Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Extended confirmed users
8,766 edits
Line 177: Line 177:
* This proposal clearly goes against [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:BLPCRIME]] by selectively emphasizing as-yet unproven details from an active case. Because it has been covered in news reports, it is included in the body of the article. It is only mentioned off-hand in the sources that do; the coverage focuses on the shooting and the events just preceding. The lead describes the nature of the charges, the event, and the active case. That is plenty sufficient detail, and we don't need to start highlighting the prosecutor's specific allegations, and especially not inflammatory and unproven ones. There is [[WP:NODEADLINE]] and we can wait until a conviction is secured or the facts of the case are proven before we begin picking and choosing which are the most important. [[User:Wikieditor19920|Wikieditor19920]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor19920|talk]]) 17:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
* This proposal clearly goes against [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:BLPCRIME]] by selectively emphasizing as-yet unproven details from an active case. Because it has been covered in news reports, it is included in the body of the article. It is only mentioned off-hand in the sources that do; the coverage focuses on the shooting and the events just preceding. The lead describes the nature of the charges, the event, and the active case. That is plenty sufficient detail, and we don't need to start highlighting the prosecutor's specific allegations, and especially not inflammatory and unproven ones. There is [[WP:NODEADLINE]] and we can wait until a conviction is secured or the facts of the case are proven before we begin picking and choosing which are the most important. [[User:Wikieditor19920|Wikieditor19920]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor19920|talk]]) 17:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:LEAD]]. The lead is meant to give a brief overview and is meant to be NPOV. It would violate NPOV to mention the allegation without mentioning that Rolfe denied it and the DA could not produce this video evidence when challenged (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-07-01/atlanta-police-officer-killed-rayshard-brooks-granted-bond), but to explain this properly is too much detail for the lead. It should all be included in the body though, for the reasons Levivich gives. [[User:FirstPrimeOfApophis|FirstPrimeOfApophis]] ([[User talk:FirstPrimeOfApophis|talk]]) 18:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:LEAD]]. The lead is meant to give a brief overview and is meant to be NPOV. It would violate NPOV to mention the allegation without mentioning that Rolfe denied it and the DA could not produce this video evidence when challenged (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-07-01/atlanta-police-officer-killed-rayshard-brooks-granted-bond), but to explain this properly is too much detail for the lead. It should all be included in the body though, for the reasons Levivich gives. [[User:FirstPrimeOfApophis|FirstPrimeOfApophis]] ([[User talk:FirstPrimeOfApophis|talk]]) 18:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
* '''Request procedural close by opener or neutral observer''' It is pointless to initiate a vote on a proposal for content that is so clearly problematic. Unproven facts are going to emerge throughout the trial. Some may be true, some not. The point of the lead is not to be a rotating cycle of whatever the latest incriminating factoid to emerge is. This obviously violates BLPCRIME as already noted, and NPOV. Once the trial is settled and there is a conviction, acquital, or plea, we might decide to indicate what the determinative facts were in the lead. Now it is too early. [[User:Wikieditor19920|Wikieditor19920]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor19920|talk]]) 18:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:36, 26 August 2020

