Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Breonna Taylor: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→August 23-24 edits: new section
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Killing of Breonna Taylor/Archive 4) (bot
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 29: Line 29:
|archive = Talk:Killing of Breonna Taylor/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Killing of Breonna Taylor/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}

== Lead is still a bit unbalanced: "when three white police officers... forced entry" ==

I am foreseeing an issue with trying to describe the race(s) of the officers involved. The lead currently states that "three white police officers... forced entry" into the apartment. However, there were more officers than those three who were involved in the forced entry. For instance... how about the officer with the battering ram? Why is he (she?) not front and center in this list? According to an [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/breonna-taylor-police-killing.html NYT source], there were around "eight or 10 officers". Why are they not all listed as being involved in the forced entry? Upon identifying them, must we also clarify their race? <span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">[[User:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#039;font-weight:bold;">Ender</span>]] and [[User_talk:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#c00; font-style:oblique;">Peter</span>]]</span> 20:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
:Seems that those are the only three officers to have fired.[https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/22/us/officers-involved-in-breonna-taylor-case/index.html] Presumably why they have gotten most of the attention. [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/louisville-detective-acquitted-breonna-taylor-raid-2022-03-03/ This recently from Reuters] still identifies the officers with "white". Perhaps reword about which officers forced entry and who specifically fired shots?—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 01:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
::I greatly appreciate the additional information. I do not dispute that those three officers were the only ones who fired, nor that several articles identify those officers as white. The problem with the current phrasing is how it singles out those three as the ones who forced entry, as though they acted independently. Clearly, this was a much bigger operation and other officers actually breached the door. Problems will arise when trying to identify these individuals, let alone their race. It is unclear why the race of the officers who shot is significant but the races of other officers involved are not.
::My main concern is that if this article continues a trend of feeling obligated to identify the race of individuals involved, then it is going to have severe neutrality issues, which I fear it is already exhibiting.
::And although several articles do use the word "plainclothes" to describe them, it is notable that they had tactical vests, and one had a shield while another had a battering ram. We should reconsider repeating this phrase. <span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">[[User:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#039;font-weight:bold;">Ender</span>]] and [[User_talk:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#c00; font-style:oblique;">Peter</span>]]</span> 16:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
:::{{tq|...trend of feeling obligated to identify the race of individuals involved...|q=yes}}: The past consensus has been that it's [[WP:DUE]] based on mention in sources. There's no other "obligation" that Wikipedia has w.r.t. race. It seems that the three officers are the most frequently discussed, and worthy of mention in the lead. AFAIK, the identity of the others in the raid is not as prevalent, and can at most be mentioned in the body, if there's relevant coverage. Still, I agree the lead can be tweaked to not imply that those three officers were the only ones who helped force entry.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 04:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
::::Thank you very much for this conversation. Sorry, I usually communicate in walls of text, so I sincerely appreciate you reading.
::::I just watched [https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007348445/breonna-taylor-death-cops.html the video] that the first sentence of the lead uses as a source. It does '''not''' describe the races of the individuals involved. Also, in the 3D reconstruction in the video, where the police are wearing body gear that says "POLICE" I might point out, and in the comments from the narrator, they plainly acknowledge that more than three people were involved in the forced entry, a point which I appreciate you acknowledging. I agree with you that naming the three officers who shot, as they are very understandably front and center, and clarifying their involvement are appropriate.
::::Yes, there are sources that specify the race of the individuals, but at the moment this article is unduly using these descriptions.
::::The issue is more with the manner in which this information is presented. I am not saying that race should not be mentioned at all here. As has been pointed out in previous discussions, clearly race is significant in understanding peoples' reaction to this event. But simply repeating certain words and phrases only because they are in other sources is going to make this article say things that it does not intend to say. Some of these sources have strong biases, or are intentionally communicating certain ideas to their audience. This is going to happen with newspapers, given that they target a very different audience than encyclopedias.
::::I recommend an edit very much akin to another related discussion I left comments on above. I suggest that the lead start with a summary more faithful to the information provided by the NYT video, regarding multiple people forcing entry and no commentary on race. This video is very appropriate for the first source introducing the reader to all of this information. Even though I dispute some of their conclusions, the information they present is very important and laid out comprehensively.
::::Sentences following the initial one should talk more about the racial questions that have emerged, being careful to pinpoint who has been asking these questions. A direct quote is not always required, but a summary of viewpoints needs to be expressed in a neutral manner so that it is clear that Wikipedia is not endorsing such a viewpoint. For instance, Daily Beast is a bit more biased on how they talk about these questions of race as though these questions are coming out of thin air and they are not the ones in fact asking them indirectly. Whereas Courier Journal, left-leaning as it may be, is much more careful to say who has made what statements about race so as to make clear they are not the ones making these statements.
::::I will put some thought into how to do this, but please tell me what you think. Thank you. <span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">[[User:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#039;font-weight:bold;">Ender</span>]] and [[User_talk:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#c00; font-style:oblique;">Peter</span>]]</span> 17:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
:::"plainclothes": IIRC, there was some pics of the officers wearing gear and body cameras before the raid, but was there any confirmation one way or the other what they actually wore during the raid? I don't think they ultimately used cameras, or at least there is no footage. AFAIK, "plainclothers" means not in official police uniform, not that they can't have gear on.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 04:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

