This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Black Lives Matter Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Law Enforcement Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. United States: Ohio Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio. Death Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Firearms Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Don't feed the trolls!

Bobby DiCello's statements are directly contradicted by the pursuing officers' reports of gunfire made during the chase along with the highway CCTV. This entire line just needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.167.226.134 (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is a blurry CCTV video definitive proof? The attorney makes the point in the New York Times article that all windows in Walker's vehicle are intact, which is a factual statement as far as we know. NPOV means taking accounts from all relevant angles with reliable sources! Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source says that a gun was found in his car. Seems like the gun is more than suspected. SEWilco (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree, but I think we should give it a little more time before changing anything about this issue. I'd like to see BCI's statement on the presence of a gun in Walker's car. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On average in the US, law enforcement officers kill (by shooting) about 3 people every day. Why is this shooting noteworthy enough to warrant its own article? Is the standard now going to be that every time a person is shot by police in the US they should have their own article? -or only if they happen to be black? That would mean about 300 more articles per year. Thus far there is no evidence that the shooting of Mr. Walker was due to racism, or indeed anything other than his attempt to flee, and his possession of a firearm; both of which have led to non-black suspects likewise being shot, but not resulting in their own WP article. And before anyone invokes the fact that it has received some media attention: it is receiving media attention because the media knows that the shootings of black Americans are sensational, and it chooses to focus upon them, but largely ignore their equivalents among non-black decedents. Cf. the killing of Joseph Hutcheson, who died in exactly the same manner as George Floyd, but Hutcheson was white, whereas the officer who knelt on his neck was black. Otherwise there were no differences between the killings, and yet unlike Floyd, Hutcheson's death got no media attention outside of Texas (where it happened), his family got no settlement, the officers who caused his death were not even reprimanded (much less tried and convicted of murder), and Hutcheson certainly got no WP article devoted to his death. So it seems to me that the phenomenon we are seeing is people prejudging an incident's notability simply because of the color of the decedent's skin -- perhaps even eagerly so. This should not be happening. Unless there is actual notability involved, Wikipedians should take a more circumspect position when it comes to creating new articles in immediate response to a death for which we have no reason to presume notability. Bricology (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umm hi, I think you need to check yourself. Is it common for officers to fire 90+ rounds at a suspect unless they are heavily armed to the teeth? This seems notable in itself, the extreme and disproportionate response by law enforcement. How often does this kinda thing happen? Fortunately it is the exception rather than the rule.

Either way, I don't understand your grievances here. If you don't want to contribute to the page, then don't, and feel free to create & edit the article about Joseph Hutcheson and the stuff that interests you! Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just a reminder that WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's right though - this is just sensationalism, not noteworthiness. 101.167.226.134 (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bricology: This talk page is not a soapbox for you to vent your irrelevant opinions. You have the option to nominate the article for a deletion discussion at any time. Spare us the off-topic ranting. ––FormalDude talk 02:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a high-profile killing involving someone who was supposedly unarmed and media coverage is high. Should we delete all other articles related to high profile killings then, like Amir Rice? It is notable, so it can stay in my opinion. 2605:8D80:625:5B3B:198E:41A:30BC:956 (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not notable, the media is just in it's usual state of hysteria. You can take it to WP:AFD where your nomination will go down in flames. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi LaserLegs (talk · contribs), of course it's notable. You didn't seem to think this was a homicide or a killing either! Are you struggling a bit with the facts of the incident? Maybe watch the bodycam footage that was released by the police. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah I saw the dashcam footage of him fleeing the scene, the areal still of him discharging a firearm wildly during a highspeed pursuit, the body cam footage of him refusing to get on the ground after exiting his vehicle and being tased and then being shot a lethal number of times. Seems routine crime blotter to me. "Man shot by police after firing at them during high speed pursuit" doesn't make headlines like "unarmed man shot 60 times" but of course the former is as accurate as the later. "Killing" and "homicide" both carry the connotation of being deliberate and illegal but I concede that WP:DEATHS has a different guideline. Let me know if you require any further clarification. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence yet of police brutality and the case is not police brutality until proven otherwise, this should be classified as a police shooting until police brutality is determined Afroman420 (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing that he is “black” because it is his biography, so it is important to keep it. Please refrain from making the article more irrelevant because it is important to this case and it is unfortunate that this is the way it was. 2605:8D80:625:5B3B:198E:41A:30BC:956 (talk) 09:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. 5 of the first six references mention him being Black (and not African American, FWIW). I will note that I've only seen one source mention the races of the officers (WKYC) so at the moment I think it would be UNDUE to include it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is getting vandalized repeatedly by multiple accounts, and the talk page is being trolled.

