Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Atatiana Jefferson/Archive 1

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

Possible POV

"Kraus said Dean has been uncooperative with investigators and has not answered their questions." I recognize that variants this statement are in all news reports but it seems slanted against Dean, indicating that he should cooperate when he is probably invoking his Fifth Amendment rights at this point. More neutral wording might be, "Kraus indicated that Dean declined to answer questions." Emperor001 (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that this is POV. Though news outlets are saying it, I dare say they're looking for any info to add to the story. In the long run, I doubt this is that important of a detail. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Emperor001 and EvergreenFir: I've moved that information to a later section on the response and investigation to the shooting. Let me know if it looks OK? I want the article to be transparent, but agree that we have to be careful here. It would be standard and expected for someone accused of a crime "not to cooperate" or answer questions until they have a lawyer. -Darouet (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I might change "not cooperated" to "declined to answer questions" which is a fairer way to say that a criminal defendant is standing on his right to remain silent. The only reason I wouldn't say that "he invoked his rights" is because the news reports did not expressly give that as his reason for not answering questions, though as an attorney I'd say that's a fair inference. Is that change acceptable? Emperor001 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
While I am sympathetic to this view — and it's certainly possible the police department is trying to cover its own ass by distancing itself from the officer — I'm reluctant to endorse this change because we don't actually know what Kraus' statement means. I think attributing the statement to Kraus is necessary (I've done this). Otherwise, unless we find a source that states what you've said, Emperor001, I don't think we should write this. -Darouet (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll keep an eye out for if his attorney releases a statement as to his refusal to answer questions. I also agree with your assessment as to why the interim chief chose those words. Emperor001 (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Update: this article https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/10/15/atatiana-jefferson-pointed-gun-out-window-before-fort-worth-officer-killed-her-nephew-told-authorities/ which I used to cite other facts uses this wording: "The former officer, who resigned Monday, has not provided a written statement nor answered any questions, the chief said." Emperor001 (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Emperor001: sounds good. It's also more meaningful / helpful to readers. -Darouet (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

... came the window to ...

"Police body camera footage showed that when she came to her window to observe police outside her home, Officer Aaron Dean shot through it and killed her." I don't think the body camera footage (which I have seen) indicates anymore than her coming to the window to see whoever or whatever was roaming the dark behind her house. There is no way to determine "... she came to her window to observe police outside her home ...". That statement seems to imply that (a) she knew it was the police and (b) she came to the window armed to observe them. That surmises more than is offered by evidence in the footage. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 November 2019

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: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Killing of Atatiana Jefferson → Shooting of Atatiana Jefferson – Per consistency with other articles in Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States: virtually all have "Shooting of..." rather than "Killing of..." StAnselm (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

The headline

In the opening it states Charges: murder and Arrests: 1. This seemingly sets it up as though Ms. Jefferson was the one committing a crime. I would opt to change it to Cause of death: murder. You could go into further details during the article. Please look into this! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6800:AC60:B188:BA13:5FBC:740E (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Race and Botham Jean

Many news outlets are mentioning the race of the officer and victim as well as its relationship to the Murder of Botham Jean. Below is a list of sources:

I've added this info to the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I know this is a waste of my time, but half of those articles are using quotes from various neighbors and such. The sites that do mention race fail to include why the race is a factor. To be clear, it isn't. They are only including race to generate outrage and increase viewership. Including it in the damn First sentence here makes me think it's being done for a similar purpose. I see this quite often on these pages, and usually done/defended by same couple of people. Including the race in the information about the victim/shooter further down is reasonable, but making it a headline is not. You never see this if it's white/white, black/black, or black killing white. Yet, I see this every time an article pops up when officer/shooter is white. Worse, any attempted debate is usually immediately shot down. I still retain a measure of hope that at very least we can discuss this civilly, though history suggests otherwise.

Btw, to be clear, if I seem overly upset over this, it's because I'm getting tired of seeing MSM and Wikipedia doing everything they can to create further tension/violence between the races. It's disgusting. Granted, the blame falls mostly on the shoulders of the mainstream media... I just find it disheartening to see wikipedia editors follow along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.109.184 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You are the one with bias, not them. While race doesn't appear to be a factor in this incident, it does in many, many others, and there is clear evidence of it in general and you are using this story for your own phony crusade. I find it disheartening you continue to ignore the evidence of serious problems in policing and the justice system. And you are flat out lying in your 'you never see this' claims which is pure biased hyperbole not fact. I'm apt to petition removal of your comments for clear racist intent. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Non-factual, irrelevant content intended to incite racial hatred

Modern-day media outlets no longer focus on providing factual, informative content, but rather are driven by profit. They are very much aware of the fact that people are much more likely to click on content which involves massive outrage, and they're also aware that racism is a very hot topic which has been the source of tons of outrage for many years. As such, any opportunity to pretend that race is involved increases profits, so they do it as much as possible, usually incorrectly, and at the expense of white people's reputation and safety.

There is no solid evidence that this case was racially-motivated. As such, it would be irresponsible to include race in the article as people are impressionable and are likely to believe it, which could lead to dangerous racial hatred towards white people. Content doing as much as hinting that race is involved incorrectly is therefore dangerous and must be deleted.

The fact of the matter is that a woman was killed by a police officer. The obvious factors surrounding this, such as the handgun in the woman's possession, are noteworthy as this is a solid reason for the police officer to have killed her, for example if she aimed it at him or he otherwise felt threatened. It is not reasonable, in the face of this fact, to say that his and her skin colours are in any way involved.

