Talk:Danziger Bridge shootings

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

Renaming[edit]

I propose that the article be renamed Danziger Bridge Shootings. The problem is the word "Massacre". The reasons are twofold:

  • None of the external links describe the event as a massacre.
  • A massacre denotes a form of mass killing, of multiple deaths. While the shootings at Danzinger Bridge resulted in the deaths of two people, it would not be described as a massacre. Otherwise any form of shooting or violence that kills two people could be described as a "massacre".

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danziger 7[edit]

Since this is currently the term being used in the news and perhaps likely to be searched (it's what I tried,) maybe that should link here? I don't really edit wikipedia and I have no idea how stuff like that works, or I'd give a shot at doing it. ~Erik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.238.171 (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research?[edit]

"Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death." -- literal text from paragraph 4 of Title 18, section 242 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes#section242) Due to the explicit nature of this paragraph, the 'original research?' section on the article should be removed immediately, and I'm doing so now. 71.198.161.36 (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

update on Hunter case[edit]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/01/ex-cop-sentenced-katrina-shooting-coverup/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.219.3 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why?[edit]

I came here for some more info on the case, especially the reason for the shooting, but can't find anything in the article. Is there any info on WHY the cops shot the victims? Was it a misunderstanding? Racism? Boredom? What? 109.178.194.114 (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, there needs to be some background here. This article is all about pleas and aftermath, and nothing about the actuall shootings.o0drogue0o 22:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs)

Motive allegation[edit]

A user has repeatedly inserted into this article that the motive of these shootings was racism, but the only sourcing so far is this: [1]. Ugly stuff, but since we have seven shooters here (the primary one of whom was African-American), I think a more reliable and broad source needs to be found to update the infobox. I note that CNN, The Times-Picayune, the BBC, and the New York Times did not describe these shootings in coverage yesterday in terms of being racially motivated, and the federal prosecution does not appear to have pursued that line of argument. I could well be wrong, as I'm no expert on the case; I just like to see nasty allegations be clearly sourced.

I won't pull it out again for now, as it would be a violation of 3RR, but I would suggest that this material be better contextualized, rather than written as an unsubstantiated accusation against all seven men. (I've attempted to do this here [2]) For that reason, I've also posted to WP:BLP/N about this issue. Khazar2 (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed as undue the infobox claim that the reason for all these crimes was racism - no officer has any racism conviction and so it seems completely undue. - Youreallycan 15:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, thanks. Khazar2 (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Racial stereotypes may have played a role in the motivations for the shooting and actions of the shooters, but that issue has been primarily explored in less public blogs and editorials on the incident and the coverup. Given numerous other incidents involving other racial mixes in the aftermath of the hurricane, including several incidents of white police attacking white citizens and a black police command staff ordering the forced disarmament in primarily white neighborhoods thus provoking eventual political reprisals from the mostly white NRA, the overall reporting of the incident probably should remain as a police brutality issue but with some notations that some of the shooters were in fact nonwhite and I think it would be appropriate to point that out somewhere in the original article. The Danziger Bridge shootings were the most publicly severe case of police brutality in the aftermath of Katrina, but by no means at all were an entirely isolated incident. Reports of looting, rape, murder and mayhem are an ongoing subject of discussion among many critics of the government response to Katrina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.222.193 (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surrounding Circumstances Motive[edit]

The circumstances surrounding the shootings were that video documentation shows cops, military and anyone with a gun and uniform were brandishing their weapons at everyone they saw for weeks after Katrina. An often repeated video shows General Honore repremanding his troops for pointing their guns at civilians and told them repeteadly to "put them damn guns down, I ain't going to tell you again". Video documentation shows there were cops and civilians looting. Video documentation shows cops using the threat of their weapons and of color of law to threaten video whitesses of their looting. Video evidence shows numerous cops drinking alcohol in uniform. Some online sources claiming to be cops from Arizona claim they came upon some NOPD oficers engaged in looting and were threatened at gunpoint by the NOPD officers to go away or they would never get away. The Arizona cops calling backup additional NOPD officers appeared, drew their weapons and sided with the looting officers driving the Arizona officers away at gunpoint. The Arizona officers reported the incident to their command who told them to fire upon any officer who brandished a gun at them. The following day the Arizona officers were taken off looting patrol. 98.164.89.190 (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'murder' should not be used in describing this incident[edit]

