Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Laquan McDonald/Archive 1

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

Untitled

Tons of news sources here if anyone wants to write moreVictor Grigas (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

mugshots and charging documents

Here are some mugshot images, IDK if they are PD or not, but there must be some out there Victor Grigas (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Is the video Public Domain?

Is the video Public Domain? What did the judge order it to be? Victor Grigas (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Most important aspect missing

In typical Wikipedia fashion, the most important aspect of this case is missing from the article, namely, why did it take more than a year for the wheels of justice to move an inch? Is it because the victim was black? Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

WP editors shouldn't be speculating about whether or not this or that reason which comes to the mind of an editor might have figured into the amount of time the investigation took. This source says that Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez has said that investigations of police shootings are "highly complex" and can take as long as 20 months. That source also says that Robert Milan, a former Cook County prosecutor who ran against Alvarez in 2008, disagrees and that Ronald Safer, a Chicago attorney and former federal prosecutor, said he could imagine an investigation into a police shooting spanning a few months but not a year. It also says that other former prosecutors said it's unfair for outsiders to second-guess the length of the investigation (WP editors would would fall into the category of "outsiders").
I don't agree that identifying the factors which caused this investigation to take as long as it did is the most important aspect of this case, but it does seem to me that the article should mention this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree that it probably should mention this, but Wikipedia is NOT a primary source of knowledge, you need references. So please find that journalism and summarize it and cite it! Victor Grigas (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you joking? The inordinate length of time for the video to be released and the case to resolve to this point is the primary focus of every major article on the subject. Yet when I complained up above, that major point had been deliberately avoided from being mentioned in this article. Don't you dare school me on the policies. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Here are some more policies that I will dare to name:

And no, I'm not joking, so please don't ask. - Boneyard90 (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Bias / BLP / Encyclopedic Tone

I read through the article just now, and was a bit disappointed to see that it overall has the tone of a moderate hit piece on Jason Van Dyke and the Chicago PD. I realize that a lot of things that the PD did later aren't in line with policy or 100% in line with the event sequence. However, they are generally in line with the events. (That doesn't excuse those failures, but those aren't failures in this specific case, but an overall departmental problem.)

There is a big difference between a kid playing innocently in a public park (like Tamir Rice) or a man shopping innocently in Walmart with his girlfriend (like John Crawford) versus a guy who is running around with a knife, cutting tires and generally acting crazy. Its entirely possible that if he was on PCP, he was completely unaware of what he was doing. Some police officers obviously react different than others. The biggest question would be what other outcome was to be expected here with a guy carrying a knife in this manner? A taser was mentioned, but for whatever reason one wasn't on scene yet. Do you wait until he starts approaching some citizens with this knife or not?

I think bigger question here is what police officers are being trained to do in this situations, along with plain human instinct. That is obviously a question for another article. The choices in this article of what was included and how it is presented, give a tone of "cops are shady and violent". Yet there is no reporting or research within the article to support that. Some might say "but it is obvious!" and I say if it is so obvious, but that information into the article along with everything else. -- Avanu (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree - we should mention CPD training. Can you find a CPD police training manual? I'd love to cite it!! I seriously doubt that any manual would say it's ok to unload your whole clip on someone who is walking away from you, especially if you have only been on the scene for only 30 seconds. Mr. McDonald hit the ground after the first (few?) shots, why keep shooting? So I've been trying to write each sentence with a citation to back up each fact, since there are details (like the number of videos that exist) that keep changing. Victor Grigas (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Just found this, maybe something is in it?Victor Grigas (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Found it :
Article IX under "Standards of Conduct":
"Members of the Chicago Police Department are confronted daily with situations where firm control must be exercised to effect arrests and protect the public safety. Control is achieved through advice, persuasion, warnings or the use of physical force. While the use of reasonable physical force may be necessary in situations which cannot be otherwise controlled, force may not be resorted to unless other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or would clearly be ineffective under the particular circumstances involved. Officers are permitted to use whatever force is reasonable and necessary to protect others or themselves from bodily harm. The use of excessive and unwarranted force or brutality will not be tolerated under any circumstances." Victor Grigas (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Couple of problems. First, this is a primary source. We need Wikipedia's definition of Reliable Sources to include information from the CPD manual. Secondly, (this is why a RS is needed) the use of force is contingent upon the circumstances and what an officer believes might happen. Guy running and then skipping along after having already used his knife makes it a very dicey situation. Our reliable sources say they were trying to corral the guy sort of. But they don't tell us what the end game was supposed to be. What was the plan of the police? Just wear the guy down until he falls over from exhaustion? How long before the taser was due to arrive? Did this information get communicated to the officers in the field?
Overall, this story seems more prominent for its connection to BLM protesters than the actual story itself. A Vietnamese-ancestry man was just shot in Los Angeles after calling 911 to report an assault, but I don't see anyone getting on his side. Again, I point back to the tone of this story. The tone sounds very much like Laquan McDonald was victimized rather than setting up events in such a way that he was almost guaranteed to end up shot, despite a generous reading of CPD policy. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a vehicle for biased coverage. -- Avanu (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This shooting is notable precisely because of the large public reaction and extensive media coverage. You may view that reaction as disproportionate, as you seem to, but justified or not, it makes the event notable. Also, nothing precludes you or anyone else from starting an article about the shooting you mention—the lack of such an article does not itself impact the notability of this one. As far as the BLM protests generally, they are certainly related, and that relation should be documented in each article. Events that are significant only in broader historical terms nonetheless frequently have their own articles. For example, the Boston Massacre is probably only notable because American revolutionaries seized on the event for its propaganda value—it is, however, notable nonetheless. Acone (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The scale of reaction is not relevant to whether we have an article, as you pointed out. Wikipedia has clear guidelines and this event has passed that test. As I said initially, my concern is more with the tone of the article, rather than the particular people that are players within this tale. -- Avanu (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Copy editing template

