Talk:US: Florida school officials and resource officer recommended psychiatric observation 2 years prior to shooting

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Review of revision 4386426 [Not ready][edit]

@Pi zero:, sorry got a little ahead of myself. AZOperator (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@AZOperator: In the lede as it now reads, the actor is the investigation, and what it did was reveal. This sounds odd. An investigation seems more naturally an action by an actor. Who is doing the investigation, and in what way do they reveal? Btw, generally best to avoid verb reveal as it's suggestive of endorsement; a neutral verb such as say or announce, perhaps. --Pi zero (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4386665 [Not ready][edit]

Review of revision 4387158 [Not ready][edit]

Lede does not answer 'when'; article needs to be in past tense[edit]

Just a couple thoughts. --Gryllida (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Old article made fresh[edit]

With the audiotapes newly available and better knowledge of who, what, where, and how, this thing got so out of control is again newsworthy. The article is lengthy as it is, but in the original piece there was references to gun control policy. Looking at it now, it should be standalone, just too loosely related. Also, the mental health part of Nikolas Cruz was in the original article, but that too I think should be standalone. Any thoughts? AZOperator (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Scot Peterson's Image[edit]

I have looked through the commons and government source for a publicly available picture of SRO Scot Peterson. It seems like all the Florida pictures have been purged, like he never even existed. If anyone has one, please put it in the article. AZOperator (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4389393 [Not ready][edit]

I am going to do my best at addressing things, I understand this is a really complex piece:

  • (1) I have it as BCO radio traffic and FBI updating the timeline. FBI is running the show.
  • (2) What happened live-time is very important in showing the full failures of police actions. The traffic shows how unorganized the response was. The timeline also catches the SRO in a lie that his lawyer had to walk back.
  • (3) I will refer you to the actual audio sourced at the bottom of the article and was always sourced at the bottom of the page.
  • (4) The article was not intended to talk about Cruz. The blurb about him being the prime suspect and changing his plea, I thought was overkill but needed for perspective.
  • (5) It's current state is not ideal but not mentioning it would make it disjointed otherwise.

I am open to any other suggestions. AZOperator (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Refocus edit timing[edit]

1. "With the recordings released, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released an updated situational timeline including the suspect, police, dispatchers, leadership, and medical actions." does not say who or when released the recordings.

2. If the refocus target date were Thursday (like it currently is in the leading paragraph now), this would be stale. A refocus on Friday (or later) is required. A Friday refocus would only work in the case a reviewer is able to review this today.

--Gryllida (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I cleared up the audio release by BSO. If you are asking about the FBI agent in charge, I do not think it is important. The actions documented in the audio content and updated timeline was the intended scope. I really want to change it to Friday since that is when the SRO's lawyer walked back his statements.

AZOperator (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible Next Refresh[edit]

I understand this story has exceeded its freshness criteria. From news and investigators, the SRO will have to be charged with something, what that is no one knows. Essentially, a publicity stunt to place accountability or appear to be doing something about the shooting.

Again, that is a gut feeling, so I would like this article to be granted development status for 3 additional weeks. If after those 3 weeks nothing notable happens please delete. AZOperator (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4390507 [Not ready][edit]

The sources now address the Satz issue brought up in (1). Additional sources were added supporting the subject (2). I wrote the section on Cruz's action in jail to address (3) - but when you really read the articles it sounds like 'hearsay' evidence. Please take a look at that. As for (4) extending the timeline past the assault day is beefing up an already beefy article. AZOperator (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Update on the comments:
1 - I still couldn't find "Satz" in the first two sources - Not done
2 - article now has two sources - Fixed (thanks AZOperator)
3 - connection of video release to this (and the timing) in the lede are unclear - the lede is confusing about this and it is not clear who or how released the footage - Not done
--Gryllida (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you are missing understanding the role Satz plays on Wednesday - which is absolutely nothing. The change of plea from 'standing mute' to 'not guilty' involves the judge and the defendant, that is it. The only reason for Satz in the article is to explain the state is seeking the death penalty.

