Talk:2015 attack on Dallas police

Weapons used

The article and news reports current report that the suspect used automatic weapons. Anyone have an update on that? There is a big difference between automatic and semi-automatic even with someone with a quick trigger finger. Most recent press conference here in Dallas just talked about the weapons used through the portals on the sides of the van to make it seem like multiple people were inside the same and that they don't think the weapons were actually automatic but would confirm later on after investigators comb through the burnout shell of the van and that could take a few days. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Death of suspect

I added unconfirmed death as per Dallas police's response to AP calling the suspect dead.

• Maj. Max Geron ‏@MaxDPD 6 minutes ago Believe it likely - unable to confirm until van is cleared and officers can move in. Confirmation is premature DPD Twitter

Heyyouoverthere (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Later the police confirmed the death Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability?

There were no deaths (other than the suspect), and no injuries. Given the scope of things that happen worldwide, how is this notable? I would send this to AfD per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. In addition there was only one suspect whom investigators believe acted alone. [1][2]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep for now Let it get edited further and fleshed out. Editors are way too quick to cite Not News in brand new articles such as this one.Juneau Mike (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay I am fine with that, right now though I don't see notability in this event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep for now The way I see it, it definitely doesn't qualify for WP:ROUTINE, keep for now until we can really see if it qualifies as WP:NOTNEWS. - SantiLak (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep for now, agree with the comments above. Prioryman (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep for now as per the above. I've been watching the local Dallas news and will see how long it remains in the headlines. Judging from this morning's news, it seems to be dying off. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Excessive bias

As it's clear and obvious within the article, the individual's actions were inherently rational even if detestable in the eyes of everyone else involved. This conclusion can be reached by noting that the individual was not mentally ill with any real mental illnesses(sorry, but made up "illnesses" such as aspergers, most cases of depression, and anger aren't real mental illnesses and can't be used to get an insanity verdict in court) and his actions weren't due to the use of, or withdrawl from, narcotics. To add to all this, this shooting wasn't a reaction from any rare embarrassing or shameful thing(eg him getting caught for something or secrets coming out that'd ostracize him) that could cause an overreaction due to him being singled out since, lets be honest, people losing custody of children is not only a common occurrence but, as everyone knows, is due to a biased and inherently oppressive system designed to ruin(or prevent) the lives of children within the underclass and would thus be common, and understandable, within his social circles.

With that being said, and with bias in these articles being common especially when the defamed subject is too dead to have a voice, its understandable that Wikipedia would have slanderous articles especially when they are about crimes where more valuable/favored members of the American population are the victim of the "barbaric underclass". However, as this article points out, 0(zero) members of the more valued members of society were killed and its unclear if any were even injured. As a result, this bias is thus unacceptable and appears to serve more as a means of posthumous humiliation than even as "justification" for a blue blood's death or injury. Now let me be clear: I'm not trying to say that all Americans are equal since Wikipedia has openly supported the idea that some Americans(often due to the ethnic or national identity of their ancestors and/or their cultural characteristics as handed down) are just sub humans fit only summary execution after a life of social exclusion. What I am saying is that this article's bias is so flagrant and petty that 3 changes need to made in order for it to at least appear unbiased:

1) The article needs more clarity regarding who was injured/killed especially for editors so that they can identity what clearly looks like an anecdote within police break rooms and not the retelling of an event.
2) As the article isn't capable of making the case that the suspect was irrational -- either due to real factors such as mental illness or intoxication or, on the other hand, due to fake mental illnesses(eg aspergers, depression, etc) or exaggerations of drug use(eg blaming pot or cigarettes) -- then the article must be changed such that speculation and hearsay is either removed or treated as opinions that are subject to bias and not devoid of critical analysis. For instance, the article should question WHY the suspect was angry at family members and/or an ex and WHAT it was that they did to prevent a peaceful resolution of this conflict as it was a family dispute that only involved the legal system after it intervened. And, judging by the retaliation against that legal system by a rational individual, it was either an unjust system or a flawed one that benefited unjust parties. A rational individual only threatens family members and shoots at cops for 1 reason: its the only way they can get justice. Face it; the 2nd Amendment wasn't there to protect the right of the people to overthrow governments(the armed military can do so for the unarmed masses) - it was there to ensure the punishment of unjust activities by ensuring that the people could always get justice even if the act of doing so would be illegal and cost them their lives in the process. The suspects actions were most likely rational and the bias in this article - far from serving the interests of the legal system - is openly pandering to corruption and ethnic/national suppression.
3) Since no police died and the use of force was questionable in its nature(snipers herald the arrival of bodybags, not handcuffs), there's no moral reason for the article to side with them and/or trash the suspect. As such, while their actions can be forgiven even if questionable, the suspect must also be given the benefit of the doubt and not publicly ridiculed on this site. The article should either be deleted as evidence of Wikiepdia's urban northern Yankee bias or re-written as a dry article treating everyone involved equally without speculation over motive. This wasn't a terrorist attack or an ethnic genocide where the criminal activity was done due to irreconcilable differences between peoples(or, if it was, the event was justified due to it being retaliation). The suspect's actions were restrained(the family members would've been much easier to kill), undertaken in the name of justice, and don't appear fundamentally irrational considering the stated grievance.

tl;dr either blank the article or get rid of the blatant bias and posthumous ridicule. No cops died and this was over a custody/family issue which often end in violence due to a broken and/or biased legal system that's incapable of justly resolving such conflicts. When public executions were common, the dignity of the condemned was respected by covering their faces. This article eviscerates the dignity of the suspect/perpetrator of a crime despite such crime being neither irrational nor petty. Child rapists, corrupt dictators, and destructive psychopaths get better treatment than this on wikipedia.

As an individual who has personally suffered from a divorce where my mom got custody of my brothers and I after lying under oath and using sexism within the system to her advantage, I wish every day that my dad would've killed her and/or the trash that let her get away with such injustices which have led to years of suffering. I hope and pray that my mother will one day understand how selfish and wrong she was but, the same system that let her get away with years of child abuse is also the same system that provided her with excuses for the suffering her illegal and unjust actions caused. 2604:2D80:442D:8179:949D:610A:B30D:F197 (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)