As of the current revision, the writing quality appears consistent with that of other articles, so I'm removing the flag. If there are outstanding concerns, let's talk about them here.

Image name in InfoBox

Can someone please change the name of the image used in the InfoBox? It has a typo: protestors -> protesters. The name is currently "LAQUAN McDonald Chicago memorial from protestors.jpg". This typo occurred a few times in the article, which I fixed, but I don't know much about going about changing the names of pictures, and if this would break anything else using the picture, etc. Thank you! Belltoes (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shooting of Laquan McDonald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"the responding officers didn't also shoot"

The penultimate sentence under the "Shooting" heading states "The first responding officer stated that he did not see the need to use force and none of the at least eight other officers on the scene fired their weapons." Nowhere does the article state that Van Dyke wasn't the first officer to respond, nor whether or not he was in the path of McDonald -- both of which are essential to understanding the case. If Van Dyke was in McDonald's path, his use of lethal force to stop a suspect who refused to drop his weapon, would likely be justified. If Van Dyke had shot McDonald and the "eight other officers on the scene" had fired their weapons, what would that prove? It's likely that they did not see the need to do so, given that any threat from McDonald was probably negated by having already been shot, so what is the point of making that statement? This isn't WP:OR; it's an observation about how confusingly the sentence is written. It needs to be either rewritten to conform with WP:NPOV or removed. 01:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

POV in section "Burger King surveillance video"