There has been a lot happening this week so I will look at it again. After this, I am going to need help with the lede because this is the best I can do. AZOperator (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay thank you! Gryllida (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


The diagrams are a local upload, but do not specify a source. Also, I don't think it can be claimed that they are part of "breaking news". Furthermore, I don't see any reason why a free alternative cannot be created. Therefore, they fail fair use policy and are subject to deletion. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. --SVTCobra 17:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I took those out of the WikiCommons, and appear to be a product of USA Today's coverage. The very last source is where those images came from. By all means find a more open source option. AZOperator (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Can you add the Commons link to the file descriptions? Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


Is it supposed to say "not guilty" in the title? Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It does now! AZOperator (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4390752 [Not ready][edit]

I understand that this is a beefy article with a lot of information, so I will cut you are little slack here. Splitting it up in to the sections is a bit untraditional for this site but I can understand the thought process. With that said, all of the references to video or audio are directly provided by the links going to the source files. You also can review an edited version by several articles linked. I would direct you to the audio and video files presented at the bottom of the page which are clearly documented.

To answer your question about being charged, per your civil rights you have to be charged with a crime within 24 hours of your detainment, remember Habeas Corpus. That is called the initial arraignment. A second arraignment is scheduled later, allowing the prosecution to get all the information together then give it to the defense, typically called the discovery file. The second arraignment, called the formal arraignment, lists out what the defendant will by tried on. In between these two arraignments you can have change of pleas and plea deals which could negate the formal arraignment, those are called conflict resolution meetings or pre-arraignment hearings. Yes, I understand that is unbelievably complicated, but when the founding fathers specifically said a more perfect union, as oppose to an absolute perfect union.

I think I cleared up the issue with the unanimous decision by referring to the diminished capacity. You only have to convince the judge or one person on the jury, in the case of Florida, to say he is diminished in any form and it is life sentences.

If you wanted that paragraph on the request for 'standing mute', there it is. Making it more complicated. Also the legal definition is also referenced at the bottom. Have a look. AZOperator (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Florida school shooting suspect faces death penalty, appears silent in Court[edit]

Is there any chance these two articles can be incorporated into one? --SVTCobra 23:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra:, have a look at this form. It has gone from being beefy to being one of those 72 oz steaks. Gryllida, split the page into sections, which is unusual but I can understand the thought process. I am trying for a "week in review" kind of deal. The sources have also been separated to the corresponding sections, for the ease of reviewers. After that, there really is nothing I can do. All of this stuff is interwoven.

As always I'm open to other ideas. AZOperator (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4391098 [Not ready][edit]

I'm trying my best here, but there is a lot of stuff. AZOperator (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4391172 [Not ready][edit]

(1)Yes the lede is a bit vague only because it covers a weeks worth of information release. I still might have a trick up my sleeve regarding the refresh. I am not waiting until April. The April hearing is not an arraignment hearing, so don't let any other article about Cruz say it is an arraignment.

SVTCobra had a similar misunderstanding. The legal system requires all people to be arraigned within 24-hours (there are some exceptions). That is called the initial arraignment. There is a second arraignment, called the formal arraignment which spells out exactly what the prosecution is going for, which can change from the initial arraignment. In this case the formal arraignment tacked on 17 counts of attempted murder. At this time, the prosecution must turn over all evidence, typically called the discovery file. In between the arraignments you can have pre-arraignment hearings to change pleas or accept plea bargains. The April hearing is a status update hearing, which basically asks if the prosecution and defense are ready to go to trial.

(2)Whenever I mention the video feeds, I refer directly to the actual video. I had told you that earlier. There is no spin if you go straight to the source.

(3)I broke up the source to correspond to the sections. Yes there is a lot but it is easier then reading that whole article and try to verify the information via aggregate.

(4)I got something breaking Today.

Thanks, please write at least two paragraphs about the Today event. Now it is not clear what the bakers act is or who did what along these lines (and when). Needs two supporting sources. Regarding sorting sources perhaps at least sort your sources subsections so that oldest subsections go last - then readers may find fresher sources easier to locate? Gryllida (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest to leave out the enormously long timeline for now. Say if you are writing about the defendant being mentally deficient as a result of a recent investigation or assessment, it may be relevant what he did at the school (and you have some bits and pieces about that :-)), but what a policeman did and how a policeman moved on the school campus and what a policeman said on the radio is already far, far less relevant (while it may be relevant if there is major progress in the investigation or legal proceedings against the said officer :-)). Similarly, if the matter comes to trial of the suspected shooter one day, some parts of the timeline would perhaps be of huge importance there and then. --Gryllida (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It seemed a little poetic, these two individuals basically destroyed each other. I will look into the advice and go from there. Thank you, AZOperator (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)