This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2009 shootings of Oakland police officers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of 2009 shootings of Oakland police officers be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | On 3 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to 2009 murders of Oakland police officers. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Perhaps mention of the hip hop generation in conjunction with the general atmosphere of Oakland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hip_Hop_Generation#Chapter_1:_The_New_Black_Youth_Culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.144.194 ( talk) 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
We have extensive multiple sourcing that the weapon involved was an AK-47. Only one source said it was an SKS. The Oakland Police Department originally indicated it was an SKS, then they changed that to an AK-47. We really should resolve this point and not keep switching back and forth in the article. It would also be good to resolve the issue of whether or not either weapon had been converted to be fully automatic, rather than semi-automatic. Apostle12 ( talk) 21:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The news reports mentioned an assualt weapon. Can someone find a description of the weapon used? There is certainly a gap between the weapons that officers are allowed to use and the ones that criminals are able to get their hands on. 64.230.85.80 ( talk) 18:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's some info from
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/22/BAV116KEU0.DTL
Doomed SWAT sergeants didn't expect an AK-47
"When Oakland police Sgts. Ervin Romans and Daniel Sakai burst into an apartment on 74th Avenue on Saturday, they knew they were entering a dangerous situation... What they didn't know was that the killer, Lovelle Mixon, had somehow gotten hold of an AK-47 assault rifle, police officials say. All they knew was that the gunman who had shot motorcycle officers Sgt. Mark Dunakin and Officer John Hege about two hours earlier used a handgun. "Nobody knew he had an AK-47," said City Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente, who was among four council members to join Mayor Ron Dellums and acting Police Chief Howard Jordan for a late-night press conference Saturday. The bulletproof vests that Romans and Sakai wore were no help - when Mixon fired his automatic rifle through a closet door in the apartment, he hit the two sergeants in the head..." -
Tripodian (
talk)
20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I added the Category: 2009 Crimes at the bottom of this entry, but when I actually go to the category, "2009 Oakland police shootings" isn't listed there, even though it should be. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.211.103 ( talk) 20:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added a couple notes on the fact that the nature of the weapon isn't known. There is a pretty vast firepower difference between the military AK-47 and the civilian semiautomatic version with similar appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.71.141 ( talk) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The "civilian vs. military" nature of the is not the issue. The weapon was an SKS, which was a semi-auto predecessor to the AK and it was originally designed in the 1940s. An SKS needs to be heavily modified before it can fire full-auto. The cops were probably not expecting a rifle and so only wore soft body armor. The 7.62x39mm rounds fired from an SKS would penetrate the soft kevlar armor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.16 ( talk) 17:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the origin of the AK known, country of manufacture ect? Geo8rge ( talk) 15:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the citation for this assertion: "It may have been a semi-automatic civilian version; such weapons are treated as assault weapons under California law because they resemble military weapons and are chambered to fire 7.62X39 cartridges." These weapons weren't banned by California because of their appearance. They were banned because they were originally designed for use on the battlefield and are effective killing machines when configured for semiautomatic-fire only. Whatever your personal view, if you are going to attribute a motivation to California legislators and law enforcement in enacting a ban, provide a primary source. Forward Thinkers ( talk) 18:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The rather more neutral term "kill" does not convey the reality of this crime. Lovelle Mixon was carrying a loaded semi-automatic weapon when his car was stopped for a traffic violation. Rather than risk incarceration, since a warrant had been issued for his arrest due to a parole violation, he chose to exit his car and fire without warning, hitting two police officers in their heads. Since both died, this qualifies as "murder"--the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.
Later, when Lovelle Mixon chose to hide in the closet of his sister's apartment, he armed himself with an AK-47 assault rifle and chose to fire through the wall and door of the closet, killing two more police officers. This also qualifies as "murder"--the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.
When officers returned fire and killed Mixon, they were fulfilling their duty to the citizens of Oakland. This was a lawful "killing," performed with honor.
