Talk:Killing of Ashli Babbitt

Title is misleading

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.

---

Calling this "Killing of Ashli Babbitt" is inaccurate, in that it implies she was singled out as a target for killing when she was, in fact, a domestic terrorist who was lawfully shot by a police officer while she was violently rioting. Title should be changed to "Death of Ashli Babbitt." Moviethings (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no evidence she was a terrorist. Even if there was, killing and death are really synonymous. Nor does killing imply unlawful, I can be killed by a falling tree. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

She participated in the violent attempted insurrection, by definition a terroristic act, ergo she was a domestic terrorist. Moviethings (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Others might argue she participated in a riot, and no insurrection (by definition) is not terrorism, it is insurrection. Terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.", as far as I am aware no one has produced any evidence she did anything more than trespass. Bye the way insurrection is "insurrection a violent uprising against an authority or government.", again there is no evidence she was in fact violent. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

We do not make our own conclusions like that. We go by what reliable sources say. Regardless, the title is correct per WP:DEATHS. Just as with the Killing of Eric Garner or Death of Jeffery Epstein EvergreenFir (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Moviethings's complaint is obviously problematic, but the current title ("Killing of") _is_ unCOMMON -- the desire to standardize nomenclature across articles is laudable, but standardization erases the nuances provided by RS in each article -- they seem to refer to the case as a "shooting" more than a "killing". It's not the end of the world, but we can do better. Feoffer (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. An essay doesn't determine "standardisation". WP:COMMONNAME, which is legit a core and consensus part of policy, clearly applies here, and strongly argues for death of Ashli Babbit. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

She was killed, she did not die of natural causes. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

it's still missleading anyway, you are just playing woth word there

a thrue neutral would be "death of ***", that one used here clearly isnt choosed for no reason 2A02:2788:A8:179:43:FF78:3A9:8293 (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

She was killed; she didn't just "die". There was a human actor who caused her death, and did so through a deliberate act of violence against her. The fact that it's considered justifiable homicide ("killing someone", full stop, isn't a crime in and of itself, and most people don't necessarily consider all "killings" to be immoral; murder is, manslaughter is, negligent homicide is, etc., but not self-defense) doesn't make it not a killing. I also think "shooting of [blank]" article titles are silly as that wording obscures the lethal outcome of the shooting. You can be shot and not die. You can be killed without having been "murdered". WP Ludicer (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

why wasn't the fact that she was unarmed mentioned? If she was black it would have been in the first sentence!!! 98.144.202.141 (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Would it, give an example of an article about a black person killed in pursuance of a crime where we say in the first sentence he was unarmed? Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

She was shot in the neck not in her shoulder. Another misleading statement.

The officer will never face charges because of immunity. 166.181.80.152 (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

because it doesnt matter if she was armed or not? it change nothing to what she did, to the risk passing that door could have bring?

and yes she was hit in the left shoulder

could you please make your attempt to change reality/justify her action and puting the blame on the cops mentioning immunity less obvious? 2A02:2788:A8:179:43:FF78:3A9:8293 (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

this is such a sick mind. Gross 168.91.29.146 (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2024 (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 17 August 2024

At the end of the section "Wrongful Death Lawsuit" add: "On June 12, 2024, this case was transferred from the US District Court Southern California to the US District Court District of Columbia. The transfer was requested by the defendant (USA) and opposed by the plaintiffs. The defendants have not yet issued a response to the complaint.96" Reference Courtlistener. Estate of Ashli Babbit v USA. Retrieved August 17,2024 Resource2222 (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

On June 12, 2024, this case was transferred from the US District Court Southern California to the US District Court District of Columbia. (ref https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68139457/14/estate-of-ashli-babbitt-v-united-states/)

The transfer was requested by the defendant (USA) and opposed by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs have asked the DC court to transfer the case back to Southern California.

A hearing was held on August 6th.

On August 8th U.S. District Court Judge Ana C. Reyes gave the government a month to address four of the seven counts in the lawsuit.(Ref https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/3115584/justice-department-ordered-answer-for-jan-6-killing-ashli-babbitt/)

She also said she would consider the request for transfer back to Southern California. Resource2222 (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Why not wait till after the case, and we can just say where it was held? Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2024

This page does share some decent facts about the life of the person in question, it is obviously opinionated, and as a page dedicated to purely facts I think that a review is necessary.

The placement of her life choice immediately next to sentences of radicalism and the immediate comparisons between the two suggest an opinionated view. One of many apparent call outs in this article. It has lead me to distrust Wikipedia’s ability to produce factual reporter and wonder if previous information gained is truly opinion based, or just political persuasion by a person behind a screen. 174.103.105.177 (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You have to tell us what edit you want done, you have not done so. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)