criticism of Johnson's remarks:

Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

To use those, I think we would have to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for those people's opinions that evidence does or doesn't match. For Melinek, I think the issue is omre complicated as she clarified her remarks on MSNBC and specifically allowed for other scenarios. (We could say both of those statements though) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we need to provide inline attribution. Also, Melnick's remarks have been incompletely reported so many times by so many different organizations - MSNBC deliberately left out some material from a number of their articles about it, too, even while they complained about other people doing so; apparently irony is not their strong suit. It is best to get back to the original sources on this stuff as closely as possible, because the press is playing telephone (game) even within their own organizations, especially when it suits their point of view or just stirs up controversy. Not to mention that some folks have seized upon Melnick "clarifying" her notes as her changing what she said, which... wasn't what she did. She clarified that you have to take the totality of evidence into consideration when you look at this stuff, because, well, she understands forensics. Based on the evidence that she has available to her, she can come to some conclusions, but there is still a large possibility space for some things. She had noted a number of possibilities, which could be further narrowed down by other forensic evidence. I've seen at least 20 different places incorrectly state that she said that Brown had been shot from behind because of one of his arm wound, when her actual remarks specifically noted the difficulty in determining arm position relative to other body positions because arms have a much wider range of motion than, say, your torso. It was possible that one of the arm wounds came from behind... but it wasn't the only possibility. On the other hand, the possibility space for the hand wound was much more limited, as his hand must have been very close to the barrel of the gun, at a certain angle, to sustain that wound. Even then, though, the motive is not possible to determine in an absolute manner. Was he trying to knock the gun away? Was he grabbing at the gun? It is certainly consistent with grabbing at the gun, but that isn't necessarily the only possible motivation (though given reasonable doubt standards it may well not matter).

Unfortunately, giving interviews to journalists is not the best way of disseminating accurate information, because most journalists have no real understanding of this stuff and are likely to either quote what sounds sensational, quote what sounds important, quote what supports their point of view, dismiss uncertainty, or simply garble the information because they cannot tell what is important and what is less so.

It would be nice if the full county autopsy report was available to us, rather than just sections, as then we could cite its conclusions, but I haven't seen a full copy of it anywhere online, just a few pages. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

purported Anonymous (the internet group) leak

This isn't in sufficient RS yet but it is bubbling rapidly and has started to get RS coverage

People claiming to be part of the group Anonymous have said they have received leaks regarding the results of the grand jury, and also claim to have tracked down Wilson and some of his actions post incident.

Obviously these are not usable as RS themselves, but the communication methods being used by the claimed group, and may be relevant as discussion points themselves.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

While not about the leak above, some coverage of anonymous within the case and "Commander X"

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, saw that already, and it was expected given all the previous leaks ... It will get really messy straight after the midterms, including in this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think the smart money is on "no bill" at this point. - I don't understand your last sentence. "It will get really messy straight after the midterms, including in this article" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I meant that the announcement will come out around Nov 10 according to these reports, and it will get messy in Ferguson, and also in this article when that happens. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I probably agree. Although if it follows the pattern of Trayvon Martin the actual backlash will be quite a bit less than what was promised/feared, and the news spike will be very intense, but relatively brief, and then we can work on getting the article into long-term shape. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the police will disclose as much as they can about the investigation to the general public, so that we have some good RSs on this stuff. Having an official source for the full autopsy report, the reasoning behind the dismissal, ect. would be very nice. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Titanium Dragon: What do you mean by "dismissal"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, we don't know for sure yet (so we shouldn't put it in the article), but according to the leaks (linked above) it sounds as if Wilson is not going to be charged with anything. It will be interesting to see if the leaks are correct; if the information comes out on November 10th, that would be very interesting indeed. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Titanium Dragon: Thanks. But you did not answer my question. What do you mean by the term "dismissal"? What is (or is not) being dismissed? That is my question. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro I read that statement as a flexible/imprecise use of legal-ish vocuabulary. Something along the lines of "the charges were dismissed", but there have not been charges, so they really mean a "no bill" result from the grand jury. 00:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. That is also what I had assumed that the editor meant. But, I was checking with him, just to be sure. And the reason I ask is because I had a follow-up question to this editor's comment. It is included in my posts below (in this thread). (I am referring to my post below, which is time stamped as "22:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)".) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The prosecutor said that they will release all the material about the investigation if there is no bill from the grand jury, but there were reports that he may not do that at all, so we shall see. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

They won't release the information if he is indicted, presumably to preserve the integrity of the criminal trial. I'm not aware of any "reports" saying they might withhold the docs even if Wilson is no-billed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

He said that he may "release transcripts and audio recordings" but not any of the documents (http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/09/17/prosecutor-may-release-audio-of-brown-grand-jury/) - Cwobeel (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it does not say anything about withholding anything except in the case Wilson is indicted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

From a St. Louis NPR affiliate, Oct. 1.[8]

” ’If there’s an indictment of any charge, then all of the information would come out during the course of the prosecution,’ McCulloch said. ‘If there is no indictment, normally it’s a closed record, a closed file unless the judge agrees to release it. And the judge has told me that she will order that everything be released.’ “

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We shall see. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, is there any source making the claim you're posting here or is this just irrelevant posturing? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

An editor above opined that it would be good for the authorities to provide us (the general public) with a reason for the dismissal, if the grand jury elects not to indict. (An aside: I am assuming that the editor means "dismissal" of any criminal charges. Which, I believe, would be an incorrect word to use in such a case. There are no charges, hence there is nothing to "dismiss".) In any event, I can't imagine that anyone in authority will provide a "reason". The reason is simply that the jury found no crime occurred. What else could be the possible reason? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, grand juries decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. That is not the same as deciding whether a crime occurred, which is the purview of a trial jury. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, technically and semantically, you are correct. The jury will decide if a prosecution should commence, and not necessarily whether a crime was committed. Yes, I agree. But that misses the whole point of my question. Therefore, I will re-phrase my question and repeat it here. An editor above opined that it would be good for the authorities to provide us (the general public) with a reason for the dismissal, if the grand jury elects not to indict. (An aside: I am assuming that the editor means "dismissal" of any criminal charges. Which, I believe, would be an incorrect word to use in such a case. There are no charges, hence there is nothing to "dismiss".) In any event, I can't imagine that anyone in authority will provide a "reason". The reason is simply that the jury found ~~no crime occurred~~ no prosecution should commence. What else could be the possible reason? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they just used the wrong wording. Although to Mandruss 's point, a legitimate outcome of a grand jury is "We think a crime happened, but there we also do not think there is sufficient evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt" - although personally I think the standard of proof should certainly be lower for an indictment than a conviction, otherwise the grand jury isn't performing much of a function.

