Talk:Killing of Freddie Gray/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

DYK

what is the point of the did you know section? This is skating very close to political advocacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

When someone nominates an article for DYK, it's automatically added to that article's talk page. I'd bring up your concerns at Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Freddie Gray. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Baltimore riot toll: 200 arrests, 144 car fires, 15 buildings burned Los Angeles Times - ‎16 minutes ago‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.35.130 (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

death

Baltimore riot toll: 200 arrests, 144 car fires, 15 buildings burned Los Angeles Times - ‎16 minutes ago‎65.242.35.130 (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No subsequent deaths reported let alone confirmed in mass media yet, thank goodness. EllenCT (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Baltimore riots

I object to [1] because of the abundance of sources calling the aftermath the 2015 Baltimore riots. EllenCT (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it might make sense to have two separate articles; one on the riots, and one on the death. The death article would reference the riots where they overlap, but the riots page should cover those events, particularly if they stray from the death, in more detail. As a somewhat related note, I just deleted 2015 Baltimore Riots as it was a copy-paste move of the "Protests and riots" section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There are redirects at 2015 Baltimore riots, 2015 Baltimore unrest and Baltimore unrest that can be pointed at wherever you decide to put the split. Monty₈₄₅ 23:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There needs to be a separate article for this given the magnitude, unless you think that this wont be notable with multiple buildings burned/people injured. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's premature at this point, since this isn't nearly on the level of Ferguson unrest. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How so? They have called in the national guard and 5,000 police to the city. Unlike Ferguson the looting and chaos looks to be widespread. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We cannot predict the future. For all we know, the riots could die down by the next day (though that's unlikely). I suggest we wait for a while longer before we have further proof that this needs a separate article. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree -- Why rush to split the article? It's barely been two days and there's no strong evidence yet that this will be known long term by that title. Let the info accrue in that section, and wait for reliable sources to establish the significance of the news events. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me to wait, also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I also oppose this proposal for now, unless it can be shown that the riots have had a long-lasting or widely-spreading effect. Unless it reaches the quality of the Ferguson riots, I don't think that the Baltimore riots need to be splitted right now. Epic Genius (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Multiple structures burned down. I suggest we split article immediately into separate article 2015 Baltimore Riots - Flatbushthecat (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support split: This has now escalated to massive fires, riots, police injuries, a State of emergency, and the National Guard being called in. There is more than enough material for 2 separate articles; and while there is some overlap - they are two different subjects. This isn't some minor issue that's going to "die down". — Ched :  ?  02:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with this. Couldn't have put it any better myself. If you need precedent, Rodney King has a different page than the LA riots.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That is what I have been saying, damage has already been done here. Its not wait until what the future holds... its turning on CNN and seeing cars burn in the streets on live TV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support split: These riots are receiving a lot of notability like the Ferguson unrest. However, maybe make the page called 2015 Baltimore unrest or change the former to Ferguson riots so that they match? 24.44.176.72 (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. We are quite far from a Rodney King state of affairs -- that was a seven day event where 53 people died. What's the compulsion to rush ahead with a split? When there's a critical mass in that section that warrants a split, then split. Otherwise, we are embarking on original research by adopting terms that news agencies have not used. I'm staring at MSNBC, CNN and CBS News broadcasts now, and none of the lower third graphics are using the term "Baltimore Riots." I'm also uncomfortable with claiming this isn't going to "die down." That's exactly what WP:CRYSTALBALL warns against editors doing. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. You've changed my mind. We should wait a week to see if events continue to develop. Otherwise, we could fit all the information under a "Aftermath and reactions" section on this page. 24.44.176.72 (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support split Based on the coverage this has received. Buildings have been destroyed and people have been injured, that leaves an impact. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems that both @Sebwite: and @Knowledgekid87: have acted against the above consensus and split the article. Can you please respect the community processes we have here? -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't split anything, if you want to send the article to AfD feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the standalone article is now having an edit history of its own and is now 16 kB. A merge would be very hard by now. Epic Genius (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph beginning, "On April 25, 2015, protests were organized in downtown Baltimore..." has inaccurate statements. During the April 25 protests, six officers were injured (and remove citation 7, which refers to the later protest). Fifteen were injured on April 27. Curlerlikeyou (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Invocation of WP:BOLDTITLE

"Freddie Gray" is bolded per WP:BOLDTITLE. According to that page:

If an article is about an event involving a subject about which there is no main article, especially if the article is the target of a redirect, the subject should be in bold: Y Azaria Chantel Loren Chamberlain (11 June 1980 – 17 August 1980) was an Australian baby girl who was killed by a dingo on the night of 17 August 1980 on a family camping trip to Uluru (at that date known as Ayers Rock) in the Northern Territory. (Death of Azaria Chamberlain, redirected from Azaria Chamberlain)

So, since Freddie Gray redirects to Death of Freddie Gray, this is bolded per the policy, not unbolded. Epic Genius (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Participants: Six Baltimore police officers

Why is this included in the infobox of this page? The statement that six Baltimore police officers participated in the death of Freddie Gray is unsourced.

Saying that the police were participants in his death would be like saying bystanders participated in someone else getting hit by a car.

No evidence has lead to the death of Freddie Gray to be police related, so we should remove this from the infobox.Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Baltimore Sun on "What's Next"

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-whats-next-in-freddie-gray-investigation-20150428-story.html

It's full of good information but I've got other stuff to do. EllenCT (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Background

Freddie Gray was the 25-year-old son of Gloria Darden. He had a twin sister, Fredericka, as well as another sister, Carolina.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title = Beginning of Freddie Gray's life as sad as its end, court case shows|url = http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-freddie-gray-lead-paint-20150423-story.html#page=1|accessdate = April 23, 2015|first = Jean|last = Marbella|date = April 23, 2015}}</ref> At the time of his death, Gray lived in the home owned by his sisters in the Gilmor Homes neighborhood.<ref name=":4" /> He stood {{convert|5|ft|8|in}} and weighed {{convert|145|lbs}}.<ref name=":7" /> Gray had a criminal record, mainly for misdemeanors and drug-related offenses.<ref name=":7">{{Cite news|title = The death of Freddie Gray: What we know - and don't know|url = http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-baltimore-freddie-gray-20150422-story.html|newspaper = Los Angeles Times|access-date = April 26, 2015|issn = 0458-3035|language = en-US|date = April 22, 2015|last = Muskal|first = Michael}}</ref> He had been arrested a total of 22 times in Maryland, primarily for possession and distribution of illegal narcotics.<ref name=":10"> {{Cite web|title = FREDDIE GRAY’S ARREST RECORD: Here’s The Rap Sheet Of The Dude They’re Destroying Baltimore Over|url = http://clashdaily.com/2015/04/freddy-grays-arrest-record-heres-the-rap-sheet-of-the-dude-theyre-destroying-baltimore-over/#|accessdate = April 29, 2015|first = Jean|last = Marbella|date = April 29, 2015}}<ref name=":10" /> At the time of his death, Gray lived in the home owned by his sisters in the Gilmor Homes neighborhood. ~~~~djplayer123

@Edgars2007: Um, this was the request that was made. Still,  Not done. Epic Genius (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Main Page

Shouldn't there be a link to this article on the main page? It is a major current event..it could possibly pass quickly but it is at this time all over the news and I`ve seen links there a lot less relevant..for instance at the moment a sporting event...the London marathon. 24.240.171.194 (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Not unless it goes to WP:ITNC. There's no consensus for that right now. So it is not on the main page. Epic Genius (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead Paragraphs

I know this is a current event and a very sensitive one at that... I don't wish to remove anything of substance, or upset anyone, but I do feel compelled to point out that the lead paragraphs are packed altogether too tightly with details and quotes. The header is three paragraphs and that is the same number of paragraphs in the "Arrest and Death" section... and much, if not all of the information is repeated. This is not unusual for Wiki articles, but I don't think it's helpful or informative to succumb to the temptation to put all the information and details out there in header paragraphs... I (personally) don't think that either refs or quotes belong in the header paragraphs on Wikipedia. The header should merely summarize points in the article. Since this is a current and sensitive topic, I don't want to charge in and make such large changes wholesale, but I would like to suggest we cut down the first three paragraphs to a manageable summary and any of the edited information, including refs and quotes, be used to expand the "Arrest and Death" section. The article will be better and more informative (that is, cleaner and less repetive) than it stands at present. The summation, I think, should be something like:

Freddie Gray was a 25 year old African American resident of Baltimore whose April 19th 2015 death after arrest led to protests and riots throughout much of the city. Gray was arrested, in apparent good health, on April 12th. He later fell into a coma due to injuries to his spine and larynx and, after multiple surgical attempts to save him, died a week later. The cause and circumstances of the injuries has, to date, not been determined. Six police officers have been suspended pending an investigation.

TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Object: The lead must serve as a standalone summary of all of the article's key points. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not certain how this addresses my concerns. The lead is, at present, not a summary but a highly detailed account: it does not summarize but explicates... Maybe what I suggested isn't sufficient but I don't think the present lead is a summary. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

there is not enough in the later part of the article about analysis and reaction which obviously there has been a lot. something should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

NYC lost flier image

lost flier from protest in New York City

The section never mentions anything about nationwide protests. What is this image's significance and why should it be included, then? Epic Genius (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I had expected someone else to add the links once the news was published by news articles. I've done so myself now that coverage exists. Tduk (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

So, I guess it's fine to add the image now that it's relevant to the article. Epic Genius (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the article's hidden note says, "This section has been split. Please add further info to that article.", so this new section and associated image is now in the 2015 Baltimore riots article. Epic Genius (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, EpicGenius. Do you think the title of the new article should be changed, if it's going to reflect more riots than just in Baltimore? That's why I didn't originally put the information there. We can discuss on that talk page if you like. Tduk (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sure. A requested move can be set up at Talk:2015 Baltimore riots. Most of the rioting is happening in Baltimore, then. Epic Genius (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this?

In reference to the riots, I am finding "local businesses and a CVS drug store". What is the meaning of the specific reference to CVS drug store? It too is a local business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No, CVS is a national brand. Local = mom-and-pop. Epic Genius (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

False statements about the injuries leaked by police

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/05/01/3653821/freddie-gray-case-warning-reporters-print-unfounded-police-leaks/ EllenCT (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Misleading/wrong date in quick fact box

The title of this article is "Death of Freddie Gray" so I would expect the "Date" in the quick fact box to be the date on which the death occurred.

