Talk:Police brutality/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Standards for Police Brutality

It would be helpful to include an analysis of what constitutes police brutality under various systems of law (in democratic countries, under less liberal governments, etc.) A list of relevant standards under various governments would be educational and interesting. Currently, the definition of police brutality seems vague and lacks context, and does not refer to specific rules or standards under existing legal systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psykonautiks (talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


Value Judgements

This should have a neutral point of view. The "examples" of police brutality are subjective. It should be worded in a way to indicate that there is not a universal agreement about all of these incidents.Anomie666 22:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal

Can someone explain what Mumia Abu-Jamal has to do with police brutality before adding him as a see also link again? Abu-Jamal was convicted of murdering a police officer. I don't see what this has to do with brutality by police. Thanks. Rhobite 05:07, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Maybe you should learn who Mumia Abu-Jamal is before removing his name from the page. CPS 05:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I've been to Philly, and I've heard the story a few times. I'm pretty sure I know who he is. Are you suggesting that I've mixed up my convicted murderers? Rhobite 05:27, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

And to bring it back on topic, your sole reason for adding him to the page is that he (a) claims he saw Faulkner beating his brother, a claim that was disputed during the trial and (b) has written about police brutality. As I said, I don't believe either of these reasons warrants Abu-Jamal's inclusion in the article. Abu-Jamal isn't a victim of brutality. If we add him to the article, we may as well add every journalist who has written about brutality at some point. Rhobite 05:32, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Whether you believe his defense or not, Mumia is one of the most famous victims of police brutality since Rodney King. CPS 05:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • How in the world is Mumia Abu-Jamal a victim of police brutality? What type of a warped moral sense does it take to claim that Abu-Jamal is the victim while Daniel Faulkner lies murdered? Rhobite 05:46, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Listen, I'm not going to argue about the Mumia trial with you. The point is that Mumia is an icon in the movement against police brutality, not that he's innocent. CPS 06:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • By the way, both the defense and the prosecution have accepted that Daniel Faulkner was beating Mumia's brother before the murder took place. CPS 06:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • News to me. Any cites? --Calton 06:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From reading through the article on Mumia Abu-Jamal, I see someone who may have been railroaded by the justice system. I do not see someone who's the victim of police brutality. --Carnildo 06:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I live in Philly and have read several different versions of this case and don't have a "certainty" that justice was or wasn't done in the conviction since neither side seems to have indisputable credibility, but no one seems to have been arguing that he was physically abused. I am not a criminologist but would ask CPS how broad his definition of police brutality is, and whether he doesn't think it's worth distinguishing a racist or unjust conviction, even a frame-up, from police brutality, which to most people means excessive physical violence in the conduct of their job. Can CPS be persuaded that the distinction is worth recognizing and maintaining? On the face of his comments, it looks like he is confusing unjust process with physical brutality. If the article were about Police misconduct, a broader category, he would have a stronger case for adding the name, along with acknowledgement that the case is disputed. alteripse 13:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for some proof that "...both the defense and the prosecution have accepted that Daniel Faulkner was beating Mumia's brother before the murder took place". There isn't any, is there? --Calton | Talk 05:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Mumia's brother was being beaten by Faulkner. William Cook never made any claim of police brutality, nor did he even require hospitalization for his injuries. Instead, he plead guilty to assualting a police officer. It seems all the evidence points to Faulkner using the right amont of force to detain an unruly suspect.

Also I removed the link to the Kent State Massacre on grounds that it was commited by the Ohio National Gaurd, not the police.


Why is Luis Torres on the List?

Why is Halliburton listed?

Toward a more neutral point of view

I'm going to sort through the list of suspected cases of police brutality looking for citations. In addition, I think a little context (a sentence or two at most) for each case would be helpful. This will take some time.

My POV question: who decides whether a case is "suspected"? I think there should be a standardized minimum amount of confirmation before a case can be placed on the "suspected" list. Better yet, I think it would be better to redo the list so that it includes only cases in which officers were charged with a crime or disciplined by their departments. Let Copwatch and the other groups make lists based on whispers and rumors; Wikipedia's text should be verifiable. --Ginkgo100 13:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has responded to this post in almost two months, so I am going to be bold. Comments are welcome. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 19:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Category for police brutality

Do we have a category for police brutality or criminal prosecutions against police officers, e.g. in the Malice Green case? Apokrif 18:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

People removed from the "suspected cases" list

This is going to be controversial, so I am going to try to be as transparent as possible. Just because someone, somewhere, suspects police brutality is not sufficient to place a name on this list. The allegations must be verifiable. I am removing from the list the names of people whose cases meet none of the following criteria. People whose cases meet at least one of the following will be kept on the list.

