Talk:2014 killings of NYPD officers

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

What did really happen?[edit]

I am concerned that the article simply is a mirror of press and police accounts. I am a New Yorker and over the years I have witnessed the effects of the NYPD's "Blue Wall of Silence". I would like the article to have included forensic and investigative data. The questions that should be answered are as follows:

1. Were autopsies performed on the the three victims? What did they reveal?
2. What did the crime scene unit determine in terms of number of shots fired, the location of the wounds and path of of the projectiles, the position of the bodies and other forensic information.
3. What were the conclusions? Were the officers responding to the threat or were they sleeping, engaged in a conversation or observing their surroundings?
4. Eye witness accounts of the behavior and description of the shooter.
5. How was the identity of the shooter determined? What information is available about the murder weapon? What are the details of forensic tests on the weapon? How many shots were fired? How many bullets were recovered? Do they match the weapon?
6. It is reported that the shooter committed suicide. Again, what are the forensic data that led to this conclusion. Are there videos or photos available?

Addendum: yesterday, a NYPD official stated that henceforth, when stopped, one of the occupants of NYPD cruiser will have to step out and actively survey the surroundings. This bit of news obliquely corroborates my questions listed under #3.

Addendum: Interestingly, a recent "The New York Times" article, 'New Challenges to Secrecy That Protects Police Files' (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/nyregion/new-challenges-to-secrecy-that-protects-police-files.html) buttresses my arguments that this Wikipedia article does not meet the required standards of objectivity. The two officers may have been "cooping" and thus weren't even aware of the approaching danger. Conversely, the presumed assailant way have been killed by fellow officers. Only forensic data can answer these doubts. And based on the present climate, it is high unlikely that such information will be available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxikammikikem (talk • contribs) 02:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this entire article should be removed as it lacks the rudiments of objectivity.

Maxikammikikem (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Is this a good title for this article? Were these the only NYPD officer killings in 2014? I have no idea, butI am assuming – in a big city like New York – that there were others. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There could possibly be a better title. Do you have any suggestions? Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No suggestions at the moment. I just assumed that there had to be other killings of NYPD officers that took place in 2014. (Of course, I might be incorrect in that assumption.) If indeed there were others, then this title is inappropriate. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "The last shooting death of an NYPD officer came in December 2011" [1]. There still could potentially be a better title. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least that is some good news. No other NYPD officers killed from 2012–2014. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One possible alternative would be "Deaths of Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu" per other articles about double homicides. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not bad. But almost no one would search under "Rafael Ramos" or "Wenjian Liu". I suspect that most readers will search under some variation of "NYPD officers killed" or "NYPD officers murdered" or some such. Nonetheless, if we do decide to go with "Deaths of Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu", I would order the victims by alphabetical order, hence, "Deaths of Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't support. The individuals in and of themselves not notable, and overwhelming majority do not know their names. They're notable because they were NYPD officers. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have this problem often. The event and not the individuals tend to be the focus of sources and the most likely phrase in a search. Still the names of the decease are often used in the title of the article with other common phrases used in redirects. When we were writing the article Murder of Lee Rigby we used other names, such as 2013 Woolwich beheading which is a more likely phrase that people would use in a search. As a matter of fact we have quite a few redirects to that article [2], many which were previous names for the article. We don't have to use Murders of Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos but we should consider it at some point.
On the other hand, multiple deaths are often described by other names. Some occur during riots, civil disturbances, war, terror attacks, etc. While the two officers killed in Brooklyn occurred in the context of other events, the lone-wolf attacker has no actual association with other possible accomplices.
I see several articles that start with "Murders of ..." in the case of two victims. There's no hard and fast rule but that seems reasonable (with other names used in redirects.) Jason from nyc (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about Ismaaiyl Brinsley killings or Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley killings or killings by Ismaaiyl Brinsley? I think a suspect would be a teeny-tiny more notable than two officers, but not as notable as the event itself. --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally don't see that as improvement over current title, which I'm actually content with at this point. My take. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, per WP:N, the pair of killings of this year's all killings on NYPD officers is greatly notable, and the current title could be concise enough. If not precise enough, how about adding "December" then? --George Ho (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need, but will see what others think. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per below, no. These are the only actual killings unless you were to count health issues as killings, too. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the original question: Yes, these were the only NYPD officer line-of-duty deaths in 2014, and this doesn't include deaths resulting from health issues. This doesn't include an arson in Coney Island in the spring when one officer died of smoke inhalation. But the title is correct. Epicgenius (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An officer died in the line of duty in a car accident as well. Since there are more than two officers in this incident I think the title is appropriate. I feel that articles about a specific killing are titled based on the victim's name ie Sean Bell, Mike Brown, Eric Garner. I know wp:ose, but I like uniformity. Also the incident is notable because police officers were killed, if this guy shot a random person walking down the street it wouldn't even be considered for an article.69.74.180.19 (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One small problem with the title is that it excludes the attempted killing of the girlfriend, who does not show up until nearly halfway down the page. Artw (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The incident is notable because of the murder of the police officers. The ex-girlfriend being shot is more of side story.69.74.180.19 (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
She was the first victim if the shooting spree that concluded with those officers and the suicide, that seems reasonably notable. Artw (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Reactions" section[edit]