The date there is currently listed as "April 12, 2015", which is the date of his arrest and injury. His actual death occurred on April 19th, which is the date in main photo caption (Freddie Carlos Gray, Jr. August 16, 1989 – April 19, 2015) and the date listed in the "Outcome section"

I believe this article's title must have been changed at some point from "Arrest of Freddie Gray" or something like that to the current title ("Death of Freddie Gray") and this is why the fact box is in its current state. However, I believe it is factually inaccurate to state that the "Death of Freddie Gray" occurred on April 12th, as that is the date on which the events leading up to his death transpired, not the actual death itself. Does anyone have any objections to changing the "Date" to April 19th, 2015 and either removing or tweaking the "Outcome" section to something more appropriate?

Dawaegel (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The article has always been titled "Death of Freddie Gray", and the original entry into the "Event infobox" listed the Date parameter as "Incident began April 12, 2015." I agree the current listing is misleading, and have no objection to either deleting it or otherwise clarifying the date." Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is clear enough: Outcome Death of Freddie Gray on April 19, 2015; Burial April 27, 2015 - Cwobeel (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

it is kind of obvious. Gray was arrested on the 12th, which preceded his death on the 19th. Epic Genius (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Charges

All six officers were charged, but not all for homicide. Can we please fix it?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are two photos of the specific charges from [2]. Details: [3] EllenCT (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue was fixed. At the time it just said they were all charged with homicide which is untrue.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please figure out what to do with the protests

I see in an above conversation that someone prematurely tried to split any kind of reaction to the death into the pre-existing 2015 Baltimore riots article. The problem is that that article is about the spread of violence and actions concerning it per se, in Baltimore only. You might split this article and have an actual 2015 Baltimore civil unrest article that isn't just a redirect, or you could use some more general name that doesn't limit the reactions just to those in Baltimore since it's national level by now, or you could just cover it here (which I think makes the most sense), but whatever you do, don't direct people to put the general data about protests in other cities in an article about looting and arson in Baltimore. Wnt (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you're asking. Are you saying the protests related to Gray's death should not be mentioned? Because I strongly disagree, it helps people understand this is a national debate. If this is not what you meant, please elaborate a little further. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not what I want! I want the regular protests to be covered in this article, or in a new article if you want to split off something about the protests, anywhere but in the article about the Baltimore riots. The thing is, the Baltimore riots were two specific days, specific city, specific kinds of thing that you can put in a fairly neat little box. The protests... well, anything can be a protest, up to and including official statements by major politicians, and they can happen anywhere in the world. Wnt (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

What needs to be done is to move the "Baltimore riots" article to "Baltimore unrest", and describe the civil unrest in toto, riots, peaceful protests and the rest. That is what NPOV is about, otherwise we will have a POVFORK. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and apologies to Wnt for my confusion. I'm really trying to help improve this article, and I didn't mean to interpret your contributions in discussions in a way you did not intend.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No statements from van witness?

I didn't find any of the statements the van witness made to the police or to the media in the article. Why would this witness's statements be left out?

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/van-witness-i-never-said-freddie-gray-was-trying-hurt-himself Putanotherway (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

truthrevolt.org is not a reliable source. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a video can be unreliable, but here's a link to another site with the exact same interview. http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/30/wjz-exclusive-the-other-man-in-the-van-with-freddie-gray-breaks-his-silence/ Putanotherway (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Stops

The article reads that The van made four confirmed stops while Gray was detained. At 8:46 a.m, but recent reporting says that the fourth stop was omitted from the police report, and this has been seen as one of the reasons for the quick filing of charges, as the officer's entire report was thrown into question. See [4] - Cwobeel (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I was also questioning the stops. An addition to the article said the police saw him at 8:45. I don't believe they placed him in the van in a minute. I think we need to find exact times that are not in conflict with another.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. apologies for the conflicting timelines. I was the one who added the times and stops to the section, granted it was at an earlier stage of the investigation. It is something that needs to be confirmed as it is an incredibly important piece of the article. In the reference I used, it said they made contact at 8:39, just saying.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article on ABC that gives a breakdown of the stop and a image that shows the route the officers took. the Map/route I feel shows WHY this is a contested case. http://abcnews.go.com/US/freddie-gray-details-fill-journey-baltimore-police/story?id=30704154 - Olanatan (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The same thing happened with another Baltimore prisoner in 2005

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/nation/2015/05/01/Freddie-Gray-death-ruled-a-murder-charges-to-be-filed-in-Baltimore-case/stories/201505010241

In 2005, a man died of a fractured spine after he was transported in a Baltimore police van in handcuffs and without a seat belt. At a civil trial, an attorney for his family successfully argued that police had given him a “rough ride.”

71.182.250.124 (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I see what relation your trying to make, but until all the facts about the case are confirmed, I don't think it is relevant as of now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Gray's arrest record

The article states:

"Gray had a criminal record, mainly for misdemeanors and drug-related offenses."

That is too vague.

The following information from CNN should be added:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/us/baltimore-freddie-gray-what-we-know/

"According to court documents CNN obtained, there were more than 20 criminal court cases in Maryland against Gray, and five of those cases were still active at the time of his death."

"The cases involve mostly drug-related charges, but there are charges from March for second-degree assault and destruction of property."

74.98.33.164 (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I would also add the current wording "Gray had a criminal record, mainly for misdemeanors and drug-related offenses.[10]" Does not match the cited article which reads "He had a police record, mainly on drug charges and minor crimes, according to court records reported by the Baltimore Sun." -- This is not the same thing. The word misdemeanor, a word with a clear meaning, does not appear in the cited reference. If the reference is to be used it should be quoted accurately. Drake76 (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC) While Gray's criminal record has encyclopedic relevance, it has no bearing whatsoever on the legal standing of the police participants; their roles in enforcement give them no standing to deal punishment for charges, whether ajudicated or not. Any post mortem review of this info should point this out, or it will appear that the criminal record is being offered as justification. 10:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I think an important point is that he was given 3 years probation stemming from a charge on from Sept 28, 2013. "Gray was charged September 28, 2013 with distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer and second-degree escape. He was found guilty of distribution of narcotics, assault and escape, while the other charges were dropped as part of a plea agreement. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, suspended after 3 years served. It's not clear when he was released from prison. He also received three years of probation." http://heavy.com/news/2015/04/freddie-gray-arrest-criminal-record-convictions-court-documents-files-rap-sheet-drug-charges/10/ Putanotherway (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that the summary we have now is more than sufficient. This article is not about Gray's criminal record. but about his death. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Right now we have the number of charges, a brief characterization of those charges, the number still active, and the date of his next court date. It seems to me that the fact that he was given 3 years probation in 2013 is more relevant than the number of charges against him, or when his next court date was set for. Especially since running from the officers seems to be the reason he apprehended, and the legality of carrying a knife might depend on his probation status, which is a big issue in the case against the officers involved. Putanotherway (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Bolt injury

I'm very concerned about the following section in the article.

"The same day, medical examiners reported Gray sustained more injuries as a result of him slamming into the inside of the transport van, 'apparently breaking his neck; a head injury he sustained matches a bolt in the back of the van'."

This is what the original article says: "The sources quoted by the Washington-based station said the medical examiner had determined Gray's death was caused by a catastrophic injury after he slammed into the back of the police transport van while inside it, 'apparently breaking his neck; a head injury he sustained matches a bolt in the back of the van.'"source

However another article says: "Officials, however, refuse to confirm the report. A spokesman for the medical examiner said, 'We don’t do preliminary findings, and the investigation isn’t concluded.'"source

My concern is that "sources" said the medical examiner said that, but we're presenting it as the "medical examiners reported". Personally, I would love to believe a bolt did this, but I'm afraid that what "sources" said, won't wind up matching what the medical examiner actually says in his/her report. I think it might be best to word this closer to the original article, where it's attributed to "sources", and maybe point out that the ME wouldn't confirm the report. Anyone else share this concern, or do you think it's okay as is? Putanotherway (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Snow close as "not moved". As said, wait until many sources confirm "murder". Without prejudice, you can propose alternative title in another discussion. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Death of Freddie Gray → Murder of Freddie Gray – Since the death has been classified as a murder by the authorities, should we move the page to "Murder of Freddie Gray"? Illegitimate Barrister 08:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Illegitimate Barrister 08:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's no question that Freddie Gray died; it's still an open question whether he was murdered, and Wikipedia should not take a position on whether he was, due to NPOV, the potential effect on living people (those charged with, but not yet convicted of, murder and related offenses), and the risk of "activist" editing on both sides (as has already happened on the riot article). Note that a medical examiner's finding of "homicide" is not a finding of "murder", and a prosecutor's decision to prosecute for murder is also not an official finding of murder - only a court verdict can establish that. Moreover, going by prior practice, even if the previous concerns did not hold and it was uncontroversial to say that Gray was murdered, the better title would be Killing of Freddie Gray, not "Murder of...". However, we're not even there yet. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• oppose per excellent anon reasoning just above. if there is a trial and conviction we can revisit. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• oppose It has been classified as a "homicide" by the medical examiner. That does not mean the same thing as murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Putanotherway (talk • contribs) 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• 'oppose if and when there is an indictment, we may consider such a move. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You're so gracious oh sir, yes sir. 128.84.127.37 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• oppose opposed strictly to proposed change, not necessarily opposed to some other change. User Cwobeel states "if and when there is an indictment we may consider such a move", but there has in fact already been an indictment. Change that word to "conviction" and the statement becomes accurate and the reasoning becomes sound. Editor Putanotherway correctly mentions that not all homicides are murders, but fails to take the next step: not all deaths are homicides. Therefore, the current title is not as descriptive as it could be. "Killing of Freddie Gray" or "Freddie Gray homicide" are more accurate. The anonymous editor further noted that previous practice has held that "Killing of" is the better title even if the murder is proven, I have also noticed this practice, most notably with voluntary manslaughter victim Latasha Harlins, but don't concur with it. However, that's a discussion for another time. For now, Murder of is premature. MikeyLin (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gray fell into a coma and was disconected at.... Gray died on April 19, 2015

there is missing info when hes comma life suport was turn off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.50.83.60 (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Better source?

Moore was later released from custody, but two other individuals who were arrested along with Moore remained in custody.

"The man who filmed the arrest of Freddie Gray was arrested Thursday night in Baltimore, according to reports on Twitter and Counter Current News.