Nobody in authority will give a "reason", but I think its highly likely some of the grand jurors themselves might, when they make the interview circuit. While you are right the ultimate reason (if they do not indict) is that they think no crime was committed, there are certainly more detailed reasons, which as which testimony or evidence they found most persuasive, and which they did not feel was important. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree 100% with your post. My point is that no one in authority can provide us (the general public) with a "reason". The only "official" reason is that the jury decided a prosecution should not commence. The jury members, themselves, can let us know how they arrived at that decision (what their "reasons" were). So, yes ... it cannot come from any authority ... but it can (and likely will) come from the jury members. My further point is that we (the general public) cannot reasonably expect any authority (such as the Ferguson PD or the Prosecutor's Office or the Governor's Office or whatever) to provide any reasons. There is only one "official" reason: the jury decided no prosecution should commence. That is the only "justification" (or "reason") that we can expect to hear from the authorities. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence that anyone has suggested that any authority will, should, or can provide any reasons. But you have made a very compelling argument that the earth is round. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You said "I see no evidence that anyone has suggested that any authority will, should, or can provide any reasons." In the above thread, with a time stamp of 01:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC), an editor by the name of Titanium Dragon states, quote: "Hopefully the police will disclose as much as they can about the investigation to the general public, so that we have some good RSs on this stuff. Having an official source for the full autopsy report, the reasoning behind the dismissal, ect. would be very nice.". That statement from Titanium Dragon is precisely the statement in this thread to which I was responding. So, how exactly does your claim ("I see no evidence that anyone has suggested that any authority will, should, or can provide any reasons.") reconcile with Titanium Dragon's post? Please let me know. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well you got me there. Let's let TD speak for himself, if he wants to. (May I assume TD is a male based on his style of interaction, or is the singular they required? Is there a policy, guideline, or community consensus on that?) ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about the use of personal pronouns in talk, etc.

There is no a prioi guideline, but once someone has specified a preference, it has been ruled a personal attack to use otherwise, particularly for the transgendered editors. Most seem to stick to "they" if they care, but many do default to he (statistically speaking correctly). The gender gap task force may have some input there, but beware, that is currently a highly political and high visibility area, so tread with caution. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't dream of referring to someone as male after they have declared as female, or vice versa. Now that I think about it, Preferences->User profile allows a user to specify a preference as to how they are addressed by the software, and no-specification could be interpreted as preferring the singular they. It follows with a note, "This information will be public", but it doesn't say how one could find that preference for another user. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You can use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Gender everywhere, but thats a bit of a pain. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

More than a bit. I don't think I'll be using that every time I refer to another user. But it could be used for a one-time query of the user's preference: he is Mandruss, he is Gaijin42, he is Titanium Dragon, he is Joseph A. Spadaro, they is Cwobeel, they is Bob K31416, they is Factchecker atyourservice, they is Saeranv, they is Two kinds of pork, they is Michael-Ridgway, he is MrX, he is Isaidnoway, they is Japarthur, they is NorthBySouthBaranof, etc. Class, your homework assignment is to memorize that. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That just tells me that most people aren't even aware of the settings :) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

True, but it also says it's ok to use the masculine personal pronouns with me, you, Spadaro, and MrX. And I'm going out on a limb and adding Ridgway to that list based on the username, the actress Michael Learned notwithstanding. And Bob K31416, notwithstanding nothing that I'm aware of. And maybe this will get some others to declare in their Preferences, to reduce the need for that very painful singular they or other cumbersome gender-neutral alternatives. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is interesting enough to keep, but I'm hatting it as completely off-topic (sorry), at the risk of being reverted by the hat police. I wouldn't see any problem with adding to it within the collapse, for anyone who's interested. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not the type to get offended by such things (and for the record, I am male). As for what I was speaking of: grand juries may produce formal reports of their findings and recommendations; for instance, see this report from the Sandusky investigation. If they fail to indict, they will return a "no true bill", which is basically them saying that there is not probable cause for indictment (some sources online refer to this as dismissing the charges, though it is more like dismissing the possibility of charging the person in this case). How much detail they'll go into, I don't know. There are all sorts of records and stuff kept by grand juries, and how many of those records will be opened to the public, we don't yet know. We have heard that people are saying that they will try and disclose as much as possible, but we shall see. It would be nice if they did, as then we could cite them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Jackson stepping down / stockpiling

Anticipating a furore, the St Louis County Police department has reportedly been stockpiling riot gear. The department has spent $173,000 since August on tear gas, plastic handcuffs, smoke grenades and canisters, rubber bullets, beanbag bullets and pepper balls. They have also invested in new helmets, batons and shields.

Besides amassing this new arsenal, the police department has undergone few changes since August. Some reports suggest that Ferguson’s police chief, Thomas Jackson, may soon step down as part of an effort to reform the department and place it under the management of the county police chief. It would be good if these reports prove true, as the county’s police department has a better record than Ferguson’s when it comes to managing crime. And a change at the top should help to reduce tensions between officers and citizens. In New Jersey nearly two years ago, a newly created county police force took over policing in Camden, a city plagued with crime. Since then nonviolent crime has plummeted. Rapes and murders have fallen too.

Yet Mr Jackson may not leave quietly. He says he intends to “see this through”. But he may not have much choice. The federal Justice Department is now investigating his leadership as well as police practices in Ferguson, including its use of force, stops, searches and arrests. The ACLU is also looking into the police department’s harassment of journalists who covered the protests. Many were detained illegally. Mr Jackson’s removal would go a long way towards restoring trust, not only in the police department but also in the justice system.

