Talk:Stanley Williams/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

old comments

Well its clear that this post has become dominated by those who want him executed and side with the prosecution. Lots of information about the crime, very little on the inconsistancies of the case and the significance of the mans work over the past 20 years. I would edit, but why bother, the executioners have won and continue to write history according to the official establishment-approved story.

I think he should be liable for his actions, he murdered 4 people, and be considered for the numerous deaths due to the crips since he is a founder. Just not the death penalty, life in prison is better. If he does die on 12-13-2005 be sure to have an up-heavel of gang crime around america. -Bailey Canderly, 15, North Carolina

William's execution date is coming up, so this article might get controversial.

I added a note on William's peace prize nomination. An exaggeratted version of this fact was put here in the past and reverted as non-notable and unverifiable. I'm not sure if a nobel peace prize nomination is notable or not. For verification, I found many references to his 2001 nomination by "Swedish parliamentarians":

William's nomination for the peace prize is referred to in this ACLU article: http://www.aclunc.org/pressrel/021107-stanley_williams.html

A quote attributed by the San Francisco Chronicle to judge Procter Hug Jr. of the 9th circuit court, part of the panel which denied Williams' appeal:

“We are aware of Williams’ 2001 Nobel Peace Prize nomination for his laudable efforts opposing gang violence from his prison cell, notably his line of children’s books, subtitled ‘Tookie Speaks Out Against Gang Violence,’ and his creation of the Internet Project for Street Peace,” the judge wrote. “Although Williams’ good works and accomplishments since incarceration may make him a worthy candidate for the exercise of gubernatorial discretion, they are not matters that we in the federal judiciary are at liberty to take into consideration.”

Newspaper articles refer to this as a postscript to the decision written by Proctor Hug Jr., but I can't find the original source. The decision on the 9th circuit's web page is here: [1]

Elsewhere, I've seen it written that he got 2 peace prize nominations, or 5 peace prize and 4 literature nominations. This one 2001 nomination for the peace prize at least seems true.

Jeff

Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize have little notability or verifiability. It is not notable because any college social sciences professor or any national legislator may make a nomination, for any reason, and around 130 people are nominated annually. The only requirement is that the nominee is alive. Further, nominations are kept secret by the Prize Committee, so nominations are only known if the nominator publicizes it. I haven't seen any source that identifies Williams' nominator(s). I did find an email from 2002 saying that there was an effort to renominate him, but admitted that there was no chance of winning, saying that it was only being done to draw additional attention to his case. So, if we phrase it as part of the publcity effort of his defenders, then it might have some relevance. Otherwise, I'm inclined to remove it on general prinicple. -Willmcw 21:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Email here: [2]. -Willmcw 06:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The email, which was circulated to obtain co-nominators, says:

Obviously we have no expectation that Tookie will actually be awarded the Peace Prize, but the publicity from simply being nominated is of considerable value. As Tookie's case reaches a critical stage, this publicity might play a role in not only raising awareness for his work, but also in saving his life.

Voices out of Europe

Many people in Europe are watching the Williams case and are not convinced of his guilt for murder [3]. The evidence does not seem so overwhelming. We consider this article to be POV. --Ulenspiegel 22:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

---And? This is the Wikipedia, so feel free to provide any balancing information you want. You do realize you care allowed to edit the article, right? Calwatch 03:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

---"We" consider this article to be...

The above comments are inappropriate and irrelevant.

 (No, they were inappropriate.  Now they are gone.  That is the appropriate response to irrelevant and ad hominem attacks on a discussion page.)

The only question here is presenting verifiable information with a neutral point of view. It is verifiable that Williams was tried and convicted of the murders. It is also verifiable that some people dispute the correctness of the verdict. Both sides should be represented though they are not equally significant views and should not receive equal treatment. -Willmcw 08:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there are no rules for talk. It would be inappropriate to discuss the case in the article itself but discussion of the case is perfectly file in talk (after all, WTF does it say "discuss this page"?)

 Your obscenity ("WTF"), adhominem attacks, and irrelevant rants will NOT be tolerated.

Calwatch 06:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

---This article, like all Wikipedia articles, is supposed to present only factual information. Here, the factual information is that Stanley Williams was convicted on four counts of murder. To say that it is also a "fact" that a few people believe Williams is somehow innocent is like saying that it's a fact that supporters of convicts always believe their convicted friend to be innocent. It's like adding a mention that the accused's attorney believed his client to be innocent. It has no place in this article. There's not even a controversy concerning his guilt. There's no reason to insert a pro-Williams "opposing view" in an article simply meant to quickly summarize his life and crimes and the news-worthy events that currently surround him.