Moore was later released without charges, while two others who were in a car with him remained in custody."source

There has to be a better source, than one that says, "according to reports on Twitter and Counter Current News".Putanotherway (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Putantothetway I replaced the reference, hopefully it addresses your concern.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is deemed a potentially unreliable source. Due to the sensitivity of the subject and BLP compliance, please find another one. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Legality of the knife Freddie Gray was carrying at the time of the arrest?

The beginning sentence currently reads "On April 12, 2015, Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old African-American man, was taken into custody by the Baltimore Police Department for possession of a switchblade,[2] which was illegal under Baltimore law at the time."

The article cited in this sentence ([2], NYT "Baltimore Officers Suspended Over Death of Freddie Gray Are Identified" @ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/baltimore-police-officers-suspended-in-freddie-gray-inquiry-are-identified.html) states that Freddie Gray was arrested for carrying a switchblade, but the article does not state whether carrying that knife was actually illegal.

My question is whether this first sentence is correct in stating that the knife was illegal. This article http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/us/freddie-gray-baltimore-death/index.html cites the MD state attorney general Marilyn Mosby as refuting the illegality of the knife: "Mosby said Friday that three Baltimore police officers illegally arrested Gray on April 12. She also said that a knife that Gray had was not illegal."

Does anyone have additional citations or clarifications about whether the knife was illegal? If not, I suppose we should remove ", which was illegal under Baltimore law at the time." from the first sentence as erroneous/unsupported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawaegel (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I just added it to the article. The prosecutors say the blade was LEGAL and that the arrest was illegal. --Beneficii (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks muchly! --Dawaegel (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Need to be careful with this one. First, "probable cause" doesn't requires absolute certainty. Second, he was arrested on City of Baltimore ordinance which is more strict than the State of Maryland and includes a spring-assisted knife which is the type of knife Gray had. Third, Gray is a convicted felon and possession of the weapon may have been unlawful simply due to this fact (i.e. probation). The probable cause statement by the arresting officer simply said "Gray unlawfully possessed a knife commonly known as a "switch blade" within City of Baltimore." Therefore. like any allegation of a crime, Mosby's statement should be stated as an allegation, not a fact. Police are not required to ascertain absolute truth for "probable cause" to arrest. This is basic policing. "reasonable suspicion" existed when he ran in the area that he ran. A spring assisted knife possessed by a prohibited possessor is not held to a "reasonable doubt" standard, but to a lesser standard of probable cause that such a knife is illegally possessed by Freddie Gray. [5]. --DHeyward (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

But was it legal for him to own and carry the knife? That's a separate issue which should be addressed otherwise we're implying he was not breaking the law. If he was on probation, which is likely considering his recent crimes, it is unlikely that he was legally allowed to carry the knife as I note below. Putanotherway (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

yes this is obviously incorrect since it says first that the knife was illegal and then that it was not. at least the term -allegedly- should be included in the first mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Should mention that he was tazed.

Just thought a brief mention that he was tazed immediately prior to the events described as "Two bystanders captured Gray's arrest with video recordings, showing Gray, screaming in pain,[20][21] being dragged into a police van by officers. A bystander with connections to Gray stated that the officers were previously "folding" Gray—with one officer bending Gray's legs backwards, and another holding Gray down by pressing a knee into Gray's neck, subsequent to which most witnesses contemporaneously commented that he "couldn't walk",[22] "can't use his legs",[23] and "his leg look broke and you all dragging him like that"" As it provides context for the events in question. 173.28.253.190 (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't tazed. An officer on the scene said that although an officer pulled his taser out, he never actually used it on Gray. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Race of police officers

Since there is an obvious component of race relations to this story (hence the {{2010s controversial killings of African Americans}} template at the bottom), shouldn't the races of the police officers charged in Freddie Gray's death be mentioned? Edgeweyes (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

My view is that that should wait until the race of the officers is analyzed in secondary sources. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No sources that I have seen mention the races of the officers. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post has the info in this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/who-are-the-police-officers-charged-in-the-death-of-freddie-gray/2015/05/01/dde6bc2e-f01f-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html 71.182.249.30 (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A source has listed the race of the driver of the van as "black". Can that be confirmed and listed? Can the races of the other officers be listed soon after being revealed?

Since the article already mentions that Gray's death is being blamed on racism, the article should also mention that the police officer charged with murdering Gray is black. Source: http://news.yahoo.com/six-baltimore-officers-charged-death-gray-one-murder-004330690.html 71.182.250.124 (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Three of them are black, but since that doesn't fit the preferred media narrative, it is being left out of media reports... at least until they can imagine some way of blaming the black officers' actions on the influence of white officers somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.65.134 (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If you go the link and read the above article, please note that Reuters has removed the part about how the police officer charged with murdering Gray is black. It was there when I posted the link. 71.182.249.30 (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post still has the info in this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/who-are-the-police-officers-charged-in-the-death-of-freddie-gray/2015/05/01/dde6bc2e-f01f-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html 71.182.249.30 (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this helps, "The officers who were arrested, three white and three black" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/us/freddie-gray-autopsy-report-given-to-baltimore-prosecutors.html?_r=0 Putanotherway (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I see the 'preferred media narrative' canard, a favorite of the paranoid, is making its appearance on this talk page. Let's hope editors are sensible enough to keep it out of the article. MikeyLin (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to be unusually naive to believe that the media doesn't have a preferred narrative, but I don't see any evidence that that's what's at play in this situation. I think it just wasn't immediately clear what the races of the officers were until very recently and that's why it wasn't widely reported on until today when it's being mentioned in most media reports that I see. Edgeweyes (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

How does this sound? "You'd have to be unusually naive to believe that the police don't have a bias againt African American suspects". Ridiculous, isn't it? This isn't an article about purported media bias, and a talk page isn't a forum for such allegations. MikeyLin (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No, your quoted sentence doesn't sound ridiculous to me at all. That's the main impetus for the Black Lives Matter movement. Edgeweyes (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The article still does not mention that the police officer charged with murdering Gray is black. It should mention this. 71.182.249.30 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Not supported by source

"This was found to be false during the investigation, as the knife was of folding type which is not illegal."

The source says, "Ms Mosby said that Gray was not carrying an illegal switchblade as reported earlier by police, but a legal pocketknife." So now we have some sources saying the police said it was a switchblade or spring assisted knife, and another source saying Ms Mosby says it wasn't. The way the article is currently written it reaches the conclusion on it's own that Ms Mosby is right and the police were wrong. It also uses the term "pocketknife" not "folding type". I suggest finding another source, or changing the article to reflect what the source is actually saying. Putanotherway (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed to "pocketknife". The police report was false, and that is one of the reasons for the charges. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the source handy, but the knife is apparently a spring assisted folding pocketknife. The federal law regarding switchblades has been specifically modified to exclude spring assist knives from switchblade definition, but other jurisdictions treat them the same (notably NYC to a lesser degree NY state). The state laws are almost universally copied from the federal law, and differences are just in interpretation/judicial precedent. Maryland and Baltimore both have laws on the book - we will need souring on their normal interpretation. We have the prosecutor's opinion that the knife was not illegal, but we should use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for it and not wiki's voice. Beyond that Grey's possession of any// concealed knife was likely illegal due to his probation, but that needs sourcing. Regardless probable cause/reasonable suspicion for stop/arrest does not retroactively go away if the facts are ultimately determined to be wrong. This case is going to hinge on proving a rough ride, or negligence in not following established policy regarding restraint/securing the prisoner. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on this. I think it is properly attributed, though: The prosecutor alleged that Gray's arrest was unlawful because the switch blade the arresting officers reported he had in his possession was actually a spring-assisted pocket knife that is legal under Maryland state law. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

the lede has it in wiki voice. I'm fine with wording similar to what you just quoted tho. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"legal sized pocket knife"

I think it's important to add to this that Freddie Gray may not have been able to legally own or carry a pocket knife. One of the standard conditions of probation in Maryland is "Get permission from the court before owning, possessing, using, or having under your control any dangerous weapon or firearm of any description." Just saying he had a "legal sized pocket knife" implies that he legally owned and carried that pocket knife. The fact that I think should be added is "One of the standard conditions of probation in Maryland is that people on probation must 'get permission from the court before owning, possessing, using, or having under [their] control any dangerous weapon or firearm of any description'".

http://www.courts.state.md.us/courtforms/joint/ccdc026.pdf Putanotherway (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The url provided above links to a primary source, and as Putanotherway notes, we do not have a reliable source indicating Gray was on probation. We need to stick to the facts as reported in independent, reliable secondary sources. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

He was still on probation. He was on 3 years probation from Sept 28, 2013. Thus the way the article stands it is very misleading. It leads the reader to believe that Gray was legally carrying a knife, when he was actually on probation, and unless he had special permission from the courts was in fact carrying that knife illegally. I have a source below, which I came across this morning.

"Gray was charged September 28, 2013 with distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer and second-degree escape. He was found guilty of distribution of narcotics, assault and escape, while the other charges were dropped as part of a plea agreement. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, suspended after 3 years served. It's not clear when he was released from prison. He also received three years of probation."

http://heavy.com/news/2015/04/freddie-gray-arrest-criminal-record-convictions-court-documents-files-rap-sheet-drug-charges/10/ Here's another source describing Maryland's standard conditions for probation. http://ricelawmd.com/probation-in-maryland/Putanotherway (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have refactored some comments above per WP:BLP. I remind everyone that BLP applies to talk pages as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: BLP only applies to living persons. Gray, being dead, is not subject to BLP, but any living person in the article (i.e. those charged, other people involved) are alive and do fall under BLP. 206.125.92.246 (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP applies to recently deceased people as well. Read the policy WP:BDP - Cwobeel (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP is probably still in effect for grey via WP:BDP. Regarding the knife, the knife itself was likely legal under MD law, but Gray's possesion may be illegal due to probation. I believe we have RS for the former, but not for the latter. putting together his arrest record and the knife laws is clear WP:SYNTH and WP:OR so we will have to wait for an WP:RS to do that for us. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear. Nobody is saying that the article should read that he did not legally posses the knife (which is unknown). I think it is notable that he was given 3 years probation stemming from a charge in Sept 2013, which I believe is well sourced. I think it is also notable that a standard condition of probation is that a person can't carry a weapon of any kind without permission from the court, which I also believe is well sourced. I think the standard conditions of probation are notable because of the use of the term "legal size" used multiple times in the article. I think that is deceptive language in that it leads people to believe he was legally carrying that knife, which is not a known fact. If it was changed to a "claim", or those terms were removed, then I don't think the standard conditions of probation would be notable at this time. However I still think the fact that he was given 3 years of parole stemming from a 2013 charge is notable regardless. Putanotherway (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that a small pocket knife, which seems to be what Mr. Gray had based on statements made by the prosecutor, is NOT generally considered to be a weapon. It is a tool. I keep one attached to my key ring all the time. I have chef's knives I keep in my kitchen that would function as a far more dangerous weapon. I also have a machete, axe, hatchet, pick axe and other tools that would be far more dangerous and are considered tools not weapons. My point being that one could call anything a weapon if one wanted to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't even think we have a reliable source that a single-handed operating folding knife with a spring assist is legal in Maryland or specifically in Baltimore. We have an allegation by a prosecutor that she believes it was legal but there are many, many convictions for that type of knife in Maryland. Police make those arrests all the time and they are held up in court. Whether the law is outdated in light of technology is different than whether the officer followed the law. The law is sufficiently vague that a "probably cause" standard is generally met even if it's not "beyond a reasonable doubt." How much the spring assisted the opening is a matter for trial and there are lots of people that are stopped arrested and convicted in states with automated knife laws (i.e. Maryland, New York, etc). There is a difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable doubt" and innocence does not negate probable cause or invalidate the arrest. --DHeyward (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick amadou diallo

