Jump to content

Talk:Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.21.137.79 (talk) at 23:16, 8 February 2013 (→Unredacted manifesto). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Accidental Shooting"

I do not think it is appropriate to use the term "accidental shooting" or "mistakenly fired" when it was very clearly intentional shooting. An "accidental shooting" might be where someone fires a weapon, but did not intend to. The same goes with "mistakenly fired". I do not think there is any source that suggests the firing of the weapons was mistaken. WHO they thought they were shooting was a mistake. But this was no accident and they weren't mistakenly fired weapons. More accurate would be "attempted assassination", but I'd settle for something at least true and neutral. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the simple and very neutral change to "Civilian shooting," along with consistent edits in the body of that section. (Plus a few corrections, such as from "Doner" to "Dorner.") 74.67.54.145 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to add: were they just shooting into an occupied vehicle with no idea who was in it or did they mistake 2 women for 1 300 pound bald man?

It would be interesting, but I think against the grain of Wikipedia article guidelines. :) 74.67.54.145 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unredacted manifesto

The media have been releasing heavily censored versions of Dorner's manifesto, which may or may not protect them legally (although I doubt it makes much of a difference) but it makes it difficult to google the names to figure out what happened in the incidents he's upset about. I was able to find an uncensored copy here. 71.215.66.32 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://pastebin.com/TAzPRfPy is a more readable version. 71.215.66.32 (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who can say what is uncensored if the original page was taken down? The "more readable" version is labled as "scrubbed by the media" and identical to the "uncensored" one. Until consensus exists on what are the actual words of the accused perpetrator, the reference should be left out of the article IMHO. 70.36.212.48 (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's the same as the censored versions, except with the names of his co-workers he's complaining about, many of whom are googlable to confirm the incidents he refers to. Who would release a version with made-up names? I don't know whether it should go in the article or not, but it's got to be useful for people doing research on background, and for finding news report sources that *should* go in the article. 71.215.66.32 (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. On this point, his alleged conduct is immaterial. His allegations are specific and clearly relevant to the event; in fact, they constitute his (alleged) motive. Redacted versions of the document are markedly less clear and illuminating than what thus far consistently appears on various sites as an unedited version. It is admittedly unverifiable at this juncture, but *the edited/redacted version isn't from an original source, either*. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most media outlets are "leaving out" a great deal more than that, per the pastebin link above. Your very selective details are patently political, which doesn't serve the objective of Wikipedia. Best solution is to simply have the pastebin link included in the article. Note that in addition to many other details, that link includes those you have chosen to highlight. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I agree I deleted my comment.--Ron John (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia people can be so mature relative to the Internet norm it's at times astonishing. :D 74.67.54.145 (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- for you guys/gals at Wikipedia to not mention Chris Dorner's decisively left wing views is not surprising. He is a Left-Wing Extremist/Terrorist. He should be identified in the opening paragraph of the article as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.216.234 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dorner's personal war against law enforcement, particularly the LAPD, is essentially a war on a local government, and his threats to all other law enforcement constitute, essentially, a war on government in totality. Note that "right wing" terrorist Timothy McVeigh has a section on his wikipedia article that identifies his religious and political beliefs. So should there not be a section on Dorner's article that identifies him as a left wing extremist agnostic (perhaps atheist) ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.216.234 (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the manifesto include ' I’m not a fucking Christian '. He notes his support of most of President Obama's domestic policies as well. Praises Michelle Obama, and accuses Mitt Romney of being a sore loser.

er, this is wikipedia folks. You don't expect the FACTS about an Obama-supporting, left-wing spree killer to actually make into the article, do you? 72.37.249.60 (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have strong reason to think that the manifesto referenced is actually a badly edited copy of the one put up by Dorner; there's a few severely out-of-character points, such as the sudden shout of support for the Anonymous movement. PaseteBin is a haven for anonymously posting these sorts of things on the parts of e-activists. I have strong suspicion this was made by such an activist who wished to put words conforming to their ideology in Dorner's mouth -- some passages just read very differently and out-of-place. 86.21.137.79 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate characterization: "In the manifesto he blames racism for his predicament."

He consistently and explicitly blames whistleblower retaliation for his predicament. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OWS Reaction

From an earlier revision of the article, as of now removed by an IP user: 

   Revolutionary groups like Occupied Wall Street supported Dorner’s actions and called him a hero.[1]

As the article is clearly marked as "not an official statement" on the website, I share the opinion of the IP user that this should not be included, but I'd like to place it here for debate. --MCaecilius (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are his supporters, or even whom he supports unless they are linked to his motives (retaliation for alleged whistleblower retaliation), remotely germane to the topic of the article? What's to discuss? 74.67.54.145 (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this statement does not belong, as the linked OWS post is clearly labeled as anonymous user content on their website and obviously in no way is an official statement from OWS, which, to the original user who inserted that quote, stands for "Occupy" Wall Street, not "Occupied." Bosterson (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced citations do not include specified details re. vehicle.