  • Charges were filed against at least one criminal justice professional.
  • A law enforcement agency is currently investigating whether to file charges against at least one criminal justice professional.
  • Brutal treatment by at least one law enforcement officer is well-documented by at least one neutral source. (For example, Steve Biko's case.)

Please do comment. I would love to work toward consensus, but so far no other editors have responded to this effort. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 23:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

List of people removed from the article

These people's cases met none of the above criteria. Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@

  • Louie (Luciano) Arriaga [1]
  • Michael Bell [2]
  • Patrick Dorismond [3]
  • Byron Gillum. No charges filed. [4]
  • Jean Charles de Menezes. No charges will be filed after an investigation. As for the "well-documented" clause that would merit inclusion on the list, I submit this was a wartime action rather than a mere brutal act, and might merit a mention on a war atrocities topic.[5]
  • Tupac Shakur. He filed a $10 million lawsuit against the Oakland Police Department, but it was later settled for only $42,000 and no charges were filed. [6]

List of people about whose cases more information is needed

If you have any reliable references about the cases of the people on this list, please post them. I won't remove these names until I do a more in-depth search and other people have time to add notes. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 21:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading WP:V, I have decided to remove names about whom more information is needed. I encourage any editor with a reliable source for any of these cases to add it back to the article with the citation. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 19:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ida Lee Shaw Delaney, added 2006-08-07
  • Tony Cazares, added 2006-08-11 (Google can only find mirrors of this site)

Removing "suspected cases"

On further reflection, I don't think having a list of "suspected cases" is appropriate at all. A few notorious cases (Stephen Biko, Rodney King) might be included, but not a long list -- this isn't a memorial site. Since nobody except me has commented on this talk page in two months, nor touched the suspected cases list except to make unsourced additions, I'm going to boldy delete the whole list now. If anyone objects please speak up! I'm happy to come to a consensus, but so far there's nobody to come to consensus with. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


"Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.14.202 (talk • contribs)

Request for Comment

The issue is the list of "suspected cases" of police brutality. Before I began editing this article, it was an unsourced list. I began sorting through the list, citing sources in verifiable cases and removing unverified cases. During this time I asked for comments from other editors, but received none at all. After some reflection, I decided this list was unencyclopedic anyway. It seemed to be a "memorial" list, and seemed rather POV to me. This is evidenced by the fact that additions to the list are made with no organization or procedure, mostly by one-time IP editors, and generally neve sourced. Since I never got any feedback at all about my work on this article, I removed the list. An IP editor has now taken an interest and suggested that removing the list is vandalism, with no further constructive commentary. I am frustrated with the amount and type of response I have gotten, so I am requesting comments from other editors in order to reach a consensus about (a) whether the list should stay and (b) what should be included on the list if it does stay. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 16:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am responding to the RfC. First, I am no one important, and my only goal here is try to assist in creating a quality article. I have not read the article in detail yet, nor the talk page, or reviewed the history of edits.

It is my understanding from the RfC that we want to try and focus on the "suspected cases" category. If anyone would like to add anything (that needs to be part of the RfC discussion), please put it here, or to a new section on my talk page. Atom 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read the talk page and activity, as well as the article in detail. As a suggestion, do you think that we could start simply, and remove the references that do not have any citation or reference, and through a google search, do not seem to have any likely source of a reference? I hesitate to suggest removing some that may be valid, but the person adding it has just not found time to document it fully. By Wikipedia standards, they should not be there, but I would not want to lose them. Perhaps we can move all of these with no reference to this page, and (someone can) slowly spend time to weed through and find some kind of reliable source for them, and re-add them to the page when that is done? The ones with references, or citations, we can leave on the page and assume in good faith that there was some reason to put them there, and slowly work through them to verify the citations. Atom 17:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of removing the unverified cases from the list until they are verified. I believe I have done all the work so far on verifying these cases, but I stopped about a month ago to mull over whether to keep the list at all. If consensus is to keep the list, I'll start working on it again (hopefully with the help of other editors). As for the question of whether to keep the list: perhaps it could be changed to "selected cases" rather than "suspected cases." As I've said before, Wikipedia is not Copwatch nor does it need to include every possible or "suspected" case of abuse. I think it would be more encyclopedic to summarize a few of the most notorious cases. What do you think? --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 19:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Ginkgo100's reasoning as explained in Removing "suspected cases" section is sensible. Why not just select few notable and confirmed cases and use them as examples. Additionally, maybe a mention of a case or few where police brutality was a false accusation woudln't hurt. And, maybe, some very controversial and undecided cases. Other than that, creating a full list of such abuses is probably impossible, so, beyond mentioning some cases as examples, I don't see a lot of use in it. Just my humble opinion. Poison sf 14:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

References with no citations yet

These are here temporarily. Many of them can be moved back to the main page once we provide a citation to show verifiability.

