Talk:Plummer v. State

Request for Comment - Internet meme section

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the Internet meme section of the article be replaced with the following (between the three dash line on top and bottom):

---

Plummer v. State, along with Bad Elk v. United States, is cited in Internet blogs and discussion groups but often misquoted. A number of fringe websites purport to quote both cases, using the exact same language:

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306 [sic]. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."

The above Plummer v. State quotation is a fabrication because the quoted text does not appear in the text of the Plummer opinion. Several other sources note that Bad Elk is no longer good law, what one legal commenter stated was a "bizarre, irrational or merely grossly wrong understanding of law...." Modern sources describe Plummer and Bad Elk as applying when there is an unlawful use of force rather than when there is an unlawful arrest; under contemporary law in the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

References

--- GregJackP Boomer! 04:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Please limit entry to Support or Oppose.

• Support, as proposer. GregJackP Boomer! 04:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• oppose contains unreliable FRINGE sources like Infowars, and contains BLP policy-violating content, which is also WP:OR, in the parenthetical comment in citation #3 describing the authors Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC) (tweaked w/out redaction Jytdog (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC))
• Support: Wikipedia's rules exist to make articles better, not the other way around. The rules almost always result in a better article, but there are exceptions. WP:MEDRS is one good example; a special set of rules for a class of articles where following the normal rules makes the articles worse. WP:IAR specifically tells us "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." and this is a perfect example of an article where we need to apply that. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures." This article was just fine the way it was for the last few years. It doesn't need "improving" by taking out content after we worked very hard and came to a consensus. Please read those previous discussions before opposing. We had and still have good reasons to make the decision that we made. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and Delete the entire section. I have given many reasons previously in other areas of this talk page. Mostly there are no secondary sources, such as law reviews, that qualify as appropriate WP:RS talking about the subject. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support -- I see nothing wrong with the way it is. Rules are there to be broken and I'm happy if those rules are broken if it means it's a benefit to the article. Cassianto^Talk 06:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - contains unreliable FRINGE sources like Infowars. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support I'm OK with the sourcing for the specific purpose, and the phrasing seems appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The editor was warned by an admin that infowars is a problematic source. The text The above Plummer v. State quotation is a fabrication because the quoted text does not appear in the text of the Plummer opinion.[4] failed to pass V policy. The source being used does not verify the text being proposed. The RfC should be stopped. QuackGuru (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. No issue with the use of Infowars as a primary source supporting text stating that Infowars published something. But there are issues with OR, V, and NPOV (due, tone) which are not ignorable. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Infowars is a literal fake news site, it should not be cited for anything, anywhere outside Infowars. ValarianB (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and Remove (possibly retaining a few words along the lines of "it's frequently misquoted/mischaracterized" in the preceding section if there are sources that say that it's frequently mischaracterized). I feel like I must be missing something for this to be at all controversial. As far as I can tell, none of these sources characterize it as an Internet meme but appear to be examples of mischaracterization (and I'll revise and take my lumps if I'm missing something -- I've only come across this via the RfC template at WP:W). Looking at a couple different versions, it seems to be different shades of OR in this regard. For any subject we can pull several sort-of-reliable-sometimes sources (that are nonetheless demonstrating unreliability in this case) along with some terrible sources to say "people are wrong on the Internet sometimes," citing IAR for something that's useful to the reader. The article can be clear about what the law does/doesn't say/mean without lending credibility (WP:PROFRINGE) to an incorrect interpretation by acknowledging it in this way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and delete. It's bad enough when WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are violated using reliable resources, but this is one when someone has inserted a bunch of unreliable sources to do the same thing. Statements like "none of the sites listed properly cite the cases, and none of the authors have any apparent legal training" might be true but this is original analysis. I completely disagree with those who think that ignoring these rules improve Wikipedia. -Location (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support I think some of the Oppose votes are misinterpreting the usage of the Infowars source. In particular User:Govindaharihari and User:ValarianB. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Opposer and delete section. Unnecessary compilation of OR and lack of RS. L3X1 (distant write) 13:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Commment, the proposed language is very similar to what the community consensus was at the end of several discussions in 2015 with several changes. First, two ABA Top 100 Blawgs were found as sources, Simple Justice by Scott Greenfield, a criminal defense attorney in NYC. That blog was a Top 100 Blawg from the first ABA listing until 2012, when it was placed in the ABA Blawg Hall of fame next to SCOTUSblog. The second, Hercules and the Umpire, was a blog by U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf, which was also an ABA Top 100 Blawg in 2013 and 2014. Both blogs are/were widely read in the legal community. Note that the four references cited for the indented quotation are not necessarily reliable sources, they are fringe, as noted, and are cited as an example of how the law is misinterpreted and misapplied. Greenfield noted in one of the cited articles that the goal should be to make people more, rather than less knowledgeable. I believe that the proposed language does that as well as accurately reflex the sources. GregJackP Boomer! 04:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The use of the blog to refute FRINGE sources is fine. The use of the FRINGE sources and the parenthetical OR comment are not. Per WP:PARITY you can use a something like a blog by a reliable authority to describe and debunk FRINGE stuff; citing the FRINGE stuff itself is not OK. This is well established. Will post a notification of this RfC at WP:FRINGEN. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Parenthetical comments are part of the Bluebook citation system and are not OR. You've been told this on numerous occasions, by a multitude of editors. GregJackP Boomer! 04:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Citations are within Wikipedia, and WP:OR is a Wikipedia policy. Bluebook style for formatting citations does not create a magical policy-free zone where editors can write WP:OR. Wow. The parenthetial remark also violates WP:BLP - you are proposing to add comments about living people - negative ones - to the article without sourcing. So a double policy violation, actually. Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I cannot hear your words (saying that certain parts need to be reworded) because of your deafening actions (deleting the entire section). Fringe sources such as infowars are acceptable as sources for the opinions of infowars itself, and fringe sources that are widely discussed by many reliable sources and quoted by many other fringe sources are prominent adherents of the fringe views in question. General comments about infowars by reliable sources establish that infowars is a prominent adherent of the fringe views held by infowars. There is no requirement that reliable sources cover every one of the batshit insane things that Alex Jones says. In fact when Jones says things like "no one died" at Sandy Hook Elementary School and that the victims were "child actors", that the World Order replaced his wife with a lizard person, or that that top Democratic officials were involved with a satanic child pornography ring centered around Comet Ping Pong, a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C., is it any wonder that reliable sources focus on those stories rather than his claims about Plummer v. State? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't delete the section, i moved it to the talk page for discussion because it was contested. This is entirely normal and I fully expected we would move it back when it was agreed upon. While I personally agree with your assessment of Jones, putting unsourced OR about a living person in an article is way out of bounds. more importantly there is no need to cite infowars. It is always better to rely on secondary sources than a pile of primary sources for a claim like the one we want to make in the article about this being widely misconstrued. Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