The fact that she was black and he was white is particularly irrelevant because there are hundreds of cases of black officers killing black civilians, white officers killing white civilians, and black officers killing white civilians, with evidence showing that white civilians are the worst-hit racial group, invalidating the claim that there is racial bias against black people, and rather demonstrating the opposite [1]. Due to the fact that anti-white racism isn't deemed an issue in society, such claims are never made because they don't attract adequate attention and aren't profitable for media outlets. Only claims of racism of white people against black people are ever noted, and this is fundamentally racist. Confirmation bias is also a factor as people of an already-anti-white stance will note the supposed racial aspect of this case and build on their prejudice. By extension, the Black Lives Matter reference is irrelevant as it's merely a confirmation bias-fuelled opinion. To include that opinion means you must also include opposing opinions.

Wikipedia is a popular website trusted to provide factual information by millions of people. It is dangerous to host non-factual content on this platform, especially with the knowledge that misinformation/propaganda fuels violence and could lead to crime by black supremacist hate groups, for which Wikipedia could be criminally negligent.

2A00:23A8:430B:BA00:6073:2325:E1AF:5911 (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither Wikipedia nor this article are written as clickbait or to produce a profit. The race of the officer and of Jefferson were both widely reported in the news, and because we rely upon the news at Wikipedia, we also report their races. I agree that our article should not inappropriately suggest that the officer shot Jefferson because she was black. However, removing any mention from the lead of the article of their race would also be inappropriate.
It is true that many people of all races are shot by police of all races. However, native Americans and African Americans are killed at much higher rates than other demographics. This is why newspapers and civil rights organizations will report on the racial dynamics of police killings.
If you have a concrete suggestion for how to improve the wording of the lead, that is fine. When I first wrote the article, the lead read as follows [2]:

Atatiana Koquice Jefferson was shot and killed by police in her home in Fort Worth, Texas in the early morning hours of Saturday, 12 October 2019. Police arrived at Jefferson's home after neighbors called a non-emergency number, stating that Jefferson's front door was open. Police body camera footage showed that when Jefferson came to her window to observe police outside her home, a police officer opened fire through the window and killed her. Jefferson was black, and the police officer who shot her is white. The Fort Worth Police Department has stated that the office has been placed on administrative leave.

I believe my original handling of the issue was more appropriate than mentioning race in the very first sentence. But the information does need to be somewhere in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @JavaHurricane and WWGB: what are your thoughts? I do think the first sentence is too prominent, as it is a little suggestive, and... Jefferson was shot through the window in the dark. -Darouet (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
And lastly pinging @EvergreenFir: it appears you introduced the relevant promotion to the first sentence here [3]. I still support the reference to Botham Jean at the end of the lead. -Darouet (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Remember Wikipedia is not censored, though in my opinion, that first sentence also has WP:NPOV issues. I won't oppose removing racial words from that sentence, but I would take the community opinion before doing so. -- JavaHurricane 17:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, please don't consider me a part of this discussion. I was patrolling Recent Changes, saw this removal, and reverted it while asking the IP to discuss the removal with the community before removing the problematic information. -- JavaHurricane 18:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@JavaHurricane: Alright, your opinion is noted, though I guess we won't be asking for further discussion from you! -Darouet (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if this was motived by racial bias or not. What matters is that the race of the individuals was notable per WP:RS. Specifically, it's a case that is situated in a larger pattern of race relations in the US. We must include this information per WP:DUE. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: agreed it is DUE - I thought my comment above and my original wording [4] made that clear. The question is whether the information should be in the first sentence of the lead, giving the greatest prominence possible to the race of both involved. Would you object to my original wording, removing race from the first sentence of the lead? -Darouet (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with all your other statements in the above comment. But my question basically is, what would you think of a solution where race is mentioned in the lead, but not in the first sentence? What do you think of the bolded sentence in the green text I quoted above, which is how the lead looked at some time in the past? -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Darouet: Sorry, I was the one who was unclear (and this cold isn't helping). Overall, I'd prefer that it be mentioned in the first paragraph is possible, but in the lead somewhere at least. I have no objection to the wording proposed or its placement. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: There is no pattern of race relations; this is simply a division tactic which works to indoctrinate people through confirmation bias. People of all races love and hate all other races. While the media did indeed note race for the reasons in my edit summary, I believe it would be irresponsible to state that without also reinforcing the fact that they're not necessarily correct to do so due to a lack of solid evidence that skin colour was the motivating factor. People trust the media blindly, which is dangerous when they'll write any article for profit, using outrage culture as leverage. We'll end up with media outlets blatantly lying for financial reasons and people just believing anything they say because to them, they appear to be an authority on the matter. 2A00:23A8:430B:BA00:D022:9D5B:CCED:F991 (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
This is not a forum for your opinions about division tactics or race relations in the US. We go by what reliable sources say. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
2A00:23A8:430B:BA00:D022:9D5B:CCED:F991: I agree with what EvergreenFir has written. I would also note that this article does not state race was a motivating factor in Jefferson's killing. However, if newspapers report that it was, or that it might have been, then it is our duty to inform readers that (some) newspapers wrote this. Readers don't need to accept those explanations, but they should at least be aware of them. -Darouet (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Atatiana_Jefferson/Archive_1&oldid=1180839053"