Talk:Killing of Philando Castile/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Not a news ticker

This is an encyclopedia article, not a breaking news article. Please avoid adding short-lived, transitory material. Thanks. Sca (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I often wonder why Wikipedia covers topics like this as a single item if it does not want to have breaking news articles. It is breaking news as is. Now, if there is a lengthy article on Police Shootings, this would make for a suitable section. Along with all of the others shootings, showing a trend in North America. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the place to raise this issue would be Wikipedia talk:In the news. – Sca (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Limit the narrative in the article only to facts - this article goes too far

As an example, while CNN does describe Reynolds as the fiancé of Castile, it appears their only source is Reynolds. There is nothing in the article I read that says CNN confirmed their relationship with another party. While I did not look at every source where she is cited as a finance or girlfriend, I suspect most other media accounts of the relationship are largely based on Ms. Reynolds' representation alone. Further, why is it important to define their relationship? If she is simply the person in the car with him while he was shot, people can then draw their own conclusions. Did they break-up earlier in the day? Who knows? Unless they are married, and the marriage has been legally verified, then she should just be the rider in the car. Calling Ms. Reynolds his girlfriend or fiancé is done to give her greater credibility than can be verified at this time. Additionally, there are many places on this website, and in the above discussions, that stress the need for a minimum of two sources for verifiability. Yet numerous statements from Ms. Reynolds are listed in the article, statements that make strong and broad implications and accusations, which cannot be verified by any other source, as no one else was there besides the officer. While what she said can be verified by many sources, the actuality and truth of her statements cannot. As was the case with the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, it was subsequently determined that many initial statements made by supposed witnesses to the shooting were not close in the accuracy to the actual events, and some initial statements were determined to be made by people who were not even there. The article cites one source that states Castile had a permit to carry a weapon. That article cites a “source” as their only support for the claim. How can this possibly be used by Wikipedia as one legitimate support for a claim, let only two? There may also be a very different set of facts for this shooting that will become public once the Minnesota BCA completes their investigation. It has frequently happened where an official investigation’s results differ from the initial narrative. The recognition of this occurrence should give great pause to Wikipedia using verbal sources. As is said many times, Wikipedia is not meant to be a breaking news website. There is not a great deal of verifiable facts known about the Castile shooting. This article may need to be very short for the time being, until more details can be shown to be factually correct. If users want to get their news information, there are hundreds and hundreds of ways for them to do so. Wikipedia should be different – only the known facts of the incident. While you can certainly qualify everything Reynolds has said as coming only from her own statements, why is it necessary to even cite her version at all? An encyclopedia, until it knows for sure, should simply state that “Ms. Diamond Reynolds, a front seat passenger in the car with Mr. Philando Castile, made numerous statements about the shooting immediately after the shooting, both during the recording of a video she made while still in the car, and in the subsequent days after the shooting.” Rsbarnes (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC) Rsbarnes

Basing facts solely on the statements of Diamond Reynolds, would not be reliable. I think that Diamond Reynolds called him her best friend. I think that eventually MJ smoking in this incident might be added to the article if it is reliably sourced, with perhaps the effects of MJ on the brain as only a possible explanation (without assertion) of Castile's behavior in the car -- as well as the probability (or lack of it) that Diamond was telling the truth under the influence of a "truth drug." As to the carry permit, I think that the evidence is now strong that Hennepin county gave Castile a carry permit http://www.cbsnews.com/news/philando-castiles-family-reveals-his-gun-permit/ (PeacePeace (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC))

Edit requested

Please change the Incident section. It says he was driving an Oldsmobile Aurora. Fat lie.

Wikipedia should not knowingly put out false information. Even if the reporters are idiots, we should use a source only if it is reliable. If the source is garbage and we know it, do not use it.

See Wikipedia....

• 
  1998–1999 Oldsmobile Eighty-Eight
• 
  Oldsmobile driven by Philando Castile, whose killing led to a sniper attack in Dallas, TX, USA in 2016.
• 
  Oldsmobile Aurora

Look at the grille

Look at the rear door window

Look at the general shape

Look at the driver's window.

Solution is to leave out "Oldsmobile Aurora". Just take out the Aurora part and Wikipedia will be fine. Mayor P Boyd (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not just remove the model of the car? It's just a point of trivia. It does not add anything to the reader's understanding of the events. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Leave out the model name, which is wrongly stated as Aurora. Leave the make in, which is Oldsmobile. Mayor P Boyd (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done I have updated the article removing the vehicle model information. Dane2007 (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Good compromise. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Let us assume good faith (not "fat lie," but "skinny, slight goof.") Yet the model may have some relevance in establishing or disestablishing a connection with the robbery which was apparently the cause of stopping Castile's car. Did Castile's car resemble that of the robber? Eventually it will be relevant to rule out any theory that Castile was in fact that robber. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC))

New Zealand travel advice

I've removed New Zealand from the list [1] as it's misleading to include it as it wasn't in any way a response to this shooting. If you look at the primary source, it was last reviewed i.e. updated early June [2] i.e. long before either recent contentious shooting or the Dallas incident. The Australian source [3] may seem imply the NZ warning was new, but if you read it careful no where does it actually say when the advice was issued. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Calibre Press Bulletproof Warrior

It might be worth fleshing out the Calibre Press article in relation to the Bulletproof Warrior seminar the officer attended. [4][5] [6][7] Right now it is just an advertisement. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Different versions of what happened

I'd like to see more about the different accounts of the incident. Please don't favor one side over another.