TheGracefulSlick, I placed the Shooting of Amadou Diallo in "see also" because he was a black man who met his end at the hands of police misconduct and brutality, like Freddie Gray. He was shot 20 times and was unarmed. His name definitely deserves to be there. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Gray was killed by negligence and not following protocol. He was not killed in a similar fashion and it happened nearly 16 years ago. We can't just place every African American who were killed by police here. Sorry. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. That is not needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I also feel that diallo's death should be included. So he wasn't killed in a similar fashion, the background of the case is basically the same:Black man being killed because of police misconduct. 73.33.48.2 (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Look, we cannot place every African-American who was killed by police here. It needs to directly relate to Freddie Gray. And I really hope you are not using unlogged accounts to make a point.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@GracefulSlick, I don't know why you undid my change. I have two people on my side, you only have one person (Cwobeel) on yours. The consensus is against you. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Unlogged accounts? First edit for each? Kinda suspicious, doesn't hold much weight.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I only have one IP address on my computer, and I just went to whatismyipaddress.com, and neither of the other IPs match me. I'm not misleading anybody, I swear. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you. Just said it's suspicious. I understand this is an important subject. I could never truly understand the injustice African Americans face, but it is an issue I want to bring to light by following wiki rules. The death has no correlation so it should not be included, simple as that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree not relevant, and the fact that its own home cable provider, and one mobile provider ip, first edit, and posting within minutes of each other highly suspicious. I'd file an SPI, except I'm too lazy on a Sunday morning. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Prince's support

Usually I'd be hesitant to suggest documenting celebrity support on an issue such as this, particularly as it is still so recent. However, Prince has released a song entitled 'Baltimore' as a tribute to Gray and those protesting in Baltimore and recently held a tribute in honor of Gray at his estate called Dance Rally 4 Peace. (here are some sources: Baltimore Sun, CoS, The Independent, CNN). Do you think this would be appropriate to include in the article at this time (or any time)? Thoughts? What about other celebrity support? - RatRat- Talk    18:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

My 2 cents: this info would be appropriate to add to Prince's article, but unless we want to add the many celebs who have commented, probably leave it out of this article. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Charges

Shouldn't the section be for what the title states? After listing the officers' roles there are random facts about each officer and some locations of where they live. I just don't see the relevance of the info in the Charges section.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to create a new section, if you want. In the mean time, I added information about the officers in the section that describe the officers' charges. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Post Got Deleted

Once again I will ask why is the "Charges" is blatantly slanted toward race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:9280:B6A:46D4:9A6B:FB19:E552 (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There is an RFC above where this issue is being discussed. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Knife in lede sentence

I strongly feel that having the lede sentence as is ...

On April 12, 2015, Freddie Carlos Gray, Jr., a 25-year-old African-American man, was arrested by the Baltimore Police Department for allegedly possessing an illegal switch blade.

... feels misleading in regards to the knife—perhaps even borderline slanderous ("slanderous" in a colloquial sense, not in a court-of-law sense). It gives voice to a false allegation without qualifying it with present knowledge. As this will be in many cases the first impression a reader receives when coming to the article I feel this to be an issue of some importance. Yes, the status of the knife is qualified, at present, further down in another paragraph, but this feels insufficient to me. The lede sentence shows up in search previews and establishes a reader's initial impression upon coming to the article. I suggest modifying the lede sentence as so:

On April 12, 2015, Freddie Carlos Gray, Jr., a 25-year-old African-American man, was arrested by the Baltimore Police Department for allegedly possessing an illegal switch blade which officials later determined to have been, in actuality, a legal pocket knife.

... or in some similar manner so as to better reflect present knowledge with an accurate and neutral tone. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

References

That's incorrect. The prosecutor alleges the arrest was a illegal because the knife should have been obviously legal to the arresting officer. It has "not been determined to be a legal pocketknife" as that is a matter for trial. In addition, the wuestion of whether Freddie Gray was allowed to possess it as well as as the location (City of Baltimore). Maryland has case law that states gravity knives are a "dangerous weapon" and they are not strictly switchblades either. In short, there are likely thousands of knife arrests for "spring assisted" knives (what Gray actually had) and the prosecutors allegation that the officer was criminally wrong is covered by BLPCRIME. Both the way we describe Gray's knife as being illegal as well as the way we describe the officers probable cause statement are all subject to BLPCRIME and there is no wrongdoing concluded by anyone. --DHeyward (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Alleged"? Why don't we use the more neutral "stated" or "said". - Cwobeel (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it's a crime. Crimes are alleged. Not stated. In fact, the presumption is there is no crime and both the possession of the knife and the arrest are both lawful. --DHeyward (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with Kevjonesin suggested rewrite of the lede. DHeyward, your interpretation seems to me to be just that, your interpretation. The only sourced facts we have in this case is that the state's attorney says that it was not a switchblade and a pocket knife. We should be stating exactly what is in reliable sources and not adding legal interpretations to them. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

My fellow editors, I suggest, before changing it to alleged, you read WP:FALSE BALANCE. Giving equal validity creates a false balance. On this front, there is irrefutable evidence that the knife Gray had was in fact legal (why would a top, legal prosecutor lie about that?). I can only see a tiny minority suggesting it wasn't equal. In this case, we go with what the vast majority says – that the knife was in fact legal under state law, and not a switchblade. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That's incorrect, she's alleging the arrest was unlawful because the knife was legal. That's contrary to case law in Maryland where even non-spring assisted knives that use gravity can be considered switchblades. It would be akin to us saying that it wasn't murder because a witness said Gray injured himself. Those are facts pertaining to a crime that need to be determined in court. Calling the arrest "unlawful" is not a statement of absolute fact, it's an allegation of a crime prior to trial. As I said, the reality is that currently the presumption is that both Gray carrying the knife and the arrest of Gray for the knife are both lawful. Both are innocent of a crime. And while this may seem contradictory, it is the nature of innocent until proven guilty. The fact of the knife's legality has not been tried in court. Nor has the probable cause statement that he was unlawfully carrying it been tried in court. No one is lying, the prosecutor is alleging a crime as that is what they do. We report it as an allegation, not a fact. --DHeyward (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone's point (except yours apparently) is it has been clearly established that the knife was legal, so there is no "alleged" notion in this instance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh, not it has not been "clearly established" there is the opinion of one prosecutor, who spoke about Maryland law, but the police arrested Gray under Baltimore law. not to mention Gray's issue as a felon in possession. These issues will ar elikely to be a major focus of the trial, and we should not presume any outcome in any direction. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I never presumed any outcome, but it is established that the knife is legal. A prosecutor's opinion does not deter any confirmed fact. And no one was speaking of any future trial anyways, so that is pretty irrelevant.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not established the knife is legal as that determination is being used to predicate an offense. Facts are determined at trial, not by statements of prosecutors. The prosecutor has also stated that 6 officers committed crimes and their actions were illegal. The opinion of legal and illegal by a prosecutor is not a "fact." The facts are things like it was a spring-assisted knife. That's a fact bet any determination of law and how the facts interact with laws are isssues for the court. --DHeyward (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• As far as the lede sentence goes, seems to me that simply removing mention of the knife (as I think Cwobeel did awhile back) works fine. Likely better addressed in detail farther down. To much nuance to reduce to an aside in the first sentence. As to 'how' to address there (farther down, not first sentence) ... carry on y'all ... :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

poster art

Jagtig is adding File:Poster_art_freddie_gray.jpg|thumb to the external links section. I removed it, and he readded it. I think this falls pretty strongly into WP:ELNO and doesn't really meet WP:OI as it is a poster with no notability or traction in the protests etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or an opportunity to publish ones own art. Marteau (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly explain to this user, Jagtig, that it does not meet WP:OI and should not be under the external links section. If the user understands the policy then maybe they won't re-add it anymore. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 22:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this article already mentions that Gray is black, why does it not mention that his accused murderer is also black?

In addition to having a picture of the accused murderer's mugshot, this Washington Post article also states:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/who-are-the-police-officers-charged-in-the-death-of-freddie-gray/2015/05/01/dde6bc2e-f01f-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html

"Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr., 45, who has been on the force since 1999, according to Baltimore police. An African American, Goodson drove the van that transported Gray to jail."

"Goodson, whose bail was set at $350,000, is the only officer in the group facing a murder charge. He is charged with ­second-degree depraved-heart murder, a charge used when a suspect is accused of reckless disregard for another person’s life, in addition to involuntary manslaughter, second-degree ­assault, manslaughter by vehicle and misconduct in office."

AFP reports that the protests are over alleged racism by the police:

http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-hold-street-party-baltimore-officers-charged-021024806.html

"The death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray had sparked rioting and days of protests in the US East Coast port city over alleged police racism and brutality."

Since the protests are over alleged racism by the police, and this wikipedia article already mentions that Gray is black, it should mention that his alleged murderer is also black.

