Talk:Killing of Tyler Cassidy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Australia: Victoria / Crime Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Killing of Tyler Cassidy is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Mannix, Liam (June 1, 2015). "Victoria Police edits Wikipedia page of police shooting victim Tyler Cassidy". The Age. Archived from the original on June 1, 2015. A Victoria Police computer has been used to heavily edit a Wikipedia page about the death of 15-year-old Tyler Cassidy, removing sentences critical of the force's handling of the incident in which he was shot and killed.

On 22 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Death of Tyler Cassidy. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Shooting details

Hello, This first experience with wikipedia and the editing/"talk" facility. I have placed a couple of edits into the "Shooting" entry for the Tyler Cassidy. You keep altering the text to indicate that four police officers fired at Cassidy. This is not so and I have attempted reflect this. Judge Jennifer Coate (The Victorian State Coroner) indictates her findings that only three of the four police officers fired at Cassidy. I can confirm this. (I was there.) I would hope that you would either change the entry to show this or allow my edit to stand. Warm regards. -- moved from my Talk page -- Johnfos (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked my source and you are correct, so your edit stands -- regards Johnfos (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knives

Reworded "stolen from a nearby shopping centre", as acording to the herald sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/teen-tylers-night-full-of-rage/story-fn6bfkm6-1225943915697) they were purchased from a k-mart, not stolen.

Also added in that he was first sprayed with capcicum spray to no effect, also mentioned in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.250.51 (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I checked the Herald Sun article, and it doesn't say that Tyler purchased the knives, only that he brandished them in front of staff. According to the inquest they were "very publicly" stolen, so that seems consistent with the Herald Sun's coverage. I agree that the capsicum spray should be mentioned, so I've returned that to the article - both the Herald Sun and the Coroner's report mention it. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how large is a large knife?

many articles state that tyler stole two large knives and these knives were used to goad the officers into acting. K-mart is a department store. they don't really tend to sell large or specialty knives. basic steak knives and simple chef knives. not bad per se but not something terribly threatening in a knife fight and not something longer than a police baton which could have been used to disarm him. so is there any information apart from the police statements about these knives? brand? length? essentially the "TWO GIANT KNIVES ALL UP IN MY FACE" argument has been used to justify lethal force but i'm not even sure any knives were recovered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.224.192 (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The knives are described in the exhibit list as "Wiltshire black handled knife" and "Black handled knife (3 rivet). They were confirmed by the Coroner as being large kitchen knives easily capable of inflicting injury or death. A summary reading of the Coroner's finding shows that the knives were secured at the scene by the attending members and handed directly to investigators.

No argument was put forward by counsel for the Family that police should have deployed their police batons in the circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.230.150 (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Police institutionalized recourse to violence 2008 and prior

about two thirds of the coroners report deals with what could have been done better, why the police acted as they did and why the police resorted to violence. the "cordon and contain" proceedure was not adhered to because it was found that police officers did not understand what it meant. The BEACON training program was instituted as a response to this shooting and many other violent incidents throughout victoria. BEACON is intended to teach officers to handle a situation non-violently, avoiding the perpetrators but protecting the public. the over dependence on police issue equipment because of the training in place at the time is blamed in the coroners report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.149.243 (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media release and notification of the family

section 550-555 of coroners report: the family was notified after the media was informed. Victoria police deny releasing his name or private information about Tyler. Assistant Commissioner Cartwright stated that he only started referring to him by name once the name "became public domain" no more information is provided regarding when the assistant commissioner decided the media had already acquired Tylers name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.149.243 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

alcohol and gun residue testing

alcohol: sec 496-502 coroners report gun residue: sec 503-514 coroners report

poor proceedure resulted in evidence being improperly handled and testing delayed. the Police officers did in fact object (sec. 499) that their blood alcohol and drug screening had not been conducted in a timely manner so as to corroborate their self reports that they were not under the influence. the police officers were asked to remove their clothes but MR Wrobel(attending forensics expert) stated that it would have been preferable if they had kept their clothes on. Tylers clothing was soaked in blood and had been adjusted by paramedics and his body moved from the scene making it hard to properly assess the concentration of gun shot particles ie. distance from muzzle. distance between Tyler and officer Dods was inconclusive in regards to GSR sampling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.149.243 (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