Maybe a chart or table could show the primary witness (Reynolds) and compare/contrast her statements with the statements of others (or videos others have posted).

Two differences that stand out to me are:

• Man reaching into his pocket
  1. Was he told to get his license and registration out?
  2. Did the cop say NOT to reach into his pocked but to show an open hand?
• First aid
  1. Did no cop render first aid (as Reynolds said)?
  2. Does a video show a cop rendering first aid?

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I just want the article to be clear and neutral. Thanks for listening. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course the nature of the first aid is significant. Some reliable source may comment on the helpfulness of the first aid given, or its harmfulness -- like pressure to stop blood flow, like chest compressions/CPR on a guy shot 4 times (doubtful positive value), defib and oxygen (doubtful that cops carry those), and IV bags (cops would not have those, but how soon they got him on one is significant, how fast paramedicas got there & what they did to try to save him). An interview of the paramedics would be a useful addition to the article. (PeacePeace (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC))

What evidence of the nature of the relationship between Castile and Reynolds?

The article describes Diamond Reynolds as Castile's "girlfriend". On what grounds, beyond her claiming this to be the case? Her Facebook profile lists her as "married". There do not appear to be any photos of her on his Facebook page. Her reaction to his being shot, captured on her video feed, seems to me to be utterly at odds with someone in a relationship. Since he's not in a position to confirm or deny the claim, I'd like to see some other evidence of that being the status of their relationship. Bricology (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Facebook accountsē are not reliable sources. CNN, on the other hand, is a reliable source. This describes him as her fiancé. The BBC describes her as his girlfriend. So do other multiple sources. We go with what they say. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. There could be an infinite number of reliable secondary sources saying that she was his girlfriend, but if all they are going on is what she told them, that doesn't make it factual. You say that "Facebook accounts are not reliable sources". Neither is verbal hearsay, even when that hearsay is parroted by the media. She created the content in her Facebook account, which states that she's married. She also told the media that Castile was her boyfriend. Since she is the source of both claims, and both are hearsay, both should carry equal weight. If there were no conflicting pieces to this, I wouldn't raise concerns, but given the rather glaring inconsistencies, I think it's quite legitimate to ask if there's any independent confirmation of that status. If, for example, her Facebook status said that she was single, but she told people she was married to Castile, that would certainly raise questions and any news media outlet would be failing due diligence if they did not ask for, or look for, corroboration to clarify the conflict. She's already benefiting from their alleged relationship, from fundraisers that have generated more than $50,000 for her, in just 5 days since the shooting. A multimillion-dollar wrongful death lawsuit is already in the works and Ms. Reynolds is, no doubt, hoping to be the beneficiary of it. So the actual nature of their relationship ought to raise questions. After all, if she was lying or even exaggerating the nature of their relationship, it wouldn't be the first time that someone had opportunistically lied about the nature of their relationship with a deceased person for personal gain. Bricology (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why this particular point concerns you so much. Wikipedia is not a media outlet and we must strive always to maintain a neutral point of view. It is our job to just report what the sources say, and they all describe Ms. Reynolds as Mr. Castile's partner or girlfriend. It is NOT our job to "raise questions". I am doing my best to assume good faith but going on what you have written above, you appear to have a bias against Ms Reynolds, accusing her of wanting financial gain out of this event. As you are a long-standing editor I am sure you must have read WP:V and WP:NPOV - may I remind you that they are both core policies and fundamental to how Wikipedia works.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This particular point concerns me precisely because WP strives to present NPOV. So far, the only POV (and that's precisely what hearsay is) is coming from one source: Ms. Reynolds. That's why I was asking if anyone knew of any other sources to corroborate her claim. An infinite number of secondary sources that all rely upon her hearsay is simply a circular argument. Do I have a bias against Ms. Reynolds? No, I'm simply not willing to accept anyone's claims when they appear to conflict with other evidence, and that evidence exists, whether you like it or not. So at the very least, I'm going to include the relationship status that she listed on her Facebook account. Bricology (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that if reliable sources emerge to say that she was not in fact in any relationship with Mr. Castile, that should be added to the article. But there to not appear to be any. Mr. Castile's mother has been interviewed and as far as I'm aware has not cast any doubt on Ms. Reynold's story (nor has she confirmed it). You say "evidence exists" but if it is just a Facebook relationship status, I do not feel that is enough to use in the article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I never suggested that Reynolds and Castile had no relationship whatsoever; clearly, they were at the very least acquainted (as can be determined from the video she posted a few days earlier of her and Castile smoking pot together in the car, with her daughter). In the video she made immediately after he was shot, she describes Castile as her "boyfriend". More recently, she has begun describing him as her "fiancé". In her Facebook profile, she lists herself as being married. Obviously, if she actually is married (one presumes, to someone other than Castile), then that would be significant. One can't just handwave away the Facebook relationship status. It's well established through case law that on-line assertions (and that includes the selecting of one's status) are the equivalent of speech. That leaves us with a contradiction between her verbal speech, her textual speech and her selection of relationship status on Facebook. Until those conflicting statuses are resolved, it's reasonable to include all three here. This careful expression of assertions is already in the article. For example, the lede clarifies that it is Reynolds who asserts that Castile was "licensed to carry (a handgun)", but so far there has been no evidence to support that claim, nor has the other party (the police officer) been able to confirm or deny that statement, so it is not presented as being factual. Likewise, I have attempted to clarify the conflicting statements about the nature of her relationship with Castile in the lede. Bricology (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The exact nature of their relationship has little to no bearing on the shooting or the reader's understand of it. You're comment about opportunism is speculation approaching blp violations as it accuses her of fraud. Further it suggests you wish to add this info to cast some negative light on her. It's also OR on your part. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No one is insisting upon knowing the exact nature of their relationship; no one cares about the nature of their sexual relationship, who does the cooking and cleaning, who balances the checkbook or whether or not they like to hold hands. The general, basic status of their relationship is all that's needed. "Boyfriend", "fiancé" and "husband" are three wildly different statuses. Why are you not advocating for her being described here as his fiancée, as she has repeatedly described herself? Due to conflicting statements from Reynolds, we don't know which he was. Conflicting statements such as these would, in court, cast serious doubt upon the testimony of a witness, and that is precisely what Reynolds is being portrayed as here: the witness to what may be a capital murder case. Credibility is as important as accuracy. If she gave three different accounts to the media about the events of the evening, it would uncontroversially cast doubt upon her credibility. If she's not credible about the basic nature of her relationship with Castile, it may well be that her account of the incident is likewise not credible. This has obvious significance (to anyone but you, apparently): if she was someone that he had just met a few days earlier, her views would be significantly different than if they had been married for ten years; most sensible people would recognize that. SHE is asserting that she knew that he had a firearm (how would she know?). SHE is asserting that she knew that he had a carry permit (how would she know?). SHE is asserting that she knew that he had his ID in his pants pocket (how would she know?), and so on -- things that people who were not intimately involved would be unlikely to know. It is in no way OR to ask for additional information to clarify contradictory claims made by the same person. It's no more OR or controversial than the fact that the lede already reads "According to Reynolds, after being asked for his license and registration..." instead of just stating "After being asked for his license and registration..." That already introduces the claim as being her assertion, rather than it being established as a matter of fact. But you have a problem with how the article describes her relationship with Castile -- a matter that is no more proved to be factual than her claim about the incident is, and into which she has herself introduced contradiction? You're cherry-picking what you choose to object to. I wonder why? Bricology (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bricology: Wikipedia is not a court; we don't take witness character into account unless the RS do as well. Doing so is adding our own editorial opinions into the article, which is OR and a violation of NPOV. We can easily use a more general term like "significant other" or "romantic partner" without putting a specific label on it. If you want to know the exact nature of their relationship, find sources that discuss it. It is not for us to speculate on it in the article. We are not detectives trying to uncover the "truth" of her claims to be his girlfriend/fiancee. We attribute the claims from Reynolds to her, as we should. That is sufficient. I am not cherry-picking in any sense as I'm not pulling on a few choice sources to support one label or another. Rather I'm saying the label is not an issue to the article. Feel free to speculate on why I say this all you like. NPOV and OR are policy, and we must stick to them. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

