Talk:Death of Harry Dunn

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

Possible RM to "Killing of"[edit]

Given the infomation at WP:KILLINGS, like the flowchart, and this case RSs are clear this was a homicide (even if not convicted, etc). Should we move this article to "Killing of Harry Dunn"? RSs seem fine with terms like "kill" or "killing" [23][24][25].  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need a consensus for that. I don't see any suggestions in the sources that his death was intentional, and whether or not it constituted "vehicular homicide" as a result of negligence is a legal matter. This incident doesn't clearly fit into the "homicide" path of the flowchart you reference. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both based on the flowchart it should not matter if it was intentional. You can 'kill' someone accidentally i.e. manslaughter. I am not suggested it be moved to Murder of Harry Dunn. Based on what I see from RSs whether intentional of not (most likely the latter) Dunn died as a result of the vehicular crash.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there seems to be what borders on an intentional conflation of "killing" with "intentional killing". Intention is wholly irrelevant, and even words such as "homicide" do not carry intentionality (though I don't support using that word in the title as it is too commonly conflated with "murder"). "Killing of Harry Dunn" would be my preferred choice. Theknightwho (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We await a trial and a verdict or, at the very least, the completion of a legal process. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spy-cicle, as far as I can see, there's nothing in the article that would lead us to the conclusion that this was definitely a killing. There has been no trial and no inquest and no release of any reports about the details of the incident. So I'd say leave it as it is until we have reliably sourced evidence to support a change. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, "no details released." Apart from that nice orange American guy who told the world that Sacoolas was driving on the wrong side of the road? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, would you unquestionably accept anything he said about anything as absolute fact? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. Mrs Sacoolas herself had already also admitted that? But yes, why should we unquestionably accept anything she said about anything as absolute fact.[reply]
@Spy-cicle, Ohnoitsjamie, Theknightwho, Martinevans123, and DeFacto: I think this article should be called Death of ... because that is far more consistent with how road traffic deaths are considered by society as accidental deaths, rather than being due to negligence or recklessness. The charge that Mrs Sacoolas plead not guilty to was Dangerous driving causing Death, although she did plead guilty to Careless driving causing Death. Technically, Mrs Sacoolas has been charged with Dangerous driving and convicted of Careless driving, not Murder or Manslaughter. The aggravating factor is that the (careless or dangerous) manner of driving caused the Death of Harry Dunn, not his "killing". The implication is that in English traffic law, a driver can only cause the death of another person in a road traffic collision, despite them being criminally careless, reckless or negligent while driving. Police still had the option of laying murder or manslaughter charges, which they didn't do. If one considers the flowchart at WP:DEATHS, the decision about the manner of death between a homicide, a suicide (also homicide) and an accidental death does not contemplate a situation, where a criminal act has caused the accidental death of a person, unless one reads "Homicide" as meaning "Execution", "Murder" or "Manslaughter", not all types of homicidal criminal acts. The current title better describes what happened, and it does still meet the various criteria for naming articles. Perhaps this is where one needs to ignore the naming convention in this particular situation. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC) - Revised - 22:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree; "Death of" is the most neutral phrasing given the circumstances. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron Dewe @Ohnoitsjamie I don't agree at all. The full name of the offence is "Causing death by careless driving". The usual meaning of the verb "kill" is causing death: the OED definition of "kill" (sense 2) To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter.
Placing a heavy emphasis on the word "death" alone unduly removes focus from the fact that Sacoolas caused that death. The word for that is "killing", which is the act that someone commits if they kill. Theknightwho (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that interpretation. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines "killing" as an act of killing somebody deliberately.[26] That is clearly inappropriate in this case. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ordinary English use of "killing" includes deliberate killing but isn't limited to that. For example "a brick fell off a building killing a passer-by". S C Cheese (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But did the person who dropped the brick, or knocked it off, kill them? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the definition of “kill” in the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (which you yourself cited) is to make somebody/something die. Causality, not deliberateness, is the key factor here. It is also obvious to draw a distinction between truly accidental deaths and those which were unintentionally caused by someone (but for which they are at fault). It’s not comparable to someone being killed by a falling tree, for example, because somebody is directly (and criminally) culpable. Simply using the word “death” unduly removes focus from that fundamentally important aspect of the event - particularly given that the whole thing became so controversial precisely because Sacoolas did everything she could to avoid the consequences of her actions. Theknightwho (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho, we are talking about the noun "killing", not the verb "kill". And killing implies a deliberate action. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto Which the OED defines as The action of KILL v., in various senses., while Merriam-Webster calls it The act of one that kills.[27]. I don’t see any that draw the distinction that you make about “killing” only and specifically referring to deliberate killings, as Cambridge uses it even more narrowly to specifically refer to murder.[28] Given that you yourself would reject such a narrow definition being used to exclude deliberate-but-legal killings, and the fact that the two most widely respected dictionaries in the world support my definition of “killing”, I think it’s pretty fair to say that the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary can’t just be accepted at face value as evidence for the term being limited to deliberate acts, simply because you find it convenient for your argument. Theknightwho (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As it's definition is apparently so ambiguous, it is definitely better to avoid its use then, I'd say. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto Or we could just stick to the plain language of the term, which is apparently what most RS are doing when they refer to what happened here as a “killing”. Theknightwho (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Causality, not deliberateness, is the key factor here."