Criteria for inclusion

What should the criteria for inclusion in the list be? I suggest am open discussion to determine the criteria, and then gain consensus.

Previously suggested has been:

  • Charges were filed against at least one criminal justice professional.
  • A law enforcement agency is currently investigating whether to file charges against at least one criminal justice professional.
  • Brutal treatment by at least one law enforcement officer is well-documented by at least one neutral source. (For example, Steve Biko's case.)

Atom 18:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, I can agree with #1, #2 and #3. For #1 I wonder what is the definition of "charges". Is an official hearing sufficient? Or do they need to be criminal charges? How about non-criminal charges? Atom 18:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about criminal charges. A police officer might violate department policy but not the law, for instance, or there might be accusations but insufficient evidence for criminal charges. Anyone can file a lawsuit for anything, so civil charges (lawsuits) are not a good criterion, in my opinion. Here's another question: if an officer was charged, tried, and acquitted, should the case be included? This would eliminate the Rodney King and Steve Biko cases if it weren't for #3, which is why I included it. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 19:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking that we have strong consensus on direction, and no disputes. I think we can close the RfC, what does anyone else think? Any objection to that? I will still participate after we close it. Atom 12:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to closing it. This is my first RfC; is it usual to close it after only three days? --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

We can leave it open as long as you want. Normally once conflict is resolved, and people are on the same track, it is often closed. There is no hurry though.

Three days is fairly short. In this case, no one came forward with a conflicting opinion. It is usual to only get a couple of people who chime in. In other RfC's I have helped with, it can be quite awhile until participants come to some consensus. Atom 12:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Final consensus

So let's reach consensus, so to speak, on the consensus. Poison_sf and I seem to think the best course would be to list a few of the most notorious cases by way of illustration. Instead of calling it "suspected cases," it should probably be called something else. Perhaps simply "Selected cases," and within that the section, a subsection of "Widely acknowledged cases" and one for "Controversial cases." It should be crystal clear, too, that these are provided by way of illustration, not for the sake of creating an exhaustive list, and therefore new additions should first be proposed here. Is this agreeable to other participants? --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, your suggestion of changing it to "Select cases" or "Selected Cases" seems sufficient to me. I think people can decide for themselves (assuming they are cited) the importance. So, I would not see a need for sub-sections. Atom 22:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A European case

I am adding Benno Ohnesorg, whose shooting at a protest march was a defining political event of the postwar era in Germany and Western Europe. Wulfilia 14:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this as long as a citation is provided. This can be a book, a reliable history website, etc. The reason is that this list previously contained a lot of uncited and POV additions, and a lot of effort has gone into making sure it contains no uncited entries. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 15:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is the entry, for future reference, upon citation.


See citations:

  • Nick Thomas, Protest Movements in 1960s West Germany: A Social History of Dissent and Democracy (Oxford: Berg, 2003).
  • Jurgen Seifert, et al, "Defining the Enemy of the State: Political Policies of West Germany" (1976) 8 New German Critique, pp. 42-53.

Wulfilia 13:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Rodney King

Definitely belongs on the list, but I have procrastinated on adding him because I can't find a good source online. It's too old for news stories and the other sites are mainly very POV. The Rodney King article cites a book, but I haven't had a chance to go to the library to find it for this formality. Anybody have a cite? I feel like it would be intellectually dishonest to just cite the book from his article without actually looking at it first. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I searched for his name in Factiva and I got several thousands of results, which I didn't save because I could only send 100 articles at a time to my e-mail address. Can you tell me exactly if you're lokking for something specific? (please answer on my Talk page so that I don't miss your answer). Apokrif 22:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Article organization

I'm doing some research to improve the overall article, and I would like to reorganize it. I'm not proposing removing any substantial text, just moving it around to present better, more focused flow. I'm thinking of the following sections:

  • Incidence — victims, prevalence, perceptions of brutality, media coverage, and contents of the current politics and human rights sections
  • Investigation
  • Causes and prevention — would also include community response

This would be followed by selected cases and etc. --Ginkgo100 talk 21:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

this is a much better organisation that the previous set up. Good job, you managed to create the concepts that I couldn't even put into words!!SGGH 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The next, much more challenging task will be to root out the weasel words rampant in this article. --Ginkgo100 talk 20:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

Why is there a right side portal for everything about "Abuse?" Doesn't anyone else think that this categorization is random and ambiguous?

I mean, "Abuse" is a pretty encompassing term. "Psychology," "Politics," or "Physical science" would be more appropriate, but really, none of these articles related to abuse are related in any other way.

And using the word Abuse usually entails Of, like, Abuse of power, abuse of drugs... Abuse alone is pretty bland for a side panel topic.

I'm removing it. If someone wants to put it back up, I don't really have the patience or time to fight it, but I think it's pretty stupid.

