Talk:Killing of Kelly Thomas/Archive 1

Archive 1

title, categories

hi: i added a category to this article, but am unsure whether it is the correct one. there is a category for unarmed people shot to death by police, but the closest i could come to a correct category was police brutality in the US. because of this, i left the uncategorized tag on. also, this article is likely to be re-titled because of wikipedia policies (see Oscar Grant), so we may as well hash out the correct title here. also, im unsure of the caption under the image. -badmachine 21:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I created the article and I too am confused about what the title should be. If we can learn the middle name of Mr. Thomas we could use that (like with other with similar names)? Or should the article be about the events surrounding his death? "Fullerton Police beating of Kelly Thmoas" maybe? I also added the news event infobox that was used in the Oscar Grant article. I changed the caption a bit because, from what I understand, that photo was taken while he was still alive. If I'm incorrect on that feel free to change it back. This is the first article I have started that was about a current event so I'm at somewhat of a loss as to what needs to be added to the article to bring it up to spec. IF someone has any real, source-able info about his early life that might also be a good addition. Lando242 (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

i suspect it will end up titled something like death of Kelly Thomas or similar, with redirects. as events develop, eventually someone will come along with the appropriate title... but for now, i prefer this title. yeah and i agree with your hope that someone can fill in the sourceable details of his life, at least a birthday... and hopefully a photo of him before he was beaten to a pulp, to sorta balance the existing photograph. -badmachine 12:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

biography section

hi: i have added a section for his biography. several of the infobox fields are empty, including occupation and place of birth. it would be better to have a cite for his birthdate also. i added this section so that people could know more about who he was before being killed, and also, the image of Thomas as he appeared in life helps to balance the really gruesome photograph of his injuries. as the article is currently titled, the infobox person template probably belongs before the infobox news event template, but for now i think it is okay; and i hope the bio section will fill up as more details emerge. we are all familiar with the policy against discussion of the event itself, but i want to extend my heartfelt condolences to his loved ones, and to thank his father for his diligence in advocating for justice in this case. -badmachine 05:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Good work badmachine. It is difficult to avoid discussion of the event itself in this case, because what happened is so grossly offensive to all human beings (except apparently certain elements within the Fullerton law enforcement community). I came here intending to do a little work on this article, but (as you can probably tell from my above comments) honestly I don't think I could remain NPOV so I'm going to avoid editing completely. Hopefully other potential editors will ask the same question of themselves and act accordingly. C 1 (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

thanx. the other editors worked hard on it too, including Lando242. this case interests me and i have an alert set up for news items related to this, but i miss things sometimes and if you spot something new that belongs in the article, plz feel free to post links here on the talkpage and i will add it with the cite. have a look at this for an idea of what can and can not be included as cites. -badmachine 02:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Orange County D.A.

The edit about the investigation makes it sound like the investigation was undertaken right away by the O.C. District Attorny, Tony Rackauckas, and it was not. That is what got the protests going so fast. The prosecutors in Fullerton had not charged the officers and the Fullerton Police Dept. had not removed the officers from duty. Tony Rackauckas has taken on the case, but he's still not brought charges. His office claims he's waiting for the toxicology reports from the autopsy which was conducted back in July. I'll find some cites, and fill that bit out. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the OC Register reported on July 6th (4 days before Thomas's death) that police were investigating the beating. While I wouldn't trust the impartiality of their report, questions have already been raised about the police force's past performance in some of the references, the article merely reflects the contents of the sources. Lando242 (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was the Fullerton Police Department. The O.C. D.A.'s office said yesterday it is still waiting on results of toxicology, etc. before a decision is made to pursue charges. Agree about the O.C. Register. This article's really good, btw. Impressed with how fast it went up and posted photo, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Much New News Today

Two officers charged, 4 on paid vacation, I put the details in the Fullerton Police Department (California) recall movement against the city council. merge? I am quite emotional about this right now and cannot be trusted. Paul, in Saudi(talk) 15:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A few names have surfaced as to who the officers might be.

