Talk:Daniel Faulkner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. |
[edit] Summary
I suggest that the paragraph
"Daniel J. Faulkner (December 21, 1955 – December 9, 1981) was a police officer in the American city of Philadelphia who was shot and killed in the line of duty by Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal's trial, conviction, and death sentence has gained international attention."
be changed to
"Daniel J. Faulkner (December 21, 1955 – December 9, 1981) was a police officer in the American city of Philadelphia who was shot and killed in the line of duty. A journalist named Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted for the murder. Abu-Jamal's trial, conviction, and death sentence has gained international attention."
It is a more neutral statement that gives the same information as the present version, without immidiatley asserting that Abu-Jamal was the killer, which undeniably is a controversial statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.135.226 (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Use of "allegedly"
The word allegedly refers to a suspect in a crime before or after arrest and trial but most definitely prior to conviction. Once a criminal is convicted of a crime, the crime is no longer alleged unless the conviction is overturned. In the case of Daniel Faulkner's article, use of the word alleged or any of its derivatives is a blatant attempt to politicize the article. -- crash77mike 2005/01/16 17:02 GMT
- That is true based on laws of libel, but legality aside there is still a question. Now, although before conviction it is compulsory that one use the word "allegedly" it is not necessarily wrong to use the world after conviction. Whether or not the man is convicted, the charges against him are still allegations insomuch as the world "allegation" does not imply either innocence or guilt. Saying that Jamal killed Faulkner, regardless of conviction seems to unintentionally invalidate the alternative theory. Either way you use the word, it will be a politicized article. I would say that he was convicted of killing Faulkner but that conviction is widely disputed. I hope that was coherent. Joe 05:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Avoiding the use of "allegation" or any related term, I altered the phrasing concerning Faulkner's murder to reflect that Abu-Jamal was convicted for Faulkner's murder without stating definitively that he committed it. His guilt, however, has been legally established, and without addressing the legitimacy of the proof of this in detail, I nevertheless believe this should preclude avoid further dispute about the way the article's introduction is worded. Since it's such a hotly-contested subject, I think the use of "alleged" in referring to the actually act of the shooting is admissible, at least until someone comes up with something better; I don't think it's too much of a weasel word to say that Abu-Jamal allegedly fired on Faulkner - this is, after all, the allegation in the charges brought against him. The fact that this allegation was legally substantiated doesn't mean it's no longer an allegation. --75.3.52.33 09:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, that Faulkner put a bullet into Mumia is well-established, but the order in which the bullets were fired is not. I rephrased to "Faulker also fired" rather than "Faulker returned fire" or anything of that sort to preclude the obvious claim by supporters of Abu-Jamal's innocence that he couldn't have been "returning fire" if Mumia never fired. It's clear enough that Faulkner fired at some point, that a bullet from his gun struck Abu-Jamal, and that Faulkner was also shot, but I think judgment ought to be reserved if possible on the other details of the shooting to avoid framing this as either a plain cop-killing or racial profiling and police brutality; the whole affair is certainly quite controversial enough as is. --75.3.52.33 10:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
" journalist, political activist, and member of the Black Panthers", If by journalist and political activist you mean 'a person that makes a violent comment on someone elses radio show, ONCE' then sure, mumia was a journalist and a political activist.
Uh, i'm not trying to argue or start anything, but it wouls be nice if someone could say that Mumia has only been accused of killing Faulkner, and not saying that Mumia did kill him like it was a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.173.147 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Saying that Mumia "has only been accused" is not accurate. He has been accused, tried, and convicted of the murder. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] POV Concerns Addressed
As any reasonable POV concerns appear to have been addressed, I am removing the POV template, as per instructions at Wikipedia:POV_check. --ThorstenNY 04:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Phrase "in the line of duty" disputed
Editor User:AntonioMontana has twice removed the phrase "in the line of duty" from the lead sentence:
Daniel J. Faulkner (December 21, 1955–December 9, 1981) was a police officer in the U.S. city of Philadelphia who was shot and killed in the line of duty.
The first removal was made with edit summary "less POV", and reverted by me with summary "This is not POV, it's simple fact. An officer being 'killed in the line of duty' says something quite different than an officer being 'killed'." The phrase was removed again four days later, with summary "Whether or not he was legally in the line of duty is certainly a subject of much controversy. Please do not revert."
Never one to shy away from an absurd waste of my time to prove a point, I googled for "line of duty"+"daniel faulkner" and got 222 hits. I didn't see a single shred of support for such a ridiculous theory among them, or any reference to any such "controversy".
Among the 222 hits, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in its response to an Abu-Jamal appeal stated:
In the underlying trial, a jury found Appellant guilty of first degree murder in the December 9, 1981 shooting death of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. Appellant was also found guilty of possession of an instrument of crime. At the conclusion of the penalty phase hearing, the jury found one aggravating circumstance, the killing of a police officer acting in the line of duty, and one mitigating circumstance, no significant history of criminal convictions. Finding that the aggravating circumstance outweighed the mitigating circumstance, the jury returned a verdict of death.[1]
Even this Amnesty International article calling for a retrial of Abu-Jamal states that Faulkner died in the line of duty.
I have again reverted the change. Before making this edit again, please bring it up here on this Talk page, with your sources. --CliffC 04:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good catch. There's no controversy. Faulkner was on duty when he was shot, therefore by definition he was shot in the line of duty, it's that simple. There is no argument about this, and I fully support your reversions. I'll try to keep my eye on the lead-in edits. Ford MF 14:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Links to the *official* day-by-day trial transcripts and appeal records?
When someone makes an statement in Trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal or elsewhere like THIS, it would be nice to correct it by citing the official trial transcript or appeal record. Citing a document at http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com doesn't look very convincing because of where it's hosted, and in this case the site doesn't seem to include any shell-casing testimony, at least not that Google can see. I did find two good cites elsewhere, but I think it's more convincing to link to the official documents. Also the use of frames for the trial transcripts at justice4danielfaulkner.com doesn't seem to allow a direct link to one day's transcript, unless I'm missing something. --CliffC 23:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Leads on another source to these documents? Anybody? --CliffC 00:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Father helped bury Faulkner
My father was in the Undertaker busniess and helped bury faulkner. he was also a member of the philideplhia pd for decades.
[edit] How about a better photo? The one we have is only 100x125px
Can someone upload a better picture of Faulkner in uniform? The one we have is ridiculously small. There is a nice uncropped 282x300 version of the 100x125 Faulkner pic we use at http://www.thepolicenews.com/DanielFaulkner.jpg that would work well, but I don't know if we could claim that the same copyright applies. There must be some others out there. --CliffC 10:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Honestly?
Do we really accept Mrs. Faulkner's take on the events as an actuality to what happened? The unfortunate thing about these events is she wants the side of justice that's best for her. Being a middle-class white woman, she'll be listened to much more than Abu-Jamal. Even if Abu-Jamal were guilty, it's a shame how he's been brow-beat for his crime even after receiving the punishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.202.98 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Daniel faulkner.jpg
The image Image:Daniel faulkner.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
-
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
