Talk:Killing of Stephon Clark/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Criminal record

Article currently states "Multiple leaders in the community stated that Clark's criminal record was immaterial to his death," but our article does not list any criminal record. Is this sentence needed? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Vestigial. Needs excision. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's a issue and a topic of concern and completely relevant to the events surrounding the shooting. The LA Times and the Sacramento Bee have discussed the matter multiple times. The Sacramento Bee gave the issue five paragraphs not too long ago. Clark's family and their attorney have issued public statements about just this very issue. It is an important facet pertaining the reactions surrounding the shooting and to exclude the fact that his record is part of the public debate would be doing our readers a disservice. Marteau (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It is out of place if there is no description of a criminal record. While this point is still under discussion in BLPN we should remove the statement in question. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. It's received significant coverage from the mainstream media, and his family and attorney have been vocal about the issue. It is a significant aspect pertaining to the reactions surrounding the shooting. If readers really want to know more about it, there's a reference at the end of the sentence. Marteau (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The proper solution would be to flesh out the sentence. The facts of the matter is, several commentators (I'm thinking Fox News) have attempted to use his record to cast him as someone less than angel. The community response has been to say it's immaterial. It is the objection of editors to anything whatsoever being mentioned about him in any context other than absolutely positive that prevents adding context to the current sentence. Marteau (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Marteau:> These strawman editor friends of yours... Do they have names or is this your friend Harvey speaking? It's been stated numerous times here and at BLP/N that if and when the conspiracy theory assertions become widespread and are covered in RS as conspiracy theories, then they should be identified and described in article text, according to however they're described in RS. But we're not going to cherrypick them ourselves and then weave OR around fringe or conspiracy garbage. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I am NOT invoking any "conspiracy theory". I base my case for inclusion on the very real fact that Clark's family and attorney have come out publicly and vocally about the issue of how Fox et al's implication and aspersions done by bringing up Stephon's record on their show is improper and irrelevant. That they want the people to know that, hence, them standing in front of cameras and saying it rather vehemently. If it is important enough for them and their attorney to make public statements about it, and is important enough for the LA Times and the Sacramento Bee to give it coverage, it is not "fringe" or a "conspiracy theory". Marteau (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Marteau, I was not saying that you are promoting a conspiracy theory. I meant to say that the Fox folks are doing that and if it is widely reported then that false theory, along with the fact-based background and rebuttals, would become valid article content. In that event the content would not be in a "personal history" section, but would be in a "conspiracy theories" section. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurduring it for a moment, but if Fox were to have vomited up the most vile, ridiculous, patently offensive conspiracy theory the world has ever seen and linked it to Stephon's record, and Stephon's family, attorney and community were to go public and point out that his record has nothing to do with it, and the media were to report on that to a significant degree, weighted coverage in our article would still be warranted. It is not the truth or falsity of what Fox is saying that determines whether it should or should not receive coverage It is that it happened to begin with. That it is a 'thing' for want of a better word and has received significant media coverage. I am not advocating going into Fox et al's conspiracy theories. I am advocating saying some sources are smearing Clark based on his record, and his family and community are with indignation publicly calling bullshit on it. I have to figure I've made clear what I needed to make clear regarding my position as best I can, and further elucidation on my part will serve no purpose. Marteau (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—it is a myopic view of this article that maintains that the proper scope of this article is the span of time between the 9-1-1 call that summoned the police and the shooting of the unarmed individual. The insistence on that perspective is a contrivance. I have not seen any reference to a "conspiracy theory". The police shooting of Stephon Clark is problematic. At this moment editors at Wikipedia can only guess at what went wrong. No doubt there will be further developments in the investigation into that shooting. But the article we are writing is not focussed just on that relatively brief period of time between the 9-1-1 call and the shooting. This article would lack notability and it would not exist if it were only about that brief period of time. The criminal record matters because repeated instances of criminal activity increase the likelihood that one of those instances will result in a police shooting that is uncalled for, unjustified, and improper. Sources say for instance "The deputies in the helicopter can be heard saying the 'suspect' had broken a window on the house next door and was checking out another car in the driveway."[1] Wouldn't repeated instances of tampering with other people's property increase the likelihood that one of those instances would result in a problematic outcome for the person committing those illegal acts? The perspective of this article obviously includes so much more than the restricted period of time from the 9-1-1 call to the shooting. You are arguing for BLP concerns but they are of minor importance in an article involving the social phenomenon which is the real focus of this article. Many topics assume a position of relevance in two-plus weeks of social protest. Those topics include not only the interface between police and civilians but also crime itself. You argue for the excising mention of Clark's criminal history but this is in conflict with the aims of explicating the larger picture. And this article would not exist if it were solely on the shooting itself. It is not surprising that in the larger picture there are multiple mentions of Clark's criminal history. It would be surprising if this article failed to mention that there are multiple instances of Clark engaging in criminal activity. Bus stop (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting my views. SPECIFICO talk 13:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If I have misrepresented you please tell me what I said that constitutes a misrepresentation. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

how I feel. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you refer to a "conspiracy theory" put forth by Fox. I can't find it. Can you provide a link? I've googled it but come up empty-handed. Can you please post a link to an instance of of a conspiracy theory advanced by Fox about the shooting? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

[2] SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Marteau, there used to be a sentence about his criminal record. That sentence was removed pending the outcome of a discussion at WP:BLPN. You can comment there if you feel it should be included. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)