As Eclipsoid mentioned in their revert, the edit that was made regarding this "clarification" based off of conflicting reports adds no value to the article. I agree as well that this information does not have enough verifiability. Dane2007 (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand verifiability:

• "Castile is Reynolds' boyfriend."
• "Castile is Reynolds' fiancé."
• "Reynolds is married."

Those are ALL solidly verifiable sources. The Wall Street Journal, NY Times, ABC, BBC, NPR and CBS all say she's his girlfriend. CNN, NBC and the Washington Post all say she's his fianceé. Reynolds' own Facebook account says that she's married. All of these contradictory claims are based entirely upon what Reynolds told them. Which is accurate? The fact is that you don't know, and apparently neither does anyone else except Reynolds, but you're perfectly happy to have a potentially inaccurate description given here, and to claim that it "has no bearing" on the matter. Of course, if the police officer who shot Castile had told some reporters that he graduated at the top of his class at the police academy, told others that he had graduated in the middle, and on his Facebook page said that he was lucky to have graduated at all, it would be noncontroversial to include that here, even if it might suggest that his statements may not be credible. Bricology (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not contradictory to say "boyfriend" and "fianceé", and it is not that uncommon for two people in a long term committed relationship to consider themselves "married" even if they don't avail themselves of the legal institution. I really don't see why this is such a big deal. — Strongjam (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Strongjam wrote "It is not contradictory to say 'boyfriend' and 'fianceé' [sic]". That's as disingenuous as saying that it's not contradictory to say "friend", "boyfriend" and "husband", since the same person may have been all three. Also, you have no evidence to suggest that Reynolds and Castile were "in a long term committed relationship", and yet that's just what you've suggested here. It's a "big deal" because accuracy matters in life -- and particularly in cases like this that are inflammatory. It may have missed your attention, but five people were flat-out murdered in Dallas last week because one person accepted without question the hearsay-driven narrative of the deaths of Castile and Sterling. All WP editors ought to be particularly vigilant against allowing questionable information find its way into articles that may contribute to that. We're not talking about a dispute over who invented the Barbie Doll here; we're talking about circumstances that cause people to kill others because they're operating on false information. Bricology (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bricology:"When reliable sources disagree, we must maintain a neutral point of view" which is right out of the verifiability policy. Additionally, Facebook is not a reliable source according to reliable source examples. In your reply you stated that if this were the case of the police officers claims that the inclusion would be noncontroversial when in fact I would treat this same situation in the exact same manner as the reliable sources are conflicting. As stated earlier, you seem intent on using this information to cast a negative light on her using your own original research. I maintain my original position that this information does not significantly change the understanding of the incident at this point in time and therefore should not be included as it may also be observed as a blp violation. I would suggest you post this to the appropriate noticeboard to get a wider opinion. Dane2007 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Dane2007 wrote "Facebook is not a reliable source according to reliable source examples." OK, I'll try again: the ONLY reason that ANY of those reliable secondary sources are describing Reynolds as Castile's "girlfriend" or "fianceé" is because that is what she told them. Those "reliable" secondary sources are merely echoing a primary source. They are repeating hearsay, they're not lending it any veracity. (And it's certainly not like they've done due-dilligence!) What source is there to think that she's married? Again: it's what she said. She's the same and only source for all three conflicting claims. And what if she actually is married? It would certainly be to someone other than Castile, or she would be referring to him as her "husband", not her "boyfriend" or "fiancé". It would certainly change the complexion of the case and the opinion of the public, if that is factual. And what if she isn't his girlfriend or fianceé? That would also change both the complexion of the case and the public's opinion. So the matter of their relationship status is significant. There may be information that could be provided that would clarify the matter, but it's unlikely to be offered by Reynolds. Without clarification, Reynolds appears to lack credibility as a source for the claim that's being repeated here. Pretending that clarity exists where it doesn't is not the business of WP, nor is giving people the benefit of the doubt in contradictions. We need to tread very carefully with articles like this, and err on the side of either leaving out information that isn't reliable, or where there is contradictory evidence, providing information about that contradiction. This would be an uncontroversial statement in most articles. Here, it seems to have pushed the buttons of some people who are interested in promoting one narrative, even if it happens to be unreliable. Bricology (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, it's not up to us to fact check or investigate. We do not assess the credibility of the person quoted by sources. We rely on the reliability of the sources per WP:RS. What matters is verifiability (see the essay WP:TRUTH). Whether or not Reynolds is a credible sources or not doesn't matter. What matters is that nearly every reliable sources quoted her. We attribute her statements to her. You assume people who are not on your "side" are pushing a narrative, which is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Please stop that silliness. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir wrote "Again, it's not up to us to fact check or investigate. We do not assess the credibility of the person quoted by sources. We rely on the reliability of the sources per WP:RS. What matters is verifiability". Well then it's a good thing that I've never suggested that we were supposed to be "fact-checking" or "investigating" anything. My suggestion was that we simply include the multiple, contradictory terms already in use in the media instead of subjectively choosing to use just one of them. "What matters is that nearly every reliable sources quoted her." ...and quoted her as being more than one thing: "girlfriend" and "fianceé". You want to handwave away the fact that the two are not synonymous. I want to include both here to show that those reliable sources say two things that are not necessarily the same. And as Occam's Shaver pointed out below, Facebook is considered a reliable source when it comes to what a person says about themselves. She says she's married. That's quite significant. "We attribute her statements to her." ...except when we don't want to, apparently, such as when she says she's married. "You assume people who are not on your "side" are pushing a narrative". The only "side" I have is objectivity. I don't see much of that from people who are, for whatever reason, intractably against simply including additional, relevant, properly sourced information here, and instead defending the exclusive use one particular term, giving the false impression that reliable sources are unanimous in their depiction of her status. Bricology (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Dane2007, Facebook is sometimes considered to be a reliable source, regarding information that a user posts about themselves and about their activities. For example on Omar Mateen: "ABC News and Fox News reported that on the early morning of June 12, the day of the attack, Mateen posted on one of his Facebook accounts: 'The real muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west...You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes...now taste the Islamic state [sic] vengeance' as well as 'America and Russia stop bombing the Islamic state.' His final post to Facebook was 'In the next few days you will see attacks from the Islamic State in the usa.' These posts, since deleted, were uncovered by the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs". Also on 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting: "...the analysis of Mateen's computer after the shooting showed that his social media accounts, including Facebook, had no ties to any terrorist groups, and that he did not post any 'radical statements' until the early morning of the shooting..." So clearly, information that a user posts on Facebook can have significance. I'm not entirely convinced that it does here, but I thought I'd point out that it is indeed sometimes used on Wikipedia as a reliable source for both information and quotation, relative to what a user posts about themselves or their activities. That seems to me to be Bricolage's point. Occam's Shaver (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Occam's Shaver; that's what I was trying to get at. Some editors here are being particularly curatorial about what they want to allow into the article, dismissing a source that the media, the government and other reliable sources that we uncontroversially quote here, routinely use. The irony is that Wikipedia itself used to be disparaged as being unreliable, largely because some people were incapable of looking beyond the content that editors synthesized, to the reliable secondary sources that were cited to support that content. It looks to me like a similar argument is being played out here by people who want to claim that Facebook posts and status, entered by a person of interest, aren't valid sources. Of course they're not valid sources for things outside of Facebook, but they absolutely are valid sources for information about the person in question. Bricology (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It is said above, "Facebook is sometimes considered to be a reliable source, regarding information that a user posts about themselves and about their activities." Well then would not then this "reliable source" be unusable on Wikipedia as a PRIMARY SOURCE? (PeacePeace (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC))

No, it would make it usable as a primary source. Here's what WP:NOR says: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." ([[fourth paragraph under "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources") That seems to me to easily encompass the intended inclusion of Reynolds' Facebook status here. A status is intended to be a description of fact. Given that being married or not is a legal status that is administered by the state, it is fundamentally "a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact", and not one conjecture or subjective opinion. Bricology (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on primary sources. As to marriage being a straightforward fact, I think you are 95 percent correct. But as a matter of fact common-law-marriage muddies the water. And it can be a legal hassel to determine if some persons were married or not when they live together for some time. Now Minnesota is not a common-law-marriage state. but I came across this on the internet:

"The Minnesota legislature abolished common-law marriage in 1941. However, Minnesota does recognize common-law marriages that were legal contracted outside of Minnesota."