71.182.249.30 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

See discussion above at Talk:Death_of_Freddie_Gray#race - Cwobeel (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You were wrong in that discussion. The races of the police officers are often mentioned (witha simple search term like Freddie Gray white). Washington Post: "The officers — three white, three African American". It is already visible from the image in the article, but could be mentioned in text as well to avoid one-way racebaiting since it's always mentioned Freddie Gray is African-American. --Pudeo' 16:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. How can one say that mentioning the race of the victim is fine, but not the race of the accused? It's bizarre. Marteau (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It holds no purpose. The issue is alleged police brutality against African Americans, not racism. It doesn't matter what race they are in this case.

Alleged racism is an issue: "The death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray had sparked rioting and days of protests in the US East Coast port city over alleged police racism and brutality." http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-hold-street-party-baltimore-officers-charged-021024806.html 71.182.249.30 (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has already dealt with issues like this. See the Michael Brown articles; the race of both Brown and Wilson are mentioned in this article. We can't simply pretend race is relevant and should be mentioned for the murdered, but not the alleged murderer.

Cwobeel, you were deeply involved in and familiar with the issues in the Michael Brown articles... could you explain to me why the race of the officer belongs there, but not here?Marteau (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If there is an image depicting their actual race, what is the point? Gray's race is relevant because there has been a string of acts of brutality by police on specifically African Americans in poor communities or with a criminal record.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I found this interesting (though I'm not a fan of Fox News)http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/03/from-obscurity-to-notoriety-six-officers-accused-in-death-freddie-gray/

You are not considering the needs of blind visitors. But beyond that, the race of an alleged perpetrator is certainly relevant when allegations of racism and systemic biases are bandied about. Were all the police white in this case (similar to the Brown case and article), you can be damn sure the concensus for including their race in this article would an overwhelming "support". For damn sure, and beyond any doubt. Marteau (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes "for damn sure", no need for language. I would be fine with adding the races if you really want to. Just don't let it interfere with the charges (if that's where you want to list their races).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• I concur with Marteau on this. Raising issues of race is common, perhaps even a 'norm', when instances of police misconduct get reported in the U.S. (for-better-or-worse, as it were). I see no reason for this case to be an exception (and a few for making a point to mention it as seems to help emphasize misconduct specifically as an element of police culture in contrast to other cases which at times get couched in terms of a general thread of American racism manifesting within the police force). --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Marteau and others: The inclusion of the races in other articles was solely based on the preponderance of sources that describe these incident mention race as a major factor. That does not apply here, as most sources don't describe this case in a racial context.- Cwobeel (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Guys, guys, the photo of the six officers clearly shows their race (three white, three black). There's no need to point it out in the text, and, as said above, the issue is mostly about police brutality. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You ignore the fact that there are blind users of the encyclopedia. Marteau (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Blind? How would they be able to read the text on their computer screen? I thought brail only worked with books. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• See WP:ACCIM for Wikipedia guidance on accessibility. Grand'mere Eugene (talk)`

Blind people do indeed use Wikipedia and the internet. I'll not do your homework for you; it's easily googled. Marteau (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, race is an issue and the race of the accused officers should be mentioned. Note that until the charges were filed, the most prevalent picture was 3 white officers (2 bike, 1 patrol) and there were many, many references to Ferguson as well as the taser/pistol error shooting. The issue is framed that police are brutalizing people because they are Black and value Black lives less than others. How that can be a central theme without exploring who is accused of valuing Black lives less is very relevant and mentioned in every article. Keep in mind that the first reports were of abuse at the time of arrest which fueled the racial aspect. When the ME report refuted the "broken leg" and turned to the ride to the station, the racial seeds were sown. This would not have have been nearly the same issue if the death was not framed as a racial one. In fact, I suspect there would be outrage that an African-American was facing the most serious charges. --DHeyward (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to politicize the discussion, rather, we ought to follow what the sources say, and so far I see very little mention of race in sources relating to this incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I would consider the photos themselves to be a sort of visual statement. Multiple articles have presented the information that the six officers were of assorted races regardless of whether they have specifically stated such in text. As copyright issues disallow simply copying the images and presenting them in a similar manner it seems appropriate to fulfill the same de facto function (conveying the ethnicity of officers) in the Wikipedia article's text. If one wants to be picky about it, it can be explicitly qualified that images are being described. For example: "In article Foo Officer x was pictured as ethnicity y." A sourced factual statement. And one that I feel is noteworthy and relevant in light of a general cultural emphasis put upon matters of race in context of police misconduct. This case—touching upon issues of individual and collective power—is unfolding in USAmerica 2015. Race is relevant. --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This sums it up quite eloquently: [6]. Not an issue of race. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Why does it have to be an "issue of race" or a "major factor" for it to be included in the article? There are dozens of facts about this case that are in the article which are not "major factors". The fact of the matter is, the race of both the victim and the accused is widely reported by reliable sources. As I said above, if all the cops were white, this would no doubt be a big deal. That they were not all white makes this an entirely different case with different dynamics... the fact of the matter is, their race DOES matter in today's highly charged political atmosphere, people DO take these things into account race IS mentioned and part of the public discourse. Exclusion of such a basic, widley reported fact needs more reason for exclusion than the eminently debatable and assertion "its not a major factor" or "there is a picture" Marteau (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to politicize the discussion, rather, we ought to follow what the sources say, and so far I see very little mention of race in sources relating to this incident.
— User:Cwobeel

That you advocate excluding based on political factors is noted. Since you also bring up media mention, I'll cite three:

A Look at the Baltimore Police Officers Charged in Freddie Gray's Death http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/baltimore-unrest/look-baltimore-police-officers-charged-freddie-grays-death-n352696

Six Baltimore Police Officers Charged in Freddie Gray Death http://www.wsj.com/articles/baltimore-prosecutor-probable-cause-to-charge-police-in-freddie-gray-death-1430492304

Accused officers have wide range of experience http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/who-are-the-police-officers-charged-in-the-death-of-freddie-gray/2015/05/01/dde6bc2e-f01f-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html

... all mention the race of the accused. These major news organizations felt it worthy of mention. It is not trivia, their race is a part of the public debate on this issue, and is part of the dynamic surrounding this issue. In an article filled with minutiae, this non-trivial fact certainly deserves mention Marteau (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Three sources of many hundreds of thousand sources. Seek consensus for inclusion. I oppose it. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That you don't feel The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and NBC as sufficient is also noted. Your objections are seeming more and more like a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, and having you say "hundreds of thousand sources" leads me to seriously question your judgement regarding the relative weight of sources. Marteau (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I honestly do not see the harm of including it. I added it, but it was deleted. If it is up to so much debate obviously it is worth being placed in the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Include I seems to me that at times this thread has been conflating mentioning the race of those involved with asserting implications thereof. I feel that 'mentioning'—simply stating the evident facts portrayed in numerous sources (via photo if not text)—would be not only acceptable, but actively informative to readers and in keeping with mentions of race in other cases of police misconduct. However, I think readers should be left to draw there own inferences from thereon. Unsourced assertions as to what this 'means' should be actively avoided. --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was concerned of. I am all for including the race. But, already I had to remove an edit that inaccurately portrayed the white officers as more criminally negligent, even though Goodson has the most serious charge. If it is simply listed by their names or something along that nature, that would be ok.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. I concede, after reading several sources. I am working to add details of the officers and will include race. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I just looked back through this section and the preceding #Race section. There appears to be a substantial majority of editors who've weighed in favoring including some mention of the race of the officers in this article. In fact the opposition appears to consist largely—almost exclusively—in the comments of a single editor. Can we call this settled please? Or is a someone (unilaterally?) going to insist on some sort of 'official' WP:RfC or some such?
  

Hallelujah. <wink> :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I already included the race of the officers, so yeah close it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have expanded a bit and added the races in the manner as described in the reports (black, not African-American; white, not Caucasian). Also added details of their roles in the incident as reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

sigh

Jeebus! User:Cwobeel, as 'leader of the opposition' do you really think you're the appropriate editor to be addressing this? In my opinion things are starting to reek of WP:OWN or some such similar stench. Please consider taking a break and shifting your editing focus to other articles for a day or two. I for one preferred User:TheGracefulSlick's usage of "African American" & "Caucasian" as neutral sounding additions to the listing of involved officer details. Please, please, give it a rest as it's starting to appear as if you're unilaterally trying to control how content—which you're on record as opposing including at all—is being implemented. At least six other editors have endorsed—here on this talk page—inclusion of these details (of ethnicity). We can handle implementing our consensus without your 'help'. Thank you. --Kevjonesin (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

All articles use "black" and "white". See for example, Shooting of Michael Brown, Shooting of Tamir Rice and others. And please comment on the edits and not on the editor. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone who racks up five administrative blocks in just about a year's time is in no position to complain about having their behavior become a subject of discussion. Marteau (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Does anyone (other than Cwobeel himself) think it's appropriate for User:Cwobeel to be passing judgment on this? To be arbiter of implementing a proposal he himself has clearly stated he is opposed to? --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Why does it matter? The racial plitics are Black and White and that's how it started. Three white officers chased down and arrested a Black man. All the allegations started from that. It became a national story from that. It was a "Black Lives Matter" rallying cry. Not until after the riots was it revealed that all the injuries were suffered post arrest. White and Black are relevant as this is how it became an issue as the first accusations had clear racial overtones. It wasn't just "police", it was the three initial white officers accused of brutality. Only after the races of the other officers became known did it morph away from being racial. The real outcry will be when 5 of the 6 officers are exonerated and only the driver is punished (an no it won't be anything close to murder). --DHeyward (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As to "Why does it matter?" ... I've become concerned with the 'how' as much if not more so than the 'what' at this point in regard to Cwobeel editing content in this article dealing with addressing ethnicity. He conceded—in word—to majority consensus after staging an extended and nearly single handed opposition (woot woot! for heroics; I've been known to go out on a few limbs myself). To then follow up by swiftly overwriting TheGracefulSlick's implementation of the consensus came off, to me, as unseemly. An attempt to control 'how' the information gets included after having failed to dictate 'whether' it gets included. In light of what has preceded I think it would be better form for Cowobeel to propose article changes relating to ethnicity here on the talk page and allow others to implement them if/when consensus is achieved. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: As to 'Black/White' vs. 'African American/Caucasian', personally I feel the latter, 'African American/Caucasian', is more in keeping with the concerns voiced earlier about emphasizing informative 'mention' over encouraging inference and assertion. 'African American/Caucasian' feels more neutral to me. Has a touch of 'academic' removal, whereas 'Black/White' feels more visceral to me. Interconnecting more readily with charged public debates and such. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