One of the web sites thats investigating the story has dug up some names as to who some of the officers might be. This site claims that Officer Jay Cicinelli, Officer Kenton Hampton, Officer Manny Ramos, Officer Joe Wolfe and Officer James Blatney were present at the beating. Since this isn't an official release and the site isn't a recognized news outlet I think this info should be kept off of the main article until it is confirmed but this should have an eye kept on it if it does turn out that these are the officers responsible. Lando242 (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Today's press reports are:

• Officer Manuel Ramos, charged with manslaughter held on a million dollars
• Corporal Jay Cicinelli Charged with manslaughter, released on bail
• Officer Joseph Wolfe, not charged
• Officer Kenton Hampton, not charged
• Sergeant Kevin Craig not charged
• Corporal James Blatney not charged Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

DA's Statement

DA has released a statement that has a good timeline. [1]Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Father was in the same police department

I heard on THE YOUNG TURKS that the victims' father was a retired veteran of the same police precinct before he retired. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVR4wTPsHYk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.39.162 (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I heard it on your YT link. Any written transcript to use somewhere as a reference?MartinezMD (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind...

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. The picture in use I removed, as it is designed to provoke a reaction, not offer a useful picture of the subject. Blogs are not appropriate wikilinks. Talk pages are for discussion of improvements to the article, not discussion of the subject thereof. MSJapan (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't you use the other picture of Thomas (from the bio) for the top of the article? Lando242 (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

the picture is what caused the mainstream media to notice this case. there was no discussion about the removal of the photographs. i am restoring the photos, and starting a request for comments. that the photo provoked a reaction within you, MSJapan, is your problem. there is nothing inappropriate about the presence of the photograph, and blogs are allowed in the external links section. -badmachine 19:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not. WP:ELNO #11 - "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." Also, "notice of mainstream media" seems a bit of an overstatement. Refs indicate this never made news outside of Fullerton. By the way, attack content, not the editor. My reaction is not the point; it is the presentation of material as being notable when it is minor local news coupled with an attempt to provoke a reaction rather than to be neutral and informative that is the issue. MSJapan (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Also note you do not EL material already used as sources in the article, like the blog. MSJapan (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also note that you yourself, badmachine, indicated a need for more photos to "balance out" the graphic photo earlier on this talk page. MSJapan (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

according to the Orange County Register, the blog broke the story. i do not see where the blog is used as a reference. -badmachine 23:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The refs in the article may indicate that there was no coverage outside of Fullerton, but newsbank indicates the opposite. In the first 50 hits (reverse chronological, from Sept. 27 to Nov. 7), there are discussions in a Ventura county paper, a Santa Rosa paper, The main San Jose paper, a North Dakota paper, 3 CNN newswire hits, and 3 AP hits. Also, that date span speaks to ongoing national coverage. Naturally the orange county register and the LA Times are doing the most in depth coverage, so their stories should be the basis for the article, but this is national news. Also, it was widely covered throughout the Los Angeles CSA, which comprises about 5% of the population of the entire country. That seems to me to make it national even if AP and CNN weren't covering it. The Los Angeles Times, also, is sold from sidewalk boxes in both New York and Washington DC, and probably elsewhere. It's a national paper in itself.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

i agree that a "living" photo should be included, and it is still present on wikipedia until Sunday. i removed the infobox because MSJapan is correct that it does not belong, at least judging by the talk page for the Oscar Grant page. -badmachine 23:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for comments

an editor has expressed concern that the photograph of Thomas after his beating is only there to provoke a reaction. the photo was added since it is part of the story. i have restored the photo and the other one for the biography section, and hope the editors who have helped to build this article will add their views here. my opinion is that the photo of Thomas' beating is what broke the story, and belongs in the article. as for the blog, i have less reservations about its removal, but this blog is the one that seems to have picked up the ball and run with it. in any case, please leave comments below. -badmachine 19:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is fine the way it is. Sure, the picture of Thomas in the hospital is graphic but we was beaten to death, the coroner's report confirms that. I don't think its possible to make an accurate article about someone being beating to death while at the same time not presenting facts that might offend or cause reactions in people. It was an ugly event and bad things happened, removing pictures of the aftermath wont change that. Trying to sterilize the article doesn't serve any purpose. Lando242 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that since they are images of the primary subject matter of the article, they should be kept. Just because an image can create an emotional response in us humans, doesn't make it less worthy of inclusion when it is relevant information to an article. In regards to the blog link, I'm not too clear on the policy on wikipedia about the links that are often included at the bottom of articles. I'm not saying this one in particular shouldn't be there since that site is a primary source of information.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