Yes S C Cheese (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ DeFacto Are you saying that “murder” and “killing” mean the same thing, then? If I said “Sacoolas killed Harry Dunn”, would you consider that to be an incorrect statement? It seems a completely natural description of events to me. Theknightwho (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Killing can be legal, murder cannot. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto I don’t see how that’s relevant, given what happened here was not legal. You also didn’t answer the question. Theknightwho (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho, sorry if my answer wasn't clear enough - no, I am not saying that "murder" and "killing" mean the same thing, for the reasons I gave in my previous attempt to answer the question. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto I was referring to my question about whether the statement “Sacoolas killed Harry Dunn” was accurate. Theknightwho (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho, no it is not, because it was not a deliberate act, which implied by the use of the word "killing". -- DeFacto (talk). 11:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto So now you’re not only saying it implies a deliberate act, but exclusively only refers to deliberate acts? That isn’t supported by any evidence. You also seem to now be claiming the verb doesn’t refer to culpable accidents either, which suggests the noun and verb aren’t as distinct as you’re claiming they are. Theknightwho (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho, we should avoid any ambiguity, especially per WP:BLP. And as there are obviously many different understandings of the meaning of that word, some of which convey a totally incorrect interpretation of what happened, it is best avoided. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto “Death” still unreasonably downplays the fact that it was a criminally culpable accident. The usual word for something like that is “manslaughter” (also supported by the OED), but “killing” seems like a fair compromise, as it is used in RS - something that has been ignored in this discussion for the most part. Theknightwho (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While being aware of all above arguments, I'm grudgingly against the change, as "killing of" implies intent, whereas "death of" does not - at least to me. Regardless of Sacoolas' behaviour after the event it's clear that she didn't leave the army base intending to kill him. Yes, she caused his death, but it was when all is said and done - an accident. Also negligent and avoidable - but an accident nevertheless. Her post-incident behaviour (and that of the American authorities) is abhorrent, but the incident itself was in all honesty just another RTA. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we should be drawing a distinction between truly accidental deaths and those for which someone is culpable, though? Theknightwho (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone being culpable doesn't lessen the accidental nature of the incident though, and that's the main issue people seem to have with the term "killing" and "death" - "killing" in context implies it wasn't an accident. In fact, this article and incident is a good example of that - Sacoolas is indeed responsible for his death, but it was still an accident - albeit one caused by her negligence. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the bar is that it has to be murder, in your view? That isn’t a reasonable bar, and is clearly inconsistent with policy. The fact she’s criminally culpable is highly relevant, as if she was blameless she wouldn’t have anything to answer for (and I would agree with you). Theknightwho (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify your statement. Where do I say murder? Which policy are you referring to - I might better understand if you link to it, thanks. My statement is that culpability does not deny the accidental nature of an incident, and that there if there was no intent or pre-meditation, then the result is an accident - even if other factors come into play - such as negligence, incompetence or ignorance. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know you did not use the word "murder", but if you require that it not have been an accident, then it's difficult to see how you could mean anything other than murder. Now that you mention premeditation, that narrows it even further. I'm referring to WP:KILLINGS, which admittedly is an explanatory essay, but one that is widely accepted.
This was a homicide, and there was not a conviction for murder. That falls under "killing" by the flowchart. Note that above the flowchart it says Note: to avoid protracted debates, the word "homicide" in this context means "the killing of one person by another, whether premeditated or unintentional". This protracted debate about intention misses the point that we already have an established procedure for things. Consistency across the site is key, and using the word "death" here would not only be inconsistent, but would downplay the severity of the incident by comparison. Theknightwho (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theknightwho: The UNODC classifies "Driving causing Death" as a "Vehicular homicide" in International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes (ICCS); at page 34 this is described as the "Unintended death as a result of a negligent, reckless or involuntary act while operating a vehicle that is not intentionally directed against the victim." It is distinguished from other types of homicide because the criminal act of recklessness does NOT target the victim. Although the victim dies as a result of the criminal behaviour, there is no intention to even harm them. To me, that makes the death accidental and an unintended consequence of the driver's behaviour. The flowchart in WP:KILLINGS does not contemplate this outcome where both paths of the chart can be followed. To me, Death of Harry Dunn is a far more recognizable name for the article than "Vehicular homicide of Harry Dunn". Yes, Dunn was killed by the traffic crash, but his death was not intended and he was not intentionally targeted for harm, so "Death" is a better description of the event than a "Killing". It is also a shorter word and more neutral in the circumstances. Additionally, I am concerned by the degree of personal opinion about how to classify this crime being displayed by this discussion. This suggests the possibility of editorializing. Wikipedia editors should not inject their own opinion into an article. It is not what we (i.e. All Wikipedia editors) think should be the case but what the sources say is the case. In this case, the relevant law calls what happened "Death", not a Murder, nor a Manslaughter, which Wikipedia chooses to describe as a Killing. The flowchart needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and this is an occasion where the salt is needed, rather than the flow chart. Having "Death" in the title also works better and seems more natural, to me. This is what the sources say happened. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What relevance does any of that have to the practice that is already widely used across Wikipedia? Nobody is arguing that this was a murder. WP:KILLINGS quite obviously does contemplate that a death can be caused by someone but unintentional, given the part I have highlighted. That is why it uses the word "unintentional". It is becoming difficult to WP:AGF at this point - especially given that you are trying to dismiss the plain reading of the chart as "editorializing". Theknightwho (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and argue that this event is NOT murder, nor is it manslaughter, it is a fatal outcome of criminal driving behaviour where the victim was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Had it been murder or manslaughter, the police could have laid those charged. They didn't. That means the facts do not support a killing, only death. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong word used in article[edit]