This section should be in prose. At least I converted one part already; the rest should be the same. --George Ho (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The PBA reaction with the talk of blood on hands and open warfare etc... Should at least come before reactions to that. Artw (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Choking" death[edit]

The link to the Death of Eric Garner article states "was involved in the choking death of Eric Garner". Choking has not been proven, it's been discussed here Talk:Death of Eric Garner and the article itself is neutrally titled Death of Eric Garner. Stating choking is appears to violate Wp:NPOV.69.74.180.19 (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "chocking" from the article for now. That should be further debated at that talk page. --George Ho (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect, assailant, perpetrator[edit]

At one point in the article Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley is titled as each. Due to my uniformity OCD I think it should only be one. I prefer assailant.69.74.180.19 (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a slight preference for "perpetrator" over "assailant". For ease of reading and reduction of monotony, we can alternate between the two throughout the article. I think "suspect" is not particularly applicable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on suspect.69.74.180.19 (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I originally used "suspect" because WP:BDP urges caution on biographical data even for recently deceased. However, it is clear to all the sources that Brinsley is the killer and he is described that way without qualification--for example, no source uses "alleged" as a modifier. I agree we should replace "suspect" with either "assailant" or "perpetrator." We might even change the title from "killings" to "murders." There's no dispute among the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "killings" and "murders" is that the ex-girlfriend was shot but survived (she did not die). And that goes to a point raised up above; what is a good title for this article? Yes, the two officers were killed/murdered. But the girlfriend is an important part of the narrative, I think. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a consensus to remove "suspect" (which I initially put in). I'll remove it. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand jury process[edit]