Please help! Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently semi-protected. Please note that the reverts you made to the article with the edit summaries stating that the other user was adding "vandalism" were, in fact, referring to edits that were not vandalism. Please familiarize yourself with what is and what is not vandalism before you make any more edits with a claim in the edit summary that you're removing or reverting vandalism, as your edit summaries in your reverts to this article were not correct. Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is a sensitive subject, but the title goes too far. Within a minute of police attempting to pull him over - with valid reason to do so - Walker shot out of the window of his car into traffic. Should the police have allowed this to continue? No, he had to be stopped. As we have seen in recent events - Newtown, Uvalde, the Colorado movie theater - shooters are usually armed to the teeth. Police had reason to consider him armed, dangerous, and a threat to public safety. I have no problem with condemning police when they are in the wrong. Eric Garner and George Floyd were MURDERED, plain and simple. They did not "die being taken into custody". They were murdered in cold blood. This is not the same situation. Titling this article "Killing of Jayland Walker" implies there was no reason for firing upon him and that his own actions played no role in his death. I realize this is not a popular opinion, and I thank you for hearing me out and reconsidering the title of this article. 96.228.55.112 (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. The title says nothing about whether there was any reason for the killing. And there's no question he was killed. To be clear, a justifiable homicide is still killing someone. (Note this isn't intended to comment whether this was a justifiable homicide, simply pointing out it doesn't matter.) We only title articles "death of" when the cause of not homicide or when it's unclear. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) for more. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that BLP applies throughout Wikipedia. While for the purposes of Wikipedia there's no longer any problem stating that George Floyd was murdered with the conviction of Derek Chauvin per Murder of George Floyd, the situation for Eric Garner is different. As no one has ever been convicted of murder, per Killing of Eric Garner, please refrain from calling it a murder on Wikipedia. What you do elsewhere is of course not our concern. Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "Death of Jayland Walker" is neutral and factual. If it's found to be other, we can move it later. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:DEATHS, because this is a homicide, it's "Killing" and not "Death" or "attempted arrest". "Killing" is both neutral and factual and, per global consensus, the preferred title for articles about homicides. Levivich^[block] 18:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, fine. WP:DEATHS has taken an overly simplistic view that should be revisited but this isn't the place to do that --LaserLegs (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is 60 gun shots, not 90 209.169.91.63 (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

90 rounds were fired; 60 hit Walker. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just that one local news report that gives the number 90 shots? If so, it probably isn't WP:DUE for inclusion or at the least should be attributed. Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen 90 reported in top-tier news reports. NPR says "at least 60", for example. Soon enough there will be an official report issues with the official number of rounds fired. Levivich^[block] 16:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime should it be edited to reflect this ie "the suspect was hit approximately 60 times" until a report on how many shots were fired is officially released Afroman420 (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