Some people dispute the "correctness" (?) of every verdict. However, given that he has been convicted by a court of law, it is accurate to label him as having committed the act until a court of law decides otherwise. We can also present any legitimate evidence of his innocence as part of the article as well, while noting that he has, indeed, been convicted.Xinoph 23:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

So should the U.S. legal system be upheld as reliable, more so than other legal systems, for example Zimbabwe? Remember where you are, this isn't America, this is Wikipedia, and we hold ourselves to a higher standard of neutrality. — PhilHibbs | talk 17:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

---Voices out of Europe - Please read the Los Angeles District Attorney's response to clemency. It discusses all the facts in the case and the history of violence and mayhem that the convicted murderer Stanley Williams has been responsible for. There are no more appeals to go through for him. Not one appeals court has found a discrepancy in the case to say that the Attorney's acted inappropriately or that there was insufficient evidence to overturn the conviction or the special circumstances (death penalty).

If you don't believe in the death penalty, Europe, I can respect your beliefs. If you say that he can do more good alive than dead, that is also a debateable topic. However, I must implore you to look at all the evidence and eyewitness accounts leading up to and resulting in four murders. He killed Albert Owens in cold blood, to not leave a witness. That is indisputable. Please respond as to why the sentence should not be carried out to the fullest extent of the law.

There's never any sympathy from the left wing for the victim. Imagine being Albert Owens, trying to do your menial job, and then you find yourself with a shotgun at your back being robbed for $120. Imagine what he must have been thinking about? His family? You beg and plead. Tookie is concern about witnesses so he fires. As the shotgun fired and you lie there, with your life draining away, unable to breathe in intense pain. Williams laughs grabs his $120. Williams will fry and the country will be a better place for it. Barneygumble 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a sad day when someone argues that the 'left' or 'Europe' has no sympathy for the victim simply because they look towards the day when America stops the cycle of violence and revenge, as the European Union has done, by moving towards an end to the death penalty. More killing serves no one. Many from Europe look with heavy hearts at the murder and death that pervades American culture, and feel that ending revenge killings by the state would only move America closer to a more peaceful society. That is my hope, and that is a hope for a future with fewer victims. The cycle of violence must end, every one of us must be mature enough to set an example for our children. - Solar 17:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The Cycle of Violence? That suggests that if Tookie's death sentence was communed, the crime rate would go down. It also suggests that the cause of crime in the first place was other people getting punished. Has stopping the death penalty stopped violence in Europe? Hardly. The "revenge killing" serves no one? What about the families of the loved ones that were killed? Tookie is asking for mercy that he did not show his victims. Barneygumble 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you folks please find another forum to discuss your feelings about capital punishment? This page is only for discussions of this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, commentary about the article is certainly fair game, and should be encouraged. (See [4]) As long as the page doesn't get too unwieldy, I don't see why the people that want to discuss side issues can't use the space and the rest of us can just use some other space on the talk page. Calwatch 01:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that he should be free because they have no proof of him killing anyone! I mean okay, he made the crips but it's not like he made a group of people be in the gang! I think that it is racism. I put it like this: No proof, No crime! in order to have crime you have to have proof! Email Me at J_Monee07@blackplanet.com

Commentary about our article is certainly encouraged. -Willmcw 04:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Crip history

The opening paragraph makes it sound like the Crips didn't become a gang until after Tookie's incarceration:

Stanley "Tookie" Williams (born December 29, 1953) was the founder, along with Raymond Washington, of the Crips, a Los Angeles, California youth protection organization that grew, after Williams' incarceration and Washington's murder, into one of the most widely-known and notorious street gangs.

According to this history of street gangs:

http://www.streetgangs.com/history/hist01.html

The Crips were engaged in violent activity since at least 1972. This paragraph should be rewritten to make it clear that although it may have grown after Tookie's incarceration, it was a gang almost from the start. 05:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment is by 71.139.49.248 (talk • contribs)

I agree. I removed "...a Los Angeles, California youth protection organization that grew, after Williams' incarceration and Washington's murder, into..." Many street gangs were nominally formed for protection. -Willmcw 06:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is written more like a story than a NPOV article. Phrases like a: "humble father"?