68.55.180.24 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There

I put it down in "See Also." I think that makes a lot more sense.

68.55.180.24 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

cases list.

I still think this list is not appropriate to the article. If nothing else, it violates NPOV due to the undue weight of a lengthy list of cases. Per peer review, I propose to select several representative cases and include only those. A link to Category:Alleged police brutality, or a new article List of alleged cases of police brutality, should be included.

In selecting cases for the list, I think the "hundred year" test would apply -- will this case make the history books 100 years from now? I would include the following:

--Ginkgo100 talk 21:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of comments, I plan to implement these changes after January 1, 2007, assuming my real-life time restraints allow it. --Ginkgo100 talk 22:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The list, again.

User:BoxingWear has asked me to post here about the case s/he would like to add to the Selected Cases list regarding Angilo Freeland. I still believe that we should subtract from the list, not add to it, because of concerns of notability and undue weight, but provide a link to a list on a separate article. Other opinions? --Ginkgo100 talk 20:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I created List of cases of alleged police brutality and linked to it. I hope having the new article and cutting the list on this article is acceptable to others, but please comment here if not. --Ginkgo100 talk 20:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Commission

I think the information on the Christopher Commission is far too specific for this article. On top of that, it's copy-pasted from Christopher Commission. I removed the section but referenced it in the section on investigation in the United States. --Ginkgo100talk 22:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem with an example

I don't believe the Rodney King incident should be reported as police brutality. In the early times of its investigation it was dubbed with the infamous headline of police brutality. However in the light of new evidence, and extensive review of the acclaimed "beating video," it was proven that the officers were indeed fearing for the safty of their lives the lives of their partners. At the start of the video, for a breif second it showed Mr. King lunging at a police officer, seconds before he was hit with the baton; moments later the officers attempted to restrain him but the suspect continualy resisted forcing the officers to further continue their forciful methods of subduing him. Recently the video was proven bias, due to the fact that it only produced the moments of the beating, not the officers attempts of quietly and peacefuly resoliving the standoff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.132.214 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC).

Do you have a reliable source we could access regarding this information? Rodney King is widely regarded in the popular mind as a case of brutality, which is why it is included on the list. If you know of credible arguments to the contrary, please provide the citation. --Ginkgo100talk 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Diaz School

I removed the following addition from the infamous list of Selected Cases. It is about twice as long as other entries and its wording is very POV (for example, using subjective descriptors such as "brutal"). I do not feel it should be replaced until these concerns are addressed. --Ginkgo100talk 01:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

*62 protesters were hospitalized (including three comatose) after a brutal night-time raid on the Diaz school in Genoa where protesters were bedding down during the 27th G8 summit. In an ongoing trial (expected to conclude in 2008), twenty-eight Italian police officers are indicted for grievous bodily harm, planting evidence and wrongful arrest. A further 45 state officials, including police officers, prison guards and doctors, are charged with physically and mentally abusing demonstrators and journalists held in a detention centre in the nearby town of Bolzaneto.[1]

To omit mention of one of the largest police brutality trials ever (THE largest?) in an article about 'police brutality' would seem to be a deliberate misrepresentation. And the quibble over the adjective is 'brutal' is silly. When three people end up in a coma and many bones are broken, what is it if not 'brutal'?
Material restored. Scarborite 04:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The question is not whether the material belongs in the list or not; it is whether the entry as written is appropriately NPOV. --Ginkgo100talk 00:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Report rate

More citations, especially recent ones, are needed on the rate of reporting of police brutality. The intro statement of the "Incidence" section, which reads "Most police brutality goes unreported," is so broad that it needs much better support than a single 25-year-old U.S. study. Failing that, it should be changed to read something like, "Historically, police brutality has often been underreported." --Ginkgo100talk 01:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Scarborite, for addressing this. I wonder if there are any sources available to give the prevalence of brutality -- i.e., what percentage of police use-of-force cases actually involve brutality? --Ginkgo100talk 15:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to report the time I got tazered and cracked over the head with a baton one time (for no reason... well it was not justified, and I did not break the law, but it's a long story...) - they had me talk to the guy who tazered me and he arrested me for reporting it - called it "impeding justice" or something. - BriEnBest (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Choice of descriptors

There's been some back and forth changes lately in the wording of the description of the William Cardenas case (Pending cases/investgations section). I think it's clear that "beating on" is not very precise, and probably a bit too slangy for purists. On the other hand, "subdued" is vague and often euphemistic. "Subduing" might involve just talking to someone or it could involve shooting them in the head. A choice of descriptors should based on an effort to reflect facts as accurately as possible.