bloat

So now we have two paragraphs on the opinions of politicians on various sides about whether or not the DA should have filed charges before the GBI investigation was completed? I think that's way over the top. We ought to remove all of it until the GBI issues a statement. Honestly if it deserves even a mention, it deserves no more than "The Fulton County District Attorney's decision to file charges before the GBI investigation was complete was criticized or defended by politicians along party lines" and frankly that seems not that useful for readers. If we can't agree on something that short and to the point, we just need to cut the whole thing. It's trivia until/unless the GBI finds there was actual wrongdoing. —valereee (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. If anyone objects, please BRIEFLY say why. Please no walls of text or using bolding to emphasize your point. No pointers at or discussions of policy are necessary unless someone questions your argument. No one should need more than two or three sentences to discuss their preliminary opinions. No one should need to repeat their opinion every time someone disagrees with it. —valereee (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I've restored it. The GBI will not find there was "actual wrongdoing", because nobody is alleging the DA did anything illegal by charging the officers before the end of the investigation. But there is a discussion, reported in RS, about whether it was right for Howard to file those charges at that time. There is no reason at all for not presenting that in the article. It's good that BetsyRMadison added some material on support for Howard (although the quotes are probably too long) and the sourcing may need to be improved for the criticisms, but this article wouldn't be helping readers by pretending that these charges are uncontroversial. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee—unless there are article space constraints I don't see how it is "bloat" to include that prominent individuals are arguing that there is a hurriedness in bringing charges against the police officer. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed the counter-position that Howard was justified in filing charges, which is also represented in RS. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, FirstPrimeOfApophis, that this is an issue that should be flesh out. This is the aftermath of the incident in the Wendy's parking lot, in which justice is either found to prevail or in which justice is contravened. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In which case Bus stop are you happy to restore those two paragraphs again? When I restored them earlier, 2 well-synchronized accounts El_C (talk · contribs) and Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) simultaneously re-deleted the paragraphs and accused me of edit warring. One of them is an admin, so I don't want to restore the paragraphs myself at the moment. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FirstPrimeOfApophis, what do you mean by '2 well-synchronized accounts'?
FPoA, I removed the paragraphs and opened a discussion here. The next step is NOT for you to simply revert the content. It's not for you to skirt the rules against edit warring by encouraging someone else to revert them again. It's to discuss here until we reach consensus about what if anything to add back. There is pertinent policy at multiple places, and I'd highly HIGHLY recommend you read
WP:EDITWAR. I'll also advise, as I have advised you before, that new editors and contentious articles are a very bad mix. —valereee (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
relevant noticeboard, or retract it. Thank you. ——Serial 15:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know how
run-of-the-mill. Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The legal proceedings and the public debate should be covered in the article. This is what makes the case stand out from a common crime story. Dimadick (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We ended up with two paragraphs about a side issue that has almost zero to do with the subject of this article. A politician made a possibly politically-motivated move in filing possibly-overhasty charges against the cop (finally, a connection to the article.) Politicians on his side of the aisle defended the decision. Politicians on the other side of the aisle condemned it. Yawn. —valereee (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dimadick, if he's charged or censured, maybe. If we can come up with a single sentence, maybe. Two paragraphs about politicians yapping at each other about politics, no. —valereee (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee—this isn't a "a side issue" that has "zero to do with the subject of this article" and this is anything but "bloat" unless there are space constraints within the article. Prominent individuals allege impropriety. Note that I did not say "illegality". As pointed out by FirstPrimeOfApophis "nobody is alleging the DA did anything illegal by charging the officers before the end of the investigation". Our article is not restricted to only claims of illegality. And Doug Collins is an exceptionally prominent individual weighing in on the point concerning the hurriedness in charging the officer. I believe he alleges impropriety. You are saying "It's trivia until/unless the GBI finds there was actual wrongdoing", but no one is saying there was "actual wrongdoing", because that implies "illegality". Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with @Valereee: decision to remove the two paragraphs & I agree with Valereee's reasoning: bloat, trivia, and self-serving comments from two GOP politicians trying to get the "endorsement" from police union for their 2020 election -- total Yawn. The 2 politician's 'endorse me!' comments have literally nothing to do with the topic of this article: "Killing of Rayshard Brooks by police." When they actually make a comment about the actual killing of Rayshard Brooks by police, let me know. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, topic, below: "RfC: Including criticisms of the DA's decision to charge ahead of the GBI investigation" Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have everything on the table? Your decision to remove details of this case are completely subjective and not objective. EVERYTHING should be out in plain sight. Not require the readers to search other sources that may be completely biased. Truthisthelightthroughdarkness (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion —valereee (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Truthisthelightthroughdarkness, the RfC discussing this below is ongoing. You can still add your views there. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Including criticisms of the DA's decision to charge ahead of the GBI investigation

No consensus on Q1. Consensus against 2 and 3. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.


  1. Should the article mention criticisms of the decision by the Fulton County DA to file charges before the end of the GBI investigation, if these criticisms come from politicians or senior public officials, and are cited in reliable sources?
  2. Should the article mention that Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) requested in June 2020 that the Attorney General of Georgia transfer the case to a special prosecutor?
  3. Should the article mention that Collins requested in July 2020 that the United States Department of Justice investigate the Fulton County DA's handling of the case?

FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it's all trivial bullshit-politics. This article is about the killing of Rayshard Brooks by the police; it is not about politics, and it is not about politicians, Doug Collins, who's running for election and seeking the endorsement of the police unions. Don't get me started on all the bullshit surrounding Doug Collins' & other politician's self-serving calls for this or that -- cuz it could ugly. To be clear, the DA charges murder suspects without GBI finishing their investigation all the damn time. And, GBI does not give charging recommendations so the politicians bullshit-onesided, self-serving comment are UNDUE and NPOV and may even violate BLP for Rayshard Brooks. You seem to forget: This article is about a man who was killed by the police and self-serving comments by politicians do not belong on this page. When Doug Collins actually makes a statement about Rayshard Brooks being killed by police, let me know. Until then, stop disrupting this article and this talk page with UNDUE & NPOV trivial political bullshit. Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the article should mention these things. In similar articles such as the
    Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, the articles do not only cover the events of the shooting itself. They also cover the investigations, legal proceedings, public reactions, and references in popular culture. Regarding the killing of Rayshard Brooks, a significant fact about the investigation and criminal case is the decision of the DA to charge the officers before the conclusion of the GBI officer-involved shooting investigation. Significant people and organizations have criticized this decision, and reliable sources have reported this criticism. Further, it is unusual and significant for a US Congressman to request the state AG transfer the criminal case to a special prosecutor, and well within the scope of the article. The same applies to a US Congressman requesting the Department of Justice investigate the conduct of the District Attorney in the case. To omit these criticisms would fail to inform the reader of important facts about this case, and make a less useful article. Of course, we should ensure that we describe these criticisms objectively and cite to reliable sources. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
FPOA, you've made this type of argument before, so just letting you know most editors find the argument 'some other article (includes/doesn't include) this kind of information, so we should do the same' to be a very weak argument. It's not policy, but there's an essay at
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that explains why. —valereee (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
FPOA, in the two articles you mentioned, statements about the actual killing of the men are included - not trivial political 'endorse my 2020 campaign' comments - see the difference? Like I said, when the politicians make a statement about the actual killing of Rayshard Brooks by the police, let me know. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 172.250.237.36 (talk · contribs), thanks for responding. Can you clarify: if Point 1 is accepted, would you then support or oppose Points 2 and 3? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I support Point 1. Not 2+3. Also without 2, then is 3 moot? I doubt that supporting Point 1 has that much of an effect on 2+3, but in any case, I would support making those a separate issue. I would have to see more information on 2+3, but it's clearly set out in many media reports that point 1 is very topical and very pertinent, and would be clearly of value to the article. It will be easy to find many references to support point 1. Thanks for your feedback. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • YES on 1 Theory that comments by the subject politicians should not be used because they are just commenting because they are running for office - they are always running for office. Using the reasoning that the comments by the subject politicians are not relevant because they are running for office would prevent all politician comments everywhere. Their running for office doesn't discount their importance. They are all presently elected leaders. I believe it is notable and not
    WP:DRR if comments are not added.
    No 2 In Ga, the Atty Gen cannot transfer w/o voluntary recusal by DA or a court order. The request by the congressman is useless.
    No 3 The basis of the request doesn't seem legally grounded sufficient for federal jurisdiction, but include it if, for some reason I don't presently see, the DOJ acts. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • YES I view the case as cause célèbre, and these are defined by "widespread controversy, outside campaigning, and heated public debate". We should not avoid mentioning criticism of the case's legal proceedings and efforts to oppose the DA's authority. Whether "justice is served" is less significant here than 1) how do authorities handle killings at the hands of police officers, 2) what will be the lasting impact of the case. Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, include all, because this has been widely covered. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, and no. Politicians' opinions are not DUE. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Sources for expansion

General context

"The case comes amid US protests over police killings of black Americans."[1]

"The shooting provoked another wave of anti-racism protests."[2]

"His death came just weeks after Floyd, an unarmed, 41-year-old Black man, died while detained in Minneapolis. Floyd was pinned to the ground by police officer Derek Chauvin, who held his knee on Floyd's neck while three other officers looked on. Floyd's death sparked national protests against police brutality and systemic racism."[3]