My first question is; does the picture used qualify under non-free use guidelines here on WP. I believe that it does, given that it's a low-resolution image, the subject is deceased and thus obtaining an alternate Free image will be impossible, and it is used solely to illustrate an article about the subject. They're the three main areas. Secondly, does it add useful information to the article? Clearly it does, as the images themselves were a critical part of this criminal case and as Badmachine points out, were a key part in breaking the story, which went nationwide. Thirdly, the picture is horrific in its depiction of the brutality that this man suffered. However, the graphic nature of the image is no reason to not feature this image on the page - Alison ^❤ 08:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel it qualifies as "a picture of the subject" - the photo is unrecognizable, and while some may argue that that is the point, it doesn't add anything to the article. What is at issue is not graphic content as such, but graphic content in lieu of encyclopedic value. The "content" portion of the image policy states: "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article. Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)."

The depiction part is the issue in all of those cases. I look at the photo as a first-time reader and think, "what is this other than a shock photo?" I fail to see an encyclopedic usage - those injuries could have been sustained in any manner of ways, and it's only "from beating" because editors who worked on this article know that; the title does not indicate that because of titling policy. Here's another thought I had: not having any other photos of the subject, how do I know that it is the subject? Now, the photo may be relevant later on, but not as a leading photo of the subject. The photo also doesn't "depict concepts in the article." The majority of the article is about the aftermath of the incident, and considering that it seems the whole point of the article is to talk about the "outrage" occurring afterwards, along with the results of the trial, why is there no protest picture instead? In short, I'm going after the why of the picture. Note, even though OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, no other similar article about a police beating or custodial death includes these kinds of pictures, not even Rodney King, because they are not illustrative of the topic.

Lastly, if the photos made this go "nationwide", why is there only one print reference outside of Fullerton and LA? Inclusion on Yahoo or HuffPo is not "nationwide", nor is YouTube. "Nationwide" seems to be one report on ABCNews' website. Again, is this overstating the case for notability? MSJapan (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the photo of him in the hospital should not be the leading photo. It should come after with a caption.

As to the overstating case for notability; this story was actually international news at one point. There just hasn't been a lot of addition of information and references since this article was originally created. I wish I had the time to do it myself.

In re the Rodney King case, the only photos of him after the incident during that time were taken and broadcast by mainstream media. Cell phone cameras and the like will make these kinds of photos more easily available to wikipedia for future articles.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

it does qualify as "a picture of the subject", which is Death of Kelly Thomas. ive restored the "living" picture of Thomas, and put the gruesome one lower down in the article. i would also like to point out that this incident did not receive only national coverage, but international coverage. there is at least one reference from the Daily Mail. -badmachine 23:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, there are three other links in the references in the article, not including the ABC one, that would be considered at least "national." One from the New York Times, one from Forbes and one from the Daily Mail (based in Britain). Sure, its still a regional story overall but to show up on the radar half way around the globe means its at least notable nationally. I've been trying to keep on top of the references but keeping them consistent and updated has been an up hill battle. As to not having any other photos of Thomas, you (MSJapan) were the one that removed the second photo of Thomas, so I don't know why you mention it like there never was one to begin with. The whole reason the hospital photo was used was because it was the only photo of Thomas that we had at the time. IIRC, when the story broke that was the first photo published. The older photo of him in a cowboy hat didn't appear until later. In fact, I have only seen one other photo of Thomas published so far (three total). Why you couldn't have just swapped the two photos instead of deleting both of them, I don't know (I asked that above also). Also, there IS a photo of the city council meeting protest in "the aftermath" section. So, why you claim that there isn't any photos of the protests confuses me. Lando242 (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Disability Fraud?

