Talk:Sean Bell shooting incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of the shooting incident or the criminal trial verdict.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sean Bell shooting incident article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 4 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 26 April 2007. The result of the discussion was Moved.

Contents

[edit] Religion?

What difference does the religion of the Lawyers make? I find the addition of "Jewish" to be stereotypical and unnecessary, unless that's how it's referenced. But where is the source that provided that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.160.237 (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Race?

The racial angle of this incident deserves discussion beyond the bare statement that Bell was black. The NAACP and several of the figures discussed in the article think there were important racial dimensions to the killing. This should be handled explicitly. For example, is police racism considered a factor in the killing? What ethnicities were the officers who killed Bell? &c. 140.247.249.58 05:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as you can source, please add it. Various statements examining the race angle have been added, but they were unsourced so they were removed. Natalie 16:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The NAACP claimed there was a racial angle to an incident? Stop the presses! That is so infrequent, and that group is given such credibility on such claims! Seriously, there's no reason for delving into race here, especially after the officers were cleared of any criminal liability for the shooting. The person suggesting that racial angles be added to the article would be outraged if someone suggested that racial angles be explored regarding the testimony of Bell's friends against the police officers to be contradictory and not believable. Why subject the exonerated police officers to such prejudicial speculation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.83 (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget 1 or more of the cops that discharged bullets was black himself. Let's also not forget Sharpton said it wasn't about race a week or two ago, but today related this to civil rights violations. I wonder if he likes contradicting himself

[edit] Move?

It seems to me that this should maybe be moved to "2006 NYPD shooting" or something similar. Precendent isn't really clear here: the Amadou Diallo shooting and Abner Louima abuse are titled with the victim's name, while the hostage taking and shooting in Colorado is under Platte Canyon High School shooting and the Nickel Mines, PA, incident is under Amish school shooting. It seems to me, at least so far, that this incident isn't tied to closely with the victim's name as Diallo and Louima. Is there something I'm missing? Natalie 16:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There were over 100 officer-involved shootings in NY in 2006, so we'd need a more specific title. Since other people besides Bell were shot, that makes some sense, but so far, he is the only person who died. Most of the coverage revolves around Bell specifically. Another recent case with multiple fatal shootings linked to one name is Valentin Elizalde. Perhaps "2006 Kalua Cabaret shootings" or something, but I am of a mind to leave it as is, and redirect the names of other people shot to this page. Thoughts? Jokestress 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That's true, there are a lot of police-related shootings in New York in any given year - it's a big city. At least so far, this seems to be the most prominent one in 2006, if I can judge from the Times coverage. I guess the question would be whether any of the other police-related shootings have articles, and if so, how to properly distinguish between them. I would be okay with a redirect, but it isn't my first choice. Natalie 18:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I can appreciate the need for a better name, but cannot think of an appropriate alternative. AFAIK, no one in the press has 'named' the incident (something like 'The nightclub shootings', 'The bridegroom shootings'), and WP:NOR prevents us from naming the incident ourselves. Also note that the article on 'The Runaway Bride' appears under Jennifer Wilbanks, so maybe Sean Bell is the appropriate page name although I have not looked for, or seen any WP policies regarding this issue. So we may have to accept the status quo, unless someone has bright new ideas. Abecedare 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
True. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have naming conventions about crime, but I imagine events covers this, and says the name should be 1) the accepted name for the event, or 2) use a common word that refers to the event, or 3) use a descriptive term. Obviously #s 1 & 2 don't apply, at least not yet. I guess the best thing is to wait and see if this event gets a common name(s). If it never does, I will suggest "Sean Bell shooting", mostly just because the article mostly describes the shooting incident, not the person. Natalie 19:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
"conventions about crime" do not apply to this article since the officers involved were exonerated at trial of any criminal culpability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.83 (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deleted history restored

I originally started this article as a stub, but it got deleted under A1. However, seeing that this article has been greatly improved after someone else restarted it, I figured that I might as well restore the deleted history. :) --Ixfd64 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources, sources, sources