I never heard that this couple cohabited or cohabited outside of Minnesota in a common-law-marriage state. But Lavish did claim for herself "married" on Facebook -- but I didn't see the name of a husband. Of course people can put fictitious personal information on Facebook. It doesn't seem all that important, but thus far, I have not been convinced of exactly what their relationship was, aside from being close friends. I think she did call him her fiancé at one point, without a ring to show. BTW, in one of Lavish's apparently selfie videos, she apparently states that she is pregnant & happy that it is a boy. If the child is by Philando, then it becomes IMHO an essential part of this tragedy, and would belong in the article, assuming that the purpose of the article is not exclusively to assign guilt over who is responsible for the killing. (PeacePeace (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC))

References

He was reaching for his pocket while annoucing that he had a firearm, according to Lavish

One thing that Diamond Lavish Reynolds says in one of the videos is that while he was reaching, Philando announced to the cop that he had a firearm. I didn't see that in the story. Should it not be added to the article? There should be a dash cam video made by the police. Has anyone seen it? I have been unable to find it on the internet. Also, I have not found any statement that the St. Anthony police wore body cams. Neither have I found any reference to any reporter asking about police cameras. There are internet interpretations of the picture of PHilando claiming that a gun is visible on his thigh, under something else. It does not look like a gun to me necessarily, but we await clarification. Eventually this article should include something about cams (or their absence) and the black outline on the thigh, what it is. (PeacePeace (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC))

While we are likely to get come commentary about body cams, I believe I read that there was not one in this situation. The dash cam is unlikely to have anything of value, because by all accounts, there was no struggle, and reaching for a wallet or a gun will be not visible through the windshield or car seats at all - let alone telling the difference between the two. Regarding the item visible, the great majority of commentary is that it is not obviously recognizable as anything. But even if it is recognizable as a gun, that is irrelevant as the officer was already informed Castile had a gun. This is ultimately a he said/she said about where Castile's arms moved, when, and if the officer's fear is reasonable or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I don't recognize the black area as anything, but it may have been something. Don't you see a big difference between telling a cop that he had a gun, & also seeing it out on a suspect's thigh? Is it possible that a dash cam might have picked up the cop's voice when he was at the window of the car. Would the readers of the article like to know at what point the cop drew his gun? (PeacePeace (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC))

As for voice and timing, sure those could be interesting to readers, but they are very unlikely to give any conclusive answers. Yanez and Reynolds largely agree on the timing and the cops actions, even without a video. No, I don't see a difference at all. The gun was legal. The cop knew about the gun. Its visibility or not is completely irrelevant, unless it can be shown that Castile was actually reaching for it (or something that could be reasonably confused as such).The missing piece is what/how Castile did or did not do and how. that reflects on Yanez' reactions. But the dash cam is very unlikely to shed any light on that. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've not read any sources that said that particular PD had dash cams or officer cams. Neither are required. The legal standard applied is whether a reasonable police officer would be in fear of death or serious injury to himself or others. The legality of the firearm is largely irrelevant as are errors in identification. It's also from the officers perspective. That's why prosecutions are difficult and it's from a supreme court decision. Officers that are involved in shootings rarely invoke the 5th amendment (in fact, they will be fired if they do). Contrast that with off-duty arrests for things like DUI where they almost always invoke all their rights availed to them. It's beyond this article a bit but the bottom line is that Reynolds will testify as a witness for facts as she saw them but not for the reasonable police officer standard as she is not a police officer. Yanez will testify to facts as he saw them and in addition he will testify to his training and experience that made his response meet the reasonable police officer standard (one bit will undoubtedly be training that "action beats reaction" and waiting to react to someone drawing their gun is too late). Unless there is contradictory forensic evidence that shows false statements or other officers that contradict his view of "reasonable" it's extremely difficult to even bring charges. That's officer involved shootings in a nutshell and the motions that the investigators and prosecutors are going through. --DHeyward (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yanez and Kausner in different cars?

The account of the traffic stop seems to imply that Yanez and Kausner were riding in the same car. Even implying that Yanez radioed another car and said he would wait. Considering how most depts operate, how much Yanez is credited for radio calls (calling other car, calling in traffic stop, calling in description), it seems likely that Yanez and Kausner were in different cars and Yanez radioed Kausner and waited for him before initiating the stop. I haven't seen detail either way so at the very least, the sentence about Yanez radioing that he would wait wait should be removed as it implies he did not wait if they are in the same car. If they were diferent cars, the sentence doesn't identify that the officer may have been his partner and that he did wait for him. The implied stuff needs to go if we don't have sources to back it up. --DHeyward (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV?

Does the paragraph which starts as below belong in this article?

News sources including The New York Times stated that a record like Castile's indicates how "even peaceful encounters, like all but one of Mr. Castile’s, can lead to fines, searches, arrests and days of sitting in courtrooms that disproportionately affect poorer citizens"; it cited an American Civil Liberties Union report stating that "African-Americans and Native Americans in Minneapolis were eight times more likely than whites to be charged with a low-level infraction".