"The decision to prosecute came less than five days after the killing outside a Wendy’s restaurant rocked a city — and a nation — already roiled by the death of George Floyd under a police officer’s knee in Minneapolis late last month."[4]

"The news came on a day of rapid developments involving race and equal justice. Republicans on Capitol Hill unveiled a package of police reform measures. And the movement to get rid of Confederate monuments and other racially offensive symbols reached America’s breakfast table, with the maker of Aunt Jemima syrup and pancake mix dropping the 131-year-old brand."[4]

"A new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research says more Americans today than five years ago believe police brutality is a very serious problem that too often goes undisciplined and unequally targets black Americans."[4] (link to poll: [1])

"Videos of the confrontation between Mr. Brooks and the officers began circulating in a moment when Atlanta was already gripped by boiling discontent over the racial biases and discriminatory practices that bleed into virtually every facet of life for African-Americans. As protests were touched off across the country by the death of Mr. Floyd, amid a pandemic that has disproportionately affected African-Americans, the demonstrations in Atlanta were especially heated. Anger with the Atlanta Police Department deepened after a live television broadcast during one night of protests captured a scene of officers swarming two college students in a car, physically pulling a woman out of the passenger seat and firing a Taser at a man in the driver’s seat."[5]

"The killing has had rapid repercussions in Atlanta, one of many cities where protesters have called for an end to police violence and racism in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The officer who shot Brooks was fired and police chief Erika Shields resigned as exasperated protesters have called for justice."[6]

"The killing of the 27-year-old black man in an encounter with two white officers late Friday rekindled fiery protests in Atlanta and prompted the police chief’s resignation."[7]

"Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said Saturday she doesn’t believe the shooting was justified. Police Chief Erika Shields, who joined the department as a beat officer in 1995, resigned. Brooks’ death inflamed raw emotions in Atlanta and across the U.S. following the May 25 police custody killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Some public officials questioned whether shooting of Brooks was as clearly an abuse as Floyd’s death after a white Minneapolis police officer pressed a knee to his neck."[7]

Analysis of charges

"The charges reflect a potential “sea change” in tolerance for violence by police, said Caren Morrison, a Georgia State University law professor who used to be a federal prosecutor. Morrison said the view until now has generally been that officers are justified in using deadly force in a case in which the suspect had a stun gun or other weapon that could cause “grievous bodily harm.” Later Wednesday there had been reports that Atlanta police officers were walking off the job or calling in sick in protest of the charges against Rolfe and Brosnan. The APD said in a Tweet that it is experiencing a higher than usual number of officers calling out for their shifts but that, “We have enough resources to maintain operations & remain able to respond to incidents.”"[4]

"Legal experts said that the charges came surprisingly quick, and were significant for their severity, with punishment that could extend to life in prison or even the death penalty if Mr. Rolfe is convicted. “These are hefty, hefty charges,” said Jimmy Gurulé, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and a former federal and state prosecutor. The swiftness, he said, reflected a sense of urgency fueled by recent protests and broader efforts to shine a light on shortcomings in the criminal justice system."[5]

"The swiftness with which a white police officer has been fired and then charged with murder in the killing of Rayshard Brooks is just the latest sign of how rapidly and dramatically police agencies have shifted strategy when it comes to dealing with deadly force cases. Historically, not only have police chiefs been reticent to take action against officers involved in in-custody deaths until a "full investigation" had taken place, they've been quick to defend the officer's use of force if he or she "reasonably" believed that a person had a deadly weapon or posed immediate danger to the officer. In this case, video shows that Brooks had taken the officer's Taser and appears to use it. But not only is the weapon designated as less than lethal, the video shows he was running away and that the shots that killed him entered his back. Now the officer faces 11 charges, the question of whether or not a Taser should be considered a deadly weapon will surely come into play, as well as whether the officer had "reasonable" fear of Brooks. What is already clear is that police departments are not feeling nearly as confident relying on the old strategies and rhetoric that historically have allowed them to slow-play their response to a police-involved killing."[8]

"Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard took only five days to bring 11 criminal charges, including felony murder, against former Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe for the death of a man who had fallen asleep in a Wendy’s drive-thru line, resisted arrest and attempted to flee."[9]