The new opening paragraph belongs more under an entry for Owens and not for Williams. Plus, as opposed to giving any history of the man prior to the murder.. there is only a touching story, obviously from the point of view of the murdered, with excessive detail on Owens. Its not a very detailed account of the case or Williams' life. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 62.194.19.93 (talk • contribs)

Article Improvement Drive nomination

I just nominated this as an article for the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. As I stated in the nomination:

* Stanley "Tookie" Williams, one of the founders of the Crips street gang is currently in the news because of his pending 13 December 2005 execution date, and the consideration of his clemency appeal to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. That means that many people will be looking at the Wikipedia article to find out more information. The current article is not bad, but I'm sure that it could be much better. Among other items, the handling of citations needs to be upgraded to current Wikipedia standards.

Because this article will be receiving more attention during the next few weeks, we should try a little harder to improve the article, as well as keeping an eye out for the accompanying vandalism. ^Blank ^Verse 13:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Improvement Drive is needed because there are inconsistencies in the victims' names. If we cannot even keep their names straight, how can we tell that the stories are correct?

NOTE: There are currently two votes for the Stanley Williams article at AID. The article needs a third vote by 6 December to remain listed. ^Blank ^Verse 22:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yang family "allegedly murdered"

The "Murders" section says that the Yang family was "allegedly murdered". I have heard that Williams maintains his innonence of the crimes he was convicted of, but he was in fact convicted. Shouldn't it just say "murdered", not "allegedly murdered", since "allegedly" generally means the person was accused and not (yet) convicted? It seems like POV otherwise, since the findings of the court are legally established "facts". Mike Dillon 15:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Prior to the trial he was an alleged murderer, after the trial he was a convicted murderer. Now some allege that he is innocent. However has been legally proven that he is a murderer. -Willmcw 23:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

He is a convicted murderer. The article, in my opinion, shouldn't say anything beyond that. The fact, established and provable, that he was convicted of murder does not mean that he is in fact a murderer. To say he's a murderer is a gross violation of NPOV. Just state the facts (that he was convicted of murder) and let the readers make up their own minds. Is Nelson Mandella refered to as a terrorist on his page?

Not everyone puts as much blind faith in the objective fact finding power of the American justice system as you might. 207.6.31.119 23:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not a violation of NPOV to call a convicted murderer a murderer anymore than it is a violation to call an elected governor a governor. NPOV does require that we represent all viewpoints, including those that dispute the conviction. However the presence of a dispute does not mean that he hasn't been found guilty of the murders. Under the American legal system, those charged are presumed innocent until conviction. After conviction, they are presumed guilty. -Willmcw 01:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The individual you're responding to (207.6.31.119)is using Wikipedia as a propaganda vehicle. Hopefully, the admins will ban the user from making further edits.

Bloody Canadian. His whole government is falling and all he can do is complain about "Tookie." 69.140.7.225 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've made a lot more useful edits on wikipedia than you have, sir. Do you care to back up your accusations with any evidence? The admins, I'm sure, will not have the same fascist attitude towards others that you have.

Making edits that you don't happen to agree with is a petty and lame reason to want someone banned. I challenge you to actually contact an admin about this and see what they have to say.

I notice you didn't even have the courage to sign your post. 207.6.31.119 03:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please everybody, let's focus on the edits, not the editors. -Willmcw 04:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

His name

I have twice now removed the quote marks around the name Tookie. According to Williams himself, Tookie is his real middle name, the one his mother gave him at birth. There is, therefore, no reason to put it in quotation marks. Is there a dispute about this? Perhaps someone thinks Williams is lying about this, I don't know, but here's the place to discuss it. 207.6.31.119 21:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe it'd be worth adding a sentence, with citation, explaining that fact. It'd of general interest since it's widely assumed that "Tookie" is a nickname. -Willmcw 23:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have just added the sentence "Stanley Williams is often simply referred to as, Tookie, which is believed by many to be a nickname, but is in fact his middle name shared by Williams and his father. [5]" - Solar 00:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Prison Controversies, murders, and NPOV

I've heard of him getting in troubles inside the prison system. In that section it's blatantly only toting his good works which goes against NPOV. Such things include arranging hits notably for members of the Bloods, attacking several guards and inmates and even plotting an escape that involved blowing a bunch of people up.

The murder section seem way too short, I added to it a while ago but it's kind of NPOV assuming he's guilty since he was convicted of it. But the conviction came largely from fishy witnesses who were also career criminals and some of which were convicted of the same crime.