I am removing the following sentence from "Response": "Although many would like to argue that the incident is racially motivated, many including the victims father says it is not." Please source this before putting it back in - since this is a current event it is especially important to keep POV and original research out. Natalie 17:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, WP:BLP probably applies here, even though the victim is dead - everyone else involved in the shootings is still alive. So sources are that much more necessary. Natalie 17:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One or more of the det. was black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.145.40 (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This article is biased against the NYPD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.10.104.105 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

How? Natalie 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Please specify what particular sentences or points you object to, or it will only be fair to remove the NPOV tag. Abecedare 01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The initial sentence stating that Bell was murdered may be biased, given that the officers were acquitted. Suggest an alternative phrase, for example, "shot and killed." Peter (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blogs are not reliable sources

I have removed the following: "Sean Bell had been arrested three times in the past: twice for drugs and one on a gun rap in a case that was sealed. Joseph Guzman has been busted nine times, including for armed robbery. He spent two stretches in state prison in the ’90s. Trent Benefield has a sealed record as a juvenile for gun possession and robbery. .[7]" Because the citation is a blog (www.theurbangrindblog.com) and as per Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, blogs are not appropriate in this case. Please find a reliable source for this information if adding it again. Natalie 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criminal record

Why has the criminal record of Sean Bell been remeoved. It was sited with a Daily News article. To say he had "odd jobs" is just misleading. His job was a drug dealer. He been arrested twice for narcotics and once for firearm possession. The NYPD had done 2 undercover buys of crack from MR. Bell and were in the middle of building a case against him for running a drug ring. The two others in the car were also crimianls who had gun and robbery arrests in the past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.253.104 (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

The criminal record of the three people involved has not been removed, it was just moved to "background", instead of incident. From all the news stories I read, their criminal backgrounds had nothing to do with the incident itself, (unless robbery is now a capitol offense) so the information belongs in the background information of the story. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ Natalie 16:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
A better question would be why so much slander included? Come on, let's be serious, anyone who's invesitigated the situation knows that there was no forth man (which witnesses also say), and all this garbage about Bell supposedly selling crack to an informant, etc. This is all slander being brought by the NYC and its supporters to discredit a victim of state sponsored assassination.Redflagflying 08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The criminal records of the victims of this crime are completely irrelevant, yet folks continue to add and update them. Why? Would you post the sexual history of a rape victim? Sean Bell and his friends committed no crime the night they were attacked by undercover NYPD agents, and that's all that should matter. Redflagflying 17:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot of talk of this man being arrested, but was he ever convicted of anything? From my understanding, if you're arrested you haven't necessarily done anything wrong. The reason being that one is presumed innocent, even in light of an arrest. Citing this man's arrest record may be considered somewhat prejudicial, as the reality is that, under the law, he is not guilty of anything unless such a determination has been made in a court. Mael-Num 02:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The criminal and arrest records of these individuals is COMPLETELY relevant because it has to do with the issue of CREDIBILITY. The fact that one or more of these individuals has been arrested in the past for firearms possession and other criminal activity frequently associated with violence GREATLY INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD that one or more of them DID have a firearm in this case and that there DID exist a fourth person that fled from the vehicle. This helps to substantiate the detectives' version of events. Do you seriously believe that any of the other two 'victims' in the car are able to give unbiased testimony, or that they even WANT to give unbiased testimony? They are career criminals that HATE police. Of course they are going to lie. And yes, they will even do it in front of a jury, despite being *GASP* under oath! Some of you really need a reality check. Invario 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(arbitrary unindent) Did the police run a criminal background check on each individual in the car? No? Then it wasn't a factor in the incident. Find a reliable source that shows that these individual's records made a difference here and the information can be added. Otherwise, it's just your analysis. Natalie 01:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Invario, the article states referenced facts (including the previous arrests and lack of convictions). You are free to draw your own conclusions, and others are free to do their own. However please keep your analysis off wikipedia (including talk pages) - note that as per talk page guidelines, the talk page is for discussing the article content, not the article's subject. Disruptive remarks that do not contribute to improving the article are liable to be deleted from talk page. Also check up on the civility guidelines. Abecedare 01:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current class

I rated this article at current class because of the article being edited during a current event. Storm05 15:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Natalie 16:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mysterious 4th Man

Sorry for the long title.