First, there is no BLP violations, and to claim that there are is both stretching and disingenuous. Nothing negative was said in a parenthetical. Next, you've brought up the parenthetical/OR issue on almost every legal article you've seen that was authored by a lawyer using the Bluebook citation style. Everytime you've done so, consensus stated that it was not OR. I've offered to work with you on legal articles and legal citation style, but you have refused, yet you have not become competent in either. You've got to step up and catch up if your going to be successful in this particular area of the project. GregJackP Boomer! 06:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You cannot write what you did about living people without a reliable source in WP. Cannot. And as I already said, it is la-la land that some citation style creates a magical bubble within WP where you can violate OR and BLP. La la land. Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure I can. Nothing in the parentheticals were negative nor untrue. GregJackP Boomer! 07:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There are DS on BLP for pete's sake. No you cannot just write whatever you want about living people. I am not entertaining this further but feel free to keep digging your hole here. Jytdog (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me, that you want to drop it now, you haven't identified exactly what was a BLP violation, other than just a vague assertion. There was nothing that was either negative or derogatory towards anyone who was living. As is your typical method, you start making all sort of allegations without evidence. GregJackP Boomer! 07:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not dropping, just no point responding to you further. Jytdog (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think that you could identify anything that was negative or derogatory. GregJackP Boomer! 07:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course I did, several times. I will keep saying no as long as you keep misrepresenting me. Boring, but whatever. Jytdog (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Question. @Guy Macon: In your !VOTE above, you suggest that we should IAR; which rule are you suggesting we ignore? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• May it was ignoring this or maybe it was ignoring WP:OR policy. QuackGuru (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Say Infowars is removed, what do editors think about the veracity of the other sources that are cited alongside it? El_C 11:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• They are all crap. For example, the bottom of the rayservers link states "Posted by ChiefSteve http://www.myspace.com/chiefsteve". -Location (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• All? Please be thorough. Let's avoid generalizations and be detailed in our responses. El_C 12:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've looked at all of them and I think my generalization of constitution.org, rayservers.com, infowars.com, and freedom-school.com is accurate and should suffice. If you disagree, you can make your case for which of those are good sources or take it to WP:RSN. -Location (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have no opinion. But I want serious engagement. El_C 13:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• You really want serious engagement that something cited to "ChiefSteve" in MySpace is not a good source?! Come on. You've been on Wikipedia for longer than I have. -Location (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Looking for something more articulate and expansive then "[t]hey are all crap." Serious engagement please. El_C 14:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Commment Firstly, the parenthetical in the source is a blatant BLP violation (on top of OR) and has to go. To say a bunch of living people are uninformed or unqualified to give an opinion on a subject is definitively a negative claim. No matter the truth of the claim, a negative claim about a living person has to be attributed to an RS that is discussing that particular person. The second Greenfield source doesn't address any of the fringe sources being used specifically. In fact it's talking about a friend's subreddit that has nothing to do with any sources being used here. The argument that such parenthetical use is a common legal citation style has no bearing here as we're not writing an essay or legal commentary. If the citation style violates policy it can't be used.