Words matter. We should not shy away from using the word "murder" when that is what it is. Apostle12 ( talk) 22:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on this one. I suppose nobody is calling Mixon a murderer because they haven't seen the word mentioned in any news article. Plus one can say - well, how can you call someone a murderer if he hasn't been adjudicated i.e. convicted of murder. Besides, the dude is dead and can't defend himself. Well, to that I say: "murder-suicide" - the person doing the killing is dead, can't defend himself, but he's labeled a murderer without any problem... Sarenk ( talk) 23:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. In a typical news or professional writeup for a murder-suicide, the murderer is not called a murderer but a "killer", and the other party (the victim) is "killed". Kill and killer are fact-based words, murder is a legal term, as someone pointed out. In this case, "shot and killed" is the appropriate terminology. Carlsson E. ( talk) 02:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
"Murder" is a completely inappropriate term in this instance ... hence, I changed it in the original article edit a day or so ago. "Murder" is a legal term that has legal implications. We have absolutely no idea if Mixon comitted an "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being" (as an earlier post suggested). Those are certainly not facts and they are certainly not sourced. That is merely an assumption on the part of a Wikipedia editor. It is indisputable that Mixon killed these four officers ... and that is what Wikipedia should be reporting. This is a killing, not a murder ( ... or, rather, four killings, but not four murders). Mixon may have been high on drugs at the time ... he may have been psychotic or delusional ... he may have thought he was killing in self defense ... he may have "snapped" in anger or rage or fear ... he may have heard voices telling him to kill ... who knows? None of us knows. All of those situations could very plausibly have happened. And, thus, this event could very plausibly be termed a manslaughter or a "not guilty of murder by reason of insanity" or whatever. The bottom line is ... Mixon committed a killing. It may (or may not) have been a legal murder ... we have no idea about that. But we do know (and can report) it as a killing. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
I'd like to point out there's been no trial, so he is not a convicted murderer. It seems there hasn't even been time for a real investigation--though in his absense, it's likely the truth will be stretched (which is not to say that he didn't probably murder the police officers.) It's just that the truth matters, and we'll probably never know it--we certainly don't thus far. 147.105.3.10 ( talk) 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In jurisdictions where common law applies, which includes most of the United States including California, common law murder is defined as the:
The first three elements are relatively straightforward; however, the concept of "malice aforethought" is a complex one that does not necessarily mean premeditation. The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of "malice aforethought":
If Lovelle Mixon were alive, I would be the first to insist we not use the term "murderer" or "murder" until he enjoyed his day in court. Yet post-mortem trial and conviction are not possible in American jurisprudence. Given the specifics of this case, no conviction is necessary for reasonable people to arrive at the conclusion that the words "murderer" and "murder" are legitimate when refering to Lovelle Mixon and his actions. Only a true sophist could argue otherwise. Apostle12 ( talk) 22:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for editing the context of my post and labeling it 'sophistry.' Shall we continue the name-calling? You obviously are bent on incendiary language, which is obviously why you are insistent on using the term "murder," even though the only word we seem to have is that of the police--the guy killed a cop, so you know they're going to come out with hyperbole, which you obviously embrace. GROW UP! 174.149.223.244 ( talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
(I was at 147.105.3.10 before) By the way, the "neutral" view you despise is Wikipedia policy. 174.149.223.244 ( talk) 18:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see the previous section regarding use of the term "murder."
I propose that the name of this article be changed to "March 21,2009 Murders Of Oakland Police Officers."
Again, words matter. The current article could refer to shootings BY the police, when actually gunman Lovelle Mixon MURDERED four police officers. Apostle12 ( talk) 23:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The current title sounds ok to me. A few months or years down the road, the media may start calling it the Oakland massacre or the Oakland incident or something short and catchy - like the Newhall Massacre. Right now everyone knows that the "2009 Oakland police shootings" is all about. Sarenk ( talk) 23:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
One important consideration is the length of the title. Wiki searches are picky and case-sensitive. Not sure if you want Wiki users to type in "March 21,2009 Murders Of Oakland Police Officers." to get to this article. Sarenk ( talk) 23:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Use of the term "murder" without a trial amounts to police propaganda. It seems likely he killed them, but he cannot be found to have murdered them without a trial. Propaganda such as this paints the police as "the good guys" and everyone they encounter as "the bad guys." I know from personal experience that the police are not always "the good guys," and this type of thing reinforces a stereotype that the police are always good and right. I say it's good enough to try to honestly account for what probably happened, since the guy will never be tried, and that includes avoiding words that amount to incendiary devices. 99.200.213.44 ( talk) 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, per latest reported evidence, the killer was also a rapist. He raped a 12-year-old child and as many as five women. 