Dorner's Nissan Titan is silver and the newspaper truck is a blue Toyota Tacoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.178.237 (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source 15 nor 16 include the following descriptions: "The vehicle did not have its lights on in the dark, and had tinted windows, obstructing officers' ability to see into the vehicle, which may have raised their suspicion." I removed that statement, but include it here in the event there is a neutral reference for it and it is deemed applicable information. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the vehicle. You can see the vehicle. It had tinted windows http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/07/16888732-women-shot-by-cops-were-just-delivering-papers#comments

A *reference/citation* providing that information is precisely the point. Alas, insofar as whether I would agree the source you provide shows tinted windows, for me that URL just hangs. Maybe too much traffic, who knows. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it opened. It shows only the rear window as tinted. If the side window is closed, then it isn't tinted. So, "partially tinted windows"? Or perhaps we can agree that it's a somewhat trivial detail? What's that detail's function, to make the presumption the vehicle's driver was Christopher Jordan Dorner more "reasonable" before opening fire on its occupants? 74.67.54.145 (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tint to me? Did they mistake the two women for 1 300 pound bald Dorner or were they unable to see what they were shooting at? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.132.14.34 (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a better name

The current name, 2013 Southern California shootings, is accurate to this series of events, but also includes in its name all the other 2013 shootings in socal, which there will be a lot of. can we wedge in a word or two addressing how its police officer related? i dont have any bright ideas, but i think this name is way too generic. We can probably wait to see if the media comes up with a name, aside from the suspect himself.(User:Mercurywoodrose)99.157.205.137 (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change article name to "Christopher Jordan Dorner"? (BTW I'd be signed in but the "forgot my credentials e-mail" never arrived in my inbox.) 74.67.54.145 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This is an article about the killing spree, not about the individual named Dorner. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I thought perhaps his related notoriety made that title acceptable, but maybe not. Either way, I understand the suggestion the title is too vague. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I direct your attention to WP:PERP, which states the following:
A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
We can't name the article after Dorner, because to do so would imply his guilt. We have no way of knowing whether it is actually Dorner who is committing these crimes. For all we know, someone killed him two weeks ago and used his rage and frustration at being fired as an excuse to go on a killing spree targeting the LAPD. Yes, that sounds like bad fiction (I made it up just now), but it highlights my point: we can't prove that Dorner is doing this - not until he stands trial - so we can't name the article after him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Understood. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree. What happens god forbid.. If he kills anyone in another state or country?--Ron John (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then we address the issue if and when it happens. In the meantime, we can't go inventing names for it because that is original research.
Remember, Wikipedia is not news. There is no hurry to add information to the article simply because it has become available. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because something has been reported, it is automatically notable enough for inclusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one asked you--Ron John (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I suppose nobody asked you, either.
You have asked what we should do in the event that the suspect crosses a state or national border and kills someone there. Allow me to respond to your question with a question of my own: has the suspect crossed a state or national border and killed someone there? If the answer is no, then why are we even discussing it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention to exactly to what I responded to! It was in reponse to your Wikipedia is not News. No one asked you for all that!--Ron John (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put that there for a reason: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news bulletin. There is no hurry to add content to a page simply because it has been reported. A lot of that content might not even be relevent to the actual article.
For instance, an early version of this article had details of where Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence went to school and what they did for work. Any connection to the suspect was added as an afterthought. None of that content actually had anything to do with the article, which is the problem editors fall into when they rush to add content to a page.
What I'm trying to say is that you should avoid falling into the trap of recentism. Just because something has happened, that doesn't automatically mean that it is notable enough for Wikipedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We will likely have an article on the person, in addition to an article on this series of killings. I should point out the person is highly notable now, despite not having been convicted, and a case could be made for creating an article for him now, as long as the article is entirely neutral about what he has not demonstrably done. As for my idea for renaming, i think the best thing is to watch the news media, and if any sort of consensus shakes down as to a name for this, we can use it. I also recognize that we often use a name for such events that is really not used in media, like the tsunami in japan, where we chose precision over common usage.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: 2013 Police Assassinations

I suggest 2013 Police Assassinations. It's more descriptive as it's not certain what the article's title is referring to. An uptick in police shootings in SoCal, or what? It's too vague. Elryacko (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

meh... Police officers weren't the only victims.--Ron John (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Of the three killed ("assassinated") so far, only one was a police officer. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reference to or implication of quantity or frequency

"And had altercations with many students due to his race." The section of the referenced document (Dorner's) describing childhood altercations related to race offers no indication there were "many" such incidents. "Multiple times" is not sufficient for such an inference. I will remove the word "many" for that reason. In evidence, with apologies for the length, here is the entire applicable paragraph:

Journalist, I want you to investigate every location I resided in growing up. Find any incidents where I was ever accused of being a bully. You won't, because it doesn't exist. It's not in my DNA. Never was. I was the only black kid in each of my elementary school classes from first grade to seventh grade in junior high and any instances where I was disciplined for fighting was in response to fellow students provoking common childhood schoolyard fights, or calling me a nigger or other derogatory racial names. I grew up in neighborhoods where blacks make up less than 1%. My first recollection of racism was in the first grade at Norwalk Christian elementary school in Norwalk, CA. A fellow student, Jim Armstrong if I can recall, called me a nigger on the playground. My response was swift and non-lethal. I struck him fast and hard with a punch an kick. He cried and reported it to a teacher. The teacher reported it to the principal. The principal swatted Jim for using a derogatory word toward me. He then for some unknown reason swatted me for striking Jim in response to him calling me a nigger. He stated as good Christians we are to turn the other cheek as Jesus did. Problem is, I'm not a fucking Christian and that old book, made of fiction and limited non-fiction, called the bible, never once stated Jesus was called a nigger. How dare you swat me for standing up for my rights for demanding that I be treated as a equal human being. That day I made a life decision that i will not tolerate racial derogatory terms spoken to me. Unfortunately I was swatted multiple times for the same exact reason up until junior high. Terminating me for telling the truth of a caucasian officer kicking a mentally ill man is disgusting. Don't ever call me a fucking bully. I want all journalist to utilize every source you have that specializes in collections for your reports. With the discovery and evidence available you will see the truth. Unfortunately, I will not be alive to see my name cleared. That's what this is about, my name. A man is nothing without his name. Below is a list of locations where I resided from childhood to adulthood.

(I hope it is appropriate to include the paragraph here; apologies if otherwise.) 74.67.54.145 (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rely on the manifesto as a source. It's not reliable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the detail that Dorner had race-related altercations as a child would need to be omitted altogether. But aren't first-hand accounts reliable, at least as perspective information for the involved parties, if they are reported in news accounts by sources generally regarded as reliable? The only difference is that their version is in most but not all instances redacted and/or partial. If the non-redacted version otherwise matches the version offered by reliable sources, why would the "non-redacted" version not be regarded as a reliable first-person account? Indeed, according to the journalistic sources in question, the "manifesto" being referenced is acknowledged by law enforcement as being Dorner's. Similar points regarding verifiability. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'll leave my comment there for potential contribution to the debate, but I'll respond to myself with the note that I think you're right. On reflection, it occurs to me that there's no way for us to have reasonable confidence Dorner wrote all or any of that document merely because law enforcement states he did. Law enforcement statements unto themselves reported by reliable sources cannot automatically be regarded as reliable information for citation. (Maybe an exercise in lateral thinking at best, but one might even idly wonder whether the "manifesto" could be a forgery designed to give a select law enforcement body the latitude to summarily execute someone.) In the encyclopedia, such information needs to be based on in-depth retrospective (after events more fully unfold) analyses from those generally reliable sources, not their "real-time" reporting. I yield to your perspective as I understand it. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbors of his described him as [x] person who usually kept to himself.

It was changed from "an admirable" to "a quiet." I changed it back to "admirable" because the article cited does say admirable (specifically, "admired"). And it mentions nothing of "quiet." Don't edit to fit your preconceived narratives; stick to the source information. Doesn't matter whether it sounds odd to you (it does to me, too). From the cited article:

“We were completely shocked,” he said. “This is a good family that appeared to be really nice people. They were really admired in the neighborhood.”

(Currently citation #4.) 74.67.54.145 (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That quotation is describing the Dorner family, not necessarily Chris Dorner. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. GiantSnowman 14:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure Chris Dorner is part of the Dorner family.74.79.239.198 (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have members of family (unfortunately) who are in far-right hate groups, whereas I am the exact opposite. You can have a "nice" family with a bad member(s), or a "bad" family with a nice member(s). GiantSnowman 15:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Giant Snowman. You can have a good person coming from a bad family, and you can have a bad person coming from a good family. In any event, that quotation above is describing the family as being "nice and admired", not Chris Dorner himself. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect

I believe that WP:BLP1E in this case indicates that we should not have a separate article on Dorner, at least not at this point. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge/redirect - with no objection to the Christopher Jordan Dorner article being spun back out as a separate article at some point in the future, should there be consensus to do that. GiantSnowman 16:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge/redirect: Based on the guideline, I also support for now, with as GiantSnowman said, no objection whatsoever to the possibility of a separate article in the future. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge/Redirect - There is no need for a separate article at this time. All relevant information can be covered here. If the suspect becomes notable in his own right later on, we can easily make a split. In the meantime, it makes more sense to work on one unified article, and allow a separate bio article to grow as a section, if it does. Bigdan201 (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes <-- He has a page what's the difference.--Ron John (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or to put it another way-- if you believe that there is a comparison, then explain why the two cases are comparable, and your example applies here, and is a sufficient argument to support your point. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Christopher Jordan Dorner Is A True Patriot Hero: LAPD Getting Everything It Deserves.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt&oldid=537301481"