I don't understand how people wanting to eliminate the grand jury process has to with the murder of two police officers.69.74.180.19 (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. But, if you want "answers" and you want it to "make sense", then we would point to mental instability and irrational thinking on the part of the killer who was seeking "revenge". By definition, when you are dealing with irrational people, "rational" thinking goes out the window. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TBH if there is not a direct link this is probably best dealt with elsewhere. Artw (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But, there is indeed a direct link. The OP is wondering what on earth can be the connection between the Brown/Garner grand jury cases and the murder of these two officers. It's a valid question. To many people, the incidents are very attenuated, at best. I "get" the notion that the guy was using the murders (at least, in his own mind) as a revenge for the Brown/Garner grand jury decisions. But, I can see how a lot of readers would not "get" that concept. Especially if one is not from the USA. So, I think it's a valid question and it raises points that should be addressed in the article, if at all possible. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's indirect. We're able to say he had talked about the police killings, it seems reasonable to mention the protests at those killings (especially given Lynch's statements and the Mayors call to pause them) but going beyond that seems a little excessive and possibly WP:SYNTH if we imply that's something that the shooter supported. Artw (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow you at all. First, in an above post, you stated: TBH if there is not a direct link this is probably best dealt with elsewhere. I thought you meant that this topic of discussion is not appropriate for this Talk Page and should be discussed elsewhere. That was what I was replying to, in my above post. Second, you stated: ... if we imply that's something that the shooter supported. What does "that's something" refer to? If it's what that the shooter supported? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it's fine to talk about the grand jury material on the talk page, that is what the talk page is for. My take on it is it does not belong in the article. Sorry if I was unclear. Artw (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. But, I guess that I still don't follow you. You do not think that there is a direct connection between the NYPD officer murders and the cases of Brown/Garner? Is that what you are saying? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be an article yet on "2014 excessive force protests", but GJ reform is clearly part of this discussion. If the police officers involved in previous incidents had been charged with something, anything, it's unlikely these two officers would have been shot. There is a direct connection, but maybe we need a new article to address this issue in a broader way. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I was posted as 69.74.180.19, i wasn't able to sign in for personal reasons.) My point is the grand jury statement really does not have anything to do with this article. Its appropriate in another article. This article isn't the place to discuss all of the topics surrounding Garner/Brown deaths.Racingstripes (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-protests[edit]

I don't see how this information is relevant[3], making it a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:Undue. If you want to highlight the worst of the counter-protests, then we would have to highlight the worst of the protests, and that's outside the purview of this article unless one wants to simply POV push. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's in reaction to the killings then, like the calls for grand jury reform, this is probably better placed in an article specifically about the protests, which it's becoming increasingly clear we need.
BTW the "kill the cops" chant you mention in your edit history is a fabrication[4], so wouldn't be mentioned either way. Artw (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also add that any police protests that can be linked to Pat Lynch's statements is absolutely something we can add. Artw (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the protests are relevant to the shooting, then the counter-protests are equally relevant. Both provide context for the shooting, so this deleted information should be restored. To not mention both is not WP:NPOV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very much like false balance and WP:UNDUE. The big question would be this - are the sources mentioning them? Artw (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These counter-protests did occur prior to the shooting, were mentioned by reliable sources, and are just as relevant as the protests - "More than 100 police supporters in 'I can breathe' T-shirts mocking Eric Garner's last words clash with anti-cop protesters in New York City" and "'I can breathe' shirts at pro-NYPD rally anger #BlackLivesMatter protesters": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NYPD_officer_killings&diff=639832373&oldid=639797640
I found a story about the shooting that mentions the counter-protests and the t-shirts, and restored the deleted information: http://www.bet.com/news/politics/2014/12/22/obama-condemns-fatal-shootings-of-two-new-york-city-police-officers.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamir Rice[edit]

Inclusion or exclusion of mention of the Shooting of Tamir Rice in background[5]? Again, this seems quite tangential to the matter at hand given that the assailant specifically mentioned Brown and Garner. Inclusion seems to violate WP:Undue and WP:Synth. Thoughts?

The section about protests is about protests going on in New York before the shooting. As you can see from the reliably sourced material that has been repeatedly deleted from the article, Tamir Rice is mentioned in the headline of the article, which is about protests which are to happen in New York and other cities - "Eric Garner, Mike Brown, Tamir Rice Police Protests Planned For This Weekend": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_NYPD_officer_killings&diff=639988649&oldid=639985106 Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude Tamir Rice. The shooter specifically mentioned Brown/Garner as motive and not Rice.Racingstripes (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the "Background" section, not the "Shooting" section. Protesters were also protesting the shooting of Rice, per reliable sources. Wikipedia is not about airbrushing out the facts to suit the sensibilities of editors. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what wikipedia is about. I also know that this is an articke about two police officers being killed and the guy that did it. It is not an article about every controversial police shooting. It neither an article about protests for or against the police. The article must stick to the incident.Racingstripes (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying in an article about the assassination of President Lincoln, we shouldn't mention the Civil War? If we mention the protests, and that is how the article stands at the moment, we should do so accurately. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that. Lincoln's killer was inspired by the results of Civil War so it should be included. What should not be included is everything that occurred during the civil war. The officers’ killer specifically stated that he was motivated by Garner/Brown so that should be included. Every detail about Garner/Brown should not be included. And he never mentioned Tamir Rice or the protests so those should not be included. Linking to Garner and Brown is appropriate.Racingstripes (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral[edit]