I watched on the (local, VA) news that there was another controversy about how (verbatim) the officers said that there was a another (4th) guy who not only had the gun, but got away with it which would have explained why no gun was recovered. It was followed by how a lot of people were displeased with this poor excuse and explanation and that it ws merely said to try to justify the poor policing. However I can't find any links to that theory or it's relation to the story. Can anyone find any more information on this? Wuthai 00:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added details about the "Mysterious 4th man" along with references. (I have also shortened the title of this section - hope that is OK) Abecedare 00:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The version from the police has been corroborated by at least 1 person

[edit] Between the three men there had been 14 ARRESTS!

None of the NYC news outlets have reported on this (or at least not in detail) It really changes the story, especially since all three men had been arrested at one time for ILLEGAL GUNS !

Also why was Sean Bell DRIVING DRUNK ON HIS BACHELOR NIGHT? This is abhorrent.

The three men appear to be victims of police brutality, but the fact that they have been arrested for selling drugs and holding guns without permits should not be forgotten. Apparently they aren't as 'innocent' as Al Sharpton claims...

It's not clear to me that any officer requested their IDs prior to the shooting, and so therefore could not have had that information. Maybe they had time to run the license plate, but it doesn't sound like it (and wouldn't speak to the passengers anyway). So unless your argument is that it's okay to shoot first in Jamaica because everyone there is probably guilty of something, I'd watch the implications you're making. Mangler 21:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, driving drunk on your bacholor night. Let's shoot him 50 times! Hesperides 01:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The criminal and arrest records of these individuals is COMPLETELY relevant because it has to do with the issue of CREDIBILITY. The fact that one or more of these individuals has been arrested in the past for firearms possession and other criminal activity frequently associated with violence GREATLY INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD that one or more of them DID have a firearm in this case and that there DID exist a fourth person that fled from the vehicle. This helps to substantiate the detectives' version of events. Do you seriously believe that any of the other two 'victims' in the car are able to give unbiased testimony, or that they even WANT to give unbiased testimony? They are career criminals that HATE police. Of course they are going to lie. And yes, they will even do it in front of a jury, despite being *GASP* under oath! Some of you really need a reality check. Invario 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It might increase the likelihood of the men being armed but 1) the police officers at the time had no clue who they were, let alone their rap sheet and 2) the evidence seems to contradict the notion they were armed or that a fourth person existed.
Also, got any proof (i.e. statements attributed to these men) they "hate police"? You have a curious emotional investment in this police shooting. Hesperides 01:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets please restrict the talk page discussion to the article's content and not the article's subject. This is not the right forum to express and argue personal opinions. Also assume good faith but do not feed the trolls. Thanks. Abecedare 01:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have any proof but it is common sensical that criminals dislike police. As for being a troll, I can assure you that I'm not one just because I have a completely different take from certain people on things. I don't blame Wiki for this article's inherent bias - it can't be helped. The very nature of Wiki causes it to be that way since everything posted here has to be sourced from somewhere and it can't be helped that the sources themselves are inherently biased against the police. For example, none of the sources mention the NYS Penal Law and its relevance to this. I apologize if I've been disruptive but as someone pointed out, I do have somewhat of an emotional investment in this. Invario 02:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unnamed is now named?

In one section, the 5 shooting officers are named. Later, it says that four of the five have been interviewed and names them again, but using "an unnamed undercover officer" instead of identifying Gescard Isnora. Are we reasonably sure that they are indeed the same person and lose the "unnamed" bit? Mangler 21:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, that's a really good question. I have no idea, but I'll look through the NYT archives the next time I'm at work. Natalie 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is This Really Necessary?