The Economist - [9] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There have been a lot of rumors and speculation about such, but everyone involved has denied that he is leaving. We can include stuff about it if/when he leaves. The stockpiling rumor is another thing, though it wouldn't surprise me; "Anonymous" claimed the same thing. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

About the stockpiling, there are several sources. If mentioned, it should be in the 2014 Ferguson unrest page, IMHO.--178.192.83.188 (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC Closure

A Request for Comments at Talk: Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 13 concerning the ages has been closed. Consensus is to include the ages of both Brown (strong consensus) and Wilson (lesser consensus). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Brown family gossip

Brown family is a subsection in a section named "Reactions". Presumably, and judging from the other content of the section, this is about reactions to the shooting. How is it, then, that we're including gossip about some assault/robbery allegations involving a Brown family member? Even if that were connected to the subject of this article, which is beyond dubious, how is it a reaction to the shooting? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 07:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The item is well sourced by multiple reliable sources and a corresponding police offense/incident report.[10] Also, a court ruled that the report should be released to the public. The item in our article describes a reaction by Brown's family to the shooting, which involves a violent dispute between Brown's relatives, including Brown's mother, about the selling of "Justice for Michael Brown" t-shirts and other such merchandise. None of this would have occurred if Brown had not been shot. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems a very low bar for inclusion. Awaiting other opinions. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss that it's not in any sense a reaction to the shooting. It may be well-sourced and independently newsworthy, but it's outside the scope of this topic, presents WP:BLPCRIME concerns, and should not be included. Dyrnych (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly relevant to the unrest article. Not relevant to this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Removed. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

For reference, here's a link to what the Brown family section looked like before the recent removal of the October 18 item and its sources.[11] I think the removal is a move away from NPOV, but I can see that I'm outnumbered here so I won't pursue it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for respecting a core Wikipedia principle. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not why I stopped. Adding to what I said about being outnumbered, I didn't think that the environment in this section of the Talk page was very reasonable and it would be a waste of my time to continue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any such unreasonable environment. What I see is editors weighing both sides of the question and disagreeing with you, in good faith. If that's your definition of unreasonable environment, it's not a particularly useful one. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Shawn Parcells

Parcells, who was involved in the family autopsy has some credentials issues. This has been covered by reliable sources, but appears to be flying mostly under the radar. We may need to put a statement or two in to better qualify his credentials and how credible the statements by him actually are.

(May 5, 2013) (IE, known issues from before the Michael Brown shooting) http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/missouri-coroners-question-practices-of-forensics-company-operator/article_0662e5b1-dcfa-578f-9487-8ab6a176ea4d.html
- Raises multiple alleged instances of Parcells performing autopsies without a Dr present, and signing the Drs names to the reports.
(Aug 19) http://fox4kc.com/2014/08/19/shawn-parcells-credentials-role-in-michael-brown-autopsy-questioned-by-doctors/
- "Parcells admits he has no certification as a pathology assistant, but says his qualification comes from experience."
- "Parcells says his training began in 1997 when he interned with Dr. Young, until he was hired in the mid-2000’s. Dr. Young responded with this statement: Shawn hung out at the Jackson County Medical Examiner’s office but was not trained by me.”…. “He has been representing himself in a way that is not appropriate by giving forensic pathology opinions when he is not qualified to do so.”
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article1337089.html
http://www.kmbc.com/news/pathologist-assistant-in-michael-brown-case-responds-to-controversy/28234292
https://news.yahoo.com/st-louis-medical-examiner-slams-brown-family-hire-172036981.html

In a number of RS, Parcells is given equal credit to Dr Baden, see the big NYT story of the 2nd autopsy with the diagram being credited to Parcells and Baden, and the video where Parcells is the one describing the diagram in particular the "top of head" shot. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=1 Also the "Arm shot could be consistent with shot from behind" is from Parcells. http://www.newsweek.com/what-we-learned-michael-browns-autopsy-265247

To complicate things, on the 15th, the Daryl Parks press conference after the video release has Parks saying that the 2nd autopsy is done. Per the NYT article linked above, Dr Baden arrived on the 17th (and that is the date signed on the autopsy diagram and report)

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/15/live-updates-brown-family-addresses-the-media-from-ferguson-police-headquarters/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85pgpVDlIqE
Blog, not RS, but more background (in particular the 15th/17th discrepancy) http://pathologyblawg.com/pathology-news/pathology-law/forensic-pathology/shawn-parcells-makes-national-news-michael-brown-autopsy/

In the interest of full disclosure, I did initially come across this story on conservative treehouse a notoriously unreliable blog with very significant bias (and frankly blatant racism sometimes), however, I think there is sufficient coverage from the mainstream on this particular point. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the full disclosure (yawn). I think two vague sentences would be enough, with three or four high quality cites. "Multiple media outlets reported challenges to the qualifications, ethics, and professionalism of Shawn Parcells, who assisted in the autopsy. Parcells dismissed the criticism as unfounded rumors stemming from jealousy and politics." (second sentence sourced in the stltoday article linked above) ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Mandruss I don't understand the yawn. I think your draft is a good first attempt, but I think we should state that he doesn't have any license or formal training, and the place he claims he got the bulk of his training from explicitly repudiates him. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we have RS that says it's inappropriate for someone assisting in an autopsy to lack a license and formal training? Something authoritative? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

did you read that STL article? Hes was doing much more than assisting, and he just plain lied about some of his credentials

collapsing quotes for readability

According to the autopsy report, Dr. George Vandermark was the forensic pathologist on the case. But the report lists Friedlander as the pathologist who reviewed and signed the paperwork.Grant Gillett, a detective with the Andrew County Sheriff’s Department, said that he was present at the autopsy and that neither Vandermark nor Friedlander had been there. He said Parcells and a female assistant were the only ones present.Parcells said he had no idea how Friedlander’s name got on the document.
For instance, a few months ago, his LinkedIn profile stated he had been a graduate student at the University of Florida for two years, but he acknowledges that he never attended a class there.
Currently, he lists New York Chiropractic College under his education, but he just finished his first trimester as an online student. He also lists himself as a professor at Wichita State University, but Jean Brickell, chair of medical technology there, said Parcells only assisted at a clinical site one time.
Parcells uses the professional initials “FPA,” which he says stands for Forensic Pathologist Assistant, a designation he invented. “I’m trying to get that designation out there for pathologists’ assistants to be able to use,” he said.
Patterson said a certification exists for a pathologists’ assistant — after completion of a master’s degree — but she said Parcells was not a member of their group, nor has he ever taken any classes through them.
A few days after the interview with the Post-Dispatch, Parcells and Borel announced a change in policy: Parcells would no longer do procedures without Borel in attendance. “We have decided that I will be present at all autopsies gowned and gloved,” Borel said. (if this is a change in policy, it means that prior the policy was to do it without him present)
Also, Parcells lists the National Association of Medical Examiners and American Academy of Forensic Sciences under his organizations, but those groups say he is not a member.