The section titled "Burger King surveillance video" repeatedly violates WP:NPOV. To wit: "...86 minutes of that footage of the shooting is missing." First, unless the recording media was videotape (as in VHS or some similar media that uses actual tape), it's not "footage"; "footage" only refers to such media as can be measured in feet. If the video recorder they use is a DVR, as most security video systems are nowadays, it's not "footage", it's "files" or "time". Second, the term "missing" suggests that something that once existed has been lost or removed, but neither of which is necessarily the case. If a video camera system using a DVR has a gap in a given recording period, that doesn't mean that files or time are necessarily "missing"; it could just as readily be because equipment was not turned on, was malfunctioning, or a number of other reasons. Saying that "footage" is "missing" displays a clear bias towards some kind of intentional tampering -- the very thing that the FBI uncategorically states that there is no evidence to support. (And the FBI is very unlikely to be colluding with the Chicago P.D. in some kind of conspiracy.) Third, the final sentence in the section states "The Tribune later obtained footage showing a Chicago police employee working on the restaurant's computers after the shooting". The phrase "working on" is biased as it suggests that efforts were being expended to do something. If I am looking through the files on my home security system's video recordings, I am not "working on" the monitor, the keyboard or the computer; I am simply reviewing the files. There is no question that a member of the Chicago P.D. was indeed seated at the Burger King's security camera video terminal. But was he "working on" it, or reviewing video on it? With the information provided here, we can't tell, so it's POV to claim the he was intentionally doing something to or with the files, beyond simply viewing them. Consequently, I propose that the sentences in question be revised as follows: "There was also a security camera at a nearby Burger King restaurant that may have captured the shooting, but during the time of the shooting, there is a gap of 86 minutes" and "The Tribune later obtained video showing a Chicago police employee viewing video files on the restaurant's computers after the shooting". Bricology (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, fix the issues.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. I also changed the phrase "there were gaps all over the surveillance video" to the more proper "there were gaps throughout the surveillance video". Bricology (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. We have to follow the source which does say "working on". The source doesn't even provide the video either, so even if we wanted to use WP:OR, we can't actually do so since we have no idea if the video shows the police simply viewing the files or appear to be doing more. Technically viewing video is "working on" a computer anyway although I agree most people may not appreciate this. However "viewing video" is actually worse, because deleting files for example is not even technically viewing video (one would assume viewing before deletion but it's possible this didn't happen or isn't shown in the video seen by the Tribune) so by changing it to viewing video we are actually completely biasing it in one direction whereas working is technically true for all possibilities. Personally, I would prefer something like "at the computer" or "using the computer" but we need a source for that. I'm not opposed to quoting the working part if people would prefer that. Since the Tribune are the ones who viewed the video, and I'm not sure if other sources have seen it, it may be the Tribune source is the best source we have. Nil Einne (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I see a part was removed [1] which I've added back. No explanation was offered for this removal but I do see a problem with it namely that it's quoting sourced within the FBI but it's now been over a year. Have the FBI released an official report which confirms what the sources say, are they waiting for the trial, or is there something else? Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive info?

Under the section Van Dyke's Trial, it states: "Van Dyke had a history of complaints in his police career but was cleared in most cases." Is this necessary when the complaints were already mentioned earlier under the Profiles section? The relevant portion also elaborates on what the various complaints involved, unlike the one-liner I quoted. TKY (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of Van Dyke charges

Hi, the charges against Van Dyke came a few hours before the video was released. The wiki says it was after.

"Van Dyke was charged with first-degree murder a few hours after the video's release." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmorris5 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit article to reflect distance in time

The article was written as news was developing and clearly shows journalistic influence - quotes, political positioning, etc. Now that some time has passed, it would be useful to compress some of the information to make the tone of this article more encyclopedic and neutral.Parkwells (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Shooting of Laquan McDonald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Shooting of Laquan McDonald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Updated status of the case

Updated the charges laid against Van Dyke in the "trial" section and then updated the "aftermath" section to reflect recommended firings of involved police officers and charges laid against 3 officers in connection with this case. I was not able to find any mention of the trial happening or the trial schedule. A previous talk entry asked why this case was progressing so slowly, and I would tend to agree. We are now approaching 3 years after the shooting and I cannot remember another murder trial proceeding at this glacial pace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruceki (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Van Dyke is the First Chicago officer convicted for an on duty shooting in nearly 50 years

See here [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:4101:41F9:1009:2EA6:8215:6305 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Van Dyke's bail has been revoked and he is now in custody

Please include this into the article[3]. With his bail revoked, he immediately began serving whatever future sentence is handed2601:447:4101:41F9:1009:2EA6:8215:6305 (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It is confirmed that Van Dyke was taken into custody following the verdict.[4] Please include this in the article.2601:447:4101:41F9:1009:2EA6:8215:6305 (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to move to Murder of Laquan McDonald

The guy who did this has been found guilty of murder, so we might as well move it there.

2605:A601:6400:500:D10F:366A:2727:B9F7 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I was coming to the talk page to propose the same thing. This is legally now a murder. What do other editors think? †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 15:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

