Talk:Killing of Alex Nieto

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. The general consensus reflected in

• Comment. Not ruled to be any form of criminal homicide. Shot in self-defence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only trial in this case was a federal civil suit, which determined that the officers "did not use excessive force"[1] and did not violate the constitutional rights of Alex Nieto. Self-defence wasn't specifically addressed. 162 etc. (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose: The "Killing of" form implies an intentional plan to kill and is awkward in English. This incident had a self-defense argument and clearly no premeditation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the word "kill" implies intent in the English language. The word "kill" is listed in dozens of English dictionaries with no reference to intent. "Accidental killing" is a well established categorization of crimes under English Common Law which is still in use in England, the USA, Canada, and Australia. The word "kill" in American mass media is frequently used without regard to intent or premeditation; this is exceptionally common in cases of drunk driving. In academia, in the court of law, and in common usage English, the word "kill" carries no implications of intent. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 01:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are several major dictionaries of English that say that the word killing, as a noun (forget kill, that's a different form with its own definition), implies intent. There's also a big difference between killing, as a word used by itself, and a clarified form of it, such as accidental killing. This proposal is about "Killing of X", not something different like kill or 'accidental killing. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The current title is inappropriate (assuming it is not a
  WP:DEATHS.VR _talk 03:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "Shooting" is not reserved for when the shot person survives. In fact the vast majority of "Shooting" articles on Wikipedia involve dead shot people, and
    WP:DEATHS is just the result of an overzealous recent campaign and is neither a policy nor a guideline on Wikipedia. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Indeed, this article, and many others like it with the "Shooting" title, describes an incident that is both a shooting and a killing. Both "Shooting of" and "Killing of" would seem to meet

WP:DEATHS that homicides are best titled as "Killing". While this explanatory supplement does not have guideline status, there is a precedent to favour "Killing" for fatal shootings that are not classified as murder; see Killing of Adam Toledo, Killing of Daunte Wright, Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant, Killing of Dolal Idd, Killing of Andre Hill, Killing of Christian Hall, Killing of Tamir Rice. 162 etc. (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• POV Caution: The short description of this article used the term "victim". (Since corrected.) WP editors must maintain a strict non-POV approach with articles like this. While somewhat awkward, "
  WP:POLICY problem. Such titles would be accurate and NPOV. Moreover, they might stimulate reader interest. – S. Rich (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "Homicide" is not NPOV. While in a strictly technical sense it may not, in common speech it implies criminality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per
  WP:DEATHS. Alex Nieto is dead. He was not just shot; he was killed. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 00:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]