We follow the sources, not our feelings. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. But seriously, when many of the sources are photographs there seems to be plenty of room for interpretation. And as to texts, it's my impression that paraphrasing in one's own words (outside of actual quotations) to help maintain a neutral tone is generally encouraged. Regardless, I like it and in this case feel it helps keep things informative with less chance of inadvertently being perceived as taking some sort of overt stance. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I used "we" as in, "In Wikipedia we follow the sources". Read WP:V - Cwobeel (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"White" in this case is preferred because there are various ethnic groups that may/may not identify as "Caucasian." For example, one of the officers is of Arab descent. I don't know which one or whether they are Black or White and I don't know his preference so the source is best. Same is true "Black" if they identify from regions other than Africa. Baltimore city and it's PD are very diverse so if we err, it should be on the side of sources. The press goofed on George Zimmerman yet we still use the RS "white hispanic" even though he doesn't identify that way and has a very blended background. --DHeyward (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with just "black" or "white", though. I will only except an accurate and neutral potrayal of the individuals. That is why I wrote Caucasian and Africa-American, as it is proper terminology.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Proper terminology for whom? Neither Black or White are offensive terms and apparently conform to style guides of various news outlets. Caucasian and African-American CAN be offensive if you are inferring it only by skin color. There are numerous example of interviewers of international people calling their subjects "African American" because they are Black only to be reminded that they are not American and identify with their nation such as "Kenyan" for nationality and Black for race. --DHeyward (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

But the police officers are American...so that's pretty irrelevant. The terms are used as is because it cannot lead people to assume things about the case. "White" and "Black" offer a contrast that doesn't belong here, while the terms said are neutral in nature.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick:. you keep reverting to your preferred version, despite the fact that consensus is emerging to the contrary. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

... and we need to follow the sources, not our preferences. I have yet to find a source that describe the white policeman as "Caucasian". - Cwobeel (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Emerging? There is you and one other editor who agrees against me. I don't think you really count since you didn't even want race in the first place. And we never follow sources word by word, we keep things neutral. If they described whites as "crackers" would you use it because we're just "following sources"? Wait for consensus instead of bossing others aroundTheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if you could use simple math, my side has majority, so your "emerging" consensus is non-existent.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest you cool off your rhetoric just a tad. I will start an RFC to address the dispute and seek other editor's input. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to extend a 'Thank You' to User:Victor Victoria for uploading a photo image of the six officers under a 'fair use' rationale. And to whosoever included it in the article. I think it speaks-for-itself quite well as to ethnicity of the officers. --Kevjonesin (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I also added the image to the article. Now why would I just upload the image and not also add it to the article? Victor Victoria (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Victor Victoria: Well then, you'd be "whosoever" then wouldn't you? And hence twice thanked. I think the distinction between "the article" and "an article" played into my adding the qualifier. I didn't feel like digging into page history in order to make a brief expression of gratitude. But neither did I wish to presume and risk slighting a possible collaborator. Thanks again, (#3, may sneak in a 4th), :  } --Kevjonesin (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Seperate background section for cops

Already there has been issues brought up from readers that race does not correlate with the charges section, as it makes assumptions that race somehow related to the charges placed on them. There should be a seperate background section for the officers to avoid the problem.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

In other articles we have all protagonists and victims in the section "Background. We could do a similar treatment here. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Used alphanumeric sort on the names of the officers, but it may be better to list in the order of the incident (eye contact, arrest, driving, etc._. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving the concerns.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: Can you explain the rationale for this deletion [7]? You called it "fluff" but this is pertinent information as it provided background on the officers (what has been reported) in the same manner as we are reporting background on Gray. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Where they went to school, the occupation of their grandfather, and kids have no relevance to the incident or aftermath. The "confiscation" gives no details about the situation which informs the reader about anything, and as written hints strongly at being a domestic abuse situation without sufficient backing, which is a BLP violation. (the real article doesn't give much more, but reads more to me like suicide risk, but as everything is blacked out in the report, and nobody is saying anything more we are left with...?).

On grey some of the information I put into the same bucket (sister, etc). His criminal background seems more relevant since he (allegedly?) fled from the police on sight, and his parole/probation restrictions are potentially relevant to if he was committing a crime (or at least parole violation) at the time (by having the knife) which goes to both the reasonableness/legality of the officers' arresting him, and a reason for why he may have fled. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I's disagree. Backgrounds are always useful, and they provide context. Think of the reader... as a reader, I would find that information to be useful. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

We can mention that reasons were blacked out in that report, but omitting it is not acceptable. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

as for this diff [8] I don't see the information as important, but it at least does have some relevance to the incident as thats why that person was there. I would support its return if someone feels strongly about it, but don't think its really important. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree on this one. Not needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel I think your info was removed because it was, to a degree, random facts about each officer. The past history of incidents involving some of the officers would be more useful if it showed a pattern of wrongdoings. However, one cannot say it does, since, at most, the officers were involved in only one "questionable" act.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the comments previously mentioned, backgrounds on each of the officers provides context. However, random and irrelevant facts about their lives does not really add anything useful to the Wikipedia page. Perhaps only use background information where it is relevant and keep the information consistent throughout each "summary" of officers. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 22:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Now we can add material about this officer [9] - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

See this would be ok because it shows a pattern of issues. I agree to its inclusion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

dershowitz on the case

https://www.youtube.com/embed/s2UumcEA9oY Gaijin42 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There are many experts commenting on this right and left, and it is all grand speculation at this stage as we don't have anything from the police investigation, the prosecutor's investigation, or the federal investigation. Patience. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There already is a "Public Response" section of significant size. If the response of the general public is includable, the response of public figures and experts is certainly also includable, perhaps in it's own subsection. Marteau (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no issues with adding commentary from pundits, experts and politicians, but we need to avoid using long quotes. Better is to paraphrase these opinions and keep them short. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to add opinions, we can't have just this one. We need a wide-array to pin-point all important sides of the debate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Caesor Goodson not scheduled to work the day of arrest.

I added to the Caesar Goodson section in Background that he was not scheduled to work the day of the arrest. It was removed because TheGracefulSlick believed it was not relevant. I put the information back as I could not see how the officer who was being charged for the result of Gray's death not scheduled to be on duty that day could not be relevant to the article. The edit was again removed by TheGracefulSlick, this time with no explanation or edit summary. Surely I'm not wrong in thinking that this is a relevant inclusion to the article. - RatRat- Talk    00:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

In the talk about officer background (Seperate background section for cops), two users clearly say it is unneeded...so I'm not saying your wrong, but...well you know.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in which it is described as "fluff" and irrelevant. But you need to elaborate. The officer is charged with his death. He was not scheduled to be on duty. The implications of this (as reported from reliable sources) is that if the officer who is charged with Gray's death was not there (which he was not scheduled to be) then maybe this wouldn't of happened. Maybe Gray would still be alive. This is speculation, but him not being scheduled tobe there is a fact that creates important context. How is this NOT relevant to the article? You sound so sure that it's not relevant and I just don't get it. (Sources: IBTimes, Daily Mail, Baltimore Sun, The Independent) - RatRat- Talk    01:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Plus your last comment was bordering on WP:NPA - RatRat- Talk    01:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You just proved why. You used speculation, but this is all fact. There are a lot of ifs in history, but it only comes down to fact. And the fact is Goodson was there and that is how it will stay. The info doesn't help the reader learn anything, it's just more words to pass through for relevant facts. And, honestly, get over my comment and focus on the issue. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the issue. These are all facts: Goodson was not scheduled to be at work that day. Many reliable sources state this and the fact that many reliable sources state this shows that it should be considered as relevant context. - RatRat- Talk    02:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Quantity doesn't equal quality of content. Since no one has agreed to including the content and two others users other than me disapprove, the content has not been deemed relevant. Talk back later when other users state their opinion before any of this info has any chance of being added.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why this is relevant either. He was working overtime in accordance with police policy it seems and nothing untoward about the situation has been implied. The question is, "so what"? There is nothing remarkable about it and its value lies only is some kind of "what if?" thought exercise which might be welcome while talking with friends over some beers or something but certainly not in an encyclopedia. Marteau (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, this was the point I was trying to make. There is a lack of relevance to the situation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The question "so what?" is particular to perspective which is not encyclopedic. Context in relation to a subject (that is also a public issue), particularly one so controversial, informs the reader and makes for practical analysis which is encyclopedic (if not the main purpose of an encyclopedia - why else do people come to the article?). I'm confused at the "nothing remarkable" comment as there doesn't need to be anything remarkable about it. An encyclopedia doesn't have to be striking or entertaining, it has to compile facts for the purpose of education. Take the Death of Eric Garner article. Information on the police officer involved in that case ranges from his dad being a firefighter to where he went to high school. You personally may not find anything remarkable about it, but it is information relevant to the subject, helping to create sufficient context as to approach the material in the article (that's what a 'background' section is for - it's not prime info or even analysis. It's background). The inclusion of this also doesn't compromise any WP:IMPARTIAL or WP:NPOV if you're concerned that this will in someway instill an unfavorable stance on Goodson (he has already played a roll and been charged in relation to the death of Gray so that's kind of inevitable). - RatRat- Talk    03:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Just because an event is widely reported does not automatically mean its includable here. A line has to be drawn, and it varies depending on the editor. I draw my line for exclusion of this; yours is for inclusion. Reasonable editors can disagree, and in the end, some issues just have to be left up to the concensus of editors voicing an opinion. Marteau (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The event of Gray's death has been included on Wikipedia though. Partisanship aside, what I said above remains applicable. - RatRat- Talk    04:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that you have put forth an objective basis for the inclusion of this material. That is not the case; that an event is related to the death does not automatically justify inclusion. In the end, the inclusion or exclusion of this material will depend on the subjective opinions and concensus of the editors participating in the discussion. Marteau (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. My original reply to you gave evidence of what I thought were valid reasons for its inclusion to be considered. My next reply to you reaffirmed my belief that what I said in the previously reply "remains applicable". I've not said anything to suggest the inclusion should be imperative, just said why I think it should be included which is the point of any discussion. As of yet you haven't actually given any argument against it, just belittle my opinions by suggesting I'm saying something that I'm not. - RatRat- Talk    04:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's my argument against it: it's trivia. That'll have to do. I'm done debating the issue with you. Marteau (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur that it seems trivial at this point. Unless Goodson confesses to taking Gray on a 'rough ride' and tries to justify a short temper on overwork, or some such, it seems a trivial scheduling issue. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User:HydrocityFerocity