. . . provided immunity from criminal prosecution for the family of US staff (though not retrospectively).

Should be “not retroactively” NOT “retrospectively” Ralphcoffey1954 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for pointing out. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

There are very many media sources which describe Dunn as a "19-year-old" when he died. There are also Twitter posts such as this and this which confirm he was born in 2000. There's also the date at findagrave here which clearly says 22 March 2000. So it seems when Andrea Leadsom asked her question of Raab, on 22 March 2022, "on what would have been Dunn's 21st birthday", she was mistaken. 86.188.121.31 (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the BBC has consistently described Dunn as "19-year-old". Here's just the latest example. It's hard to believe they have been wrong for over three years. There are literally hundreds of instances on line. Here's a direct quote from his mother. Charlotte Charles: "He was 19 and doing nothing wrong." I think she ought to know. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Couple things...[edit]

"Fled is a very subjective term". By subjective I mean biased; you don't flee after 19 days unless you're a sloth or something. And it actually says something to imply immediate which was wrong. The 'flight' was 19 days later. That would put the departure at September 15, 2019 if the crash was on August 27. According to timebetweendates website at least. Here's the source: https://news.sky.com/story/case-of-harry-dunns-alleged-killer-anne-sacoolas-to-be-heard-this-week-at-london-court-12705800

@Martinevans123(talk) I had two pages open at the same time and got confused which article I was looking at. I'm not a regular editor so I don't really know the formatting.

I posted something similar in the Talk:Diplomatic_Immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity since they also had the dates wrong. They referred to these things happening in October when she was leaving in September. In order to get the citations correct I wasn't going to play with it. But the original source site is already dead. Stratfordbaby (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Statfordbaby. That's a very good spot on the date confusion, thanks. It's unfortunate (and perhaps a bit surprising) that we only have the Sky News source for the date of 15 September. At the time it was all happening, I remember that we had no sources for the exact date of her departure. I tend to agree with you that the word "fled" does usually suggest immediate action. But I think there maybe some discussion in the archives here. I just added the quote to show that the source uses that word (in fact, it uses it twice). Apologies for the rapid revert, but we'd need to add that Sky News page as a new source. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'fled' is unnecessarily sensationalist language as often found in the news media, and that we shouldn't editorialise in that way. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to follow the sources, as I maintained at the archived discussion here, four and a half years ago. Perhaps we should ask User:NickCT again what he thinks. I had almost forgotten about that discussion, until you appeared. Maybe an RfC is the right way to go? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow the sources for the facts, of course, but not necessarily for the spin they apply by their choice of loaded terminology.
Also, I see you pinged one of the contributors to a previous discussion on this. I'm not sure how that sits with WP:VOTESTACKING, which says: Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion..., and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means ping all the others. He was the one who opened that discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other three discussants were User:Pawnkingthree, User:The Anome and User:Quisqualis. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The usage of "fled" and its variants is present in numerous reliable sources. Try a Google search for "Sacoolas fled" (not in quotes). On the other hand, so is "left"; try searching for "Sacoolas left" (again without quotes). Looking at the dictionary definition of fleeing, I get the emphasis seems to be more on leaving to avoid something, and less on leaving rapidly or promptly. — The Anome (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many of the people crossing the English Channel in small boats may be fleeing persecution in their country of origin. But it may have taken them years to embark on their journeys and their progress may have been extremely slow. I don't see how it's "editorialising" to say they "are fleeing" or "have fled". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Harry_Dunn&oldid=1221186766"