There hasn't been any dissenting opinions, so I'm going to be WP:BOLD and move it. If there is any disagreement, I'm happy to discuss here. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 14:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Strongly suggest posting an RfC about it. I would personally support such a move, @Basilosauridae:, but I could see a move war breaking out without an established consensus. StrikerforceTalk 14:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I didn't know RfCs could be used in situations where disagreement doesn't currently exist. If there is any resistance to the change, I will not move-war and will move to an RfC. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 14:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You + one does not equal consensus. The thread was started late in the evening on Friday of a holiday weekend in the U.S., when there may not have been as many people participating around this article as would be considered normal. It would have been better to either post an RfC or give more time to for folks to respond here, especially with the original page still being under protection until later today. StrikerforceTalk 14:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, like I said I will move to an RfC and not war if disagreement arises. Just for the record, I'm unaware of the holiday weekend you are referring to. ok ok Columbus day, I get you. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 15:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Just commenting here: I doubt that an RfC is called for, and in fact I think that WP:RMUM may apply. The move has been BOLDly made; so far no one has objected; if they do the mover can self-revert and a proper discussion can be held. In any case, talk page discussion is probably good enough without a formal RfC. If you read WP:RFC, it is intended only for use when talk page discussion was not able to resolve the issue. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, folks. I just noticed that the article was renamed, from "Shooting of Laquan McDonald" to "Murder of Laquan McDonald". In my opinion the original title is preferable, even though Officer Van Dyke was found guilty of second degree murder. "Shooting" is a more neutral and less inflammatory term. It's therefore more suitable here. An analogy would be the article titled Battle of Fort Dearborn, instead of Fort Dearborn Massacre. This is not to diminish the seriousness of the shooting, the subsequent cover-up, or the context of the troubled relationship between the Chicago Police Department and the communities it's supposed to serve. Also, "shooting" would be more in line with the names of some related or analogous articles, such as Shooting of Michael Brown, Shooting of Philando Castile, and Shooting of Trayvon Martin. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
What does everybody else think about this? (Pinging those who have already posted in this section: @Basilosauridae, Strikerforce, and MelanieN:) — Mudwater (Talk) 00:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
No strong opinion. I'd prefer shooting, but it's a matter of esthetics only. I think either is reasonable. MartinezMD (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Mudwater. I think the move to "Murder" is justified. The difference between this article and the three others you cite as analogous is that in those three cases, there was no conviction, so the incident remains a "shooting". In this case, a judgment of murder has been passed and I think we might as well say so in Wikipedia's voice. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

We are required to edit neutrally. Article content is not required to be neutral. The subject was murdered. Someone has been convicted of the murder. The article title would only be inflammatory to someone who doesn't agree with that, and we are under no obligation to pander to fringe viewpoints. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: Please review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Naming and Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles. I'm suggesting that those Wikipedia policies would be better met by changing the name of the article back to "Shooting of Laquan McDonald". Fringe theories have nothing to do with it. "P.S." George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murder, but should the article "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" be renamed "Justifiable self-defense shooting of Trayvon Martin"? I would be opposed to that, and you probably would be too. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Murder is not a non-neutral title except where its not true, or to those who don't think it's murder. Shooting would be the less neutral title regardless. I'm ignoring the last absurd argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree, I don’t see how Murder is not neutral as the case is now legally a murder due to the verdict. If the title were “The Slaying of..” or “The Execution of..” I’d agree, but I don’t think murder is non-neutral and due to the guilty verdict it is the most factual and accurate way to describe the case. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 18:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm conflicted on this one. On one hand, the above-mentioned policies should be considered, which would make "Shooting of" appropriate. However, on the other hand, I do agree that since there has been an adjudication of murder in this case, "Murder of" is factually correct. It should be noted that I did, however, previously support "Murder of" on 10/9. I expressed some frustration about the move from "Shooting of" having been made without, in my opinion, enough time being allowed to elapse for people to weigh in, but I did not revert the change. StrikerforceTalk 15:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

So, yeah. For the reasons I posted earlier in this section, here and here, I propose changing the name of the article back to what it was before -- "Shooting of Laquan McDonald". Does anyone agree with this idea? — Mudwater (Talk) 00:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