::::I've put more thought into this. I think I have a good plan for less confusion about how race is talked about in the lead. The best solution is to make clear why race is significant in this case.

::::Some bias, or perhaps at least the appearance, may still be present and is probably unavoidable. By not saying certain things, it very well may appear that something else is being said. Nevertheless, we can continue to fine tune this article to near perfection, as far as making it an indisputable paragon of truth.

::::By the way, I invite anyone who cares about this article to join this discussion, because I plan to alter the lead and a lot of feedback would be greatly appreciated. I enjoy talking with Bagumba, but it would be excellent to hear from more readers/editors.

::::As I survey [[List of unarmed African Americans killed by law enforcement officers in the United States|this list]], I notice a few trends:

::::* It is customary to mention the age and race of the article subject in the first sentence. The term [[African-American]] is used the most often.
::::* Leads with ''no source'' tend to describe the race of the offender(s) while ''sourced'' leads tend not to. I am seeing this adhered to with very few exceptions, such as [[Killing of Tamir Rice]]

::::Bearing this in mind, here is what I propose. Where you see an ellipsis (<span style="color:grey">&hellip;</span>) is text left untouched:

<blockquote style="color:grey">
<p>Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old African-American woman, was fatally shot in her Louisville, Kentucky, apartment on March 13, 2020, when <span style="color:black">at least seven police officers forced entry</span> into the apartment as part of an investigation into drug dealing operations. <span style="color:black">Three police officers:</span> Jonathan Mattingly, Brett Hankison, and Myles Cosgrove of the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) <span style="color:black">were involved in the shooting</span>.[https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007348445/breonna-taylor-death-cops.html 1] <span>&hellip;</span></p>

<p>&hellip;</p>

<p>The shooting of Taylor <span style="color:black">by white police officers, and the lack of charges for her death</span>, led to numerous protests that added to those across the United States against police brutality and racism.[https://web.archive.org/web/20201021154301/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-usa-louisville/former-louisville-detective-pleads-not-guilty-in-breonna-taylor-case-idUSKBN26J31Z 2]<span>&hellip;</span></p>
</blockquote>

:::: Note how even though the source does not mention Taylor's age or race, this is nevertheless included to be consistent with similar articles, and this information is found in the sources here. Also note that although the text directly states that the officers are white, it is done so specifically in the context of what is said in the referenced source.