Let me begin by saying that I AM a New Yorker, a Brooklynite to be specific. I'll grant that the Sean Bell shooting is a terrible thing, and I feel very sorry for his friends and family, but having a whole article about this guy is ridiculous. On March 14, 2007, two NYPD Auxilaries were shot in cold blood while they attempted to make their neighborhood a safer place; they have three paragraphs dedicated to them on the NYPD page. A few days before, a white 101-year-old woman was attacked and robbed by a black male who, in an attempt to evade police, has enrolled in a mental health facility; she has a two paragraph page. Sean Bell and his bachelor party, who combined were caught in criminal activities nearly a DOZEN times (Lord nows how many times they weren't caught), have a 17 paragraph page. Yes, the 31-shot cop was excessive; Yes, the 10-shot cop was in violation of NYPD shooting standards; but for God's sake these men were in the extreme pressure cooker of the undercover world, located in a high-crime area, and their partner had just been hit by the Bell party's car, which then proceeded to ram the undercover police vehicle. Yes, the Sean Bell shooting is tragic, but we're not talking about Ward Cleaver here; we're talking about a supposedly "reformed" drug dealer who tried to run over an officer of the law. This event is newsworthy, but to pay more homage to a man who bears some responsibility for the degration of NYC than is paid to a woman who never did any harm or to two men who tried to make the city better is simply wrong. 67.72.98.93 20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. This is still in the news months later. If the two officers who were shot last week are still in the news in July, please make an article about them. Right now, though, it's not enough information. As far as your opinion about the rightness or wrongness of the police officer's actions, that's your opinion. Start your own website and fill it with nothing but your opinion. Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Natalie 01:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
In my defence, I didn't put my earlier comments in the article proper. Having said all of that, the only reason it is still in the news is that the media has a bias. Furthermore, I would contend that because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it has an obligation to weed out worthy and unworthy articles. Look at it this way: Sean Bell probably won't make Encyclopædia Britannica any time soon. 67.72.98.81 18:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore its coverage can be much broader in scope than Britannica. Please read the notability guidelines to see what governs inclusion here. After that if you think this article needs to be deleted or other articles created, there are avenues for arguing for those propositions (although this talk page isn't one of them).
As for media bias, perhaps you can contribute to Media bias, which needs lot of work and expert attention anyway. I am not being dismissive or sarcastic, just trying to channel all our activities into productive use. Regards. Abecedare 20:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you think other articles should exist but don't, you could always create them (you do have to create an account to do so) or request them. If you do decide to create an account and create some articles, be sure to read the notability guidelines Abecedare mentioned, as well as the guideline on writing your first article. Natalie 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues

1.) "The undercover officer followed the group and Bell was ordered by the officer to raise his hands after getting in his car. Instead, the car hit the undercover officer and, seconds later, an unmarked police minivan."

So the car just magically hit into the officer by itself? The wording completely defers any responsibility from Bell for ramming his car into an officer(while driving drunk).

2.) He wasn't "unarmed". He was ramming his vehicle into officers, and a car qualifies as a deadly weapon if you use it in that manner.

3.) The article also refers to him as having worked "odd jobs", when there is documented history that he was a drug dealer.

4.) Racism, racism, and more racism is what I keep reading. What Al Sharpton and others seem to be conveniently omitting is the racial diversity of the group of officers. Only one of them was white, and a black officer was the first to fire. Yes, this is mentioned in the article, but it's overshadowed by the rest of the article, which keeps going on and on about evil, homicidal, racist cops.

5.) Mentioning Randolph Evans in the opening paragraph adds slant to the article. Sure, it's kind of an interesting bit of trivia that it happened exactly 30 years before, but the inclusion in the opening paragraph gives the "insance, homicidal, racist cop" impression again. Besides, that was WAAAAYYYY different. The officer in that instance executed an unarmed 15-year-old kid at point black range. These officers gunned down a drunk drug dealer who was trying to run them over with his car.

Seriously, the amount of shots fired was excessive, but it's not like the officers went around looking for an innocent black man to kill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.181.145 (talk • contribs)

1) This particular sentence perhaps should be changed, but all of the changes so far have been far too POV. "Ramming", for example, would not be a neutral change.

2) Raymond Kelly, Guiliani, the New York Times, and the New York Daily News all disagree with you.

3) Sources? Relevance?

4) You want to provide some quotes to demonstrate this allegation?