And from the fox article

That is a degree that does not exist in my knowledge, except in the mind of Shawn Parcells,” Dr. Mitchell said. You cannot claim the title, because it is a formal, licensable position. You can assist somebody; in this way I can say, for instance, I have paid my taxes, so I am an assistant President of the United States,
Parcells admits he has no certification as a pathology assistant, but says his qualification comes from experience.
I worked there as a forensic assistant for about a year. And if I remember correctly that was 2005 to 2006. That was under Dr. Young And that’s honestly where I gained a lot of my experience
Dr. Young responded with this statement Shawn hung out at the Jackson County Medical Examiner’s office but was not trained by me.”…. “He has been representing himself in a way that is not appropriate by giving forensic pathology opinions when he is not qualified to do so.He has none of the qualifications that are required. He has experience as a morgue technician, somebody who would move bodies around, clean up after an autopsy

That young quote is particularly important in light of Parcells statements as part of statements elsewhere http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/02/16/autopsyreports.pdf

"As consultants to non-pathologist country coroners we perform autopsies and advise them
The brunt of my forensic training was received at the Jackson County Medical Examiners office (Where Dr Yong just above just says he "hung out")
Proceeds to give clear diagnostic pathologic opinions in his own voice

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so the guy looks pretty ugly. I think the questions are:

To what extent did his opinions or analysis figure into the autopsy report? I see him describing things at a news conference, but does that necessarily mean it's his analysis he's describing? In any case, if anyone else put their signature on the report, doesn't that mean they concur with everything stated therein? After all, their reputations are at stake, too.
To what extent does that autopsy report affect the grand jury outcome or any trial? We can't know that at this point.

This seems like shaky BLP territory, and it may be better to err on the side of caution. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The "to what degree part" is part of why I brought up the 15th/17th issue, where parks said the autopsy was done. As far as the grand jury ya, we just don't know (since that was private it might not have been presented to them at all).Frankly I think Parks and Baden were probably suckered by this guy. He showed up, offered his services for free, and claimed a bunch of impressive credentials, that nobody followed up on. If these credentials issues were discussed with the Jury I bet Brown's family is pretty pissed since it hurts their evidence and narrative for no reason. Certainly it would be brought up in a real trial to their determent. Also regarding the "how important was he to the autopsy" bit the pathologyblawg says that Parcells said that he took photographs early (15th) because the body was going to be embalmed before Baden got there, and that the autopsy was performed on an embalmed body. That really puts the entire second autopsy in question (and certainly explains why they wouldn't find any gunshot residue on the body)

BLP cuts both ways. We are using Parcell to back statements saying evidence supports Wilson shot Brown from behind. Thats what my reasoning was for bringing up the issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're right, it warrants a whole subsection (or multiple paragraphs added to the existing section), not just two or three sentences. But I wouldn't know how to write it within policy and guidelines. You and others write it, I'll copyedit it and clean up the refs. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that we have good sourcing for all of the facts (and criticism of Parcell), but poorer sourcing for why those facts matter in the context of the case. PathologyBlawg is probably not going to cut it and an WP:SPS , unless we try to claim a WP:ABOUTSELF exception for Parcell's statements about the timeline. Ill try and put together something I think covers it while relying only on the real RS, while avoiding WP:SYNTH. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In an odd timing coincidence, Baden testified to the grand jury today. https://news.yahoo.com/forensics-expert-testify-ferguson-grand-jury-152849369.html Gaijin42 (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the above discussion, should the following item in the article be removed?

Shawn L. Parcells, who assisted Baden on the autopsy, said that a wound to the right arm was consistent with Brown either having his back to the officer, facing the officer with his hands above his head, or in a defensive position.^[149]

149. "Tear gas fired at Missouri protesters". Radio New Zealand News. August 18, 2014. Archived from the original on August 19, 2014. Retrieved August 22, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Considering the above discussion, it looks like we should only present the opinions of Dr. Baden, rather the opinion of his assistant. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC) --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Bob K31416 It/His statements in general were widely reported by reliable secondaries so I think putting in questions about his qualifications may be a better route than removing him all together (especially since removal will raise questions to those not aware of this discussion about NPOV from people who wonder why a widely reported negative against Wilson bit is missing. But if we can find equivalent statements in Baden's voice, sure do a direct swap Gaijin42 (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

In this case, it's a matter of simply keeping unreliable information out of the article. The item was reported 3 months ago on Aug 18 and I think the item is now mostly spread by Wikipedia. Here's an excerpt from Radio New Zealand News, which is the source used in our article.[12]

"Shawn Parcells, a forensic pathologist who assisted Dr Baden, said a wound to Mr Brown's right arm may have been sustained as he had his hands up, 'but we don't know'."

This was reported on the premise that Parcells was a forensic pathologist, which he isn't. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Issues with 2nd autopsy

In addition to the embalming issue mentinoed above, we have an RS explicitly saying the body was washed after the first autopsy. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/pathologist-for-michael-brown-family-to-testify-before-ferguson-grand/article_0893ca08-170f-579b-8e44-26edb2ba7f8f.html Gaijin42 (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

And the chest "exit wound" has been reclassified by baden as an entrance wound. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

From the news article,

"skin from his thumb had been removed for microscopic analysis. Gray [a Brown family lawyer] said St. Louis County will give Baden access today [Nov 11] to that tissue."

I presume the skin was removed during the first autopsy before the body was washed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2014

This edit request to Shooting of Michael Brown has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On 17 November, Governor Nixon declared a state of emergency and activated the Missouri National Guard prior to the grand jury decision. Milesrahimi (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: - Belongs in 2014 Ferguson unrest, and has already been added there. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I maybe disagree on this one ~~mandrels~~ Mandruss, the Grand jury decision is relevant to this article, and while this certainly is unrest, it may be individually noteworthy enough here. If there is rioting or other renewed unrest I think it would also deserve a high level summary mention here too. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, no objection here.

mandrels, plural of:

'man·drel noun \ˈman-drəl\

1

a : a usually tapered or cylindrical axle, spindle, or arbor inserted into a hole in a piece of work to support it during machining

b : a metal bar that serves as a core around which material (as metal) may be cast, molded, forged, bent, or otherwise shaped

2

the shaft and bearings on which a tool (as a circular saw) is mounted

I'll assume you hadn't finished your first coffee yet. :) ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Mandruss I was typing it on my phone in bed :) I'm going to blame autocorrect. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

MSNBC: A half-dozen witnesses report seeing Wilson fire on Brown as he fled.