Also, a note to Ginkgo100: UNENCYC discounts reference to what is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" as arguments for deletion. The definition of "encyclopedic" is, quite simply, "broad in scope or content". It says nothing regarding specific guidelines related to the framing and expression of content.--BuffaloBilly 12:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am speaking of a specific phrase which is unencyclopedic in tone. I am not arguing to delete an article based on problems with the tone! However, I do agree "subdued" is not completely NPOV because it is indeed euphemistic. Alternatives? --Ginkgo100talk 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
My suggested alternative is what is currently posted in the article (Cardenas case, Pending cases/investgations section).
But more generally speaking, I think it might be time to revisit something like what you proposed back in Sept. 2006 (Removing "suspected cases" section), and so I'm going to open a new subtopic here... BuffaloBilly 10:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Replacing content in "Selected cases of police brutality" section with a link to separate article

In Sept 2006, Ginkgo100 proposed the removal of the "Suspected Cases of Police Brutality" section. The main reason was a longstanding lack of supporting documentation and an apparent lack of interest among contributors to make the effort to collect that documentation.

Initiative to amass documentation was kindled, the section became more solidly referenced and was renamed to "Selected cases of police brutality", and it has now come to include about twice as many cases as the version that existed back in Sept. 2006. Success in transforming the section was reflected in the creation of a new article (in late 2006) presenting this same material entitled List of cases of alleged police brutality.

Since that time, the two lists have (predictably) begun to diverge. Although more or less the same in length (one documents 19 cases of brutality, the other 18), content on specific cases has sometimes been updated on one page and not on the other, some cases have been deleted or added on one page and not on the other, etc. In brief, these are two lists which theoretically should cover the same material, but which don't always do so.

In the interests of consolidation, I suggest a merge in which material in the "Selected cases of police brutality" of the police brutality page is removed and the information collated with that found in the List of cases of alleged police brutality article. The "Selected cases of police brutality" section of the police brutality would then just contain a link to the other article.

Besides consolidation of information, this change would conform with the natural course of evolution of the police brutality article. Initially, there wasn't much in the way of a conceptual framework, so the most obvious and the easiest way of building content in the article was to list various specific cases. Gradually, however, a framework emerged, and the article has focused more on the *concept* of police brutality rather than on a list of specific cases. This concept has become increasingly differentiated into different aspects (history, incidence, causes, investigation, etc.), and of course within these specific categories the mention of some specific illustrative cases continues to be appropriate.

Also, I suggest renaming the List of cases of alleged police brutality article to the more appropriate "Selected cases of police brutality". Most of the cases are substantiated, not "alleged"; and those which are only 'suspected' are clearly labelled as such. Also, the prefixing of "selected" is advised because the list isn't and will never be anything close to comprehensive.BuffaloBilly 10:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong support for all the reasons you mentioned, with the exception of the new title of List of cases of alleged police brutality, which needs more discussion. "Selected" does not work as the title of a list article unless there are clear criteria for inclusion. What should these criteria be? Should each case be required to have a separate Wikipedia article? (This would help ensure the cases meet notability guidelines.) If "alleged" is removed from the title, should cases in which the investigation is complete be included? Currently, some of the listed cases are under investigation. I think it would be inappropriate to declare these cases "police brutality" prematurely, so either they should be removed or "alleged" should remain. A compromise might be to make a note in the intro section to the effect that some investigations have not concluded. --Ginkgo100talk 16:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
There will never be any cut and dried criteria for selection; it will always be a case by case matter of wikipedian consensus -- i.e. peers either agree that the inclusion of case X is or isn't reasonably defensible (as is the case in the "selected" list in the present police brutality article). I suggest "selected" in the title just to indicate that the list is by no means comprehensive. Instead of "selected", the article could include a disclaimer; e.g. "this list is a compilation of incidents that Wikipedians consider notable; it lays no claim, however, to being comprehensive in any way..." (or something like that). It amounts to the same thing.
Regarding "alleged", you are leaning towards an overly legalistic viewpoint, I think. If someone was obviously murdered and all the likely suspects are acquitted, it doesn't change the fact that a murder took place. Similarly, there are many cases where it is obvious that, in spite of acquittal, police brutality in fact occurred. The Diaz school incident in Italy (which I posted a reference to in the main article a few weeks ago) is a case in point. Protesters were woken up in the night with truncheon blows, had bones broken and teeth knocked out, in many cases as they still lay in sleeping bags. That police brutality occured is beyond question. However will any police officers end up being prosecuted? Since the police being prosecuted were themselves in possession of key items of evidence and some of that evidence has "mysteriously" disappeared, it looks increasingly unlikely.
In other cases, acquittal of officers has been the result of loopholes or weaknesses in police department policy. It is only recently that PDs have incorporated better defined force continuum guidelines; prior to this, officers entertained considerable leeway in their interpretation of the degree of force needed in any given situation. Reforms happened primarily because civil rights lawyers began to target hefty lawsuits at police departments with slack policies (policies which undermined basic rights and freedoms) -- and to win very substantial sums for their clients (even though police officers were more often than not acquitted).
So the use of the term "alleged" in a strictly legalistic manner seems inappropriate for the police brutality issue. Instead, the inclusion of a section entitled "under continuing investigation" would be better.BuffaloBilly 17:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
And... changes are now implemented (see Notable cases of police brutality. Comments welcome.BuffaloBilly 15:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that law enforcement officials are sometimes acquitted in undeniable cases of brutality; Stephen Biko's case is another example. That's why I referred to the completeness of the investigation, not necessarily to convictions. My concern mainly revolves around possible WP:BLP issues. If it's known that Officer A (still living) shot and killed Citizen B, then declaring that a murder rather than justified use of force before the results of the investigation are released violates BLP standards. If the investigation exonerates the officer, then there must be wide consensus among commentators that justice was not done and the case did in fact involve unjustified use of force (i.e. brutality).
However, I do like the changes you made to the list article. I would rather see the order of the list reversed so that it is chronological and gives a historical view. I think moving the cases under investigation to a separate section is an appropriate way to handle the issue. However, the name is redundant, as all incidents on Wikipedia are assumed to be notable; propose renaming List of cases of police brutality. --Ginkgo100talk 16:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But if it's named "List of cases of police brutality", it suggests that any and all cases are acceptable. Not so wise, I think. For example, someone is bitten by a police dog in a crowd scenario and sues successfully. It's not an especially notable instance of police brutality, but strictly speaking it is one. Hundreds of minor cases like this happen every year, most of which are settled out of court. I fear that what we'll end up with is a mish mash in which major cases, the 'notable' ones which spark controversy, outrage, and sometimes -- in the long term -- positive reforms, are sprinkled with minor incidents of negligible significance. Or... maybe I'm wrong. I defer to your judgement.