5) Sure, take it out. I don't think it gives the spin you think it gives, but it's really not that important. Natalie 15:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1) The IP is right that the sentence is phrased in the passive voice that does not clarify whether Bell etc purposefully rammed the car into the officers/minivan or not - but that style is intentional. Currevtly it is known that the car did hit the police officer and the van, but whether it was intentional, reflexive or accidental is a point of contention. So it would be an error for wikipedia to pick a side.
Natalie has already addressed the remaining points. Abecedare 17:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2) what do Kelly, Guiliani, and newspapers have to do with what the law actually states? i'm not exactly sure since i havent looked at NY law, but many other states laws consider usage of a vehicle in an attempt to run an officer over as use of a weapon. Where the laws generally differ is if the police are allowed to shoot at said moving vehicle. 204.97.107.48 (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't either looked at NY law, or other jurisdictions' law for that matter, but I'm sure that statutes don't have to list a weapon for it to be considered a weapon. If something is used as a weapon, then ipso facto its a weapon. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the car qualifies as a weapon, and I'm confident that we could find sources to support the general, if not specific, case. The problem is that there are many sources (the NYTimes among them, IIRC) that describe Bell as "unarmed" with respect to a handgun. My preference is to avoid "unarmed" in the lead and categories, but note prominently that no handgun was recovered. There may be a section covering the various POVs where discussing the distinction (avoiding OR, of course) is relevant. Flatscan (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
2) so what do you think of NYS law which deems vehicles as deadly weapons? Who cares what opinionated newspapers and rudy giuliani have to say when the law is that clear?
3) Try reading stories that state this?
4)Tone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.145.40 (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous, maybe you should do some reading about the standards of inclusion here, and then provide the sources yourself if you want to include this information. Reliable sources have reported that New York law does not consider a car a deadly weapon for the purposes of assessing when deadly force can be used by police officers. If reliable sources are now reporting differently, please cite those sources. If the law itself is very clear, it can be used as a source. However, a vaguely written law is not an acceptable source because it would constitute original research, which is not published on Wikipedia. You have not addressed the remaining questions in any way, so I'll wait for you to say something constructive. Natalie (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, police policy prohibits firing at a moving vehicle, unless the occupants also present firearms, due to potential collateral damage if/when it goes out of control. I'm not sure if policy is law. I'll look up what the New York Times says; I've found their coverage to be very complete and reasonably balanced. Flatscan (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Patrol Guide: "Police officers shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly physical force is being used against the police officer or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle." (New York Times article) The article has additional commentary. Flatscan (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While that is true, Flatscan, I think it's important to note the ambiguous nature of the article (it is, after all titled "Police Statements Vary on Firing at a Vehicle", and how it basically says the rule is lip service and "at best, selectively enforced."

Apropos of nothing in particular, but interesting, here's a direct quotes from the NYPD Police Academy Students' Guide regarding discretion in the discharging of one's weapon:

"Because these issues are not addressed in the criminal law, a prosecution of a police officer who fired a warning shot or who fired at the occupants of a moving vehicle would be highly unlikely unless it occurred in circumstances in which a prosecutor could show a jury that the shooting had been criminally reckless or negligent."

Sheesh, mixed messages much? Ford MF (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't realize that article was already used as a source, as I found it through Google. I should have noted the ambiguity, and my previous comment appears to advance a POV with its omissions. Thanks for clarifying. Flatscan (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Whether he was "armed" should not depend on police response guidelines. If it's commonly accepted to use "armed" for anything that can inflict deadly harm then it should be used. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of POV issues

Before we learn of the man's life we get "Sean Bell, a convicted career criminal thug...". Nice sentencing...out it goes. Hesperides 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That was plain vandalism, which lasted roughly 5 minutes. Please feel free to remove it if you see it reappear. Cheers. Abecedare 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] What about the New York State Penal Law??

Lots of mention about the shooting being a violation of department policy but no mention of what actually matters in a criminal case - The New York State Penal Law. Even if there was no firearm in the car, the fact is that the vehicle struck a police officer and then struck a police vehicle. Being in fear for his life, the police officer is ALLOWED by the New York State Penal Law to fire at a moving vehicle. Don't believe me? Take a gander at Section 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person - subsection 2-a(ii) and also Section 35.30, 1-c Invario 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. Abecedare 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
New York State Laws,[1]

[edit] Move?

