User talk:Esplace

Welcome!

Hello, Esplace, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

ANI

I wrote:"People who are dead are not posthumously convicted. Your observation that "he was never convicted" is a bit silly. The man was dead."
- You responded:"You may think it's a bit silly, but murder is a criminal charge. Calling someone a murderer after they are dead without charges being leveled is a bias. Murder cannot be justified, but under American law sometimes killing can be. If we are to maintain neutrality, being aware of biased language is important. This is probably a content issue, but being called silly for paying attention to language is a bit insulting, however."

I intended no insult. Dead people, however, cannot be put on trail, let alone convicted of anything. Asking for a conviction before calling someone caught in the act a murderer just is a bit silly, since that criterion can never be met. It is not "biased language", it's calling a spade a spade. Kleuske (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if it had gone to trial it could have been ruled justifiable (probably not, though). At the very worst, we should use the word kill as it would be an apparent statement of fact rather than murder which has very serious connotations about his alleged guilt. Murder, rampage, etc are all loaded words. Kill is much less so and thus should be used.Esplace (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four cops are dead. Shot in cold blood by a known felon. That qualifies as murder. He was caught red handed and shot dead on the scene. The fact that dead people don't get a trail does not imply a) it wasn't a murder and b) he wasn't guilty. There's nothing alleged about it. Kleuske (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since Murder is a crime and is a label applied to someone after they are convicted, it cannot be placed onto someone who wasn't convicted. Your bias is showing through. The fact that you stress that they are cops and insert details into the telling that are not factual show that you are biased in this and your understanding of neutral language is skewed. The fact that he was a felon is irrelevant. You say cold blood, others can easily say self defense. You stress that because they are cops they get special treatment on Wikipedia, but that shouldn't be the case. Alleged because in the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. This all means he didn't murder cops because he can't be proven guilty, though he may have killed them, though probably not in cold blood. Seriously, spend some time looking at what neutral language means. Esplace (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crying at times, the tipster said she was devastated by the rampage that began when Mixon shot Sgt. Mark Dunakin, 40, and Officer John Hege, 41, with a pistol shortly after being pulled over at 74th Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard

SWAT officers soon raided the apartment, bashing in the door while throwing nonlethal shock grenades. Two more officers, Sgts. Ervin Romans, 43, and Daniel Sakai, 35, were killed there by Mixon, who fired an assault rifle from a closet. Another SWAT officer, Sgt. Pat Gonzales, was wounded. Three other officers returned fire and killed Mixon.

Mixon had previously served six years in state prison for assault with a firearm during an armed robbery in San Francisco, his family said.
— NBC

That's a) murder (and four dead at two locations counts as a "rampage", according to the SF-Chronicle) and b) a "armed parole violator"^NBC caught red-handed doing that murder. If you call that "biased", please check out your own bias. An when you're at it, please read WP:V and [WP:RS]]. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read all of the articles. Do you notice that the papers are using the word kill instead of murder? Do you know why? Because Mixon cannot be a murderer without being charged and convicted as such. It's an impossibility. It's a simple fact that this is the way the US justice system is set up. You don't have to like it but it's not really something that can be an opinion. For instance, I can't go to the Eric Gardner page and say the cops who killed him murdered him even if I think it fits because they were not charged and convicted as such. As an historian, I would not be able to use the word "murder" for the same reason, though I could try to lay out an argument for it. In this case, we are not trying to make an argument, which we are not doing. The fact that he violated parole and was armed is immaterial to whether or not he committed murder. It may be true, but there are a lot of people violate parole and who are armed. Nothing to do with whether or not he killed cops. This is literally a bias against people with criminal records in the most clear and obvious sense. I am acutely aware of my own biases thanks to my education. Not overstating circumstances is a big part of that, as is using words correctly. This cannot be murder. Rampage is arguable (and since WP takes anything a paper says it would be allowed here), his other crimes are immaterial to this event.