Regarding the WP:BLP thing, I'd point out (again) that in recent years, most successful police brutality suits against PDs have NOT hinged upon convictions of officers, because in most cases the officers are not the main target of legal action. The legal strategy is usually to prove that it is a PD's fault for not implementing proper training procedures or the jurisdiction's fault for failing to frame responsible "use of force continuum" policies. So, for example, in the Rodney King case, the officers involved were acquitted both of criminal and of civil responsibility, while the City of L.A. was ordered to pay King $3.8 million in punitive damages.

But I like the idea of using "wide consensus among commentators" as the final measure of what is or what isn't "police brutality". It is, after all, a political term, not a legal one.--BuffaloBilly 01:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that since all content on Wikipedia should generally be notable, List of cases of police brutality is preferable, and should not create any problems; if any non-notable case is added, it can be reverted. As a parallel, think of the articles for individual dates -- they don't have "notable" in the title, but it is accepted practice to remove nn entries. Since you said you defer to my judgment, I'll take that as no objection to my making the change.
You make a good point about civil cases. I'm liking the "wide consensus among commentators" as the final standard better and better -- wish I'd thought of it before. --Ginkgo100talk 03:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:MiamiModel.jpg

I don't think this is a clear image of brutality as opposed to appropriate use of force in this particular situation. The force being used is actually pretty low on the typical use of force continuum. I propose removing this image. --Ginkgo100talk 03:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Image replaced with one of a tear gas volley in Quebec City. In the aftermath of the protests, the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP subsequently found that "RCMP members used excessive and unjustified force in releasing tear gas to move the protesters when a more measured response could have been attempted first" (see Quebec City Summit of the Americas), so this seems apt. --BuffaloBilly 17:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the caption. --Ginkgo100talk 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The caption incorrectly states: "The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) fire CS gas at protesters during the Quebec City Summit of the Americas." The image shows Surete du Quebec agents (as per the far-left officer's shoulder badge and the green and mustard yellow colour of the word "Police" on the shields). The citation has its place there as it examplifies police brutality, I am however concerned about the accuracy of this particular caption —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.169.129 (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
And even more obviously, the officers are wearing neither red coats nor riding pants. The caption is therefore modified to the generic "police".--BuffaloBilly 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
They might be wearing them under their coveralls mate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.169.129 (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

reporting is often / (usually??) "IMPOSSIBLE"