As written the article seems to indicate that driving without a license (repeatedly) and driving without insurance are "minor" matters. Do we want to have a politically correct polemical article which blames the system for targeting Afro-Americans vs the POV that they commit more crimes than others & thus get charged more? There is a contentious & highly-opinionated debate over whether Afro-Americans are persecuted by the system or whether social conditions leads to a higher crime rate from the same population. Should this article take a side in this debate? Or would it be better to objectively focus on this shooting itself? The New York Times is a famous liberal paper as is the ACLU. Now does someone want to change this and quote a conservative paper which in term cites some conservative pressure group? Is this NPOV? (PeacePeace (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC))

An article in today's StarTribune addresses the issue, and cites both data released last week by St. Anthony (finding that 41% of those arrested were blacks, who form only 6% of the population), as well as a 2003, "$4.3 million study of nearly 200,000 traffic stops", which showed a significant disparity in stops. Dan Browning, "Racial disparities in Twin Cities arrests are widespread", Minneapolis StarTribune (July 19, 2016). Those figures do not necessarily demonstrate overt bias, but do suggest implicit bias, as stated in the article. Kablammo (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

No doubt there will be different opinions on this -- and it is not really a yes vs no question. Out of a million policemen, no doubt there are racist actions by some; & no doubt sometimes African-Americans are not pursued becs of the fear of being labeled a racist. I think it very difficult to quantify this. But I am sure that this kind diatribe should not be a part of this article. The promulgation of the POV that Castile was persecuted for being black (utterly unproven) or is a part of general persecution of blacks in the USA by police, has dangerous consequences. It can lead to a racist chip on the shoulder whereby persons jump to conclusions without proof. In the case of the recent shootings, it resulted in a number of policemen being murdered by racists overtly because they were white. Those who promulgate the belief that there is in the police racial bias against black (unproven), are partly responsible for the violence we have seen. We all need to be unjudgmental and to refrain from explaining tragedies in terms of racism without good proof. This article in Wikipedia should not fan the flames of violence by publishing unnecessary racist interpretations. As a matter of fact it is quite possible to explain these tragic shootings without any reference to race. Nor to my knowledge has a shred of evidence been brought forth to prove that Yanez was part of any police prejudice vs blacks. To suggest that without proof is irrationally polemical and constitutes a very dangerous promotion of violence in the USA, and promotion of murdering innocent policemen. It does not belong in Wikipedia. (PeacePeace (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC))

For our purposes, the characterization of conclusions from the studies can come from the cited experts (Richard S. Frase and Myron Orfield). Kablammo (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

As to your most recent addition to the paragraph above: Listen to the tape from the police scanner. What does "wide-set nose" suggest to you? Kablammo (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The nose suggests to me that the officer was matching characteristics of the recent robber with the guy he saw in the car he would pull over (if he had been blond, he would have been looking for a blond), and it also suggests to me that perhaps he did not want to say "black" to avoid being accused of racial prejudice. But I don't think that this Wikipedia article is the place to argue this political chestnut. As to experts, consider this one from Harvard, a black professor Roland G. Fryer Jr. :

[QUOTE] A study by a Harvard professor released this month found no evidence of racial bias in police shootings even though officers were more likely to interact physically with non-whites than whites.

The paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, which examined thousands of incidents at 10 large police departments in California, Florida and Texas, concluded that police were no more likely to shoot non-whites than whites after factoring in extenuating circumstances. “On the most extreme use of force — officer-involved shootings — we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account,” said Harvard economics professor Roland G. Fryer Jr. in the abstract of the July 2016 paper. Mr. Fryer, who is black, told The New York Times that the finding of no racial discrimination in police shootings was “the most surprising result of my career.” At the same time, the study found blacks and Hispanics were more than 50 percent more likely to experience physical interactions with police, including touching, pushing, handcuffing, drawing a weapon, and using a baton or pepper spray."[/QUOTE] [Emphasis by PeacePeace] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/11/no-racial-bias-police-shootings-study-harvard-prof/

Let's just hold off on judging & lynch mob mentality until the facts come in & not go racialist on interpreting matters. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Don't you think it would be better to cut that section out of this article?(PeacePeace (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC))

That Harvard study has been discussed on academic blogs a lot. The police shootings finding is only from Houston and cannot be generalized. Media are rally bad at reporting social science. WaPo had a good break down of what the paper actually says here. That said, not sure what that has to do with this article. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir is correct. The research is quite novel in ways, but he still applied a methodology that can't be applied here. Yanez, in his first shooting, with his first encounter with Castille who is also involved in his first violent contact with police. Nothing about the study gives insight into any particular fatal police shooting, including this one. --DHeyward (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