1processserv ( talk) 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the word "killer" over "murderer", but I'd like to make a point none the less. You don't need a criminal trial in order to be a criminal. If I go across the street to the 7-11 and steal something, I'm a shoplifter. If I get arrested and convicted, I'm a convicted shoplifter. If I don't get convicted, I'm still a shoplifter. Now, in order to report something as fact, you need proof. But that proof doesn't have to be a conviction. Personally, I see more than enough proof to confirm that Mixon is the murderer of 4 police officers. But there will be people who will make excuses for whatever reason to defend him, and because of that I think using "kill" is much easier and just as accurate, and probably more objective as well. But anyways, thanks to everyone who did contribute, it does seem professionally and responsibly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.36.103 ( talk) 16:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Just state the facts in a concise manner, and leave the POV words out. Joe6packed ( talk) 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the infobox contains the name of the perpetrator, should it also contain the names of those who were killed? JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 19:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I tried to edit the article, putting in the fact Sgt. Pat Gonzales, the lone surviving cop, shot and killed an unarmed, black, 20-year-old Gary King Jr. back in September of 2007. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070922/ai_n20521923 Also, Mark Dunakin, one of the deceased officers, has been known to terrorize and harrass citizens of Oakland since he arrived on the force. http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/police-2-oakland-residents-4/ Also, Lovelle Mixon has not only never been convicted of rape, but never even CHARGED with rape. This is PURELY the reporting of the San Francisco Chronicle. Some one continues changing the true information I put in for their opinions. Wikipedia is obviously in the pocket of "mainstream," European-American owned media. I had to edit out all the "black activists" and "black newspaper" references in the article, but I'm sure that will be re-edited as well. "Blacks" are Americans as well, and no prefix to the media or activists (i.e. adding "black") is necessary. Lovelle Mixon has never been tried or convicted of rape. These are all libelous allegations, and in poor taste (libeling a dead person) presented by the San Francisco Chronicle. I thought Wikipedia was objective and worldly, but I was wrong. I also tried editing all the "many" references in the "aftermath" section of this article, since that is the author's opinion. In the "aftermath" section, opinionated words such as "many" are used instead of SOME. And far too many of the sources for this article are from the very-biased San Francisco Chronicle. But again, that was changed back as well. I'm sure this post will be deleted as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operationnation ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Operationnation ( talk) 08:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The only "rock solid" evidence about Mixon being linked to rapes is from the San Francisco Chronicle and the now vengeful Oakland PD. The fact is, these rapes allegedly happened in the last year. Why are they only coming to light now? Why did the Oakland Police and San Francisco Chronicle not talk about these rapes in this "black" neighborhood before these cops were killed? These alleged and libelous rapes only became crimes (and news) once police were murdered. These "rapes" were not a problem to police or the SF Chronicle before Lovelle Mixon struck. It was ok for these crimes to be committed in "the black community" to Oakland PD prior to Mixon. The fact is, Mixon has never been charged or convicted of rape. End of story. This is blog material; heresay from a police department wanting revenge on a man who took out 4 of their guys.
European Americans do not want to hear the fact that the surviving cop, Gonzales, murdered an unarmed "black" man just 18 months ago. http://revcom.us/a/103/gary-king-en.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070922/ai_n20521923 http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/22/BAFDSC1H0.DTL Since the SF Chronicle seems to be the standard for "evidence" in this entire article, the last link is from their paper. The commentary about Mark Dunakin "terrorizing the black community for years" is from the SFbayview.com. I don't see why this source is any more or less reliable than the Chronicle. One is the paper for European Americans...the other for African Americans. And you seem to be very concerned about the OPD's feeling instead of journalistic integrity and accuracy, with your quote, ""the OPD is not likely to tolerate his reputation being maligned." What does that have to do with the truth that Gonzales shot and killed an unarmed "black" man in 2007? Or is this article supposed to be sympathetic to the OPD? The only HARD evidence of Mixon "raping a 12-year-old" is the SF Chronicle and OPD in revenge mode. Let's remember that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operationnation ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Operationnation ( talk) 08:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, so its ok to call a newspaper a "black" newspaper and call activists "black activist" and continually refer to the "black" neighborhood in Oakland, but there is no such thing as a European American community? You are discredited for wanting to believe everything the SF Chronicle writes. All the alleged rapes you obviously WANT Mixon to have committed happened in February, yet ZERO Oakland citizens were made aware of these alleged rapes until Mixon killed Oakland police. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/26/MN3516N0KN.DTL But I'm done with this. This entire article and your comments are the "blatantly racist drivel" and I hope you and Wikipedia get pleasure out of biasing history. Operationnation ( talk) 14:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Your 'lecture' on "civility guidelines" needs to extend to all. More on Oakland citizens and police; and the lack of a "protect and serve" relationship. Courtesy of the main source for this entire article, the SF Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/28/INO216MACK.DTL I (and Operation Nation) will continue placing the dispute tag on this article until the truth about the two cops, Gonzales and Munakin, are included on the article's main page. We'll monitor and add it back everytime someone deletes it. And I agree with you re: Chauncey Bailey. Operationnation ( talk) 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