"The charges against Brosnan were a surprise to many. On video depicting the incident, Brosnan, who joined the force less than two years ago, interacted politely with Brooks. Even after Brooks took off with his Taser, Brosnan didn’t reach for his gun."[9]

Protests

"Amid nationwide protests of racial inequality following the death of George Floyd in Minnesota, the shooting of another Black man by white police officer, this time in Atlanta, has again reignited anger and calls for police reform."[3]

"By early Saturday morning, news of Brooks’ death started to circulate, leading to protests in Atlanta, with the epicenter at the Wendy’s where the incident occurred. Several hundred people gathered in the parking lot. Some chanted "say his name" and carried signs that read "He didn’t deserve to die" and "convict the killer cop." The restaurant was closed to patrons."[3]

"The peaceful protest suddenly turned violent around 8:30 p.m. after riot police arrived, toting guns. Some protesters began surrounding one police car and rocking it. Other protesters surged on the police and troops without touching them, forcing the law enforcement officials to walk backwards from the crowd. After a few minutes, law enforcement officials released several canisters of tear gas into the crowd, sending protesters fleeing. Protesters later shut down an interstate highway in both directions and set fire to the Wendy’s restaurant, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution."[3]

"Brooks’ killing Friday night sparked new demonstrations in Georgia’s capital against police brutality after occasionally turbulent protests over Floyd’s death had largely died down. Atlanta Police Chief Erika Shields resigned less than 24 hours after Brooks died, and the Wendy’s restaurant was burned."[4]

"The shooting reignited the anger and frustration undergirding the mass protests over the past few weeks. The Wendy's where the shooting took place was set aflame on Saturday night, and in another part of the city, a major interstate was shut down after protesters marched onto a connector and were met by lined up police vehicles."[6]

"Mr. Brooks’s name was soon invoked in demonstrations across the country alongside other African-American people who died in violent encounters with the police, including George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Rashad Robinson, president of the civil rights advocacy group Color of Change, said charges were largely possible because of the “millions of people who protested all over the country for justice.”"[5]

Sources

  1. ^ "Rayshard Brooks shooting: US policeman faces murder charge". BBC News. June 18, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  2. ^ "Rayshard Brooks: What happened before police shot him dead?". BBC News. June 18, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  3. ^ a b c d Reyes, Lorenzo (June 16, 2020). "What we know: Timeline of Rayshard Brooks' death, protests and fallout from incident at Atlanta Wendy's". USA Today. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  4. ^ a b c d e Brumback, Kate (June 17, 2020). "Officer charged with murder for shooting Rayshard Brooks". Associated Press. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  5. ^ a b c Rojas, Rick; Fausset, Richard (June 17, 2020). "Former Atlanta Officer Is Charged With Murder in Shooting of Rayshard Brooks". The New York Times. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  6. ^ a b Waldrop, Theresa; Levenson, Eric; Maxouris, Christina; Sutton, Joe. "Autopsy report says Rayshard Brooks was shot twice in the back, lists manner of death as homicide". CNN. Retrieved 2020-07-31.
  7. ^ a b Bynum, Russ; Anderson, Brynn (June 14, 2020). "'Stop fighting!' Atlanta sobriety test quickly turned deadly". Associated Press. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  8. ^ Lussenhop, Jessica (June 18, 2020). "Why this case is different". BBC News. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  9. ^ a b Boone, Christian; Stevens, Alexis; Rankin, Bill (June 17, 2020). "Fulton DA charges former APD cop with murder in Wendy's shooting". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved June 19, 2020.

Above are some sources and quotes for expansion, should it be useful. Most of these sources are already in the article. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 07:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friday

