Jump to content

Talk:Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

[edit]

Protestors should not be described as left or right wing. Not all counter protesters are right wing and not all protestors are left wing. Labels like alt-right and far-left are not neutral terms; they are weasel words.


If wikipedia wants donations, clean up the phrasing on these political pages. 73.90.54.13 (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bias post Rittenhouse

[edit]

The "known for" headings in this article are extremely biased and untrue. Please either get rid of them or establish the fact that Aaron Danielson was actively attacking someone else. He was no victim, per the same logic as a sitting judge in Kenosha County. Thank you. 2601:601:9900:26F0:90BE:F5A6:F689:BA84 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He wasnt exactly notable ("known") for his activities as a white supremacist, so hence why "Murder Victim" is more appropriate. Whilst 'victim' might not seem the best term, I can't think of anything better to state that his notability came from the fact that he was murdered. As far as I know "murder" is an unlawful, deliberate killing of a person. Since it seems that this was the case, murder seems appropriate. As far as victim goes, I hope Merriam-Webster don't mind me copying this,
Definition of victim
1: one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent
such as
a(1): one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions
a victim of cancer
a victim of the auto crash
a murder victim
(2): one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment
a frequent victim of political attacks
b: one that is tricked or duped
a con man's victim
Whilst the words in italics definitely don't apply to this err, person (?), the words in bold do. Hence, victim. The only way of making it more neutral might be to change it to "victim of unlawful killing" or "homicide victim" since no-one was actually convicted of his murder, and I'm pretty sure we don't say "Murder" until someone is convicted? Mako001 (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A big difference from the Rittenhouse case is that there's no credible claim of self-defense in the shooting of Aaron Danielson. While Rittenhouse literally ran away from all the people that he eventually shot, Reinoehl literally lay in wait, hiding in the entrance of a parking garage until Danielson walked past him, then came up behind him and shot him execution style. Reinoehl could have simply kept waiting in the parking garage until Danielson was far away. While it's true that the judge in the Rittenhouse trail didn't allow the people who were killed to be called "victims" - since the point of the trail was to determine whether they were in fact victims or assailants - there's literally zero evidence that Danielson was an assailant or attacked Reinoehl. I mean the whole incident was captured on video.... I know that the Rittenhouse and Reinoehl incidents happened around the same time, so many have tried to draw parallels between the two, but they're really not comparable at all. -2003:CA:8703:C838:D8F2:5ACD:E0C:7332 (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Alternate Mako: dead people aren't convicted of crimes. "Murder" is fine in this case, and certainly no different than the euphemism "unlawful killing". VQuakr (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: forgive me, but what is the legitimacy for describing Reinoehl as the "victim of shooting by law enforcement"? Alssa1 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alssa1: as noted above, a victim is "one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions." VQuakr (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, so in a similar vein one could be a victim of a parking ticket? Alssa1 (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not typically... do you mean like from a paper cut? VQuakr (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A parking ticket is simply a notice served of a minor offense. Shooting someone to death is... a rather different thing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you incur a parking ticket, you arguably suffer financial hardship and therefore could be considered the "victim" of a parking ticket. If you gain a paper cut (at least from the interpretation of the definition you offer) you are a victim of a paper cut. However, I don't think such a utilisation of the term 'victim' is useful, and there are a number of other definitions provided by reliable sources that offer a far better definition without the connotations of the current usage. Importantly, Reinoehl is not dead due to a murder or an unlawful killing so the use of the term 'victim' in reference to this case has connotations that are illegitimate in my view. Alssa1 (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you incur a parking ticket, you arguably suffer financial hardship and therefore could be considered the "victim" of a parking ticket.
I'm sorry, but that's stretching the definition of "victim" to the breaking point. You might as well say that any fee imposed upon you makes you a victim, therefore you're a victim of hunger (because you have to buy food). It's nonsense and not helping your argument.
Reinoehl is not dead due to a murder or an unlawful killing
That has yet to be determined. An investigation into the police shooting is still ongoing. Hence the term "victim" until shown otherwise. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not stretching the definition at all, I'm applying it to a perfectly reasonable situation. You may not agree with the example, but that doesn't undermine the validity of the application. Now in regards to your assertion that "the term "victim" until shown otherwise", that is nonsense. Victim is a loaded term that is not currently used by any of the reliable sources currently on the page, furthermore I am not the first person to register a disagreement with the use of the term. With NPOV in mind, I don't see how it can be legitimate to keep the term on the page in the context. Alssa1 (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm applying it to a perfectly reasonable situation.
No, there's nothing reasonable about claiming a person is "the 'victim' of a parking ticket." And since we can't even agree on that, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will make a neutral change in line with the sources. Alssa1 (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, knock it off. Your straw man above was sophomoric and WP:GAME-y. VQuakr (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you don't have a reliable source to justify writing "victim of shooting by law enforcement", therefore it shouldn't be on the page unless you can justify it. Second, if you're going to accuse me of breaching WP:GAME you need to be specific about what part of the guidance I'm breaching (with evidence). If you can't you're amusingly in breach of WP:AGF. Alssa1 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, given this edit was implemented without sources or community consensus to justify it, it should not be on the page. Alssa1 (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't play dumb; your parking ticket thing was pathetic. We don't need a source to define common words. We have consensus here on the talk page, you just don't happen to agree with it. VQuakr (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My parking statement was in line with the interpretation provided, your disagreement does not justify your aggression in this matter. If you're going to suggest that a particular terminology is neutral in an ongoing case, you need sources to justify its usage at least with some sources that use the terminology. Finally, there is no consensus (though a need for sources is not countermanded by a simple consensus), I did not start this original dispute... Alssa1 (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The OP objected to the description of Danielson, not Reinoehl. You are the only editor that's complained about the Reinoehl infobox. We already have multiple cites in the article that state Reinoehl was shot by law enforcement; we don't need cites for every word and we don't need a cite for this in the infobox. What if we change to the synonymous "killed by law enforcement"? VQuakr (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would happily accept "killed by law enforcement", that is neutral terminology. Alssa1 (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