What about the Escape Conspiracy? There are handwritten notes in evidentia circa 1979 that show Williams was planning to escape, by killing the guards (with outside help) during transport from jail to court, and then blowing up the transport vehicle.

http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/swilliams.pdf

--B.ellis 18:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Question about Snoop Dogg

Rapper and Long Beach Crips member Snoop Dogg is actively campaigning against Williams' execution while simultaneously promoting the Crip name through his music.

Are we sure that Snoop is a current (i.e. active) member of the Crips, as the above sentence seems to imply? If he's no longer involved in Crip activity, then the article should state "Rapper and former Long Beach Crip member Snoop Dogg..." Otherwise it could be libelous. I don't know enough about Snoop Dogg to venture a guess either way, but maybe another user knows. 207.6.31.119 22:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 It would not be libelous under US laws, because he would have to prove that it was not true (he couldn't) and that the person who made the statement knew it was not true (unprovable).  I point this out because your mention of libel could chill free expression on Wikipedia.  I don't know what the law is in other countries such as the UK which have more fascist-style restrictions on speech. Americans can speak their mind.

Snoop Dogg is no longer an "active" member of the hood he is from (Rollin' 20 Crip), but he does reportedly associate with its members on a regular basis. However, calling him a "former" Crip is far more appropriate. Also, whoever wrote that passage is obviously biased, because they say that Snoop is "simultaneously promoting the Crip name through his music". Snoop has never been particularly overt about his Crip background (although his group Tha Eastsidaz, consisting of two other Long Beach Crips, certainly has), so I dunno if it's fair to say this.

I've cleaned it up. If people want to talk about Snoop Dogg's percieved promotion of the Crips through his music, they can do it over at his page. 207.6.31.119 02:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Tookie Must Die"

In late November 2005, talk show hosts John and Ken of the John and Ken Show on Clear Channell's KFI 640 AM in Los Angeles, California started a “Tookie Must Die/Kill Tookie” hour on their show from 5-6 pm until Tookie Williams execution by the State of California.

Is the above information really notable and encyclopedic? Has anyone outside of Los Angeles heard of this programme? I would imagine there's plenty of morning radio shows around the country and across L.A. that have espoused opinions about this case. What makes this station so notable that it just has to be included in this article?

I'm tempted to get rid of it in a day or so, unless someone seriously objects. 207.6.31.119 20:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Couple of shock jocks grabbing attention. Insignificant to the broader issues.

I agree. -Willmcw 21:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I added that only because 1) I was assuming that it was only the tip of the iceberg of conservative talk radio sentiment, and 2) KFI is currently the highest rated talk radio station in the US. ^Blank ^Verse 21:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

In the hour (and by the way, they are not "shock jocks", since they do not talk about sex or other prurient issues, but legitimate political topics), they have interviewed Barbara Becnel, Steve Cooley, Phil Gasper, Albert Owens' brother and stepmother, Jesse Jackson, and Najee Ali about this issue. That is a balance of people on both sides of the issue here. By the way, it is not the Kill Tookie hour. There was a correction in the Los Angeles Times on November 24, 2005 that retracts the statement, correctly calling it the "Tookie Must Die" hour. Unfortunately it is past the week look back so it is not online, so I cannot link to it. They are the #1 AM radio program in their time slot. So I would seriously object to removing the reference to Kobylt and Chiampou. Calwatch 23:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If we can rephrase it to indicate that there is an iceberg below then it would have a wider meaning. Also, perhaps a mention of John and Ken's successful support for the recall and Schwarzenegger's candidadacy would make it more relevant. -Willmcw 22:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This link, [6] indicates that the original name was "Kill Tookie Hour". It may have been quickly changed, or that name could even have been made up by the person in charge of the [official] blog. Some of this detail may be more appropriate at John and Ken than here. -Willmcw 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That was just repeating the press release. If you listen to the audio archives of the show, you will see that they never formally referred to it as the Kill Tookie hour. The audio archives for November 21 when they discuss the protest have the hosts expressing their bemusement at the show being called the Kill Tookie hour. Calwatch 01:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -Willmcw 02:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I am more shocked by what passes as political discussion than I am about sex or other prurient issues...but thanks for sharing your idea of what a shock jock is. Here's the Wiki: A shock jock is a slang term used to describe a type of radio broadcaster (sometimes a disk jockey) who attracts attention using humor that a significant portion of the listening audience may find offensive. The term is usually used pejoratively to describe evocative or irreverent broadcasters whose manners and on-air behavior is offensive to the speaker.