In the recent afd discussion, several people recommended that the article be moved. The argument was that, since the subject is only notable with relation to this incident, the article should be about the incident, not the person. Suggestions for renaming included Sean Bell shooting incident and Shooting of Sean Bell. Are there others? What do folks think of moving the article? Thanks, delldot talk 10:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bit late, I know, but I agree with you. I hadn't heard of this until today but it seems that the shooting itself is notable, as it didn't happen because he was Sean Bell, it happened to Sean Bell. having said that, Amadou Diallo has an article, so it's probably more hassle than it's worth to rename. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries, nice to get a response at all. I agree with me too :-P. Wouldn't be a hassle to more, I'd just click move, more or less. And seeing as there are apparently no strong objections to the move, I'd say we should go ahead. Now then, what should we move it to? Any preference for either of the two above, or any better ideas? delldot on a public computer talk 08:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Disagree strongly with move as per longstanding encyclopedic tradition for articles involving biographies (or quasi-biographies) of people really notable for only one event, or their intersection with that event, viz. Daniel Pearl, James Earl Ray or Kitty Genovese. Ford MF (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I have no strong feelings either way. I did notice that everyone in Category:People shot dead by police has a name article. I also notice that WP:BLP#Articles about people notable only for one event says "Cover the event, not the person". Of course, the whole reason we're reading about Bell is that he's no longer a LP. Seeing as I don't really care, I'll leave it to others to decide. delldot on a public computer talk 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball stats

"11-0 record, a 2.30 E.R.A. and 97 strikeouts in 62.2 innings" Does this means he is a talented player? Maybe some explanation would be good for us non baseball fans.F (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] African American

Sean Bell was an African American man... regardless if Michael Jackson's page states it or not, this whole incident has revolved around the issue that he is a black man who was shot unarmed. Perhaps the Michael Jackson article should state that he is African American. The argument that just because his article doesnt seem to hold firm ground. Just because someone doesnt leave a hurricane warning area doesnt mean you shouldnt too. Comments? Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is concerning the removal of African American from the lead by User:Drmagic, with the summary: "so is Michael Jackson. i don't see his header describing HIM as African-American". My opinion is that is that that edit is POV pushing, a flauting of concensus, and should be reverted. Can we get a quick concensus of uninvolved editors who've contributed to this article in the past, and then keep it or lose it? T L Miles (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

if it means that much to you, add the "African American" part back. i'm not a die-hard editor on here that gets emotionally wrapped up in minor edits. suit yourselves. Drmagic (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Add it back in Miles... I had added it back after an IP had removed it. I brought it here because I didnt wanna spark a revert war. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 15:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Seriously, folks should form their own concensus on these things (especially those, who unlike me, have been regular contributors here). This talk page is the place to do it, and I'l cheerfully abide by that. See Wikipedia:Concensus for those who may be newer to this. T L Miles (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

hey, there's an awful lot of info about his arrest record here. since sean bell's notability comes only from his murder, it's worth noting that his arrest record isn't relevant to his murder at all: the officers involved weren't aware of his identity as far as i know, let alone his arrest record.

this really needs to be clarified, because otherwise it conflates his criminal record with the events of the night (the shooting is why there is an article about him in the first place). i'm not saying we shouldn't mention his arrest record, but it should be made very clear that his arrest history had nothing to do with the shooting, except for the fact that it might explain why he tried to drive off.

Sean Bell was not murdered. The officers were cleared of any culpability in a court of law. Funny how you insist on wrongfully accusing the officers of a crime, yet want to cover up and exclude from the article Bell's own criminal past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.83 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there a source to cite his family descends from Africa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.145.40 (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] arrest record

i edited in something along these lines in very neutral language, stuck to the facts, i can't imagine that can be anything but constructive -- my edits were reverted by someone claiming they weren't constructive. i'm not going to be headstrong about this and insist on anything, so for now i'll leave the page as is so we can have a meaningful dialogue about this.

PS -- this is a computer lab computer - i operate from multiple computers with different IPs, and multiple people use this computer who may end up editing wikipedia.