[edit]

Remove line "Witnesses stated that officers opened fire without warning.", not exactly a fact or confirmed outside of a news article. TinyKeyF (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It's a fact that witnesses stated that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove duplicated and inaccurate material from the Introduction

[edit]

The phrase "President Donald Trump commended the U.S. Marshals for shooting Reinoehl,[11] described his death as "retribution",[12][13][14]" appears twice in the Introduction. The latter instance, with its own paragraph, seems to have been added with the intent to draw more attention to the former president than is due in this article, and should be removed.

Additionally, based on the cited source, the phrase "claimed the execution was carried out at his direct command" is inaccurate, and should be removed; the then-president claimed to have sent in US Marshalls to "get" Reinoehl, adding that they shot him. The source does not describe the event as an execution, nor does it support that the killing was requested at the then-president's request. (From https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/presidential-debate-case-western-reserve-university-cleveland-ohio: "TRUMP: I sent in the US Marshals. . . TRUMP: . . .to get the killer of a young man in the middle of the street and they shot him.") --71.40.21.239 (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the repetitive sentence. There might be a case for restoring, in some form, the final part of the sentence (the part that isn't repeated) – that this event was mentioned in a presidential debate is surely significant – though I agree that we'd need a source calling Reinoehl's death an execution in order to call it that. "Direct command" doesn't seem too objectionable to me, but directly quoting might be just as good. Pinging RH Swearengin, who added this content, and FDW777, who removed it once before. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BanditTheManedWolf: You've restored this without explanation; it would be useful if you could clarify your reasoning here. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I did not see the discussion here and neglected to add an explanation for my edit; this is a bad habit I have. I did so since I felt it was significant enough to mention. Per the discussion had here I've changed the description from "execution" to what it is currently. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current version looks good to me. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, too - thanks both for your contributions 71.40.21.238 (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to the discussions on the edits here, so please forgive any ignorance in this regard. I came across this wiki and looked at the debate clip as cited [17] https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/protests/portland-protests-antifa-proud-boys-president-debate-trump-biden/283-22fe041b-dde6-45c6-8209-ca2952515bc9
It seems to me that the use of partial quotations like "sent in" and "get" in the second paragraph, leave room for claims that they were taken out of context. Further, the statement that directly follows by President Trump seems more appropriate "I had to send in the U.S. Marshalls, they took care of business.". While I can see the argument that the use of the verb "get" is important, I think that the use of the phrase "took care of business" is as well. Would it be appropriate to add this quote? Perhaps in this fashion:
President Donald Trump commended the U.S. Marshals for shooting Reinoehl, describing it as "retribution". President Trump claimed to have personally "sent in" the U.S. Marshals to "get" Reinoehl, stating "I had to send in the U.S. Marshalls, they took care of business." during the first presidential debate with Joe Biden.
Thanks Wandering.Workhorse (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Murder suspect"

[edit]

@Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 has reverted an edit that changed "murder suspect" to murderer, in the description of what Michael Reinoehl is known for. Why? Reinoehl confessed to the murder, on camera. Why dispute this? Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed above. In short, "murder" is a specific word referring to a legally charged crime, and Reinhoel was never found guilty of murder by a court of law. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I will change it, then, from "murder suspect" to "killing of Aaron Danielson", since that is not disputed by our sources. Harry Sibelius (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl&oldid=1241388654"