I note that this article currently includes 'murder' in the infobox, and is categorised in Category:Murder in Louisiana. I'm going to remove these for WP:BLP reasons. Simply put, a living person who has not been convicted of murder should not be described by Wikipedia as a murderer. 'Murder' is a legal judgement, and the police officers in this case have not been convicted of it. The same could be said of 'police brutality', but I think that's less problematic as it's a less serious allegation (and frankly, hard to argue with here), so I'll leave that in the article. Robofish (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

conviction table?[edit]

The list of guilty verdicts might be easier to read like this:

  deprivation of rights under color of law using a weapon during commission of a crime of violence conspiracy obstruction of justice civil rights conspiracy other
Kenneth Bowen 6 counts 2 counts 1 count 2 counts 1 count  
Robert Faulcon, Jr. 6 counts 3 counts 1 count 2 counts 1 count  
Robert Gisevius, Jr. 5 counts 2 counts 1 count 1 count 2 counts  
Anthony Villavaso II 5 counts 2 counts 1 count 1 count 1 count  
Arthur Kaufman     1 count     4 counts of falsifying official records in a federal investigation, 3 counts of false statements, 2 counts of civil rights conspiracy for false persecution

—Tamfang (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Danziger Bridge shootings. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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) 17:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote[edit]

Would anyone mind if I added a {{Distinguish}} hatnote: Not to be confused with Danzig Street shooting (and a similar one from there to here)? My thinking is that there is some similarity in the titles and subject matter, that it might aid navigation. Reidgreg (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 April 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Danziger Bridge shootings (September 4, 2005) → Danziger Bridge shootings – This is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with no secondary topic, no disambiguation is warranted. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Or, how about "2005 Danziger Bridge shootings"? It's often helpful to tell readers in the title when something occurred (the parenthetical is just kind of a non-standard way to do it). Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot support leading with the year when it (a) isn't necessary to differentiate from another article, (b) isn't part of the common name for the event, and (c) makes an unnecessarily long and cumbersome article title. With notable events, the year quickly loses meaningful association with the event. It's the Kent State shootings, not the 1970 Kent State shootings, the Boston Tea Party not the 1773 Boston Tea Party, the September 11 attacks not the 2001 September 11 attacks, etc. Article names are chosen for recognizability, not to provide possibly helpful information to the reader. P.S.: the parenthetical is the standard way of disambigutating on the English Wikipedia. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. No need for the parenthetical qualifier "(September 4, 2005)" since Danziger Bridge shootings already redirects to Danziger Bridge shootings (September 4, 2005). Would also support, if there is consensus, the above suggestion by Paintspot Infez. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this could have been promptly reversed as simply a disputed WP:BRD page-move. But now that we're discussing and someone has proposed yet a third option, no harm in leaving the RM open a bit. However, I would propose to closing admin a default to undo bold move rather than requiring a positive consensus to the RM as posed. DMacks (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Wikipedia:Article titles policy, which notes that "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that...balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." (emphasis mine). Unless there were multiple shootings with the same location, that means the date is not necessary. And no part of the policy is for the title to help category-lists to be fully self-explanatory. DMacks (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also Talk:Jackson State killings (May 15, 1970)#Requested move 17 April 2021. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

jazz composition by Chief Xian aTunde Adjuah, and article[edit]

Not sure exactly how this may fit into the Danziger Bridge shootings article, but it seems related and relevant. Maybe a new sub-section on "Responses" could fit.


Jazz trumpeter and composer Chief_Xian_aTunde_Adjuah (formerly Christian Scott) from New Orleans, released in 2012 a musical piece titled Danziger reflecting on these shootings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFMED-Q4KAE (10:38)


Additionally, James Gordon Williams wrote a critique article on the Danziger musical piece, published in Jazz Research Journal circa 2020 (which unfortunately may require purchase for access).

https://journal.equinoxpub.com/JAZZ/article/view/16888
https://experts.syr.edu/en/publications/christian-scott-atunde-adjuahs-critique-of-the-danziger-bridge-sh-2

Donfede~enwiki (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danziger_Bridge_shootings&oldid=1209696743"