During the Akron press conference, the police chief clearly stated that: "The ME’s report indicates more than 60 wounds to Mr. Walker’s body. However, they’re still working to determine entrance and exit wounds, and this investigation on their end will take time." It's possible for a single round to make two — or even more — wounds to a body. Indeed, it would be extraordinarily unusual for someone to be hit by 60 rounds and have all them remain in his body—almost certainly many would have exited. I think many sources may have misreported this, but that's no justification for us including obvious speculation or misinformation in the article. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 17:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the biased opinion of the family lawyer from the official version of events, but User:Lard Almighty put them back together again. The sentence again reads: "Less than a minute into the vehicular chase, pursuing officers allege there was gunfire coming from the vehicle, although the family's attorney has questioned whether shots were fired." Of course the family lawyer will say the opposite of everything the police say. What's the family lawyer going to say, "yup, that's pretty much what happened!" This is why this biased and unofficial opinion was moved to the section called "reactions". The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because "official" opinions and police narratives are never wrong? : ) Hmm. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lawyer has questioned a specific part of the account (not stating the opposite of everything the police say). It makes much more sense to have that where the particular event is mentioned rather than further down in the article. Whether or not the lawyer is correct is irrelevant; he has questioned it, it has been reported in WP:RS and is therefore worth a mention in the correct context. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compare to Killing of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams where the police also said there was gunfire, went on a high speed chase, and shot 137 times. Until the facts of the case are settled in court or RS widely claim a fact (in a legal sense) to be accurate, then we can state it as such. Until then, if there is a dispute between two parties to a legal case, it's better to state that dispute. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legal case between two parties here. There is no legal case at all (one of the parties is dead). The family may sue, but they haven't yet, and they may not, depending on the results of this investigation. So I think it's too soon to treat this as a dispute between two parties to a legal case. Right now, this is an investigation, not a dispute -- we don't even have an autopsy report yet. Levivich^[block] 17:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree including it in the factual narrative part is WP:FALSEBALANCE. First, I disagree that RS is reporting that the "attorney has questioned whether shots were fired". RS reports that he said he has questions, not that he "questioned", which implies that he is stating it didn't happen. It'd be weird for him to suggest it didn't happen when it's on video, and police recovered a gun in the car and a shell casing in the road. Second, it's a WP:MANDY. Third, it's citing sources from July 2 or earlier, which is before the video was publicly released on July 3 (the attorney had seen it prior to July 3, but not the press). In my view, any source published before July 3 is now outdated and shouldn't be used at all. Fourth, the attorney's comment is a reaction and should be in the reactions section. It's not like the attorney is saying he did any investigation of his own, he is literally and purely reacting to what he was told/shown by the police. Levivich^[block] 17:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have changed it to "although the family's attorney said he has questions about that part of the police account." I do think it belongs there, because that is where it is in context. It's not a "reaction" in the same way that the other things mentioned in that section are. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that change. But now it's even clearer that it's a reaction. The article should have a part that says "what happened" and a part that talks about "what happened after". The attorney having questions about the police narrative is something that happened after. I'm sure the attorney has questions about every part of the police narrative--not just the car shot, but the stun gun, the alleged firing position, the handcuffing, the reason for the initial stop... I'm 100% sure the family attorney has questions about all of it. He's said as much in interviews. Are we going to write "although the family's attorney said he has questions about that part" after every part? Just one sentence in the investigation section (if not reactions -- I hate reactions sections anyway) saying the attorney has raised questions is sufficient, IMO. Levivich^[block] 17:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "Reactions" section is about reactions to the shooting, ie "because of the shooting X happened or Y didn't happen". What this is a reaction to the police's statement about the shooting, not the shooting itself. There is a difference. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it should be in the investigation part. There are three investigations going on: the local police department, the state, and the attorney's. The attorney's questions are part of the attorney's investigation. In the factual narrative section, we say "the police said" because the police were a witness and we're relating an eyewitness report; the attorney wasn't there and isn't a witness. We don't need to (and shouldn't) in the same breath convey the witness report and also what other people later said about those witness reports. Levivich^[block] 17:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Doesn't matter if DiCello was there or not. The attorney can make a factual statement about the car windows being fully intact without having been there during the night of the shooting, obviously. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree with Levivich. There are any number of people who may have any number of questions about an event, but those unanswered questions do not belong in the factual recitation of that event, which should be based on sourced facts. The police allege that Walker fired, and they have provided evidence to corroborate that. If someone credibly and specifically alleged that did not happen, or that their evidence was flawed, then we might include it. But a plaintiff attorney's general "questioning" of a police narrative is not the basis for any factual reportage of the underlying incident. ElleTheBelle 17:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there support to divide the sections like Killing of Andrew Brown Jr.: "Police statement" and "Statements by Brown family lawyers"? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As in any such story, we should expect further evidence which is not released deliberately by the authorities to change our understanding of what happened. I don't think, by itself, the fact that the police have "provided evidence" in the form of video snippets and stills should mean that we don't mention the lawyer's comments, just because he hasn't provided evidence, when so far no one other than the police has had access to any evidence and the police haven't been compelled to release anything against interest. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think some folks are also missing a bit of the nuance of the lawyer's statement. Mr. DiCello mentions that car windows have no bullet holes and are intact, perhaps pointing to a limitation on directionality of any gunfire from Walker, if any did occur. Police make no statement on where their vehicles are positioned in the CCTV footage, though I assume they are all behind Walker's vehicle, but this is obviously an assumption, and I'm not trying to push original research.

All we know for a fact, from the lawyer's statement, is that Walker's car windows are intact, which I think is an important point. If we are to include factual evidence and statements from police, then factual evidence from other sources is just as important as well. This is why we rely on what reliable sources say! We don't get to pick and choose.