128.59.34.151 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The arrest record is notable, if only because the judge took it into consideration, as well as those of the other two folks who were shot at, when making his final verdict. Its not our place to censore material. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should delete info about his criminal record. Look at the edit to the page which YOU deleted... the page should keep the info, as in the edit, but add ADDITIONAL information to clarify that the police were not aware of the arrest record at the time of the shooting. This way the issues aren't conflated. No "censoring" necessary. If that's all it comes down to, then fine, I can re-edit the page to the original edit (see the edit that you deleted, it's just added info about the cops being unaware of his arrest record), which won't involve deleting anything, and that will satisfy your desire that the page not be "censored," OK?

128.59.26.163 (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If the judge considered it in his/her verdict then yes, I would say it should be included somewhere in the article. Were it not for that though, I'm not so sure since it doesn't seem that relevant to the case (the officers were not aware of the record at the time of the shooting AFAIK). In any case, please refrain from bringing up censorship any time anyone discusses whether something is sufficiently relevant and noteable to mention in the article Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. I am not anon Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
So long as the article is titled "Sean Bell" and gives information about him, then information about his criminal past should appear in the article. If the article is renamed to be about an incident instead of about a person, and other information about the person but not the incident is excised, then perhaps there is then an argument that information about Bell's criminal past does not belong in there either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.83 (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it seems the article is now titled "Sean Bell shooting incident" and not "Sean Bell" -- does this change things? Anyhow, I maintain my opinion that the arrest record should be kept in there, but a comment should be added to clarify that the officers were not aware of his arrest record, so that the issues can not be conflated in any way by an arbitrary reader. 128.59.34.21 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sequence of events

The description of the events immediately surrounding the shooting are very vague. It currently reads:

Bell accelerated the car and seconds later hit an unmarked police minivan.

OK so at this point he is apparently still alive. The very next sentence says:

A toxicology report reportedly showed that he was legally drunk at the time of the shooting.

What shooting? When? Why? Even if this is just "one side of the story" that side's "story" is very incomplete. Is it being alleged that the police shot because of an auto accident? Do they usually shoot people who are involved in auto accidents? Hopefully not. So what did they think was different about this one? This story needs to be expanded significantly. 72.208.61.246 (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Article?

I know that I risk being branded many things for suggesting deletion of this article, and I assure you that my heart goes out Sean Bell and his family, but this article clearly violates WP:ONEEVENT, which states the following:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.

A similar policy can be found in WP:NOT#NEWS:

Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.

You may find discussion regarding deletion here.

I know this must disappoint many editors, but the existence of this article runs contrary to wikipedia policy. Screen stalker (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The article for delete's entry takes one to the first discussion... which was keep. Want to change this so we can weigh in? Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

When the hell are we going to get a decision on deletion. I WANT IT TO STAY FYI.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjohn (talk • contribs) 20:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

for what its worth. I looked to wiki to get information about Sean Bell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.38.77 (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

The entire retelling of the events the night he was shot are from the cops perspective. The details of his friends criminal record. This is a dissapointingly biased article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.38.77 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny -- I actually agree that this article is extremely biased and tells the story from the Police prospective. I work in NY and no one agrees with any of the articles summary. Bell never gased the car to leave, no one from their group said they had a gun, none of them were armed, and none of them caused any controversy in the club. The bare basics is that Bell's friends were having a bachelor party for him (yes they drank), and they were leaving the club. The police had 0 probable cause on why they shot at them, and never revealed themselves to be police officers. They were a group of black males out for a good time when the police, without any cause at all (not even DUI, they weren't pulled over), just opened fire on them. Sure, they had records in their past, but really what did that have to do with what happened that night? Very disappointing. Zodiiak (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
So one of Bell's friends said nothing about getting a gun? Bell didn't accelerate and strike a police officer with his vehicle?

[edit] Cops bio

Does any one have any information on the background of the police officers involved? Ages, how long they've been on the force, any past disiplinary problems etc. It seems to me like that would be very pertinent to what is happening.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope but you should try this website NYPD DATABASE Ron John (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron, being a smartass isn't helping anyone. Cowicide (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article cleanup and changes made therein

I've just made some changes to the article. I was initially motivated to move the birthdate from the introduction after "The Sean Bell shooting incident," but I made a few more changes in the process, just because some stuff was badly placed in the article or redundant with the exact same information in another part of the article. I mean, it's almost as if this article was written by a lot of different people who decided to make a few additions to the article that existed beforehand.