::::<span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">[[User:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#039;font-weight:bold;">Ender</span>]] and [[User_talk:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#c00; font-style:oblique;">Peter</span>]]</span> 08:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Bagumba|Firefangledfeathers}} I hope you don't mind the ping. I figured you are both interested in this discussion.
:::::If there are no objections, I'm going to go ahead and make this change. I was hoping more editors/readers might share their views so we could be sure to talk about it before making an edit, but I'm taking the absence of disagreement as agreement. If not, I do hope we can talk more here.
:::::I have a strong feeling this edit will help readers understand how what happened to Breonna Taylor plays a part in discussions about racial discrimination, in a manner that maintains objectivity and clarity. <span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">[[User:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#039;font-weight:bold;">Ender</span>]] and [[User_talk:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#c00; font-style:oblique;">Peter</span>]]</span> 21:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Firefangledfeathers}} Thanks for the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor&diff=1077720461&oldid=1077719558&diffmode=source recent edit]. I'm glad to know you are okay with these changes in general.
:::::I do understand feeling compelled to talk about the racial component earlier in the lead because that context does seem to be an aspect that makes what happened to Taylor particularly notable. I did first consider finding a way to do that, however I realized that it is best to let the text/sources speak for themselves. The two sources on the sentence "Three Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) officers..." do mention the race of the officers. Even if they do not explicitly setup the context, there is at least some attempt to do so.
:::::For instance, [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54273317 Breonna Taylor: Police officer charged but not over death] says "Ms Taylor's relatives and activists for whom her death has become a rallying cry had been calling for the three officers, who are all white, to be charged with murder or manslaughter." We are given some reason to understand why their race is being mentioned. Even though "racial discrimination" is not specifically brought up, the fact that relatives and activists have made a rallying cry communicates why race might be significant. The language in this Wikipedia article should be more explicit, though. That way, there will be much less confusion as to why race is mentioned.
:::::Likewise, in [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/breonna-taylor-police-killing.html Breonna Taylor’s Life Was Changing. Then the Police Came to Her Door], the article talks about responses from Oprah Winfrey, and then Beyoncé who called for the "three white officers who opened fire to be criminally charged". Statements by prominent black women leaders talking about the race of the officers clearly communicates that they suspect racial discrimination was involved.
:::::In the lead here, as it is currently setup anyway, it seems like the best place to start talking about racial components is when the lead mentions discussions on discrimination and impartial treatment that surround this incident. I fear that if we were to add "Three white Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) officers..." to the beginning, I'm quite sure that would bring up the original issue of why the article is talking about race without first explicitly laying out some context.
:::::I would also point out that sending seven or more police officer's to one's door might already sound like overkill to a rational reader, in addition to the difference in bullets shot on either side along with the aftermath of consequences, all which should prime the reader for later extrapolations on why there have been strong accusations of unfair treatment. <span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">[[User:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#039;font-weight:bold;">Ender</span>]] and [[User_talk:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#c00; font-style:oblique;">Peter</span>]]</span> 21:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
:i would like to know about why there are any references to race or why they are missing when refering to the white officers. . i was directed to the killing of Tyre Nichols from Quora where some right wing nut job was comlpaining why the police officers invovled were condemned so quickly...especially in contrast to the killing of Breonna Taylor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor). tthis entry states that Breonna is black but done mention race when i comes to the seven WHITE cops involved??!
:the FIRST line of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tyre_Nichols states "On January 7, 2023, five Black police officers of the Memphis Police Department (MPD)". [[User:Coshydrogeo|Coshydrogeo]] ([[User talk:Coshydrogeo|talk]]) 05:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Coshydrogeo|Coshydrogeo]]: The third sentence in the lead begins {{tq|The killing of Taylor by white police officers...|q=yes}} As recent as March 2022, the first sentence of the lead made reference to "three white police officers".[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor&oldid=1075174738] What would you propose? —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 06:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
:::i think i was trying to lead in to a bigger picture conversation. i am in australia and struggle with the race situation in the USA. i think it needs to be an all in or all out situation. in the Taylor article it clearly states that she is black early in the piece and nothing about the cops until much later. in the Nichols article it identifies everyone as black inteh first two lines. it is a crpyy situation and i dont know how to fix it. [[User:Coshydrogeo|Coshydrogeo]] ([[User talk:Coshydrogeo|talk]]) 23:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
::::There is a similar theme to the two articles for which I can understand why you would expect a similar lead. This article needed clarification regarding who was being identified as white when it came to the police involved in forcing entry. The clarification that the news articles identify the officers involved in the shooting as white will, I hope, help keep this article balanced. The current wording of the lead for [[Killing_of_Tyre_Nichols]] seems appropriate to me, more or less. Yes, there is no "right" way to go about this. I appreciate that the editors of this article want to stay very objective while still addressing subjective concerns. <span style="background-color:#C2EBFF;border:inset #039 0.2em;padding:0.08em;">[[User:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#039;font-weight:bold;">Ender</span>]] and [[User_talk:Enderandpeter|<span style="color:#c00; font-style:oblique;">Peter</span>]]</span> 20:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