It is now breaking that one of the officers charged, Jay Cicinelli is on a tax-free 70% disability after losing his left eye in a shooting while a rookie with the LAPD. A LA police union document says he was let go because he no longer met the legal requirements to be apolice officer in California. But he was working patrol for the FPD. So the LAPD staff requested permission to look into the matter a possible case of fraud. The board turned down the request to even look into the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulinSaudi (talk • contribs)

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the wikipedia article titled "Death of Kelly Thomas", though. Earthpig (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

New video shows detail of police beating

This blog and this newspaper both bring up the subject of a new video released in court, that clearly shows a large section of the beating, combined with audio from a police recorder. This should be mentioned in the article, along with the fact the medical aid went to an officer with a skinned elbow first, before the EMT team even touched Kelly Thomas. Coolgamer (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2012

At the end, it says that toxicology reports did not find "illicit drugs or alcohol" in his system. I clicked on the reference number for that, and was taken to an OC Register story that made NO mention of a toxicology report or drugs tests. It needs to be removed if there is no source. Whether or not he was on drugs is EXTREMELY relevant to the story.

67.190.186.233 (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Done Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

hello. i have undone the removal of the statement that no drugs or alcohol were found in Thomas' system, and added a cite. -badmachine 03:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2012

At the beginning of the entry, it says, "Kelly Thomas (April 5, 1974 – July 10, 2011) was a schizophrenic homeless man...". This is a request to change the wording to, "Kelly Thomas (April 5, 1974 – July 10, 2011) was a homeless man with schizophrenia...". You wouldn't say a person who has cancer is a cancerous man or a person with heart disease is a heart diseased man. It makes a difference to word it in the requested way to convey that schizophrenia is a disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Sunnyqdiana (talk • contribs)

sounds reasonable, i'll do it. :) -badmachine 02:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2012

Sorry - should have looked more closely at the article. In keeping with the previous request, a change from "A diagnosed schizophrenic, he was a "fixture" among Fullerton's homeless population" to "Diagnosed with schizophrenia, he was a "fixture" among Fullerton's homeless population". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyqdiana (talk • contribs)

it's cool. i changed it to "Thomas, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia, was a "fixture" among Fullerton's homeless population." -badmachine 03:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Chronology

Can someone fix this article. It has a good flow and coherency at first but not far into the "aftermath" section it just starts jumping all over the place for no rhyme or reason. It would be much easier to follow by simply putting things in a chronological order for the most part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:A3C0:7:A132:A846:53EF:24D0 (talk)

Yes, the Slidebar assertion is dangerously close to being a BLP violation, and the lead paragraph does not even mention the departure of police chief Sellers, and the recall of (all?) three sitting members of Fullerton's city council, although i am not sure how to phrase the part about Chief Sellers, because of the slimy way he did it. Perhaps i can take a stab at it later today. 172.56.33.83 (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Drug use

Article currently only says this:
"The toxicology report shows that Thomas had no illicit drugs or alcohol in his system."

But it seems like drug use was a strategy used by defense attorneys in the trial.

• Two former Fullerton police officers acquitted in beating death of transient. 13 Jan 2014. Los Angeles Wave.

From the above-linked article:
"Defense attorneys contended during the trial that Thomas’ death was the result of an enlarged heart caused by years of drug abuse."

"He accused defense attorneys of lying throughout the trial about his son’s drug use."

• Kelly Thomas trial: 'Not guilty' verdicts a blow to D.A. 13 Jan 2014. Los Angeles Times.

From the above-linked article:
"The defense team also rejected the argument that their clients killed Thomas and called an expert witness who said Thomas had a diseased heart that had been damaged by drug abuse."

It seems that drug use was a far bigger part of the defense strategy than indicated by the latest articles covering the trial verdict. This article goes into great detail:

• Kelly Thomas died of weak heart caused by meth use, pathologist says. 18 Dec 2013. Los Angeles Times.