Because of the procedure of reporting a crime, it seems to be usually (at least often) impossible to report cases of police brutality - at least in the United States. The District Attourney, who processes criminal reports, *ONLY* takes reports from "proper law enforcement agencies." That means, in order to report ANY crime (including police brutality) you have to go to the police, who can and often do simply deny you, laugh in your face, or in some cases ARREST you, claiming impedence of justice. The D.A. will NOT take reports from citizens - ever. BriEnBest (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The first step should NOT be to file a police complaint. The first step should be to go to a laywer. If you go to the police first, that will tip them off, and they may look for any evidence that might exists (e.g., dash-cam videotapes) to destroy it. And they may dick you around further, as you've found. The first the police should know that you feel your rights are violated is when they hear about it from your lawyer. Even while the incident is occurring, do not complain that your rights are being violated. During the incident you DO want to make it clear if you don't consent to a search or don't want to speak with them without a lawyer present or ask if you're free to go. You want to do that because it makes it illegal for them to search or question or detain you in certain situations. Beyond that though, if your rights are violated, do not say anything about that to them. Why tip them off? Let the police be blindsided by your lawsuit. And at the same time they find out about the lawsuit, they will also get a court order requiring them to preserve and turn over any evidence. If they fail to do that, that's an additional violation.
The first step if your rights are violated is to go to a lawyer. If you don't know a *good* laywer to go to, one you can trust who has experience in this area, go to http://www.aclu.org, click on the "Contact" link, and follow the directions to get in touch with your local chapter of the ACLU. This *is* an effective approach, and I know for a fact that people have gotten large settlements and the firing of the officer involved by going to the ACLU. Get in touch with the ACLU (or your lawyer) as soon as possible after the incident occurs.
Regarding the D.A., you don't need him to get justice. The D.A. is there only to prosecute criminal cases (e.g., if someone needs to go to jail). You don't need him to file a lawsuit against the police department for a million dollars (or whatever is appropriate). Anyway, if a criminal case is justified, your lawyer can handle that.
Again, a police complaint doesn't do anything for you. All it does is notify the police department that you felt your rights were violated, and then it's up to their internal procedures and ethics what to do about that. They could very easily throw it in the garbage, sweep it under the rug, or use it as a warning to find and destroy evidence. If there's an advantage to filing a police complaint, your lawyer can go with you to do that after the lawsuit is filed. The most important thing to do after your rights are violated is get good legal advice and preserve evidence. To do that, go to a lawyer or contact the ACLU as soon as possible. If you have a good case, you will NOT have to pay the lawyer any money. Your lawyer will be paid a portion of of whatever money you get from the police department.
If your rights are regularly violated but you don't have evidence of it, contact the ACLU anyway and let them know and get their advice.
Good luck!--70.218.170.14 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


I recently saw a local news report about local police departments and complaint procedures. All departments seemed to make it easy to make complaints and all except one allowed it to be anonymously. The group doing the study seemed very anti-police and even they are impressed with the results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.252.228 (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

can we add "inadequate punishment from law for police brutality" to "causes"?

i think it's obvious, and logically follows from the very fact that "the law" is considered effective because it punishes "criminals," that a simple cause of police brutality is lack of punishment under law or court for cases of it. BriEnBest (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is a joke

It 90% about US (and the rest UK, Canada, and... the Ancient Rome??). Say, Russia, is not even mentioned (well, unless this counts as a separate article). Hey, ever heard about Gestapo? And so on and on and on. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

<<<<<police brutality>>>>>


how long will this keep on going on..can somebody please tell mne. because i really want to know this has happeed to me ojn new years eve. and no body has done any thing about this can the government please help...im beggin you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.191.20 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone maybe provide a detailed list of further incidents on police brutality i'm doing a report and i'm not so informed when it comes to this topic, sorry if it doesn't relate to the article feel free to remove this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.125.75 (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

POV Edit

The article claimed uncited reasons for an increase in police brutality that seemed to violate NPOV. These were deleted in a minimalistic fashion.

Norbert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.82.117 (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the world

This article if focused almost exclusively on the US and Canada. It should include instances throught the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredsacks (talk • contribs) 11:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

David Kirkwood Picture

I've never heard of David Kirkwood, and I don't quite understand why he is an example of police brutality. The picture shows him on the ground after some kind of confrontation with police, but he's not mentioned anywhere else in the article. The wikipedia page about him briefly mentions that he was arrested in 1919, but gives no details of the incident. Police brutality is generally only applied to cases of excessive force; the mere fact that force was used against Kirkwood doesn't prove PB. As I said, I know absolutely nothing about him. If there actually is evidence of excessive force in his arrest it should be explained in the article. If not, the picture will be removed.Some kind of scientist (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Philippene Police Without Reference

Philippene Police section is poorly worded and may require references. 86.4.76.91 (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

comparison

i always hear about foreigners talking about how violent american cops are, and i would like to know a real comparison of statistics between american and foreign cops and how violent american cops actually are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.14.213 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Code

I'm not sure whether this was a good edit. I reverted it because it looked like it might be an essay, and did not have a source. Becritical (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Jared Massey

This should definitely be included; its a fairly famous incident and got a lot of attention. Link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.171.1 (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