Besides reordering some of the content to more appropriate sections, there was some stuff I removed. Here they are:

Bell was buried in Port Washington, New York.

Some civilian witnesses at the scene support this claim, and pointed to Jean Nelson as the fourth man.

The officers involved in the incident were Officer Gescard Isnora, who fired the first shot, Officer Michael Oliver, who fired 31 of the 50 shots, and Detective Marc Cooper. The first two faced charges of manslaughter, reckless endangerment and assault; while the last named faced a lesser charge. Isnora and Cooper are African Americans, while Oliver is white.

Two of the five officers involved were black, one was white, one was Middle-Eastern, and one was of biracial black and Hispanic origin (Haitian/Mexican). The first officer to fire was black.(Editorial, Learning From Bell. 14 December 2006. Retrieved 23 December 2006.)

(2 of whom were also African-American)

First statement removed because it's a personal detail not necessary to the article.

The second statement removed because, after checking the citations attached to the statement, I didn't find any mention of the civilian witnesses identified Jean Nelson as the fourth man, only further information about Nelson after he was being discussed as the fourth man. Also, the text with citation following it in the article actually contradicted this statement by claiming that police reports record no witnesses as reporting a fourth man.

The last three statements are basically the same; they explain the racial makeup of the group of officers involved. I understand why this was stated: these explanations are an attempt to refute claims about racial profiling and a biased police department. The only probblem is that the claims aren't even in the article.

If someone wants to re-add the last portion, they need to:

  • Adequately cover claims of racism and bias. Attempting to demonstrate why a claim is baseless is useless if those claims aren't even made within the article.
  • Find a reference for the racial makeup of the officers. The reference contained within the removed text only states that at least one of the officers was black and that he was the first one to shoot. Details about the other four officers is not given.

-- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's going on?

Why was this 2nd nomination for deletion made to disappear? I voted there and now, I look at the 2nd link at the top of the page, and poof... my vote is gone. Did something go haywire here? The vote went basically the way I had hoped (not deleted), but I still find this odd. Am I looking at something incorrectly here? Cowicide (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That link took you to the first AfD... it is now fixed. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 10:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Current Events" notifier

Perhaps article should have a "current events" badge or some such thing at the top of it, due to the protest that is scheduled for 13:30 today and because of Al Sharpton's call for a NYC civil strike in the next few days. I don't know how this is done, so that's why I'm posting this message here. Sstteevvee (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I had one up... must have gotten lost in the move and vandals. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] categories

If the article is about the incident, not Sean Bell per se, it makes sense to remove "his personal" categories, for example category:1983 births. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Some background info is relevant to those involved in the incident and should be included. If it makes anyone "look bad" that's not an encyclopedia's problem. The background info (as long as it is brief, accurate and properly sourced) should stay. Cowicide (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Brew was referring to the cats at the bottom on the article... which have been addressed. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 21:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. Sorry guys. Cowicide (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unarmed versus armed

I am starting this section to split off discussion on a point that came up in #POV issues. Should we describe Bell, Benefield, and Guzman as "unarmed" or "armed" at any point in the article? The adjective "unarmed" is currently in the lead, most recently added by Ronjohn in this edit. It has been occasionally added and removed in the more frequent editing following the verdict. Prior to the verdict, it appears to have been stable in a slightly less prominent location in the Diallo sentence, e.g., this version.

I oppose including either "unarmed" (Bell drove directly at and collided with Isnora, presenting deadly force) or "armed" (the men did not possess a firearm) in the lead, as both are misleading without further explanation and advance a POV. I would prefer expanding the summary of the incident slightly to cover these points. Something like "The men did not have any firearms, but Bell was armed with a car" would work if the phrasing weren't so odd. Flatscan (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the lede should say neither "armed" or "unarmed". However, later in the article where detail and odd-phrases are more appropiate, it should be noted that they did not have guns but had a car.....--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree on all points. It is misleading to have in the first couple sentences in the article. Ford MF (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)