Noble Peace Prize

Added that like Tookie Williams both Hitler and Stalin were nominees of this award. Did so to underline the fact that anyone regardless of merit can be nominated for this award. Also to show that nomination is not anywhere near winning. Anyone can look up Hitler's and Stalin's nomination in the Noble Peace Prize Database, but adding it here highlights the fact that anyone can be nominated.

You are correct about the Peace Prize, but it is too much detail for this article. Interested readers can go our article on the topic. -Willmcw

What other article on the topic? The topic of Nobel Peace Prize Nominations?

Nobel Peace Prize. -Willmcw 23:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Albert Owens ... text edits?

Someone has been playing here...

Albert Owens

...

About ten minutes later, Williams returned carrying a twelve-gauge banana.

The four men then discussed where they could go in potty to make some money.

Vandalism?

At the bottom of the first paragraphs about Tookie Williams, it says that "he has also killed 48 men with his hands". I assume this is vandalism?

The Murders

There has to be a way to lock "The Murders" section from the "maybe-he-didn't-do-it" Williams' contingent who use Wikipedia as their personal propaganda vehicle. 70.111.10.89 18:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Execution Day Mayhem

Since today really is "The last day", (pending clemancy or unexpected appeal), the pace of vandalisim has already started to pick up.

Might be a rough day for this article. At what point does it become a candidate for protection?

CanadianGuy

We should avoid protecting it unless the vandalism gets too hard to fix. All things considered this article has done very well. The ratio of useful edits to vandalism has been pretty good. Thanks to the many editors who have helped to maintain and improve it. -Willmcw 20:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at the edit history and it doesn't look that bad. The vandals and POV pushes have been only doing one to three problem edits before they give up, and the more responsible editors have been cleaning things up very quickly. If someone becomes a persistent vandal, however, then rush over to Vandalism in progress. There are also a couple ofWikipedia administrators that have been editing this article so even that step probably won't be necessary. If anyone is interested in keeping an eye out, there also seem to be some spill-over vandalism on some of the other gang related articles such as Crips and Bloods. ^Blank ^Verse 20:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit removed

I don't know if this is the corret forum for this question, but why was my addition "On December 12, 2005, Williams was denied clemency" deleted? —preceding unsigned comment by 216.151.69.27 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably because you did not WP:CITE a source so other editors could verify your changes. Hall Monitor 21:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Crips "Founder"?

How can you found a gang when you join it 2 years after it began? http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/12/williams.crips.reut/ This was also discussed on NPR but that site is offline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.254.160.82 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Refer to the Raymond Washington and Crips articles for details on how and why Williams is considered to be an instrumental and founding member of the Crips gang. Also, please remember to sign your comments by typing ~~~~. Hall Monitor 22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

supreme court

Like I said <65.241.54.155>, barring a stay of execution by the United States Supreme Court [but by way of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals].

One thinks: if that addition hadn't been quickly removed 3 minutes later with an (RVC) notation, would a different outcome been achieved?

Here you are caught: your "dilligence" to get the "truth" out about Stanley has obviously frustrated those making a final decision; and your clever redact of my entry has caused them to wonder: should we not also enjoin by "removal" of the Stay?

It has a psychological effect, all that "removal"; but as I said: that's all there is...

Hair in the picture

You might call me insensitive to the issue, but does he have the perfect afro in the picture or what? (Just an observation)

Factual inaccuracy perpetuated by admin

The administrators have abandoned any pretense of adherence to wiki principles by locking this page against editing. The page in its current form contains a factually inaccurate statement for which no support is offered. "It is believed that" Williams controls Crips activities from his cell? Who believes this? A prison official hostile to Williams posted this claim on the Department of Corrections web site, offered no evidence for it, and it was removed the following day after the press contacted the Department. See the CNN article at http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/17/crips.execution.ap/ , which includes the following quote:

"The Los Angeles District Attorney's office is expected to respond to Williams' clemency request this week. But Los Angeles Police Department spokeswoman April Harding said there is no evidence of any illegal gang activity on Williams' part.

"None," she said. "His name doesn't come up.""