I added that the killing occurred on a "Friday", which was reverted by WWGB, and I wanted to bring it up for discussion. I think it's important to specify that the killing occurred on a Friday night (when a Wendy's would be busy, and when people are more likely to be out drinking), as opposed to, say, a Tuesday afternoon. I also think it matters that the events of the following day - such as the firing of Rolfe and resignation of the police chief - occurred on a Saturday, a weekend, when typically people aren't working (and, these days in US cities, often protesting). The autopsy was performed on a Sunday, the results announced on Monday, and charges announced by Wednesday, only five days after the shooting. Further, I think the sources point this out (see, e.g., the collapsed "Protests" section above, which includes some examples where sources specify "Friday night" and "early Saturday morning", and the other collapsed sections include quotes from sourcing pointing out that five days was very fast). It's a little detail, but I think one that aids the reader's understanding of the topic, and there is no way any reader is going to know what day of the week June 12, 2020 was, unless we explicitly tell them. So, I think the inclusion of the one word, "Friday", is worth it. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If sources explicitly call out the day-of-week, we can include it according to editor discretion. It's a bit of an odd situation since sources are liable to mention the day of the week just in passing without meaning to give any special significance, or they may mention it assuming the reader will make the kind of inferences Levivich mentions. I think we're justified in these cases in reading between the lines a bit. EEng 01:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I make the following points in reply:
(1) reliable sources do not consider it remarkable that the incident occurred on a Friday
(2) claims that Wendy's is busier, or more people drink (?), on a Friday hover between personal opinion and original research
(3) if you want to emphasise the proximity of events, just use terms like "the next day", "three days later" etc. WWGB (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A fact doesn't have to be called out as remarkable by sources for it to be worth including, and no one's suggesting including anything about Wendy's being busier and so on. But it's like if the article mentioned that Brooks was 6 foot 6 (he wasn't -- just a hypothetical) but said nothing else about that; clearly they're communicating something by that, and we're justified in including it in our article. Same thing here with day of week, except that (a) it's a little vaguer what's being communicated and (b) a dateline that includes the day of week isn't enough, because depending on house style a dateline may include the day of week routinely; it should be called out in the article. EEng 06:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think like every source mentions days of the week: that it happened on "Friday night", and other things on "Saturday", "Sunday", etc., e.g. [2] [3]. But that's just news writing; they're referring to days by day-of-week instead of date because it's easier for readers to follow that way. However, I think the fact that the initial events occurred over a weekend is something that is mentioned by (some) reliable sources, either as an example of the speed of events, or simply as "setting the scene", e.g.:
  • "Reaction to Brooks’ death was swift — by the end of the weekend, the officer who shot him, Garrett Rolfe, had been fired and the Atlanta Police Department chief had resigned. The other officer on the scene, Devin Brosnan, was placed on administrative leave. Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced 11 charges, including felony murder, against Rolfe on Wednesday." [4]
  • "So it was somewhat of a surprise that after the killing of Mr. Brooks on a Friday night, by Saturday morning, the NAACP of Georgia was calling for her to immediately step down. And then by 4:00 in the afternoon, she offered her resignation to the mayor." [5]
  • "While the protests’ overall peak appeared to have passed, weekend unrest flared in Atlanta after police on Friday night shot and killed a 27-year-old Black man, Rayshard Brooks. The police chief, Erika Shields, resigned the next day, and on Sunday, authorities announced the firing of the white police officer who shot Brooks in the back, Garrett Rolfe, and a second white officer was being placed on administrative duty in connection with the shooting." [6]
  • "a weekend of unrest in Atlanta, leading up to the charges against Atlanta police" [7]
  • See also: "Experts hail swift moves in wake of Atlanta police shooting" [8]
I think the simplest way to communicate to the reader that this happened over a weekend is by including the single word "Friday". Without it, the reader doesn't know that it was the weekend. They lose that context. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 06:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that day of week/time of day provides valuable context in this case. —valereee (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of no reason to omit the day of the week. I find the argument that "reliable sources do not consider it remarkable that the incident occurred on a Friday" unconvincing. Were this a contentious piece of information we might defer to the prominence of this information in reliable sources. (Or conversely the absence of prominence of this information in reliable sources.) But the day of the week is a particularly anodyne piece of information. It is not likely to provoke offense. Bus stop (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Friday should be included for the reasons already given including that it provides valuable context as Valereee stated. It seems to me a reasonable consensus has been reached to include it. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added "Friday". Thanks everyone for your input. Lev!vich 05:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: restore "kicked" sentence to lead

I propose restoring Based on these videos and witness reports, prosecutors claim that after Brooks was shot, Rolfe kicked Brooks and Brosnan stood on his shoulder. to the lead. The content was added June 21, modified to its current form June 22, and removed August 25.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks&oldid=975096584"