Talk:Ferguson Police Department (Missouri)

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

Secondary coverage[edit]

IMHO, if an incident did not get substantial secondary national coverage then it is unlikely to belong as the "history" of a police department. YMMV, so what is the importance of, say, hiring a person who was let go from another PD unless that person gets involved in an incident for which they are found culpable? Collect (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the problem is the lack of a "Misconduct" section. This section just ought to be retitled. We know nothing about the department's history, date of establishment, names of previous chiefs and so on. These sort of things are commonly listed as misconduct (and seems quite notable). As history, they are lacking. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO,

Between July 2009 and December 2010, Eddie Boyd III was hired as a police officer by the department. Boyd had previously been fired from the Saint Louis Police Department after that department had to pay $35,000 in a lawsuit resulting from Boyd beating a young man he was attempting to arrest.

Is subject to WP:BLP. The source is an opinion column from HuffPo, and elides an acquittal for that officer. Sorry -- the BLP violation is blatant and must be removed -- the source used is insufficient for the contentious claim, and the claim in the article elides the acquittal. Collect (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong. But you have played the BLP card, and we both take that very seriously. So, let's remove it for at least a bit there is a lot of emotion on this at the moment, and details are still coming out. Let's look again in a few weeks. I am on vacation now anyway. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is easily resolved by including the acquittal and not naming the individual. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks?[edit]

Is this list useful? Does it represent actual ranks of officers in this PD? Or is it "well we have this list somewhere, so let's add it here" sort of useless information? If it is useful, can someone find the name of the Lt. Col. for this force please? Collect (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section. The statute pertains to the big cities of St. Louis & KC, MO, not little towns like Ferguson. Besides, we have no RS which says the insignia images are the same ones used by the military. – S. Rich (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I removed the military titles. There is no RS which says FPD uses these designations. (Perhaps they were added to the article as a spin-off from the criticisms we've seen of "military style" tactics used to suppress the riots.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC) PS: Struck comment. Article history shows they were in the text pre-riots. – S. Rich (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New NEWS today, for future editing[edit]

A lot of content in this NBCnews online article: video, pictures, and text including future investigation of the police department.

Headline-1: Darren Wilson Described Michael Brown as 'Crazy,' Intent on Killing Him

QUOTE: "According to grand jury records released Monday night, Wilson was asked several times by two Ferguson police detectives on Sunday, Aug. 10, what he was thinking during the confrontation. Wilson replied: "He's gonna kill me. How do I survive? How do I live through this, basically?" Later in the interview, Wilson said Brown was physically uncontrollable and "for lack of a better word, crazy. I've never seen that. I mean, it was very aggravated, aggressive, hostile. Just, you couldn't, you could, you could tell he was lookin' through [you]."" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.[reply]

Headline-2: Crowds gather outside Ferguson Police Department

Set of pictures: fires started. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.[reply]

Headline-3: Protests Flare After Ferguson Police Officer Is Not Indicted

QUOTE: "Word of the decision set off a new wave of anger among hundreds who had gathered outside the Ferguson Police Department. Police officers in riot gear stood in a line as demonstrators chanted and threw signs and other objects toward them as the news spread. “The system failed us again,” one woman said. In downtown Ferguson, the sound of breaking glass could be heard as crowds ran through the streets." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing. There is a good map, showing where eight fires were started, five other locations of violence, and the proximity of the areas of interest around Ferguson Avenue.[reply]

Headline-4: What’s next? Justice continues its probe of Ferguson Police Department.

QUOTE: "The Justice Department still has two opportunities to bring criminal charges and overhaul the Ferguson Police Department in the case that grew from the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown. In September, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. launched a federal investigation of the Missouri city’s police force to examine whether officers routinely engaged in racial profiling or showed a pattern of excessive force. Investigators from Justice’s Civil Rights Division are reviewing the training officers receive on racial profiling and the use of force, including deadly force." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.[reply]

Most of the above is already amply covered in Shooting of Michael Brown and 2014 Ferguson unrest, which are wikilinked. And the material about the DOJ investigation is already covered in this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. -- AstroU (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although covered elsewhere, the lede here is glaringly lacking. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- There is more in the lede now. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undue tag added[edit]

I have placed an undue tag on the article as more than half the article talks about alleged misconduct and the Ferguson police shooting involving Michael Brown. Is there any positive news that can be added to the article to balance out all of the negativity? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. The Dissident Aggressor 07:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE tag[edit]

Nothing is stopping any editor from adding more material about other aspects of this police department. WP:UNDUE, tells us that (my highlight) Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources'. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cwobeel, I think the undue tag is highly appropriate as I stated above. This article as it is currently written is a laundry list of issues with the department (which does belong in the article), not a constructive encyclopedic article. It needs info on their equipment, effectiveness, history etc., not just reflecting populist sentiment of being a bunch of abusers that is flooding the media right now. The Dissident Aggressor 18:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undue weight is claimed when you have two different issues in an article, and one is presented with too much weight. But this is not the case here. If you want to add more material about other aspects of this police department, by all mean add it. But that does not mean that it deserves a tag. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The tag says "This article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies." It's clear that several folks feel that is the case. Please stop removing it unless consensus is reached here. The Dissident Aggressor 18:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will not remove it,= if your intention is to work to expand the article covering missing aspects within a reasonable time frame. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no time limit on tags, nor is there any obligation for anyone to fix issues related to a tag - that is unless someone removes the tag - then there is an obligation to see that the issue has been addressed if you remove it. The Dissident Aggressor 19:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im the one who added the tags, I will look into sources for the added history but the tags must not be removed until the problem is solved here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misconduct title highly POV[edit]