--Timeshifter (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of excessive force

The article barely discusses the legal side of the issue of excessive force. There were competing views from law enforcement. Here are some articles:

• Mickadeit: Testimony muddies Thomas case. The Orange County Register. From the article: "The prosecution during its case in chief did have a use-of-force expert, a former FBI instructor, say that the force on Thomas was excessive. ... Now add that two uniformed officers, Rubio and Sgt. Kevin Craig, have testified this week as defense witnesses. ... 'Excuse me, sergeant …' Rackauckas began, and thereupon unleashed a series of questions – fighting through John Barnett's objections all the way – that culminated in Craig finally conceding 'yes' – a Taser can be used as an impact weapon that can cause 'serious bodily injury or death.'"
• Cops Caught On Video Beating Homeless Man To Death Won't Go To Prison. ThinkProgress. From the article: "Cicinelli arrived later, tasing Thomas with a stun gun and then struck him across the face with it hard enough to break several bones. 'I just probably smashed his face to hell,' he says on the video."
• Officers in Kelly Thomas beating acted within policy, trainer testifies. Los Angeles Times. From the article: "A former FBI agent and use-of-force expert who testified for prosecutors last week said hitting a suspect in the head with an impact weapon is considered deadly force. 'That would not be good proper police procedure,' John Wilson testified as the surveillance tape of the police encounter with Thomas was played and paused."
• Kelly Thomas trial: Training officer saw no violations in video. The Orange County Register. From the article: "Ramos, 39, is charged with second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. Cicinelli, 42, who used a Taser first to jolt a struggling Thomas and then to strike him on his face, is charged with involuntary manslaughter and assault under color of authority."

I believe other articles and trial testimony tell of Kelly Thomas being struck in the head by fists, batons, and flashlights. Also his head being slammed against the pavement. I was under the impression that rules concerning excessive force usually forbid strikes against the head for the most part. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

article does not mention choking incident, restraining order, and conviction for assault

It seems to me that the fact that the victim's mother took out a restraining order against him after he put his hands on her neck and that he pled guilty to assaulting his grandfather with a deadly weapon are pertinent facts since I'm certain that the defense made major use of them in the trial.

Here's an article that states those facts

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/thomas-310953-kelly-records.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.7.235 (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

here's a second article that mentions other incidents of violence.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-kelly-thomas-defense-witnesses-recall-violent-encounters-20131212,0,2453782.story#axzz2qLBFUyw3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.7.235 (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thomas also had an overdue library book at the time of the incident. Why doesn't this article mention that fact? In what way does Thomas' past behavior have anything to do with what happened on the night of the police attack? It is clear from the video that Thomas did not act violently, in any way, until after he was attacked by the police. Cwgmpls (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

oh, come on, a propensity toward violence and unpredictable behavior is not relevant in a case like this? Don't you think that the cops in this case were aware of his violent episodes in the past and that may have factored in what happened to him? I actually think that the cops should have been convicted of something (excessive force, negligent homicide), but asserting that Thomas was some sort of gentle, harmless guy is totally dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.234.115 (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Death of Kelly Thomas

Cyberbot II has detected links on Death of Kelly Thomas which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/petitions/remove-all-6-fullerton-police-officers-involved-in-the-murder-of-kelly-thomas

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Death of Kelly Thomas

Cyberbot II has detected links on Death of Kelly Thomas which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/petitions/remove-all-6-fullerton-police-officers-involved-in-the-murder-of-kelly-thomas

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Change.org is being blacklisted as a source for this article? Makes you wonder who has a vested interest in obfuscating the truth 86.188.68.55 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's blacklisted because it's not a source for anything. I could literally start a petition saying that you're a giant talking penis, does that make it the truth? 65.95.233.216 (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Jury foreman explains decision

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IWSUECbmrU
John and Ken Show: Kelly Thomas Jury Foreman "Roy"
Feb 2, 2017
Jury foreman in Kelly Thomas trial tries to explain acquittal, Ron Thomas reacts
--Nbauman (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The jury foreman was a lawyer. https://www.ocregister.com/2014/01/16/kelly-thomas-trial-case-was-more-than-video-officers-lawyers-say/ --Nbauman (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably should change title, at least

Kelly Thomas is noted for one incident only, as a victim. The article title should be changed to the neutral “The death of Kelly Thomas” or something like that. This has probably been ferociously discussed, as these things are nowadays, that have political overtones. Which is why I’m not submitting a formal request which I would do with some other less emotional article where one might obtain a meeting of minds instead of lining up and fighting against something that is technically obvious. Student7 (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)