"A half-dozen eye-witnesses have said publicly that they saw Brown flee from the vehicle as Wilson open [sic] fire with the fatal shots landing as the teen stopped, turned to the officer and raised his arms in surrender." http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/thomas-jackson-clarifies-comments-about-darren-wilson Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you pointing this out because you think this is referring to someone other than the witnesses we already discuss (in which case it would be important, but I disagree with that interpretation), or because you prefer this summary style to what we have currently (per some earlier discussions we have had)? If the latter, the NYTimes most recent summary is "Some witnesses later said that Mr. Brown appeared to be surrendering with his hands in the air as he was hit with the fatal gunshots. Others say that Mr. Brown was moving toward the officer when he was killed."[13] CBSs most recent summary is "Wilson claimed the teenager attacked him. Some witnesses have said Wilson and Brown struggled, either outside or inside the officer's vehicle. Others say they saw Brown with his hands over his head, getting on the ground." [14] Gaijin42 (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

MSNBC: from the calls, Wilson was given the description of a black male in a white T-shirt and red baseball cap

"The Post-Dispatch’s report included a call from police dispatch regarding a robbery at a nearby convenience store. Wilson had been on another call, and minutes later Wilson could be heard asking if his fellow officers needed help responding to the robbery report. Wilson was told that the suspects had left the convenience store. But from the calls, Wilson was given the description of a black male in a white T-shirt and red baseball cap. Shortly thereafter Wilson was on Canfield." http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/thomas-jackson-clarifies-comments-about-darren-wilson Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Lots of new info this weekend. These dispatch calls, the video at the station etc. Im quite surprised that this wasn't released/leaked earlier as it (imo) significantly reduces the strength of the "no knowledge of robbery, just Walking While Black" narrative that has been being pushed from the protesters/family.(which is not to say that it may not be true, just that it makes it not so much of a sure thing) Someone else has alerady update the shooting section with this info I believe. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The source of the claim that Wilson didn't know wasn't the protesters -- it was Chief Thomas Jackson. Would that Wikipedia editors and the reporters at the St. Louis Post Dispatch would keep this fact firmly in mind when they jump to point out that the dispatch tape contradicts the claims of the protesters/Wilson supporters. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware that the Chief that said that. But we know have somewhat irrefutable proof that Wilson was A) aware of the robbery and description. B) available to/possibly actively looking for the suspects. As for if he considered Brown/Jonson suspects or not, why would he ask for a second car for Jaywalkers? Its not conclusive, but its plausible. Again personally i think this is a place where the Chief just didn't know what he was talking about. I guess we will see how the reliable sources/grand jury interpret it over the next few days. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If that's your view, then what of this statement found in the Shooting section at present: "reportedly after realizing that Brown matched the description of the suspect in the stealing call." Does that pass the common sense standard? Wouldn't it make much more sense to conclude that from the moment that Brown was first visible to Wilson on the street that "Wilson realized that Brown matched the description of the suspect in the stealing call"? And wouldn't our readers be better served if a reliable source were to be found upon which we could hang such reporting? Not that such a source can be found. Here is a contrary source that insists on reporting what Wilson's surrogates said long before this dispatch recording was made public, as though this is the definitive explanation:

 Sources have told the Post-Dispatch that Wilson has told authorities that before the radio call 
 he had stopped to tell Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, 22, to quit walking down the middle of the street. 
 They kept walking, and he then realized that Brown matched the description of the suspect in the stealing call. 
 http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/special/darren-wilson-s-radio-calls-show-fatal-encounter-was-brief/html_79c17aed-0dbe-514d-ba32-bad908056790.html

But in a locally broadcast interview with the very same St. Louis Post Dispatch reporter who wrote the article from which I quote above, he says virtually the opposite, as can be seen in this video clip beginning at about 1:39. In his comment to Fox 2 News, he indicates that it was the Swisher Cigarillos that caused Brown to put two and two together -- not Brown matching the description of the suspects, i.e., not Brown's height and weight and enumeration of the clothing he was wearing.

http://fox2now.com/2014/11/15/michael-browns-parents-react-to-release-of-ferguson-police-calls/

I bring this all forward in the interest of improving the article should a reliable source make that possible for us at some point. Until then, it looks like we are stuck in, how did you say, "a place where the Chief just didn't know what he was talking about." Should a reliable source note the inconsistencies that this new evidence seems, to me at least, to make apparent, I believe that mention of the same should be made in the article. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

From the USA Today, Nov 15, 2014:

   MYTH: Wilson stopped Brown because he was a suspect in a robbery.
   FACT: Wilson did not know Brown was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery that happened moments before the shooting, 
   according to Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson. Wilson stopped Brown and his friend for walking in the middle of the street, Jackson said.
   http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/15/myths-and-facts-on-ferguson-shooting/19085451/

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on the information so far released, it's unclear when exactly Wilson realized that Brown and his companion matched the description relayed over the radio. It seems to have been sometime after the first verbal exchange but before the altercation occurred. The Chief's early description is not necessarily inconsistent with this. The evidence does establish, however, the Wilson was aware of the reported robbery and the description of the suspects before coming upon Brown. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Symphony protest

On October 4, a small group disrupted a symphony concert for a few minutes, apparently in St. Louis, in support of Brown. Someone got it on their cellphone and the article includes the video. Is this worth an entry in Reactions:Third parties? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally I see it as relevant to the unrest article, but probably not this one. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case Reactions:Third parties needs trimming, and the question becomes where to draw the line. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