There is nothing about their funeral. Why? It was very big-attended funeral. And this is also interesting moment - (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7km5xFy1_Qk). 46.70.82.137 (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia - yes you can! Note the format used by other editors for quoting reliable sources and plug in the info from the article of your choice. I would do it, but I've been busy arguing with people who are deleting relevant, reliably sourced, neutrally worded material because they don't like it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is an important information. M.Karelin (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just click on "edit" and add your reliably sourced information. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed move[edit]

Without any discussion, Jax 0677 moved the page from "2014 NYPD officer killings" to "2014 New York City Police Department law enforcement officer killings". Given that there was no discussion and the new title is of questionable merit, I would advise that the previous title be restored until the issue can be properly discussed on the talk page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The discussion has been ongoing and while we all share Jax 0677 concern, we have not reached a consensus, let alone favor the long title that Jax chose. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I apologize, and have attempted to restore the previous title via WP:RM. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article to '2014 NYPD officer killings' per Jax's request at WP:RMTR. If people are still not happy with this title why not open a formal move discussion here using the {{Requested move}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest "2014 New York City police officer shooting". Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No "black"?[edit]

I know I'm new around here, but I find it strange that Brinsley isn't referred to as "black," while in the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin articles, the races of both the shooter and victim are disclosed on their pages in the first few sentences:

"On the night of February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, United States, George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old African American high school student. Zimmerman, a 28-year-old mixed-race Hispanic man"

"The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis. Brown, an 18-year-old black man, was fatally shot by Darren Wilson, 28, a white Ferguson police officer."

Hate crime[edit]

Chuck Canterbury of the FOP has called for the police officers to be covered under hate crimes legislation. There may be a debate as to if this particular instance or other instances are examples of hate crimes against police officers, but it is pretty clear that there is hate out there against police simply for being police officers, and people who do actually hate police officers do in fact act upon these hatreds, typically violently. You know.... "them pigs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.46.49.251 (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 June 2015[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The redirect can be discussed at RfD if necessary, but neither of BDD's suggestions has been opposed so far. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 NYPD officer killings → 2014 killings of NYPD officers – It needs to clarify that the officers are the victims here. Before I clicked on the title, I thought it was going to be a list of killings perpetrated by the NYPD, when it actually turned out to be a retribution-related retaliation concerning black deaths. Kiwifist (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move - I wholeheartedly agree with @Kiwifist:, that he "thought it was going to be a list of killings perpetrated by the NYPD". --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Current title is far too ambiguous, and both titles are Wikipedia inventions so there's no need to judge which is more common. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Confusing and equivocal title. And I agree with the requester -- Chamith (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, confusing, current title could mean killings perform by NYPD officers -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should we do with the old title? Deleting it might be the most clear, but there would be legacy links to clean up. We could retarget to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2014 and use a hatnote, or keep it as a redirect to the new name, with a hatnote to that page. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Chamith. CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2015 (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.

Number of people killed[edit]

@Article editor: I undid this edit that you made. Your edit makes it seem like the perpetrator didn't die or is not a person. However, a lot of articles in Category:Murder–suicides in the United States have "(including the perpetrator)" in the infobox. Examples include 101 California Street shooting, 2010 ABB plant shootings, and 2014 Isla Vista killings. 100.12.206.17 (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2014 killings of NYPD officers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent page move[edit]

@The Diaz: I have moved the page back to 2014 killings of NYPD officers from Murders of Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu. First, the page was moved without discussion. Second, and the main rationale against the proposed move, is that the former is more concise than the latter and was determined based on previous discussions. epicgenius (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2016 shootings of Des Moines police officers which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_killings_of_NYPD_officers&oldid=1196675188"