There are no conclusions drawn by any of the sources that these tidbits and facts were related to the shooting. Unless someone draws the conclusion they are related, including them in the article is WP:SYNTH as it implies, without attribution, that they are related. It is not enough that it appears in news articles that are covering much broader topics than this shooting, it must also make a direct connection to this particular shooting and the persons involved. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. The sources don't state a relationship. We cannot include a relationship that's implied. --DHeyward (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Are we straying from the point raised by PeacePeace, here? The paragraph will no doubt be improved as more information comes in but perhaps we can agree on the fact that this paragraph was moved and is now doing double duty. The germane information in the section on the victim is precisely how Castile's life consisted of getting stopped by the police and paying fines to have his driver's license reinstated. Of course the encyclopedia should try to keep a nonjudgemental tone in indicating the horrific banality of such lifestyle conditions for many nonwealthy African Americans, but facts are facts, even when shocking. On the other hand, some of what is in the paragraph might better be included in the section on old-media and social-media reaction. While using the Times as a source hardly seems to violate NPOV on the surface of it, perhaps PeacePeace is right to say the Times is a notoriously liberal establishment news-gathering organization. Although the Times is certainly part of the context in which both the sudden atrocity of Castile's death and the drawn-out atrocity of his life of traffic tickets unfolded, there should be space in a section on media reaction to contrast its liberal take on the sad situation with that of other, perhaps anti-Establishment, news sources. However, it is important to state up front that the cops' stop was for Castile an everyday occurrence and that Castile was not wanted for anything, was just taking care of business, and was an upstanding member of society. This is why it is relevant that he had just gotten his hair cut and eaten dinner at his sister's (even if we cannot phrase it that way because "gotten" is too ghetto a word for Wikipedia). There is something horribly wrong with the larger picture. Surely, noting how horrid that is transcends POV. - phi (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Which source ties this shooting to Castile's previous traffic stops or the status of his drivers license? Even if mentioned in the same source, they have not been explicitly connected as relevant to the shooting (the topic of this article). It's synthesis to include unconnected facts to imply an outcome or relationship. --DHeyward (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Number of fatal shootings by police and their prosecution in Minnesota since 2000

That entire paragraph is synthesizing a connection to this shooting. The source explicitly distances those statistics from this shooting. The source connects the stats to a Supreme Court decision and the high bar for prosecution. The synthesized paragraph in the article reads like an indictment of police as if they were getting away with crimes. That paragraph needs to go as it is not tied to the shooting, provides no context for the shooting and is not part of the investigation. It has as much relevance as the Harvard study or any other broad homicide or traffic stop. WP:SYNTH is clear that even items in the same source cannot be combined to imply a connection that the source doesn't make. --DHeyward (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Looked at source and agree it's SYNTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It does not seem SYNTH to me in the least. It's in a "background" section and the source directly recites the statistics as part of a report on the Castile shooting ("What we know about the officer-involved shooting of Philando Castile"—Star Tribune). It's not an "indictment of police" unless you read into it excessively. In fact, the text directly explains why there were few prosecutions: a lack of probable cause was found.

I would also add that a good encyclopedia article will give this sort of context (i.e., how rare or common are such shootings, what are the outcomes overall). Neutrality^talk 15:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It introduces the stat as a question with Are charges likely or expected against officer Yanez? It's far too early to say, but police officers are rarely charged in fatal shootings, in part because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sets a standard for bringing criminal charges in such cases. After the question, it completely separates this shooting ("far too early to say") and then introduces a study unrelated to the shooting that broadly discusses Minnesota police fatalities starting when Yanez was about 8 years old. It uses a SCOTUS case as the barrier to prosecution. There is absolutely no connection made by the source and we cannot imply there is one. It would be like adding that this particular PD hasn't shot or killed anyone, including minorities in over 30 years or that Blacks in Houston didn't have any more police shootings per 100,000 police contacts than Whites. Each of those stats have invariably shown up in coverage of the shooting but including them as relevant is synthesizing a relationship that the source is not making. --DHeyward (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Our article does say that this particular PD hasn't had a shooting in over 30 years! We state explicitly: "the shooting was the first officer-involved shooting that the department had experienced in at least thirty years..." And this, like the statewide data, is informative to the reader.

I'm not sure what you mean by "no connection made by the source." No connection to what, exactly? We can recite relevant historical data about police shootings (when the reliable sources report on it in connection with the Castile shooting specifically—as the refs do here) without seeking to draw a specific conclusion from it. Neutrality^talk 16:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No our article does not say "including minorities" or synthesize or imply anything and it shouldn't. That this shooting is their first shooting is what makes it pertinent. The source does not connect the shooting prosecution statistics to this shooting. They never will because mapping from general to specific and vice versa is very difficult. The source is making a general statement about how a SCOTUS decision affects prosecution of police (I added a bit about that on talk page a few sections up, unrelated to this, if you want background about what your source was talking about.) What will be relevant is when the investigation wraps up and the conclusions by prosecutors and investigators are drawn but it will still be limited to the specific findings of this case (prosecuted/not prosecuted, fired/not fired, quit/not quit, disciplined/not disciplined, etc, etc). The number of X shootings over Y years implies conclusion Z about this shooting is not within policy because the source doesn't connect the stats to this shooting. That is synthesis. The source explicitly writes It's far too early to say and is the disqualifier that makes the stat synthesis for this article which is limited to this shooting, not broad prosecutions of officers or an analysis of policing in the United States or even policing in Minnesota. Guessing based on stats on whether a crime has been committed or will be prosecuted is a slippery slope especially in racially charged cases such as this where there are all sorts of articles and broad generalizations that are meaningless in this specific case. There are lots of race baiting sources all trying to imply whatever spin they want to put and it's important that we keep out synthesis because it opens the door to very tangential and unconnected pieces that run afoul of all of our core policies even though they are "sourced" - there are sources about this with various statistics mentioned across the board and they use this case to shout their stats rather than using the stats to elucidate readers on the shooting. So far, this is a tragedy and keeping focus on neutrality, strict sourcing and BLP keeps it off the "good guy/bad guy" side-choosing narrative that a "sourced and synthesized" stats war would fuel. --DHeyward (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither our article nor the source "[g]uess[es] based on stats on whether a crime has been committed or will be prosecuted." We advance no speculation at all. We merely state some clearly relevant background information. Neutrality^talk 20:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

How is it relevant? --DHeyward (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It informs the reader of the general frequency of police shootings in Minnesota. It also informs the reader of how often prosecutors choose to pursue charges against officers in such shootings.