== Description of Kenneth Walker ==

I see that my edits were reverted. My edit of the lede is less important, but I really feel that presenting that Walker “thought” police were intruders as an objective fact (as it currently reads) is problematic. The fact that his charges were ultimately dropped does not change this from simply being a claim he is making (noting that apparently the word “claim” is not generally used on Wiki, or that the claim is of actually quite believable in these circumstances, but still a claim nonetheless). I got a nice patronising “welcome to Wikipedia” comment for my efforts, so I’m keen to see what everyone else’s thoughts are before I start an edit war. To be honest, even the “persons involved” heading and the rest of the descriptions are weird too, but that is a separate issue. [[User:Cbe46|Cbe46]] ([[User talk:Cbe46|talk]]) 09:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

:Per [[MOS:CLAIM]], we generally neutrally present what people say with "said" and the like, not "claim". A reader can think "claim" if they choose to interpret it as so, but it's not Wikipedia's place to add such doubt, unless it's supported by [[WP:WEIGHT]]. The lead currently says: {{tq|...but Walker said he did not hear any announcement, thought the officers were intruders, and fired a warning shot at them.|q=yes}} Is there any doubt that he said this?—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 10:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

== Remove Cosgrove's 2023 hiring from the lead? ==

The last sentence of the lead is {{tq|In 2021, the LMPD fired Cosgrove, and in 2023 he was hired as a law enforcement officer by Caroll County, Kentucky, because Cosgrove had faced no legal consequences for the killing.}} I'm not sure talking about a person who has been convicted of no crime's current employer is necessary in the lead. Seems like that might be too much [[WP:WEIGHT]]. Thoughts? –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 01:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

:Agreed. His future employment is not critical for the lead of Taylor's killing.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 05:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


== New lede/lead ==
== New lede/lead ==
Line 105: Line 37:
Obviously, this is a bold edit, but I believe it keeps what works about the old lede while addressing the issue of providing a brief summary of the whole article at the start. Feel free to edit/tweak, as necessary, or to use it as a basis for further discussion here. It may be that more info is needed on the outcomes for the officers involved, for example, though I think that should probably be kept to a single paragraph to keep it brief. [[User:Lewisguile|Lewisguile]] ([[User talk:Lewisguile|talk]]) 08:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Obviously, this is a bold edit, but I believe it keeps what works about the old lede while addressing the issue of providing a brief summary of the whole article at the start. Feel free to edit/tweak, as necessary, or to use it as a basis for further discussion here. It may be that more info is needed on the outcomes for the officers involved, for example, though I think that should probably be kept to a single paragraph to keep it brief. [[User:Lewisguile|Lewisguile]] ([[User talk:Lewisguile|talk]]) 08:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)


:I don't like it. I don't think you should be presenting facts in the lede if they are contested by the defense. Did you read the whole article? Walker's team challenges that warning shot actually hit Mattingly. The language "mistaking the police for intruders" is dubious apologetics. The defense claims the police battered in the door without announcing themselves. If that's true, they were in fact intruders operating outside of the law. Not to mention the crime involved in acquiring the warrant to begin with. I think you should rewrite it, removing the cop apologetics. Something like this:
== Updated information ==
:<code>Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker fired a warning shot possibly striking officer Jonathan Mattingly. Mattingly and two other LMPD officers—Brett Hankison and Myles Cosgrove returned fire.</code>