My gut feel is specific notable voices ( NGOs, rights orgs, notable civil rights individuals) etc, with a high level summary of the collective public protests, but each individual action/event is probably too much detail for here (although a couple example items may be appropriate.). There have been many dozens of marches, meetings, hecklers, etc. To give even a one sentence coverage to each would swamp the article let a lone the section. This is of course just my own editorial judgement, others may draw the line elsewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Going down the current list my rough cut would be Sharpton yes, pastors no, petition yes, fundraising probably not but maybe, mass vigils yes, wilson fundraising same as brown fund raising, Anonymous yes but trimmed, monks maybe/no, 150 no, cornel brooks yes, pew study yes, Clinton yes (but wrong section?) The general public I thin kshould just get a paragraph saying there have been protests and meetings for the duration basically, but not detailing any particular one as more notable than any of the others. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, awaiting more opinions. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggest defining what is meant by reactions to the shooting of Michael Brown, so that it can be applied in an objective way. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well here's my take. Dictionary.com has two definitions for "react" that I think are relevant here. 1. to act in response to an agent or influence. 2. to respond to a stimulus in a particular manner. Both use the word "respond", and that should be the first test. If something happened that wouldn't have happened but for the shooting, it could be called a result but not necessarily a response. If I'm sitting on a tree branch and it breaks, my fall is not a response to the failure of the branch. My "OH FUCK!!" on the way down is. After passing that test, an item would be excluded if it belongs in the unrest article. And finally it must be significant enough to include. Objective is asking too much, if you mean a black-and-white, no-judgment-call-required kind of definition. The significance test in particular is a matter of editorial judgment. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case, you might consider removing items in the Reactions section that are reactions to the unrest, and moving them to the unrest article. For example,

August 12 – Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Representative Justin Amash of Michigan tweeted similar descriptions of Ferguson as a "war zone" in the aftermath of the police actions, with Amash calling the situation "frightening" on August 13 and Warren demanding answers on August 14.^[1]

BTW, I noticed that this item is already in the Ferguson unrest article,[15] so it would be just a matter of deleting it from this Shooting of Michael Brown article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we all agree that there are probably items that shouldn't be there, it's just a matter of agreeing on the criteria, as you suggested. If we used my criteria, the above example would fail my test #2. As for the overlap between articles, here's what I had to say about that on September 3 on the unrest article's talk page. I got no response, as you can see. Beyond that, how about we save the overlap issue for another section, to avoid getting too far off topic in this one. I don't think it really needs to be linked to this question, since we can always recover anything we remove from the history. Or we could just copy the entire Reactions section to a user sandbox before we remove anything. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

References

^ Cite error: The named reference Mediaite.Warren was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Three minutes or 90 seconds?

How long a duration shall we report to the world? In spite of the Glide recording which puts the final shot at roughly 12:02:24, and in spite of our claim that the incident began at 12:01, we've been running with 3 minutes for quite some time now. The news media today was all over the 90 second claim. In spite of numerous changes made to the Shooting section this weekend, the "less-than-three minutes" statement remains. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to assume that the clocks involved are accurate enough to use them for such an analysis? If so, would it be WP:SYNTH to do so? My answers are I don't know and yes. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 09:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

However, if you have a quality source or two for 90 seconds, no analysis is necessary. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Done ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Another RS on Judy Melinek's dial back of "out of context" quotes by the St. Louis Post Dispatch

   Pathologists say forensic science alone can't determine whether Wilson justifiably shot the teen. Judy Melinek, 
   a forensic pathologist based in California, says she was quoted out of context in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story 
   that said she thought the St. Louis County medical examiner's autopsy of Brown supported Wilson's claim that Brown 
   was reaching for his gun. Melinek and others say crucial missing information including blood-spatter evidence, 
   the number and location of bullet casings, the height of the officer's weapon and other ballistic information 
   must be factored in to determine what happened.
   http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/15/myths-and-facts-on-ferguson-shooting/19085451/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 08:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

We should certainly put something in qualifying Melinek's statements, but we need to be careful of how we summarize her "walking back". As far as I have read she has merely said that while the evidence she saw was consistent with Wilson's version, it could be consistent with other scenarios too (but I don't believe she said anywhere that it was consistent with any of the Brown version specifically, but I may be wrong), and that additional evidence would help narrow it down. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinking newspaper names, etc, in cites

Many editors like to wikilink things like St. Louis Post-Dispatch in cites, wherever possible. These links are functional both from the citation tooltips and from within the References section. This is not currently part of the local standard in this article, but it could be. Does anyone have an opinion one way or the other? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No objection, but also seems like a lot of work for not a ton of payoff. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course the additional work would be all mine, as part of the refs standardization that I already do, and I don't have a problem with that. I'm harboring fantasies of a future GA nomination, and I'll do anything that might improve the chances of success there. I just don't care to do it unless it would improve the chances of GA, or would significantly benefit readers, and I'm not a good judge of either. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Mandruss Thank you very much for the standardization work you do. I feel bad I just created a bunch more for you. I wish the tooling like reflinks or ProveIt supported that method of citation. In regards to GA, it may be tough to do it until quite a bit of time has passed. Although I do think we are doing a decent job of keeping things neutral in the article, when it comes time for a stamp of approval, its going to become nitpick city on every bit of info and how its presented. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Never feel bad about that, you're just giving me an opportunity to make a contribution, and I'm not that good at much else yet. Re GA, the same nitpicking must apply to any GA nomination, and some of them are successful. So I'd think this article would have as much chance as any, unless there is some bias against articles of this type. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I just meant that due to the politically charged nature of this topic, that nitpicking is likely to be worse. Regarding contributions, Be WP:BOLD if you think something is missing, or eneds to be changed do it. The worst thing that happens is that you get site banned :) (just kidding). Really the worst thing that happens is that you get reverted and someone calls you a bad name in talk, which isn't all that bad. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Shawn Parcells

This can be for general discussion of Parcells content (the earlier thread was archived already, and I have increased the archive age from 4 to 10 days).

To kick it off, Bob K31416, the content before this edit went to Parcells' integrity as well as his qualifications and competence. It directly juxtaposed his claim that he trained under Young with Young's denial of that. In other words, it made it clear that, regarding himself, he is either very careless about the truth or delusional. You have removed Parcells' claim, leaving only a vague sentence about Young's statements. Is it your contention that the content should not go to integrity? Over all, I liked the content better before that edit. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

When I compared the space taken up by the original version to the part about the autopsy, I thought it was too much of a digression about the shortcomings of an assistant. What remains has the essential points that Parcells isn't qualified to give medical forensics opinions, the concern about his participation in the autopsy, and Parcells response about the extent of his participation in the autopsy for NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I added the older sources because I think there is a risk of this being perceived as a he said/she said or swiftboating-style attack on his credentials due to the political nature of the case. The older investigations indicate that this is an ongoing issue with Parcells, not specifically related to this case. I do see the risk of getting WP:UNDUE with this info, but I think some of the content removed should go back. I have already re-added the washed bit with additional sources that make the impact analysis (Baden himself primarily) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The re-added washed bit and sources are fine. I stand by my previous comment regarding the Parcells part and don't think it should be expanded. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

lead citations

I was going to revert this edit [16] and point them at WP:LEADCITE but as I re-read it, it seems we may not be in good compliance.

Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons, must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement.

seems like it may cover quite a bit of the info that we have in the lead. Perhaps we should restore the citations? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't point to a guideline offhand, but it seems intuitive that anything of significance should be sourced somewhere in the article. I.e., the cite could be omitted in the lead for statements that summarize sourced information below. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, the guideline I linked is the only relevant one. It covers the principle of what you suggest (and that I agree with in general), but then explicitly says that certain things need to be cited no matter what. I was just raising the issue that maybe a decent portion of our lede falls into that category. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no direct quotations, and "some material including" is a fairly useless phrase in a guideline, so I assume you're referring to "contentious material about living persons". If contentious is the same as controversial, you may be right, although we don't say anything controversial in Wikipedia's voice. Btw, I see that's in MOS, which makes no sense; that's not about style. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Majority?

Sorry not doing this right but it says the usa is majority black? We are 11% black by population. The place where this happened is only 4% black when I looked it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.225.84.149 (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally, 67.4% is considered a majority. 2600:1006:B12E:AF89:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to the first sentence of the first message, I made this edit [17]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably superfluous, as no one refers to the U.S. as a "community". Whatever. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Brown Family Attorney criticizes grand jury process as carried out by prosecutor's office

[Ferguson Grand Jury 'Unfair,' Michael Brown Family Lawyer Says http://abcnews.go.com/US/ferguson-grand-jury-unfair-michael-brown-family-lawyer/story?id=27117993] If we are as encyclopedic as we claim, then I would think that in the final analysis, a great deal of focus should be applied to the how the prosecutor managed the grand jury proceedings. I believe that this attorney speaks for many in the African American community. Criticism of the process with attribution tied to notable critics such as this one is completely fair game, in my opinion. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT the "great deal" should be in proportion the the amount of coverage other secondary and tertiary sources give it. But certainly it should be looked at some. however, basing that critique on the statements of the Browns' lawyer is probably not the way to go. We should use neutral parties who are experts. Which is certainly not to say that Crump can't be a voice of criticism, but we shouldn't base the section on him. For example, the Dan Abrams quote from the same source sees much more valuable to me than Crumps (or McCulloch's) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Was Grand Jury the Best Option in Ferguson Case of Michael Brown? I don't think lack of attention to this matter is going to be a problem, G42. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

On the likelihood of a wrongful death civil suit

CNN: "Brown's family will probably file a wrongful death lawsuit against Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department, Callan and O'Mara said." What if? ... Potential fates of Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

could be, but WP:CRYSTAL until it happens (Note that a similar suit has not been filed against Zimmerman, where the MArtin family is represented by the same legal team). If they do file suit we should certainly cover at that time though. Such a suit is going to face a couple of hurdles. If the grand jury does not indict, presumably that means either they thought it was valid self defense, or at a minumum there wasn't enough proof to prosecute. That kicks in 563.074 [18] which grants civil immunity and all attorneys fees and expenses if a suit is brought (and ultimately determined to be self defense at that point). That's a risk the Brown family (and their lawyers) might not want to take.[19] A suit against the city/department as a whole however, saying that they have some bad policies, or training, or procedures or whatnot might be easier to get somewhere (and would have deeper pockets to go after too) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

St. Louis County director of judicial administration, Paul Fox vs. St. Louis Post-Dispatch

I'm starting to have my doubts as to whether we can continue, in good conscience, to consider the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to be a reliable source.

"The quote attributed to me in the Post-Dispatch this morning is not accurate," Fox said.

Records in Michael Brown Grand Jury Not Been Approved for Release

Purported graphic of Fox's memorandum here: https://twitter.com/mollyrosestl/status/536586167257694211/photo/1 Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

KSDK is live reporting that there is nothing in the law that would block Bob McCulloch from releasing any information or evidence that his office gathered in the course of their investigation. Here's an earlier report from the same source that includes a facsimile of Paul Fax's letter. That report doesn't make mention of what they are now referring to as a possible "end run" by McCulloch. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

At 6:12 PM CST, Nov. 24, 2014, KSDK St. Louis reported that Bob McCulloch withdrew his motion to disclose the evidence, this on his realization that he doesn't need the judge's permission to do so. The prosecutor, they claim, is not restrained by Missouri law from revealing anything. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

sources are all over the place on this. Ive seen some saying that it is a criminal for grand jurors themselves to give interviews about what the votes were or what the decision making process is. The sources abov eyou mention saying he can do it himself, and everywhere in between. Due to the discrepancies I think we should probably avoid prognosticating much on what is or is not allowed until something more official/final comes out. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"No indictment" should be in lead

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At the end of the lead, please replace "The events surrounding the shooting are under investigation by a county grand jury, which will decide whether there is probable cause to indict Wilson for his actions." with "The shooting was investigated by a county grand jury, which decided not to indict Wilson for his actions." This reflects current information which has sources later in the article. Thanks. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I am certain that you will see it in no time. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Isaidnoway (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wesley Lowery of Washington Post endorses Shaun King's distance research refuting Belmar's distance claims

Tweets from Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post post no-indict announcement.

Wesley Lowery ‏@WesleyLowery 6m6 minutes ago

Crucial is distance of Brown's body and - as we hear now for first time - any evidence that his blood trail circled back toward Wilson.

Wesley Lowery ‏@WesleyLowery 4m4 minutes ago

On day 2, police said body was 35 feet away from Wilson's vehicle. As @ShaunKing proved and McCulloch now says, was really 150 feet away.

Wesley Lowery ‏@WesleyLowery 3m3 minutes ago

That said McCulloch suggests in presser that blood trail doubles back toward vehicle -which Wilson will say supports "he charged me" defense

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

STL Post-Dispatch: Prosecutor McCulloch insists he will release evidence if no indictment

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: St. Louis County prosecutor will release records if no indictment Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Full testimony for the grand jury can be found here vvvv

graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-assets/grand-jury-testimony.pdf

Suggestion for move

Title should be "2014 Ferguson Riots" given the massive amount of damage, this is FAAAR from "unrest".2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:747C:4CF:F28D:A672 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added a section heading, as this has nothing to do with the "No indictment" section that you added it to.