I also have a problem with the quote itself. Who is this quote attributed to? The Infowars source doesn't seem to have that full quote in it. We're not quoting an actual decision here, it's a made up, so someone had to make it up to begin with. I'm not comfortable with a quote attributed to a bunch of sources, at least one of which doesn't even contain it. If this meme is even notable, then the proper way to deal with it per FRINGE is to use qualified RS that specifically both define and refute it. If Greenfield is qualified, for instance, then you could use him to say that these decisions are often misconstrued on internet sites then use his quote that is already there. Fringe internet memes that don't originate from a particular source, but are simply popular now, need an RS to say so to be notable. It's not like, say, a specific fringe claim made by an already notable person. In that case the fringe claim may simple inherit notability form its already notable source if that's what the person is mainly known for. Capeo (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2019

I don't get this site... I posted facts showing the court case in question is not a meme... The other person quoted a blog... I don't get this site at all... 2600:1700:4000:9F90:49FB:2C24:B495:6FAC (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. See the discussion directly above. El_C 18:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Why do you censor info?

Ray Rosas a hispanic man shot 3 of them, legally. "CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas — A Nueces County jury that acquitted a man who shot Corpus Christi police officers executing a raid on his home said a “botched” operation and contradicting testimony led to their decision." https://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/249036006-Man-accused-of-shooting-Texas-officers-aquitted/

Henry Magee killed one as well. "DALLAS — A Central Texas man who shot and killed a sheriff's deputy entering his home will not be charged with capital murder, attorneys said Thursday. A local grand jury declined Wednesday to indict Henry Goedrich Magee for the Dec. 19 death of Burleson County Sgt. Adam Sowders, who was part of a group of investigators executing a search warrant for Magee's rural home." https://www.policeone.com/drug-interdiction-narcotics/articles/6815003-No-murder-charge-for-man-who-fatally-shot-Texas-deputy/

Jessie Murray a black man also has killed one... "Murray’s account of what happened during a 2014 bar fight was that Forest Park police Officer Nathan Adams jumped Murray and Murray accidentally shot and killed Adams. " https://www.ajc.com/news/local/murder-charges-dropped-against-man-trial-for-shooting-death-former-officer/yGKSqDSNl1GUdlBbRcLJ4N/

"Two Maryland police officers were shot while serving a drug-related search warrant at the wrong apartment late Wednesday, according to law enforcement officials. The resident shot the officers as soon as they opened the door, thinking they were home invaders, authorities said. No criminal charges will be filed against the man, Prince George's County Police Chief Hank Stawinski said Thursday." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maryland-police-shot-prince-georges-county-entering-wrong-home-search-warrant/

Daniel Szabo shot at coast guard members trying to board him and was only charged with failure to stop since the boarding was illegal. "A federal jury has found a man accused of firing at a U.S. Coast Guard crew not guilty of both weapons charges handed down in an indictment by a grand jury in September.

Daniel Michael Szabo, 41, was facing a possible life prison sentence for charges of trying to kill a Coast Guard officer during a boarding and using a firearm while committing a violent crime.