:I don't see why the fatal shot is relevant. We don't have a lot of information about the potential survive-ability of the remaining 4 shots. [[User:Trysten|trysten]] ([[User talk:Trysten|talk]]) 18:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
https://thepostmillennial.com/breonna-taylors-boyfriend-found-responsible-for-her-death-as-judge-dismisses-major-felony-charges-against-former-louisville-cops?utm_campaign=64501 [[Special:Contributions/2607:9E80:1109:3AD0:5D5F:824E:773C:2853|2607:9E80:1109:3AD0:5D5F:824E:773C:2853]] ([[User talk:2607:9E80:1109:3AD0:5D5F:824E:773C:2853|talk]]) 15:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::[[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] is generally an argument we avoid. Most RSes say there was only one bullet matching the one shot by Walker, and that was the one that hit Mattingly.

::Wikipedia reflects RSes rather than opinion, so the defence's case doesn't hold any more weight than the prosecution's until the facts are determined at trial. Moreover, I think the lede reflects the rest of the article.
:{{Already done}}. Covered in the article already. [[User:StefenTower|<span style="color: #1b770d;">'''Stefen <span style="white-space: nowrap;">𝕋ower<sub>s among the rest!</sub></span>'''</span>]] <sup>''[[User talk:StefenTower|Gab]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/StefenTower|Gruntwerk]]</sup> 19:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::We've had consensus on this page for a month now, with other editors tweaking the existing lede rather than replacing it. That means that, until we see otherwise, there's currently consensus for the text as it currently stands. [[User:Lewisguile|Lewisguile]] ([[User talk:Lewisguile|talk]]) 08:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)


== Breonna Taylor ==
== Breonna Taylor ==
Line 121: Line 54:


Thanks everyone for your good work on the article related to recent events. However, while reading the additions/updates, I was reminded this article could use additional "editor scissors" to address [[WP:SUMMARY]], [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. There is [[WP:NODEADLINE]], though. [[User:StefenTower|<span style="color: #1b770d;">'''Stefen <span style="white-space: nowrap;">𝕋ower<sub>s among the rest!</sub></span>'''</span>]] <sup>''[[User talk:StefenTower|Gab]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/StefenTower|Gruntwerk]]</sup> 20:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your good work on the article related to recent events. However, while reading the additions/updates, I was reminded this article could use additional "editor scissors" to address [[WP:SUMMARY]], [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. There is [[WP:NODEADLINE]], though. [[User:StefenTower|<span style="color: #1b770d;">'''Stefen <span style="white-space: nowrap;">𝕋ower<sub>s among the rest!</sub></span>'''</span>]] <sup>''[[User talk:StefenTower|Gab]]'' • [[Special:Contributions/StefenTower|Gruntwerk]]</sup> 20:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

== Breonna Taylor's ex-boyfriend was a drug dealer and cause ==

Police didn't randomly go to Taylor's house. Jamarcus Glover is the origin and cause of all of this mess. [https://www.npr.org/2021/10/19/1047417361/breonna-taylor-ex-boyfriend-jamarcus-glover-plea-deal Jamarcus Glover's guilty plea] in 2021 should be at the top of the article. I put it at the bottom and it was removed. [[User:Arbeiten8|Arbeiten8]] ([[User talk:Arbeiten8|talk]]) 23:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:That's not relevant to this botched raid. The article is about her killing, not him. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 23:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::The search warrant was for Taylor's home because she was collaborating with Glover ("on a jail phone call that was recorded [https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/514607-breonna-taylors-ex-boyfriend-was-offered-a-deal-to-say-she-was/ the day Taylor was killed, Glover said that Taylor was holding $8,000 for him]") who had spoken with her right [https://abcnews.go.com/US/breonna-taylors-connection-boyfriend-jamarcus-glover-died/story?id=74243694 until Feb. 14, 2020, Valentine’s Day] [[User:Arbeiten8|Arbeiten8]] ([[User talk:Arbeiten8|talk]]) 23:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::Taylor was lending Glover her vehicle and "The warrant application also says Glover listed her address as his, and that [https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-taylor/2020/08/27/breonna-taylor-had-no-ties-drugs-ex-boyfriend-says/5641151002/ police confirmed that with "multiple computer databases.]" [[User:Arbeiten8|Arbeiten8]] ([[User talk:Arbeiten8|talk]]) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:28, 26 December 2024