I've renamed the section previously titled "Misconduct" to "Controversies" since no instances of misconduct are verifiable. While it's clear that lots of folks think there has been widespread misconduct (and it may well be true), we have to go with the facts, and no facts presented here can support the highly POV judgement of "Misconduct" - if you read it, it presents quite the opposite findings under the law. Misconduct is "wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by premeditated or intentional purpose or by obstinate indifference to the consequences of one's acts" and no sources supplied support this. WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. The Dissident Aggressor 22:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 shooting of Michael Brown and unrest[edit]

This section was becoming a secondary outlet for coverage of the shooting and subsequent action, rather than a summary that points back to the main articles. I've attempted to clean this up and leave just the basic facts. The incident is very significant, but there is no need to go through all the details in this article as well as the other two. The Dissident Aggressor 23:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good attempt, but the cut was too deep. I have restored material that is pertinent to this article specifically. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence in that section is incorrect. It states "While Chief of Police Tom Jackson claimed in a news conference that Brown had been a suspect in a 'strong-arm' robbery, but later stated that the robbery was not connected to Officer Wilson's interaction with Brown.", citing a March 11, 2015 Washington Post article which quotes the Ferguson Chief of Police to that effect. However, that statement is in direct contradiction with Officer Wilson's own testimony and with the recording transcripts from Ferguson Police dispatch, showing that Wilson confirmed, immediately before his interaction with Brown, that he had heard the report of the robbery and description of the suspect. Here is the statement from the US Department of Justice's official findings: "As Wilson drove past Brown, he saw cigarillos in Brown’s hand, which alerted him to a radio dispatch of a 'stealing in progress' that he heard a few minutes prior while finishing his last call. Wilson then checked his rearview mirror, and realized that Witness 101 matched the description of the other subject on the radio dispatch."official report I think it's safe to say that the DoJ's report is more authoritative than Chief Jackson's hearsay. I will change the passage in this article to reflect that.Bricology (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph begins with "According to Wilson..." So, it's just Wilson's testimony. It is indeed interesting that Wilson's testimony contradicts the Ferguson Police Chief's public statements, but it does not make the latter "incorrect." --TimothyDexter (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph may begin with "According to Wilson...", but it continues to state things that are accepted as factual, rather than learned from Wilson's hearsay. More significantly, the report confirms Wilson's statements on page 22 -- this time, clearly NOT from his testimony -- that it was understood by the dispatcher that Wilson had heard the report of the strong-arm robbery. Here's the relevant paragraph:
"Wilson left the sick call at approximately 11:58 a.m., after EMS arrived to transport the mother and sick child to the hospital. Twenty-seven seconds later, Wilson radioed to Witness 145 and Witness 146, 'Do you guys need me?,' corroborating that Wilson was aware of the theft at Ferguson Market prior to his encounter with Brown. Witness 145 responded that the suspect “disappeared into the woodwork.” Wilson, having not heard him, asked the dispatcher to 'relay.' The dispatcher then clarified, 'He thinks that they...disappeared.' Wilson then said 'clear,' indicating that he understood."
The Grand Jury clearly accepted Wilson's testimony and the corroborative evidence from the dispatcher, as factual. So, Wilson's and Jackson's statements do not carry equal weight. What was Chief Jackson's source for making his claim about what Wilson did or didn't hear or know? We don't know; perhaps he was simply mistaken or perhaps it was politically motivated. The two statements are in direct contradiction, and only one of them can be correct. Who is in a better position to know what Officer Wilson said or did? -the Police Chief who was not there, or Officer Wilson, who was? Obviously, it's the latter and that is also what the Grand Jury accepted as factual. Bricology (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you have suggested is obvious or factual, and it borders on WP:OR. It's not the role of this article to re-litigate the DOJ investigation. --TimothyDexter (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation into Civil Rights Violations[edit]

A good summary is available here [1] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ethnic composition of the FPD[edit]

Under the heading "Incidents: 2014 shooting of Michael Brown and unrest", it states "...two-thirds of the residents (of Ferguson) are black and all but three of the police force's fifty-three officers are white", citing a link to the Kansas City Star. This gives an unbalanced impression, since it does not explain why this racial disparity exists and, in the context, implies that the ethnic composition of the Department may have been intentionally skewed away from black membership, which may not be the case. Police departments cannot accept recruits who have a felony conviction. A significantly higher percentage of black men have felony convictions than white men do, which may be the more significant factor in determining the ethnic composition of the Department. Unless this can be clarified and balanced context provided, I think that the statement as written violates WP:NPOV and should be removed.Bricology (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; it's a statement of fact, and is weighted much more heavily than your speculation. --TimothyDexter (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ferguson Police Department (Missouri). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ferguson_Police_Department_(Missouri)&oldid=1207206557"