But jurors on April 6 only found Szabo guilty of failing to stop his vessel when ordered to do so by the Coast Guard." https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/florida-keys/article71016982.html

Hell Tupac killed 2 cops. Why do you censor info? why call it a meme? This is why people don't respect wiki. "In October 1993, in Atlanta, two brothers and off-duty police officers, Mark and Scott Whitwell, were with their wives celebrating Mrs. Whitwell's passing of the state bar examination. The officers were drunk and in possession of stolen guns. As they crossed the street, a car with Shakur inside passed them or "almost struck them". The Whitwells argued with the driver, Shakur, and the other passengers, who were joined by a second passing car. Shakur shot one officer in the buttocks and the other in the leg, back, or abdomen, according to varying news reports. Mark Whitwell was charged with firing at Shakur's car and later lying to the police during the investigation. Shakur was charged with the shooting. Prosecutors dropped all charges against the parties" It's ironic since its also on your own site... I just don't get these mods. When you cite info/fact and they choose a blog over it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupac_Shakur#Legal_issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4000:9F90:49FB:2C24:B495:6FAC (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the current article has many problems with sources, but most of the comments above are WP:SYN. WP wants sources that discuss these cases with respect to Plummer. That somebody shot a police officer and was not convicted does not mean that Plummer applies. The defendant must know that an officer is attempting an arrest. Off-duty officer in plainclothes? Why would the D know the person is an officer? Was the off-duty officer even attempting an arrest? Waking up from a sound sleep because some unknown person is trying to bash your door in? The person waking up does not know they are police. I do not doubt the court cases, but most of them seem distinguishable from Plummer. Glrx (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

None of the cases listed involve Plummer, nor, for that matter, is Plummer even applicable to the jurisdictions in which the shootings occurred. GregJackP Boomer! 06:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

"The defendant must know that an officer is attempting an arrest. " Nowhere does it say that, literally nowhere, that's your interpretation of the law. But here ill give you the benefit of the doubt. Say it did say that. 2 of my sources cops say they announced themselves. Shooting at a coast guard boat with coast guards on-board, trying to pull you over,ramming them, etc doesn't qualify as "must know that an officer is attempting an arrest." Really... Im sorry, but call me crazy on that one but wow, really? In Magee's case the officers did say they announced themselves.... That was their defense... Why don't you try reading before denying? This is why I called out a lot of mods on this thread. "I believe the evidence also shows that an announcement was made," Renken said. "However, there is not enough evidence that Mr. Magee knew that day that Peace Officers were entering his home." Anyone will say they don't know who is entering their home, Plummer v State/Bad Elk v US be damned. Its just a good defense for a lawyer to present. "but is no longer considered good law in a growing number of jurisdictions. Most states have, either by statute or by case law, removed the unlawful arrest defense for resisting arrest." Plummer v State/Bad Elk v State is a federal ruling. Bad Elk v US it isn't restricted to single states, or a single jurisdiction, it's once again federal. You guys also changed my post there... Yet only the Supreme court or Court of Appeals can overturn a Supreme court decision(s) ,that has never happened here. No one can find it and cite it since it was never stricken down. Hence you using a blog as a citation and/or no citations at all. They(the justices) would have to literally vote on it to change the law. It would be easy to find if it happened. This is another reason why I call this entire article out people don't read and rather go off blog websites. PoliceOne is a police officer website... One of my articles is one of their safety articles... The fact you call it a meme when multiple sources contradict that is just insane to me. Please do not respond to me/my posts again, I don't like dealing with trolls(someone who won't even read my sources) I will also refrain from commenting towards you. (Enjoy the last word if you so choose)

"Plummer v. State, along with Bad Elk v. United States,[19] is cited in Internet blogs and discussion groups but often misquoted.[20] The misquote is that "citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary" although the Plummer quotation is a fabrication because the quoted text does not appear in the text of the Plummer opinion" It's funny since if you pull the case up its right there... Page 537/538. If I can upload the PDF of the original case I can as well... https://casetext.com/case/john-bad-elk-v-united-states

Undue weight towards alleged widespread false belief

The following sentence should be removed from the lead:

It is widely quoted on the internet, under the false belief that it gives citizens the right to resist an unlawful arrest by force, including deadly force.

It reads like the author is trying to tell the reader that if they learned about Plummer v. State from the internet, then what they read is probably an urban myth. I think this accusatory language should not be in the lead. I think an objective summary of the facts of the case would be better suited for this article's lead. If there is a widespread false belief on the internet related to this case, it can be addressed in later sections. Putting it in the lead makes it seem like it is central to the topic, which in this case I don't think it is. Additionally, the distinction between the allegedly widespread myth and the reality of the court decision is a fairly small one, which is another reason why I think it is wrong to make "urban myth" the focal point of this article.

Parthian Scribe 04:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)