I think it is an unsettled question whether Walker "shot at police" or simply shot out of his window, or even if he fired a shot at all. Lots to be answered by follow-up forensics, especially if the shell casing the police alleged to have found matches with the handgun. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed all mentions of DiCello for now. I fully agree with Levivich that including his opinions in the article would be a case of MANDY; since he represents a dead client (Walker), his various denials should be treated as if they came from Walker himself. The "fact" that the car's windows were intact is questionable at best as long as it's coming from DiCello. Philroc (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just seems strange to favor the official police narrative because as GordonGlottal (talk · contribs) mentions above: "the police haven't been compelled to release anything against [their] interest." For example, why is audio excluded from numerous body-cam footages that were released? Some of the officers' camera footage includes all of the audio, while other clips only reveal partial audio.

I strongly disagree with making assumptions about the veracity of DiCello's statement. How can you assume this? Seems like WP:OR to jump to this conclusion. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to point out the obvious: DiCello's statement was shared by The New York Times and they have fact-checkers. That's not our job & that's why we trust reputable sources. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DiCello is an attorney who was paid to defend Walker and his family, so of course he's going to be biased towards them. I'm not trying to say that his claim about the car's windows is unfactual, just that we should leave it out of the article until it's corroborated by a third party. Philroc (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was printed in The New York Times and they have professional fact-checkers. If it is found to be incorrect, they will make an update to the story. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And couldn't we say the same thing about information coming from the police and the police union? That "we should leave it out of the article until it's corroborated by a third party"? That's not how it works. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Philroc It is not our job to judge the accuracy of factual statements for ourselves, or to decide when they're "corroborated" enough. If the NYT frames it as he-said-she-said then that's how we have to frame it, even if editors personally disagree. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this statement. Two of the three sources do not mention "homicide" and I can't find any others that do. The only mention is in the third reference from USA Today and it seems unlikely because all that's been released is a preliminary report. If there are other reliable sources stating that the ME office ruled it a homicide then fine, but until then it seems more likely to be an error at USA Today for which a retraction will never be published. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-reverted with a new CNN source. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CNN source is fine, adds context. Please get rid of the other two, they make not mention. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's interesting to me is that a CNN article after having reviewed the preliminary report makes no mention of "homicide" [1] --LaserLegs (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it doesn't contradict and our policy is to trust CNN that they'd correct. I agree with @Levivich btw, probably the reason why they don't bother to note it again is that it doesn't add much except that it rules out him being dead before they shot him, which no one has ever claimed. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LL, it's a fatal shooting. That's always a homicide (even an accidental fatal shooting is a homicide), by definition, unless it's a suicide. And with 60 wounds, it's obviously not a suicide. Not to mention the body cam footage showing eight people shooting at him. "Homicide" means a person killing another person. I'm really surprised that you would question "homicide"; this is the world's most obvious homicide. Anyway, the Washington Post, among many other top sources, have noted that the ME ruled it a homicide. Levivich^[block] 18:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I go with what reliable sources report not my feelings or opinion and GordonGlottal has provided a better ref so I can stand for now till the ME report is released. The number of rounds fired is totally irrelevant, by the way, as one is enough to be fatal. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really feelings or opinions, it's the definition of the word "homicide". One cannot seriously question that someone who was shot ~60 times was the victim of a "homicide". Of course that's going to be in the sources; a simple Google search for "jaylen walker homicide" confirms that. I'm all about providing sources, even for the obvious, but this is a case where the sources were already cited inline (to USA today), other sources in the article also verified it, more sources are easily found should anyone question it, and the underlying content is sky-is-blue level of obvious. In other words, removing this statement and questioning its veracity is WP:POINTY and disruptive--it makes needless work for the rest of us. If you wanted to improve the sourcing -- add something in addition to USA Today, or remove the two-out-of-three that didn't say "homicide" -- that would have been cool; removing the sentence and questioning its veracity was not cool. Levivich^[block] 18:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more sources!
Akron Beacon Journal: 'Everybody loses,' Akron chief says of police shootings; family says 'That's not Jayland - June 29, 2022

"The Summit County Medical Examiner’s Office said in a news release Wednesday that Walker, 25, died from multiple gunshot wounds and gave the manner of death as homicide."

CNN: Ohio police officers on paid administrative leave after fatal shooting of Jayland Walker - July 1, 2022

"The Summit County Medical Examiner's Office did not release the autopsy record to CNN but confirmed Walker's death 'is ruled a homicide and is considered a confidential law enforcement investigatory record.' "

Hopefully that helps. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]