I will be going back through edit revisions and adding the many news article references and surrounding circumstances if I don't receive adequate feedback. this article has become extremely biased in favor of victoria police. while the coroner found that the officers were not responsible, it became apparent that victoria police did not provide adequate training. particularly, "cordon and contain" procedures were unknown to the police officers who understood this procedure to mean approach and intimidate. furthermore, the "related articles" are just insulting. yes this incident was about the death of a mentally ill teenager. however, as the article currently stands, this does not reflect the seriousness or explain the cause of the incident.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.218.99 (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

these edits appear to have been made by victoria police. a quick whois reveals the IP that removed large sections of this article was a victoria police registered IP. % [whois.apnic.net] % Whois data copyright terms http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html % Information related to '203.25.230.0 - 203.25.231.255' inetnum: 203.25.230.0 - 203.25.231.255 netname: VICPOLICE-AU descr: Victoria Police descr: Victoria Police Centre, descr: 637 Flinders St descr: Melbourne descr: VIC 3005 country: AU admin-c: FO7-AP tech-c: PV14-AP mnt-by: APNIC-HM status: ASSIGNED PORTABLE changed: tkc@hyperlink.net.au 20020426 changed: hm-changed@apnic.net 20040906 changed: hm-changed@apnic.net 20041214 source: APNIC—Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.218.99 (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Police, "Shoot first, make Wikipedia edits later". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.254.222 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also tagged the article with original research and primary sources tags. Primary sources should be removed and the article content should only reflect reliable secondary sources.--Nowa (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given all this, its noticeable that mental illness is not mentioned in the body of the article at all. It really is the last taboo apparently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.35.146 (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest person

The claim that Cassidy is the youngest person to have been shot by Police is supported by a citation to an article no longer available, although a similar claim can be found elsewhere in a few other newspaper articles, from the same time. Either way its just not fact. John (Jack) Jones (aged 13) was killed by Police fire at Glenrowan in 1880. Reginald Staples (aged 15) was shot by Police in Sydney in 1920, to name a couple. As its not particularly central to the article, I suggest deleting the sentence - unless someone else has bright ideas.Nickm57 (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death of Roni Levi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 November 2022

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Tyler Cassidy → Death of Tyler Cassidy – per WP:NDESC change Killing to Death as killing implies wrongdoing by the police officers. Wikipedia:KILLINGS was the reason for the June 2020 move from Death of Tyler Cassidy → Shooting of Tyler Cassidy and the December 2021 move from Shooting of Tyler Cassidy → Killing of Tyler Cassidy. It is an essay not a Wikipedia policy. It wasn't a homicide. The Coroner did not refer the police officers to the Director of Public Prosecutions to have them consider charging the officers with homicide. The Coroner found that the officer "was in immediate and perilous danger of serious injury of death" (page 91). WP:COMMONNAME is "Death of". Melbguy05 (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ^Clyde!_Franklin! 12:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support or revert to "Shooting of": The move from "Shooting of", which was selected in an RM discussion, was undiscussed, and "killing" ordinarily implies premeditation. (But don't confuse homicide with murder. This was a homicide.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nickm57 (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia entries for people under Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers should not carry main title header "Death of..." in the manner of Death of Ludwig van Beethoven, Death of Edgar Allan Poe or Death of Michael Jackson since all such deaths by police firearms constitute killings, with or without implication of wrongdoing by the police officers. However, as an alternative, I would support restoration of main header "Shooting of Tyler Cassidy" since "Shooting of..." can mean either "Non-fatal shooting of..." or "Fatal shooting of..." —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I would also be happy with "Shooting of..." Nickm57 (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made mention of this on the Australian Wikipedian's noticeboard to ensure there are some more Australian voices here. I think this is particularly important as Australian attitudes to firearms and firearms deaths can be different to those found in the US, for example. I also note that Australian reporting of this incident is generally characterised as a "shooting" or "Police shooting".Nickm57 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:DEATHS. I'll note that the previous RM in June 2020 occurred before the explanatory supplement was codified in December 2020. Recent RM discussions relating to homicide by police officers have shown the community's preference for "killing" [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] rather than the more vague "shooting". 162 etc. (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The essay WP:DEATHS provides a good framework whether or not it is policy, and reflects a number of RMs in recent years. "Death" is clearly too vague and not used typically for this type of article (per Roman Spinner's examples), and I also think "Shooting" isn't satisfactory since it doesn't say the most important part (Tyler Cassidy died). Moving to "Fatal shooting" seems needlessly chosen to avoid the succinct, accurate, value-less, and commonly-used "Killing". --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Shooting of...". I think "killing" in titles should be reserved or non-murder homicides such as manslaughter, as I think there is a connotation of wrongdoing. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I disagree with the premise that "killing" necessarily implies wrongdoing. As BarrelProof has emphasized above, homicide is not necessarily murder; we certainly shouldn't state in wikivoice that Tyler Cassidy was murdered, but I think it's clear that he was killed. WP:DEATHS may be an essay, but it's an essay that describes widely adopted norms among the Wikipedia community, and I don't see any need to contravene them here. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing to fix here. There's no doubt he was killed, he didn't just die. It's commonly called a killing not just a death. Being PC on this would itself be just as POV as calling it a murder. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), "Killing of" is the appropriate title. WWGB (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.