General objections to the use of force

Some people lump together excessive force by police with any use of force. Should we make an editorial distinction, or would this by POV? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A link

People which know more context, can add this? [8] emijrp (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Scott Olsen case

Occupy_Oakland#Police_raids_and_response, can be added? emijrp (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Article is too abstract

I included information to provide a more global example, but I think it'd be more useful with examples. I'm hesitant to do so for it being included in the list of cases of brutality, but I think it'd be less abstract than the current article. For example, Rodney King is an example of brutality, but the impact that the case had on the American political system and culture make it something that applies to Police Brutality in the abstract. I think inclusion of more arguments on authoritarian regimes, even if it isn't necessarily neutral, should be included (I'd try to make it neutral though) but I think this article needs to be a bit more bold. Additionally, it'd be nice to see more cases of it like the Occupy movement and London G20 protests to see a distinction between 1960's violence (fire hoses) versus modern riot shield approaches. I'll see if I can add more content to the article. Shaded0 (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Kelly Thomas

There is no text to support the picture of Kelly Thomas--can someone add something about him in the article? Otherwise delete the photo since it is also used in the article about Kelly Thomas. Docjay57 (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Police brutality

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Police brutality's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC":

  • From United Kingdom: "Scotland to hold independence poll in 2014 – Salmond". BBC News. 10 January 2012. Retrieved 10 January 2012.
  • From List of cases of police brutality: "Genoa protester case dismissed". BBC News. 5 May 2003. Retrieved 2008-02-04.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Police brutality in the US

I added a list of the topics covered in the wiki article "Police Brutality in the United States" so that the section covering US brutality has some information under it instead of just a link to another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biscuitbrendan (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Vigilantism

I added a section under Causes for "vigilantism". I have not added much to the section because I plan on elaborating in another new section. It is a real topic so I invite anyone with information on the subject to improve and build on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biscuitbrendan (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I added a short paragraph about the term under the cause section giving it a basic definition with the plan to do more research on the topic. Fact check me, the source is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biscuitbrendan (talk • contribs) 22:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

King photos.

shouldn't the text for the Rodney King photos say, "King on the ground after/during beating by LAPD officers." instead of, 'Screenshots of King lying down and being beaten by LAPD officers"

I mean it's not like he's taking a rest during beatings, "i'm just going to lay down officers, you can continue the beating if you so choose"

Just saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.64.126 (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

External Links

Here is a link to prior versions of copbrutality.com, which appears to be no longer online, and which was removed by this edit. --ProtectorServant (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Police brutality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

---> Police Brutality Reverse? <--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.5.58 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

United States: attacks on persons of color "increase drastically"

This doesn't really seem substantiated (and has no corresponding citation). What constitutes a "drastic" increase? One could argue that simply the media coverage of these attacks has risen. Radioactivated (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Class assignment?

Recently I've noticed many new accounts expanding police brutality examples in Europe on this article. One of them was named "Wikipediaassignment" so I wonder if this article is currently part of a school assignment? Not that there is anything objectionable with the content being added, but it would be helpful if the course instructor disclosed the details of the assignment here on the talk page. Sro23 (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Second paragraph in "United States" section

This second paragraph is highly subjective and includes biased and emotional speech. Biased language: "most people are left grief stricken and confused with how two people in such minor encounters with the Police could end up dead for no reason at all at the hands of Police Officers." "The two men above have just been added to a long string of names of minorities who have lost their lives by the people who are sworn in to protect and to serve all civilians even the black ones. " "If it is not ok for civilians to murder people it should not be ok for the Police to murder as well, and laws should be put in place to protect civilians from deadly force from Police Officers"

and more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeclape101 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the entire paragraph (was just added in by someone earlier this week). Wikipedia is not the place for soapboxing or pushing agendas, per WP:NPOV. The ref may be useful elsewhere, but it did not directly support the original text, instead it just provided a coatrack for the original editor to air their opinions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Western Bias

Reading this article, you would think countries like Sweden and Finland are such brutal hell holes to live in, while nations like China and Pakistan are so safe from police brutality. Nothing is said on the Philippine Drug War which has led to thousands dying in police operations, including many "suspects". Nor is the well-known police brutality in Mexico or Colombia mentioned. Apparently, black African countries like South Africa and Nigeria are free from police brutality since nothing is written about them.HerbertMacuse (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@HerbertMacuse: These seem like adequate sources. Assuming good faith, this is probably not a matter of intentional bias, but maybe a lack of reliable sources. The sources you noted seem to merit inclusion if you'd be up to the task on integrating these into the article. Regards, Shaded0 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Police brutality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Trial forces Italy to relive shocking police brutality". The Independent. 2005-10-12. {{cite web}}: Text "accessdate - 2007-08-05" ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Police_brutality/Archive_1&oldid=1073792360"