By failing to consult this readily available source and locking the page in its current form the Wikipedia administrators involved have shown their incompetence and/or bias. They should be removed from administrative status immediately. Moreover, locking this page amounts to admitting the complete failure of Wikipedia. Any administrator who removes this message or places it in an obscure location is only proving my point. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 71.49.21.45 (talk • contribs) 03:59, December 13, 2005

This page was temporarily protected from vandalism in response to a user request. If you would like to request that the page be unprotected, please do so; accusations of incompetence and bias are unconstructive. I'm unprotecting the page now, but if necessary I will protect it again. // Pathoschild 04:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The page has been protected again per user request to deal with vandalism. Please contact an admin if you would like to make changes while the article is protected. // Pathoschild 05:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Error in "Conviction" section

Hey guys, look at the sentence which starts right after the fifth reference link. it goes:

"...and government informants.[5] scene matched test shells from the shotgun owned by Stanley Williams. No second examiner verified his findings. The Defense claims this expert's methodology was "junk science at best." [6]"

Notice how "scene" is not capitalized, it seems that some of the article was removed, and now the sentence is only half there.

From an earlier version of the article it reads:

"...and government informants.[5]

Williams claims that the police found "not a shred of tangible evidence, no fingerprints, no crime scenes of bloody boot prints. They didn't match my boots, nor eyewitnesses. Even the shotgun shells found conveniently at each crime scene didn't match the shotgun shells that I owned." However, the prosecution's firearms expert, a sheriff's deputy, testified during trial that the shotgun shell recovered from the Yang murder crime scene matched test shells from the shotgun owned by Stanley Williams. No second examiner verified his findings. The Defense claims this expert's methodology was "junk science at best." [6]"

I don't know if the part of the article was removed for a good reason but someone should at least fix the sentence structure so that it makes sense.

Thanks for pointing that out. The text has been added back in as requested. // Pathoschild 08:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

IRC Channel

IRC channel with up-to-the-minute Tookie news: [7].

Williams' children

Both the media and the Los Angeles District Attorney have been driving attention toward two of Stanley Williams' children, Stanley Williams, Jr., and Lafayette Jones. This may potentially give our readers the biased opinion that all of Williams' children are murderers and rapists; are there any other known children we could mention who do not hold a criminal record? Hall Monitor 20:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I had the opprotunity to listen to Tookie talk over speaker phone to [Junior_State_of_America|JSA] and the claim that he has a son named Lafayette Jones are false. --Phoenix Hacker 06:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Updating

I would recommend that people don't immediately update the article to say that is has died at 0:01 AM PST. There could be a last minute temporary stay (as in the case of Eric Nance) or just delays with preparing for the execution. It will be best to wait until the death is confirmed. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

O brave new Wiki, that hath such optimists in it. -EDM 05:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it when they said they injected him with the poison --Stilanas 08:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing announced yet...

They're apparently waiting word from the 9th Circuit over a final appeal before doing anything.

Victims

Two questions - I'm pretty new here. There are pictures of the victims available. They are crime scene photo's and I believe considered public domain. 1) Does this meet the criteria for posting pictures and 2) I personnaly believe that adding these pictures puts this whole discussion into perspective - am I wrong? --Geneb1955 07:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

yes you are wrong. for these kind of pictures there are sites like rotten.com and ogrish.com. this here aims to be an encyclopedia. gbrandt 08:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Can someone please unprotect this article? I have been contributing to it for a number of days and would appreciate the opportunity to continue doing so. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What is there you could possibly edit? Nothing has been announced yet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindJacka (talk • contribs)

I'll unprotect as soon as we get official word of his death... NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 08:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine, here you go. [8] Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

People, leave this page for a while. Can't you just let him die in peace. This is degrading gbrandt 08:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Degrading to who? This is an encyclopedia based on facts/ 165.91.188.89 08:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

VANDALISM?

Where?

You two Admin's??

65.241.54.148 08:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no vandalism at the moment because it's protected. ;) // Pathoschild 08:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

When will we know?

When will we know when he is gone? Is there a website you all are looking at?

Main Page, Recent Deaths

65.241.54.148 08:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Clemency for this monster?

Blowing an elderly asian couple away, and their daughter, for a few bucks in the register, bragging about such a cowardly act, threatening the jurors - and this happened over 25 years ago! He's had all those years to live while his victims rot in the ground.

Hard to believe anyone could possibly want clemency for this criminal. Needle should have been in his arm two decades ago. TFN.

this is not a forum gbrandt 08:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Tookie died 6 minutes ago

The unofficial death time for Stanley Williams was 12:36am local time.