New lede/lead

[edit]

I have taken a stab at providing a new lede to accurately summarise the article. Since the old lede was actually a detailed overview of the entire event, and is relevant for the rest of the article, I've moved that down into a new "Overview" section. The last paragraph of the old lede has stayed in the new lede since it effectively summarises the "Reactions" section.


Obviously, this is a bold edit, but I believe it keeps what works about the old lede while addressing the issue of providing a brief summary of the whole article at the start. Feel free to edit/tweak, as necessary, or to use it as a basis for further discussion here. It may be that more info is needed on the outcomes for the officers involved, for example, though I think that should probably be kept to a single paragraph to keep it brief. Lewisguile (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it. I don't think you should be presenting facts in the lede if they are contested by the defense. Did you read the whole article? Walker's team challenges that warning shot actually hit Mattingly. The language "mistaking the police for intruders" is dubious apologetics. The defense claims the police battered in the door without announcing themselves. If that's true, they were in fact intruders operating outside of the law. Not to mention the crime involved in acquiring the warrant to begin with. I think you should rewrite it, removing the cop apologetics. Something like this:
Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker fired a warning shot possibly striking officer Jonathan Mattingly. Mattingly and two other LMPD officers—Brett Hankison and Myles Cosgrove returned fire.
I don't see why the fatal shot is relevant. We don't have a lot of information about the potential survive-ability of the remaining 4 shots. trysten (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT is generally an argument we avoid. Most RSes say there was only one bullet matching the one shot by Walker, and that was the one that hit Mattingly.
Wikipedia reflects RSes rather than opinion, so the defence's case doesn't hold any more weight than the prosecution's until the facts are determined at trial. Moreover, I think the lede reflects the rest of the article.
We've had consensus on this page for a month now, with other editors tweaking the existing lede rather than replacing it. That means that, until we see otherwise, there's currently consensus for the text as it currently stands. Lewisguile (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Breonna Taylor

[edit]

8/24/2024 Breonna Taylor's death was from her boyfriend. Charges against the police falsely charged before the facts came out have been dropped. 2603:6080:D800:4E68:B95D:679:38F5:4239 (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done. Covered in the article already, with language that reflects sources, not personal opinions. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 19:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 23-24 edits

[edit]

Thanks everyone for your good work on the article related to recent events. However, while reading the additions/updates, I was reminded this article could use additional "editor scissors" to address WP:SUMMARY, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS. There is WP:NODEADLINE, though. Stefen 𝕋owers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 20:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Breonna Taylor's ex-boyfriend was a drug dealer and cause

[edit]

Police didn't randomly go to Taylor's house. Jamarcus Glover is the origin and cause of all of this mess. Jamarcus Glover's guilty plea in 2021 should be at the top of the article. I put it at the bottom and it was removed. Arbeiten8 (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant to this botched raid. The article is about her killing, not him. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search warrant was for Taylor's home because she was collaborating with Glover ("on a jail phone call that was recorded the day Taylor was killed, Glover said that Taylor was holding $8,000 for him") who had spoken with her right until Feb. 14, 2020, Valentine’s Day Arbeiten8 (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor was lending Glover her vehicle and "The warrant application also says Glover listed her address as his, and that police confirmed that with "multiple computer databases." Arbeiten8 (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor&oldid=1265410961"