I think you're in the wrong article, and that you wanted 2014 Ferguson unrest.

You are free to request a move (rename) of the other article, using the instructions at WP:RM. You would need to do this on the talk page for the other article. However, I think your request would fail as the other article is about a lot more than riots. The title is intended to encompass everything in the article, and "unrest" encompasses "riots" in addition to the other events. To stand a chance, you would have to present a far stronger case than you have done here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Documents from the grand jury

Documents Released in the Ferguson Case via The New York Times, 25 Nov 2014

CNN has posted the documents released from the grand jury.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice find! Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've read all of Officer Wilson's testimony now. It was interesting seeing how that whole process worked. It also seems very likely that the earlier leak of his testimony was, in fact, genuine. Was there anything worthwhile or usable that anyone else found in anything? Remember, testimony from an eyewitness is generally going to be a primary source, whereas we treat expert testimony a bit differently. I'd recommend to anyone going through these with an eye towards adding stuff to the article to review WP:RS and WP:V guidelines before they do so. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

> CNN > credible source

Earlier I had added an external link to Darren Wilson's testimony. I replaced it with the above link to all the released Grand Jury documents. – JBarta (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried to archive a couple of the individual PDFs at archive.org. It accepted the request, but it didn't work. The request "completes" in just a few seconds, far too quickly for a PDF of that size, and then all I get is a blank window with the word "Loading". Is documentcloud.org an adequate long-term host for these files? It might be worth someone else trying it to see if the problem is unique to my configuration. I use Firefox 33 with its built-in PDF reader. I'd suggest trying Volume 4 or or higher to avoid the ones I've already tried, so my failure doesn't affect your results. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Original research, however I doubt there will be a dearth of RS that will analyze the documents for us very soon.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

CNN has something about it here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

KSDK Channel 5 analysis of the new information has been very good. Hopefully, some of it will be referenceable and not just dissipate into the radio ether forever never to be seen again. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Autopsy reference

http://www.stltoday.com/online/pdf-autopsy-report-for-michael-brown/pdf_ce018d0c-5998-11e4-b700-001a4bcf6878.html --98.252.228.87 (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks! Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, this confirmed my suspicions about the other head wound; both the fatal gunshot wound to Brown's scalp and the non-fatal one to his forehead were at a downward angle, with the bullet that struck his forehead going through his right eye before exiting through his jaw. The chest wounds were "downward and backward", which could be consistent with his body being at an angle as well. The wound on his upper ventral right arm had a track of upward, backward, and leftward, and the dorsal right forearm had a upward, forward, and leftward track. All of the wounds were noted as lacking stippling and soot save the hand wound, which was lacking stippling but they noted the presence of "a focal area of discoloration near the ventral surface of the base of the right thumb". Interestingly, the toxicology report at the end indicates the presence of 12 ng/mL of Delta-9-THC in his blood (but not his urine), which earned the note "Delta-9-THC dectection in the blood defines impairment." Delta-9-THC is the active psychoactive ingredient in marijuana; 11-nor-delta-9-THC-COOH is the secondary metabolite of THC (which can linger in the body for days) and 11-hydroxy-THC is the primary metabolite (which doesn't last as long). There wasn't any 11-hydroxy-THC in his blood, which is interesting because there is Delta-9-THC. This study suggests that the psychomotor effects of THC are present at as low as 3-5 ng/mL of THC in the blood, but that is far from conclusive, unfortunately, as the article notes elsewhere. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Image of testimony?

What is the purpose of having an image of the document that links to a PDF file of Darren Wilson's testimony? I've never seen such an image in a Wikipedia article. A simple link would suffice. In fact, all of the grand jury documents are linked in the External Links section. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014

This edit request to Shooting of Michael Brown has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Noticed a phrase with some typos and missing words: "She claimed in an Interview with Lawrence O'Donnell that never said that the autopsy supported Only Wilson's version of events." should probably be changed to "She claimed in an interview with Lawrence O'Donnell that she never said that the autopsy supported only Wilson's version of events." Thanks! 96.227.116.225 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Done -

Thank you - Mr X 16:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson's injuries

Currently the article describes Wilson's injuries as minor. The one photo, viewing his chin from below, appears to be a pretty harsh bruise. I also suspect some areas of the face are not prone to bruising very much and they often take some time to show up. I think the "minor" term needs rewording.

Do you know of any sources that say his injuries were something other than minor? Looking at a picture would be original research.- Mr X 14:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that the given source did not make the statement about minor injuries, it only presented tweets with the comment, "On Twitter, reaction was less than sympathetic".[20] The tweets were the basis for the Wikipedia editor's contribution about minor injuries.[21]. I think it should be deleted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: The text and source were changed.[22][23] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not sure how useful those photographs are anyway. According to testimony, the reason he was taken to the hospital was because his supervisor thought he needed to go there, which implies that the swelling must have been pretty noticeable. I suspect that it would be easier to tell how messed up he was if we knew what his face looked like normally. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of that could be addressed by giving both profiles since it appears that the primary injury is just to that one cheek. Certainly the injuries were not as severe as say George Zimmermans. No broken bones, cuts, bleeding, etc. That of course doesn't mean that at that time Wilson did not have a reasonable fear that life threatening injuries were happening or would happen shortly. But I think we should present to the readers the physical evidence of what did happen. Certainly we should not be doing our own analysis of the injuries (in mainspace). If the medical report was released in the evidence that description would be best. Otherwise descriptions from medical experts. Pundit opinions I think we should largely discount. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Economist

A sober and neutral presentation at The Economist [24] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Worthwhile read, but there's no such thing as a neutral editorial piece. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A good read. One bit they missed (that most have missed) is that self defense significantly skews how probable cause works. We KNOW Wilson shot Brown. The elements of the crime are stipulated. The issue is, "was it justified". Therefore the preponderance of the evidence needs to show that it was not. At the real trial, its even harder. You have to prove that it was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats a tricky thing to do since you essentially have to evaluate Wilson's thoughts at the time. (Actual threat vs reasonable interpretation of threat etc). Maybe thats a bad standard and we should change it, but it is what the standard is. Nobody is going to change the law mid-case (nor if they did would it apply). Therefore the evaluation under that standard isn't very surprising. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

[Mediaite.Warren-1] Cite error: The named reference Mediaite.Warren was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]