Note: HydrocityFerocity (talk · contribs) is the WP:Sockpuppet of a highly WP:Disruptive editor, and he'll very likely be back at this article to cause trouble. See the WP:Sockpuppet investigations regarding him for a better idea of how this person edits so that you might help identify him if (rather when) he shows back up at this article to edit WP:Disruptively. Flyer22 (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh snap, and I thought he was just an inexperienced user making mistakes. Didn't see that coming.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

I added yesterday a diagram of the van stops, but I have not been able to find sources for the times of these stops. Any help in finding these times would be appreciated so that the diagram can be completed. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Drawing some arrows (or some other more obvious indication) between the stops may be helpful, since unless one reads closely one would assume that the closer stops happened sequentially. I would perhaps avoid though a direct line between them as we don't want to imply a particular route between stops. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

See above at the section called Stops. And I posted a link to an ABC article with a break down of stop and a map that shows the order of which they happen. Olanatan (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the ABC article. I was suggesting we do something similar (although I think the ABC one has a problem as the lines may be assuming a bunch of untrue info as they somewhat imply the actual route taken, and speed). Maybe just having highly visible numbers in CWobeel's map would be sufficient to show the order, but not imply route. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: I wanted to add arrows between the stops, but I am not sure of the route they took. Was it a straight line? Not sure we have that info... - Cwobeel (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

When I tried to add arrows connecting the stops, it gave the impression that the arrows depict the route they took. So I think it would be better to leave as is until additional information emerges. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel I do not think a more specific route is available. Perhaps GPS route will be available during a trial. But thats my point, we should indicate order of stops, without implying a route to those stops. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Added the known times of (arrest, stop 1, stop 3, and arrival to police station). That may help depict the order. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Added also sequence order as suggested. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

mark stop 4 as picking up Donta Allen? As otherwise a very circuitous route with no explanation (presumably they were sent there via dispatch at some point?) per http://www.wbaltv.com/news/second-man-in-police-transport-van-speaks-out/32669692 Gaijin42 (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

yes, very strange route, and at this point we have no info about the reasons. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel this NYT article goes into the time line (as described by Mosby) in a bit more detail. Some interesting points - initial stop was cops on bikes, van was called in for pickup. Stop 4 (pickup of prisoner #2) was made via dispatch. Porter was not involved until stop #3. stop 4 has some confusing "met" wording that implies some officers were "added" at that point, but they were also mentioned previously? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/30/us/what-happened-freddie-gray-arrested-by-baltimore-police-department-map-timeline.html?_r=0 Gaijin42 (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit confusing and unclear at this stage. I am not sure we can improve upon what we currently have until new information emerges. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

race

List the races of the individual officers listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.49.111.250 (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the article already mentions that Gray's death is being blamed on racism, the article should also mention that the police officer charged with murdering Gray is black. Source: http://news.yahoo.com/six-baltimore-officers-charged-death-gray-one-murder-004330690.html 71.182.250.124 (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If you go the link and read the above article, please note that Reuters has removed the part about how the police officer charged with murdering Gray is black. It was there when I posted the link. 71.182.249.30 (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post still has the info in this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/who-are-the-police-officers-charged-in-the-death-of-freddie-gray/2015/05/01/dde6bc2e-f01f-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html 71.182.249.30 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe any source is claiming to blame racism. The police broke protocol and were negligent for the injuries sustained by Gray. Until race is a confirmed factor I don't see why it should be included.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I'm leaning toward supporting inclusion. The article does say, "as part of a larger string of controversial uses of force by police officers in the United States—especially against African-Americans", it does list the race of the subject of the article, it has "2010s controversial killings of African Americans" at the bottom, and the NYT lists the race of the officers, "The officers who were arrested, three white and three black" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/us/freddie-gray-autopsy-report-given-to-baltimore-prosecutors.html?_r=0 Putanotherway (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

From what I've seen there's been a few sources citing racism as a factor in his death, or at least that racial discrimination is an important contextual matter to the events. e.g. Daily Mail, New York Times, BBC News. It's also related to many of the protests relating to racial discrimination such as Hands up, don't shoot and Black Lives Matter. RatRat (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The article still does not mention that the police officer charged with murdering Gray is black. It should mention this. 71.182.249.30 (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 13:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This is easily sourcable, but is still obviously subject to consensus.

• http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/south/2015/05/6_cops_3_black_3_white_charged_in_freddie_gray_s_death
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/who-are-the-police-officers-charged-in-the-death-of-freddie-gray/2015/05/01/dde6bc2e-f01f-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html

I don't see sources highlighting the races of the officers as in other cases, so I doubt we need it. In addition, we have photos of the officers which makes the point moot. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That's some kind of logic you got going there, saying that mentioning the race of the victim is fine, but mentioning the race of the only one with a murder charge in this case is unneeded. And the very two articles just above "highlight" the race of the accused... one of them has their race in the very title of the article.Marteau (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I notice that the subject of the article is described as "African-American" in the intro, but the police officers involved are "black." Either term is probably fine (see Wikipedia:African_American), but we should use consistent terms within the same article. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style) Canute (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Arrest and death deleted section

Hi,

I note that ViperSnake151 deleted a slightly lengthy witness quote (the witness who spoke to Anderson Cooper), and I sort of agree that there's no need for two.

On the other hand this witness went a bit further, and noticed that after the move (what another witness called the 'pretzel move') it had appeared that Gray had lost the use of his legs.

I am the one who put in that paragraph and I don't object to it being deleted, but there are now five or six witness reports who describe Gray complaining that his neck hurts, the police having one knee on the neck while bringing his feet around to his back, and subsequently him appearing to have no control over his legs, or broken legs.

It is also relevant that the pathologist noticed no actual injury to the legs.

Here is a run-down of some of the quotes I found, none of which are included, and some of which seem to include more info than the included quote:

.

Harold Perry ( blind person), 1700 block of Presbury street:

http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/maryland/2015/04/21/freddie-gray-baltimore-arrest-videowitness/26122671/

"About 8:30 in the morning, and I heard this boy hollering and screaming get off me get off me. You're hurting my neck. Get your knee off my back. And then two cars pulled up. One door slammed and then the other door slammed, and then he got to screaming loud. And it sounded like, I live in the corner house, it sounded a distance away from me, down this way somewhere, and he said I got asthma, or something like that, and kept screaming and hollering and the police said, somewhere over in here, I guess they must have pulled him up from over here somewhere, somewhere over in here it sounded like he was hollering, shut the fuck up, that's what the police said, and I woke my wife, and she got up, and she said, they dragging him to the wagon, and the wagon was in the driveway over here somewhere."

.

The witness who spoke to Anderson Cooper:

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/04/23/ac-freddie-gray-witness-speaks-to-anderson-cooper.cnn

"when I got there to the site it was just terrible. By the time I started recording him, the heels of his feet were almost at his back, he was already cuffed at the time,so, and the police had their knee in his neck, and he was crushing his neck really hard....To me he didn't look like he was able to use his legs at all. They were totally limp. He had no use. I mean They said he was able to pressure on one leg but I'm pretty sure that if you took away that help from the officers holding him up, that he wouldn't be able to stand on his own. There's no way possible. As you can see in the video they're dragging him to the paddy wagon because he couldn't walk."

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YV0EtkWyno&feature=youtu.be

"Ah, they day to(?) tase you like that. You wonder why he can't use his legs."

.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1176745/Baltimore-Police-drag-Freddie-Gray-van-arrest.html

"His leg look broke. Look at his fucking leg. Look at his fucking leg. That boy leg look broke. His leg look broke and you all dragging him like that?"

.

http://cw39.com/2015/04/22/witness-police-had-freddie-gray-bent-up-like-a-pretzel/

“They had Freddie Gray bent up into what I’d like to call a pretzel-type of move, where they had the heels of his feet to his back, and he was still in handcuffs and they had their knee in the back of the neck.”

It might be worthwhile expanding the existing quote or replacing it by a more complete witness description if you are going to delete that paragraph.

---(end quote)----

Createangelos (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey thanks whoever fixed this, it is a lot better now,

Createangelos (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, should I delete this section of the talk page now, since the article is pretty good? Also has a quote by Batts counterbalancing these too, which is nice and even. A general question, when something is OK should we delete our talk page section? Createangelos (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Gray's Mobility Following Arrest

The "Arrest and death" section contains several observations regarding Gray's mobility in the course of his arrest: "...most witnesses contemporaneously commented that he "couldn't walk",[32] "can't use his legs",[33] and "his leg look broke and you all dragging him like that".[34]" This is a signficant issue in terms of when Gray suffered his injuries and whether he was faking injury prior to the fatal one. Also, whether he was faking injury in the process may be quite signficant to the allegation that the police failed to get him appropriate medical care.

I included the following Balto. Sun quote, "Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts noted from the video that, "Gray stood on one leg and climbed into the van on his own."" Not only is it well-sourced, the quoted observation is merely a description of what's on the full version of the video.

TheGracefulSlick keeps taking it out, based on some loose assertion that the underlying source is "false."

Seems to me it's relevant, well-sourced, and not really even disputed.

I'm fine with leaving in the contrary "observations" by the folks on the street, but this seems to be a reasonable balance.

