Talk:Killing of Terence Crutcher

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

Vox as source[edit]

Curious what people think of using this Vox article as a source? I get the feeling Vox is close to RS, but a bit questionable. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Vox is fine. What issues to people have against it? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just not as high quality as CNN/BBC/other acronyms imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not as high quality as the acronyms, but I haven't found any fault with it. (Also, it's not an acronym :P). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the judge ![edit]

"running vehicle" "ignoring police directions"

are both remarks which we cannot confirm at the moment. At least in one report they write that his car broke down in the middle of the road. And "ignoring police directions" implies that he was aware of such. I'm not sure how high that helicopter was flying. All I see is a guy with his hands in the air ... In other words I would recomment to leave any stuff out that cannot be confirmed at the moment. Let a judge decide what really happened and just then put it down here. All we have at the moment is what the police give us, right ? They are not a neutral party in the matter, right ? JB. --84.186.129.13 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The intro says he "walked away with his hands in the air while ignoring police direction," but the article later says "Police initially claimed that he refused to show his hands and that he reached into his vehicle, however later-released footage disputed this." So the intro is making a judgement call that's not even borne out by the rest of the article.Sadiemonster (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "ignoring" part. That's not supported by the sources generally. It's unclear if he was or not. IIRC, some sources say he was instructed to back to his vehicle. I think the copter footage even says this. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PCP[edit]

I added the info about the PCP found but I'm not sure if it should be in a separate section. There is no evidence at this time that he had PCP in his system. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it for now out of BLP/BDP concerns. NY Daily News says Betty Shelby thought he was high, and that a "source" said the found some in the car (seems rather coincidental tbh), but that the official spokesperson won't confirm it. Shelby appears to be using this as a defense that she feared for her life (IBTimes) to meet the Graham v. Connor minimum requirement. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Record[edit]

A few people have tried to add Crutcher's entire rap sheet to the article. It's completely WP:UNDUE and frankly has the appearance of placing blame on Crutcher for past actions. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed it again. I agree with you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

has the appearance of placing blame on Crutcher for past actions.

He has a track record of resisting arrest. The whole controversy surrounds whether or not he was resisting arrest and not following police orders. He has a track record of doing this. How is it not relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.223.142 (talk) 06:53, September 23, 2016‎
What he did years ago is not relevant to what happened this week. Mentioning his criminal history suggests that he is guilty of something, when there are plenty of other strong explanations that you'd leave out, meaning WP:UNDUE weight and WP:POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"We do not eliminate flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis whenever a black male is the subject of an investigatory stop. However, in such circumstances, flight is not necessarily probative of a suspect's state of mind or consciousness of guilt. Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."[1]

I suggest leading a hidden comment in the background section pointing users to this talk page thread. It may help with getting everyone on the same page/explaining policy. Airplaneman ✈ 05:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump reaction[edit]

I removed this content:

Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for the 2016 U.S. presidential election, stated in a press conference that while he was a "tremendous believer in the police and law enforcement", he was "very, very troubled" by the shooting.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Associated Press (September 21, 2016). "The Latest: Trump says he's troubled by Tulsa shooting". Fox News U.S. Retrieved September 26, 2016.
  2. ^ Diamond, Jeremy (September 21, 2016). "Trump 'very troubled' by Oklahoma fatal police shooting". CNN. Retrieved September 26, 2016.

On similar articles we've not included political candidates remarks as (1) they are often not very useful to the readers and (2) they're usually political soundbites. While it's a bit unusual that Trump said this, I don't think it's worth mentioning his (or Clinton's) opinion of the matter unless it maybe comes up in a debate or something more notable. In other articles, we have opted to only include political comments from the POTUS, state governor, and maybe a mayor. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's reaction to this event was particularly noteworthy for the self-proclaimed "law and order" candidate, as he would generally not take a position on these shootings, therefore I believe it should be included in the reactions section. MB298 (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To us, yes, that is interesting. But the sources don't make that leap. They just said he said it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa officer acquitted of killing unarmed black man holds police shooting survival class[edit]

This may be important to include, Betty Jo Shelby is now running classes on "surviving officer-involved shootings."

Thanks John Cummings (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 November 2019[edit]

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: CONSENSUS TO NOT MOVE. (non-admin closure) CThomas3 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Terence Crutcher → ? – Terence Crutcher was killed or fatally shot. We should say so. Search results also show it is the COMMONNAME. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

killing of Terence Crutcher shooting of Terence Crutcher fatal shooting of Terence Crutcher
~147 Google search results ~128 which includes some instances of "fatal shooting..." ~116

--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The normal title used on wikipedia is just "shooting", even for fatal ones: e.g. Shooting of Andy Lopez, Shooting of Alfred Olango, etc. Obviously, all the occurrences of "fatal shooting" can be included in "shooting", so I don't think the COMMONNAME argument holds much weight. There is a variety in the way Crutcher is introduced in secondary sources: "the death of Terence Crutcher", "Terence Crutcher was shot to death", "was shot and killed", etc. StAnselm (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I will follow your red herring. In any case, "Killing of ..." is a common article title format on Wikipedia, including instances where the deceased was shot by police such as Killing of Patrick Harmon and Killing of Sergio Hernandez Guereca. You are right though and it is interesting how when the person who was killed is black, we are more likely to use the euphemism "Shooting of..." Very interesting! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And maybe there needs to be a wider discussion to gain consistency. I just followed the categories to Category:Deaths by firearm in California, where there are lots of "Shooting of" titles, and no "Killing of". StAnselm (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very telling that white women are murdered or killed and white men are murdered or killed, but black men and women are shot.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you're coming to that conclusion (unless you're talking about outside of Wikipedia?). According to this, there are only three "Killing of..." articles about fatal shootings by police and none of them are about white people. Killing of Atatiana Jefferson, Patrick Harmon and Sergio Hernandez Guereca. Two black victims and one Mexican national.
"Shooting of..." is simply the common naming convention on Wikipedia for these cases, regardless of race (see Shooting of Justine Damond, Daniel Shaver, and James Boyd, all are about victims who were white). Surachit (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and started RMs at the three "Killing of" articles per this convention. StAnselm (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 10 August 2023[edit]

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: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 03:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Terence Crutcher → Killing of Terence Crutcher – Per WP:Deaths. Inexpiable (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:DEATHS, which had not been written at the time of the 2019 move request. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Terence_Crutcher&oldid=1205234862"