As stated above, I still think that "Murder of..." is the best title due to the verdict of murder at trial for Van Dyke. However, I'm not opposed to participating in another discussion on the matter. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 00:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned previously, we should not feel obliged to name the article based on the jury's verdict. "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" should definitely not be renamed to "Justifiable self-defense shooting of Trayvon Martin", but that's what the jury decided in that case. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
We based articles on facts, and factually this is a murder. Per your rational, what should we name Murder of Laci Peterson, for example? Can you elaborate on why you don't feel its an appropriate title? †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
As I said before, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Naming and Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles are the guidelines we should follow here. The word "murder" suggests a planned killing, or a secretive slaying, such as that of Laci Peterson, which is not what happened here. We should not attempt to influence the opinions or feelings of our readers, however much we might be tempted to do so in this case. I really think that calling this article "Murder of Laquan McDonald" is a violation of WP:NPOV, and I'm wondering if anyone else thinks so too. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I will add this: In my personal opinion, I think the jury was right in finding officer Van Dyke guilty of second degree murder. If you are surprised to hear this, it means I'm doing a good job of trying to promote a neutral point of view on Wikipedia. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Murder does not imply planning or secretive slaying, and in fact is what defines the difference between a first and second degree murder in the United States. Again, this is factually a murder based on one of the most important factors in determining whether something is a murder or not: a verdict. I understand your position and I believe you understand mine. I won't comment further until more editors join the discussion. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
First degree murder often implies planning (or it is an element that can be used to raise to that charge), but in this case he was convicted of secondary degree. MartinezMD (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I hope other editors will join the discussion. The more, the merrier, although this is not a particularly merry topic. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be offended if you wanted to open an RfC. I hate to see a valid discussion die based on lack of participation. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 20:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That's not a bad idea. But, I think I'll hold back for right now. Who knows, maybe we'll get more discussion on this page. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much discussion you will get. I think it will simply boil down to personal preferences rather than one title being superior to the other to any significant degree. As I see it, Murder is favored by the legal outcome; Shooting is favored by the other instances of similar police shootings, many but not all of which lead to death and few to a criminal conviction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinezMD (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Are we really back to this subject? It was found to be "murder" by a jury. Case closed, pun fully intended. StrikerforceTalk 17:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Phrasing/Bias/Wording Issue

A line in this article reads:

"Van Dyke's attorney, Daniel Herbert, said that his client fears for his life.[75] A few protesters yelled at him and called him names as he approached the courthouse for his arraignment.[75]"

I don't know if its just me, but does this not come across as juvenile and specifically written in a way to elicit certain emotions? Something that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.128.185 (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's just you. It comes across as neutral to me and simply reporting the events at the courthouse. MartinezMD (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I also don’t see an issue. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 19:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Toxicology reports and PCP

I think the statement on toxicology reports and PCP is a bit misleading as written. It is missing too much context or information. There are at least two open questions.

First, we don't know when the PCP was consumed. According to long does PCP stay in your system: blood, urine, and saliva:

Most scientists believe that the half-life of PCP is three days, through effects on the central nervous system can last from seven hours to a week in chronic users. Detecting PCP in your system relies heavily on the type of test.

Second, we don't know the quantity of PCP consumed. According to long does PCP stay in your system: blood, urine, and saliva:

Low doses tend to mimic the feelings of alcohol consumption. Higher doses increase the feelings of numbness and lead to more agitated behavior.

I also have not been able to locate information on testing for the presence of PCP in a corpse. I'm guessing - and it is just a guess - the toxicology results will be similar in a living person and someone newly deceased. This leads to a third question, when were the toxicology tests performed.

Chronology, quantity, and testing methodology affects the veracity of the statement. As written, the statement only appears to be present to provoke or bias readers.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether it biases the reader or not can be discussed further, but the presence of PCP is the presence of PCP. How would you remedy the statement? As for post-mortem laboratory values, don't assume they are the same. There are several processes that occur as some dies then starts decomposing that can alter tested values. Forensic labs are supposed to know this and take the state of the sample in consideration. Regardless of the actual quantity, the statement makes no quantitative assertion (levels "high", "low", "trace", etc). More details about the pathology report could be helpful here. MartinezMD (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Here we go. I Googled more about McDonald, PCP, and level. Found this link https://chicago.suntimes.com/2018/9/27/18444151/van-dyke-trial-day-15-officers-taught-to-shoot-until-the-threat-is-eliminated that has the testimony of the defense expert "The pharmacologist called by Officer Jason Van Dyke’s defense team Thursday morning told jurors Laquan McDonald had enough PCP in his system to cause hallucinations, delusions, aggression and violence.
Pharmacologist James Thomas O’Donnell later added that the level of PCP found in McDonald’s body, 56 ng, could lead to a “feeling of omnipotence” that can make people feel like they are “able to do anything” and “leads to significant bizarre behavior frequently described as psychotic behavior.”
And then this other link, https://wgntv.com/2018/09/27/jason-van-dyke-trial-laquan-mcdonald-defense-testimony/ , quoting the same testimony "Dr James Thomas O'Donnell said the level of PCP in McDonald's system suggested the teen had taken the drug the day of the shooting" MartinezMD (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I made edits to the section based on the above. MartinezMD (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Good edit to the article. Thanks. Jeffrey Walton (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Laquan_McDonald/Archive_1&oldid=1259164374"