Comments? John2510 (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying the officer's side is false, I'm saying the article contains false statements from the seconds prisoner. The prisoner later said he never said that, which makes the source flawed in its reports. It makes the source seem unreliable if it has false reports in it. I told you to find another source and I would be perfectly fine with the content. There is no need for the discussion, just find another source. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So, your argument is that because a source contains two bits of info A and B, and we are using it for A, but you have concerns that B is outdated, means we can no longer use the source for A? That's not the way sourcing works. That the guy changed his story does not in any way invalidate that he had previously said a different story in any case, so even if we were using it for B it would still be acceptable. The information should be restored. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine, go ahead, let readers be misinformed when they read the majority of the article, which is about the witness more than the officer's statement. I mean the user could easily find an up-to-date source, but I guess that is too much to ask with the multiple sources about the Gray case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I put it back, though it would be wise to have a source that is 100% factual.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I genuinely appreciate that. The article notes the prisoner's denial of the previous statement, so I think readers get both sides of that aspect of the story. Besides, we don't know if the story was false or if he's lying in his denial. Not our job to be polygraph, at least where the truth isn't crystal clear. Certainly not our job to shield the reader from reading and deciding for himself. Personally, I suspect that the witnesses who said he was tazed, legs broke, etc. are going to be proved liars by the autopsy, same as the ones that said Brown was shot in the back in Ferguson. We'll see how it all plays out. John2510 (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

True, I didn't mean to contradict you, I just want the article to be the best it can be and sometimes I will make mistakes. Though I don't think we should express our opinions (nothing against you, it just might spark some unneeded argument) I will say even if Gray didn't sustain injuries outside the van, those injuries still had to come from somewhere. I doubt all the officers, if any, are coming out of this clean, but, like you said, we will see.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

On switchblades

• The MD law on switchblades §4-105: a knife or penknife having a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring, or other device in the handle of the knife.
• The Baltimore law on switchblades City Code §59-22: Possession or sale, etc., prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, carry, or possess any knife with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade, commonly known as a switch-blade knife

The MD law tracks the federal one almost exactly with the magic words "in the handle". The Baltimore law does not. Notably the police charging document against Grey states "did unlawfully carry, possess and sell a knife commonly known as a switch blade knife, with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade within the limits of Baltimore City." but Mosby's statement reads "The knife was not a switchblade and is lawful under Maryland law." That discrepancy will likely become quite important. (As COI disclamer, I will note that I carry a similar spring assisted knife every day, and have donated to http://kniferights.org/, which fights to overturn laws such as Baltimore's. ) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A few links discussing the above, the villagevoice and csmonitor ones together might be WP:RS enough to put some of this in the article

• Heres a village voice (blog) article that goes into some detail on the above, in the context of the gray case http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2015/04/freddie_grays_death_in_police.php
• and heres an article about when the fed law changed to exclude assisted openers from switchblade definition http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/?p=NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=ec8483e5-7b3d-46d5-b535-36858132163a
• knife rights release about the case http://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=336&Itemid=1
• http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/0422/Freddie-Gray-death-Should-it-really-be-illegal-to-carry-a-knife-in-the-city-video

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"While Mosby said Friday that the officers had made an illegal arrest because a knife Gray was carrying was not a "switchblade," a violation of state law, the police task force studied the knife and determined it was "spring-assisted," which does violate a Baltimore code." http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-incident-penn-north-20150504-story.html#page=1 Gaijin42 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed (in particular the release from kniferights. I had no idea this was a real issue...) . If mainstream sources pick up on that discrepancy, we can add a sentence about the conflicting statements, but for now I'd say it is premature. OTOH, I would not oppose inclusion at this stage if you fell strongly about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel I already added it based on the baltimore sun ref. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that the way it is presented is accurate, as it is presented as if the police investigation is right and the prosecutor is wrong. The Baltimore Sun makes that clear: The separate investigations by police and prosecutors have some conflicting findings, in regard of the knife. Also note, that the illegality claimed by the police task force is related to concealed knives, which does not seem to be the case here. I will update accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel agree that we should not state one as right and the other as wrong. 3 issues in play : knife itself, concealed or not, parole/probation violation. The sun article is only addressing the first question (or at least the sun is only discussing it in the parts quoted here) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: I have made an edit that may resolve this. Let me know what you think. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That's been picked up before. In fact there is another element about whether Gray is prohibited based on his felony parole and record and upcoming trial for assault. The Probable Cause statement can be ammended by the officer or the prosecutor. They have case law on their side as well since gravity assist knives were determined by a judge to meet the "switchblade" definition. A spring-assist is more automatic than a gravity knife. Even more important is that Probable Cause statement for that offense was written by a senior LE official who didn't just start inventing law. He's most likely written that exact same PC statement 100 times and it was accepted each time and most likely refined by prosecutors that take those cases. Police carry knives and are very familiar with types. The other bit is that Probable Cause is less than Reasonable Doubt. A prosecutors decision not to prosecute because the knife is not close enough to a switchblade generally doesn't negate Probable Cause for arrest. We should be very carefule how we write per BLPCRIME. If the arrest is valid, the charges against 3 of the officers will most likely evaporate. --DHeyward (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of them certainly will evaporate. if they can show intentional rough ride, or failure to follow established policy with restraints, or negligence in the medical care, those could stick around. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Speculation. May I remind all of us of WP:NOTFORUM? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Motion filed regarding knife http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7047d123bc24454eb32229cbc9cdda22/officer-charged-gray-death-contends-arrest-was-legal Gaijin42 (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, read that as well. Unfortunately we will have to wait until end of May when the case is presented to a judge. But I think that the motion is worth mentioning. (BTW this whole thing of knives is quite interesting in itself, as there are knives that are not automatic, but that they have a spring to assist with their opening.) - Cwobeel (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

They are very handy. They are actually safer than normal knives, because the spring is designed to hold the knife closed (part of why they aren't considered switchblades). But they are then very easy to open one handed because once ou start opening it, the angle of the spring changes and it pops open. Very handy for opening boxes or cutting cords when your other hand is occupied etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

knife legality depends a lot on time, place, and intent

I have to be aware of the laws on weapons and going armed in my home jurisdictions: there are state, county and city weapons laws. Many include restrictions on legality related to time, place, and intent of possessor. Plus case law (court decisions + attorney general opinions) modifies how the letter of the law is enforced. There are a lot of tools (including knives and hatchets) you could legally possess, carry, and use outdoors while camping, fishing, and/or hunting; however, carrying them out on the city street would be an offense of "going armed" with presumed intent to use as a weapon of offense or defense. There are a lot of things you could possess legally in your home or place of business as weapons of defense which would be illegal to have in your pocket while out in the public streets. Weapons may be legal to possess in a collection of historical curios or relics, keepsakes, heirlooms or ornaments, but be illegal to possess on the person on a city street, especially with intent to carry as a weapon. Under my state laws I can possess a switchblade, slinghot (sashweight on a cord or strap), or any of a list of prohibited weapons in my home, but not in my pocket in public. My right to carry any weapon for defense would be negated by a police record. There has been a lot of talk about what is legal under state or city law, but quite frankly I have seen nothing by an attorney familiar with Baltimore cases.--Naaman Brown (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Gilmor holmes "known for crime"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't really see how the following part of this sentence is relevant to the article as a whole "Police encountered Freddie Gray on the morning of April 12, 2015,[5] in the street near Baltimore’s Gilmor Homes housing project,[24] an area known to have high levels of home foreclosures,[25] poverty, drug deals and violent crimes.[26]

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing that part's relevance. So what that the neighborhood wasn't a very good place to live in? The drug deals and violent crimes mentioned don't seem relevant, but the mentioning of home foreclosures and poverty seems to me to be ESPECIALLY IRRELEVANT. It's just merely background info, irrelevant to what happened to Gray after his encounter with the police. Let's imagine that Gray encountered the police and starting running from them at 1 West 72nd Street, in Manhattan. If that doesn't ring a bell, it's where John Lennon was shot. Now, if that were the case, I can't imagine that any editor here woud mention the fact that where Gray encountered the police was where John Lennon died. Why? Because it has zero relevance to what happened to him afterwards. So what exactly do home forclosures and poverty have to do with Gray's death, and why bother mentioning it. The same goes for the mention of the housing project's drug deals and violent crimes, since Gray wasn't participating in any drug deal or violent crime at the time of the initial encounter with the cops, then I don't think it belongs here. Dracula913 (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? There has been an issue of police targeting Aftican-Americans of poor and high-crime areas. It holds reasonable relevance to set the setting that directly affected Gray's whole background and why the officers acted as they did in that situation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"There has been an issue of police targeting African-Americans of poor and high-crime areas". Well, this attempt at justification misses the fact that three of the officers in question were African-American. Also, suggesting that the police targeted Gray because of the fact he was in a bad neighborhood with poverty and foreclosures, when none of the sources explicitly state that, is WP:SYNTH, and therefore unencyclopedic. As such this info doesn't belong here. Dracula913 (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Three white officers were who spotted Gray, though race of the officer still does not matter as both white and black officers have played roles in the controversary. And dozens of sources have noted the neighborhood, some even going into explicit detail of the areas situation, so your statement is false. As said, it is crucial background to Gray's life and the situation the officers were in at the time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, remember what I stated in the #User:HydrocityFerocity section above? Revert and ignore Dracula913. See WP:Block evasion and WP:Deny. Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Got it, I suspected a connection. Thanks for the reminder.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

images

Does anyone object to adding a photo of the police dragging Freddie Gray? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the source of the photo? It may have copyright concerns. Can you link the one you are thinking of? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

For what purpose? I'm okay with it if you also include one of him standing on the rear gate of the police van as get bends over to enter (e.g. 2:50 here: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/30/us/freddie-gray-arrest-timeline/index.html). It's really hard to find those. Most media end the video just before you see him standing. John2510 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's another (at :40 to :43 here): http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/29/freddie_gray_arrest_video_closeup_seems_to_show_evidence_of_injury.html

So... why was he pretending he couldn't stand? John2510 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Slight WP:FORUM here, but based on the presumed path he ran before being arrested (based on the security cameras that saw him running) he may have jumped a small wall. That may have resulted in a foot/leg injury - presumably the more detailed autopsy reports would be able to confirm/refute some of that (but could be complicated by separating that from later injuries) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably did cross the line on WP:FORUM, but wanted to note that the choice of photos runs the risk of being POV. If he could stand to climb into the van, he didn't need to be dragged like that (regardless of whether he had any injuries at that point and how he got them) and showing only the dragging would be POV. John2510 (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Speculation aside, we can't use non-free images unless there is a compelling need, and the article does not suffer by the lack of such image. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

He had an autopsy. No leg injuries and no injuries prior to transport. He was dragged because he refused to walk and didn't sustain any injuries from it. It is relevant that witnesses inflamed tensions with rhetoric about brutality (i.e. the claims that they dragged a man with a broken leg or back). --DHeyward (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If there's currently a reliable source stating that he had no injuries prior to transport, that definitely belongs in the arrest section of the article. I suspect a lot of this will flesh out when the autopsy is released. John2510 (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. When information comes out, we can address any of these issues. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Case

The Marilyn Mosby article has a section that is starting to get out of hand, Marilyn Mosby#Freddie Gray case, where an IP editor, 24.21.118.199, is insisting that such material belongs in that article. I believe that the material is more suitable for this article, and not in Mosby's bio. I invite other editors to weigh in on this. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I would honestly just report the user, he/she has just been a nuisance and is trying to start an edit war with anyone that disagrees with him/her.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)