These uncontested baseline facts (statistics) in the background section set the context for the rest of the page: the background section describes the general, while the remainder of the article discusses the specific. It is important, encylopedically, for us to distinguish what is frequent from what is rare, what is common from what is uncommon. Neutrality^talk 21:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It does not inform the reader of the frequency and frequency wasn't mentioned over the 16 year lookback period. You're projecting frequency as if the source told you something that it did not. Also, what is relevant about Minnesota or frequency when that PD hasn't had a single shooting in that entire span? And the officer has never shot anyone? And Castile had never been shot? Police shootings are extremely rare but the source doesn't describe rarity. It's exactly why it doesn't belong. You made lots of leaps that the source didn't make. The source said: It's far too early to say. It makes absolutely no connection between those numbers since 2000 and this shooting. Without that connection, no place for it here. And to add, 45% of the 148 who died had a history mental illness. Is that stat relevant or a fair picture of Castile? Nope. Not any more relevant than the number or the state or time frame or charges. --DHeyward (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Should "Concealed" be edited out of the article?

The article says, "Under Minnesota state law, the names of concealed-carry permit holders are not public . . . ." Since Minnesota has a carry permit & not a concealed-carry permit, should concealed be edited out? Or should everything that depends upon the citation be thrown out as from an unreliable source (which stated a falsehood)? (PeacePeace (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC))

 Done I have removed the word concealed and linked the first instance of carry to the relevant wikipedia article on Minnesota Gun Laws. Dane2007 (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

There is this statement by the BBC, which I reached by clicking on a footnote to the article: "Before he was shot, he had told the officer that he was licensed to carry a concealed gun and had one in his possession, she said." Does the BBC have this right? I had thought, having watched a lot of videos on this recording Diamond Lavish speaking, that it was Diamond who added to Castile's statement revealing that he had a firearm, that he had a permit to carry, rather than Castile saying that he had a permit before he made his reach towards his leg. I thought that immediately after Castile's revelation that he had a gun while reaching, Lavish chimed in that he had a permit for it. I note that the BBC also refers to a concealed carry permit, claiming that Reynolds had referred to a concealed carry permit. It would be good if a definite sequence of events were established in this article accurately. (PeacePeace (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC))

Moaning?

The source used in the article indeed uses the word "moaning," but I doubt if the source is reliable at that point. And if it is not reliable on the moaning, is it reliable on the rest? Is moaning consistent with the actions / inactions of Diamond Reynolds at the same time? (PeacePeace (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC))

I don't see any reason to doubt the New York Times reliability. Although they do say he "appears to be moaning" and not that he was moaning. — Strongjam (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

If all Wikipedia editors view the Diamond Reynolds video taken at the time right after the shooting, and if all those editors do not hear any moan, nor see any action consistent with a moan, (but in fact see a man essentially inert) would that be grounds for deeming the NYT report unreliable? (PeacePeace (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC))

Well that would be definition be WP:OR. You can hear a moan at 18 seconds on the video attached to the Telegraph article. The description of moaning is also found in The Sydney Morning Herald, the LA Times and CNN. I don't see any grounds for deeming the NYT report unreliable. — Strongjam (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that it sounds like a moan on that video. Thanks for giving me the link. The person or source of the moan cannot be seen, but it certainly does not sound like the tone of voice of the officer. -- Now as to your WP:OR statement, are you sure that such a consultation of a primary source to determine reliability of a 2ndary source, would not be covered by the statement above, ". . . WP:NOR says: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." -- I have a lot to learn & certainly am no Wikipedia lawyer. (PeacePeace (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC))

Stopped 52 Times

I don't even know how to add this to this article, but it's seemingly noteworthy to add that Philando Castile had been stopped 52 Times by the police. http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/07/09/philando-stops/ Jeff Carr (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it should go in the Background>Victim section. You should include some additional context from the source, and it would be a good idea to have at least one other corroborating source to conform to WP:DUEWEIGHT.

 Done I have added this to the article with two sources. Dane2007 (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Discrimination Portal

Should this article be linked to the discrimination portal if the officer's motive is, as of yet, unknown and speculative? TRyne84 (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Eclipsoid (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Could the discrimination link be based on the fact that there are protests and a shooting of cops based upon racial identification of the protestors with the man who got shot, that is, is the issue over discrimination practiced by protestors & taking sides based on race? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

You've got a time order issue there. Castile was killed before the Dallas shootings. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

There is really only a motive if a crime was committed. In all of these cases the officers have pulled the trigger because they believed their lives, or the lives of others, were in danger. Their training and experience affects that decision. It's the circumstances that make these high-profile cases into tragedies. Motive is a reason known to the person committing the act, so the motive must be self-defense. The victim's race is one of the subconscious cues that leads the conscious belief that one's life is in danger. The fact that this is the case is a society-wide problem, not something that motivated the officers in these shootings. Roches (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Consensus seems to be that this does not belong on the discrimination portal at this time. Dane2007 (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)