Should the article reflect the official scheduled time or the actual time? --Phoenix Hacker 08:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Lethal injection

The link leading to the Stanley Tookie Williams page from the entry for "crips" has suspect language to this effect: "Williams was executed for the murders of 370 people." I believe this statement deserves clarification and verification.

Stanley Tookie Williams was executed by lethal injection. The term "lethal injection" means a series of three injections, one is to paralyze the victim so the victim cannot scream out in pain. The lethal injections used to execute Stanley Tookie Williams took 36 minutes long. Just because he could not scream out in pain does not mean that he did not suffer terrible pain and suffocation for 36 minutes. Many opponents of the death penalty believe this is torture. Crisericson 20:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)crisericsonCrisericson 20:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I almost removed these comments straight-up, but instead I will post this data and allow someone else to remove both of our comments if they find them as unecessary and inflammatory as I do. See the Lethal Injection Wiki article for factual backup on these comments. You are correct in saying that Lethal Injection is a series of 3 injections, but everything that follows seems to be an intentional effort to distort and misreport the truth. The three injections, in the order they are given, are:

Sodium thiopental: to induce a state of unconsciousness intended to last while the other two injections take effect.
Pancuronium or Tubocurarine: to stop all muscle movement except the heart. This causes involuntary muscle paralysis, collapse of the diaphragm, and eventually death by asphyxiation.
Potassium chloride: to stop the heart from beating, and thus cause death: see cardiac arrest.

There is no scientific evidence to prove than any person ever executed using lethal injection was conscious at any time after the injection of sodium thiopental was given. Personally, I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but this page is not the place to drag arguments for and against such a penalty - especially misleading arguments like yours.

-- User:Jhortman 21:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed this is not the place for these arguments; nor is Wikipedia the place to campaign for public office. -EDM 22:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Blacks on jury

My source for the "one black on jury" claim is the recollection of the prosecutor (see Daily Breeze article and the DA response to the clemency petition. The "no blacks on the jury" meme was thrown out by the pro clemency side and I have not seen a verifiable, confirmed source of that statement other than by the pro clemency group. Calwatch 05:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The juror, William McLurkin, was born in the Philippines, as was his mother. The trial record demonstrates that none of the lawyers -- and particularly the prosecutor -- thought Mr. McLurkin was black. During jury selection, three jurors were asked whether the fact that they were black would influence them. The prosecutor struck each of these jurors. Neither Mr. McLurkin nor any of the other 79 potential jurors were asked these questions. The only inference is that none of the lawyers thought Mr. McLurkin was black. Mr. McLurkin looked Filipino. The District Attorney has supplied Mr. McLurkin’s death certificate, which does not have a picture, as an exhibit. What the District Attorney fails to supply is Mr. McLurkin’s driver’s license, which does have his photograph.3 (Ex. 11)

http://www.cm-p.com/pdf/executiveclemency_reply.pdf

Well, do we have a photograph? My assumption based on the read was that Mr. McLurkin was probably born from an American father stationed in the Phillipine Islands. I'd like to see the photograph, but I am not going to say unequivocally that he was "Filipino". Edited to correct the contention. Calwatch 00:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"ten light-skinned" jurors

My basis for this is my own observation of the so-called "white community" who many times doen't even know that they have Oriental, American Indian, Negro, Middle Eastern, or other minority ancestries within their own genealogy chart.

I also am a graduate of Thurgood Marshall College, formerly Third World College, at the University of California San Diego (UCSD).

WB2 00:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, and quite antiquated terminology you're using there. And It was Third College, not Third World. Elefuntboy 20:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

again i challenge your characterization of there being a "white community" 'so called' or otherwise, and assert your personal observation to be moot.

The question to consider here is - do non-"dark-skinned" jurors share the same biases against "dark-skinned" people as whites? As a light-skin non-white myself, I can say the answer is not clear.--Shanky 15:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Maintained innocence.

I've seen "To this day he has maintained his innocence" added and removed a couple times today, citing POV. I'm currious though, it seems to me that while the "To this day" is either POV or bad editorial style, that he's maintained his innocence is quite likely public record. As I'm new here I've stayed out of it, any thoughts? CanadianGuy 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that ""to this day" is poor. "Williams maintains his innocence" or "He claims to be innocent of the murders" might be better. Or do you have a suggestion? It seems appropriate to note briefly that he protests his conviction. Even in very recent interviews he has repeated his claim of innocence. -Willmcw 23:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

He says that he's innocent? Well, we should just let him out then! 70.111.10.89 23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A pretty brazen and cynical comment to make, especially as Schwarzenegger cited his refusal to admit his guild as the primary reason why he denied clemency. Williams might have lived if he didn't say he's innocent... DevSolar 13:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly it is not uncommon for convicted criminals to maintain their innocence, or to deny the validity of their trial. Just for comparison, I checked to see how Wikipedia articles on a few other convicts handle their assertions of innocence. From Ethel and Julius Rosenberg:

To the very end, the couple denied all charges and insisted they were innocent, but they were executed at New York's Sing Sing Correctional Facility in 1953, despite protests in the United States and abroad.

From Sacco and Vanzetti:

Nicola Sacco ... and Bartolomeo Vanzetti ... were two Italian anarchists, who were arrested, tried, and electrocuted in Massachusetts in 1927 on charges of murder ... although there was much doubt regarding their guilt.

From Alger Hiss:

After two trials, Hiss was convicted of perjury in 1950, although subsequent evidence of prosecutorial misconduct has cast some doubt on these proceedings. Hiss continued to maintain his innocence, but ultimately failed in his life-long goal of exoneration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

From Charles I of England:

Charles refused to enter a plea, claiming that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch. He believed that his own authority to rule had been given to him by God when he was crowned and anointed, and that the power wielded by those trying him was simply that which grew out of a barrel of gunpowder.

No doubt more examples could be found. -EDM 23:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Trying to cover the spectrum here, a couple more. From Lyndon LaRouche:

In December 1988, a federal jury in Alexandria, Virginia convicted LaRouche and his associates, and LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. ... LaRouche supporters insisted that LaRouche was jailed, not for any violation of the law, but for his beliefs.

From Martha Stewart:

Following Stewart's conviction, a message was posted on her website, reading, in part, "I am obviously distressed by the jury's verdict but I continue to take comfort in knowing that I have the confidence and enduring support of my family and friends. I will appeal the verdict and continue to fight to clear my name. I believe in the fairness of the judicial system and remain confident that I will ultimately prevail."

-EDM 00:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

THE PROTECTION BULLDOZER KEEPS ROLLIN ROLLIN ROLLIN!

Remove the protections, they give wikipedia a bad name.

AgreedGeorgeC 21:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Worse than the vandals do? Postdlf 21:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be up to the contributors to change articles. Was this not the premise of establishing Wikipedia? GeorgeC 21:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thing is, far more people were vandalizing the article than actually constructively editing it. We need to provide a service by presenting a stable text (as opposed to a blanking...) and cannot allow obscenities to be displayed on a high-traffic page. The article is not particulary lacking in any way and has no high need of editing - in balance, protection is justified. Dan100 (Talk) 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Until this thing dies down, it's probably best to keep it protected. Anyway, it's a very thorough article right now, cogent and balanced. Trilemma 21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

After the protection is lifted: there are a large number of dates that need wikifying and perhaps an explanation of all those T numbers? Rmhermen 22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Citations to the transcript of his trial. All of those should be made into footnotes, rather than interrupting the article text. Postdlf 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

motherf*****

i noticed that in the "Albert Owens killed" section, the word "motherfucker" is censored even though it is being used as a quote. Wikipedia:Profanity says you should never censor profanity with astricks, etc. if we decide this quote is relevent (I beleive it is), the astricks should be removed, otherwise, the entire quote should be ommited. could an admin change this? otherwise, i'll remove the astricks when the it is no longer protected. Phantom784 22:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote "lay down, mother f*****." shouldn't be asterisked out... It's absurd to asterisk out quotes. I'd change it, but it's locked.

--136.242.131.115 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote has been uncensored as requested. // Pathoschild 23:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect

It is my belief that, since this article is presently linked to off of the main page, and since WP:PPol#Uses states "When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself," that this page should be unprotected. I'm reluctant to take unilateral action, however.

In lieu of page protection I propose 24 hour automatic bans without warning for anyone vandalizing the page. Anyone so banned who cares enough to reform can request to be unblocked on their talk page, from the admin who blocked them, or through the usual channels. (By vandalism, I mean obvious vandalism. I do not include POV pushing in that, although that is certainly a problem. That should be dealt with instead with prompt reversion, escalating warnings, and finally blocks.) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page and added a new template created for this type of situation with your above suggestions, {{Vwatched}}. // Pathoschild 00:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)