"Brian Wilkins" is ME. I don't hide behind internet names or badges. I assume Apostle12's last comment was meant to be an intimidator? Ok, well, I'll play along and leave your "2009 Oakland police shooting" Wikipedia article to yourselves. Have fun and I look forward to perusing the updates. "Angry Diatribe 2009"! Operationnation ( talk) 09:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
"It was the single deadliest attack on California police officers since the Newhall incident in 1970, when four California Highway Patrol officers were shot " I hate to be a stickler to the details here, but I think this is really 2 incidents not one. Perhaps: "It was the single deadliest single day for the California police since the Newhall incident". Geo8rge ( talk) 15:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The shootings happened a block from each other and were very close together timewise - and all done by the same person. Plus what happened on 74th was just a continuation or outcome of what happened during the traffic stop on McDonald. AgentMcDonald ( talk) 20:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
im new to some of these details, but does this seem like a long list for external links? arent they mostly references? would external links be more like, say, the official website for OPD, or a community group involved? i am not going to edit it, as im still unfamiliar with the intricacies of references, links, etc. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 20:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe references shouldn't be duplicated under external links, but I suspect it's for the benefit of people who just want to read the original sources without having to wade through each link in the text, which seems to be changing every day depending on which camp you're in... And oftentimes when an editor whacks a sentence, the reference goes with it. Whereas an external link is more permanent no matter what happens to the text.... AgentMcDonald ( talk) 20:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Community wasn't told of Oakland girl's rape http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/26/MN3516N0KN.DTL
Why does the POV box keep getting taken down when people are still discussing the neutrality of the article? Stop being political and concede that some people think this is not a fair representation of what happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microfiche troisieme ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Do we need to expand the "Victims" subsection to include a short profile of each officer? The "Perpetrator" section tells readers who Mixon was, but the article is bereft of specifics concerning the lives of the officers. I could probably put something together, however the sourcing is lacking. Any ideas? Apostle12 ( talk) 20:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I realize that sourcing is a problem in providing details of Mixon's life, but perhaps Sista T. is not entirely reliable. Given the time Mixon spent in prison (most of the last six years), his age (26), and the information that he quit school at 17, it's hard to see how he would have had the time to become a "certified plumber." As a general contractor myself, I am somewhat aware of state licensing requirements, and I doubt Mixon could have fulfilled them given the time he had available. Also makes me wonder why he would have turned to crime--licensed plumbers make good money.
Anyway, based on the source, I've changed the description to read that Mixon "worked as a plumber and custodian." You don't need to be a "certified" (licensed?) plumber to do plumbing work under someone who is licensed. If you find another source to clarify this point, please let me know. Apostle12 ( talk) 05:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The entire article states PST (Pacific Standard Time), throughout. Shouldn't it be PDT ... Pacific Daylight Time? Or am I mistaken about that? Does anyone know for sure? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
I'd like to bring up the title of the article. Generally, as I have seen it, the term "police shooting" is used to describe an incident in which a police officer shoots someone. I think a revision to the title should be considered. In this instance, of course, one person was killed by police; but this was secondary to the main incidents. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 07:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Listing possible legal actions against 2 of the police officers in the section listing them as victims is poor encyclopedic reporting. If the allegations are sourced properly, (not just indymedia, but court records or more mainstream report) i would recommend a section called "community reactions" or controversies, where concerns like this can be listed. the allegations do not relate directly to the killings, unless and until there is a report that shows inappropriate behavior at the time of THIS incident.i will admit that such behaviors of oakland police do relate indirectly to this article, but this article cannot considered a forum to hash out police brutality/community relations. Lovell Mixon was by all accounts, in addition to whatever good qualities he had, a dangerous person who appeared to have lived by the sword and died by the sword. could better economic conditions and more opportunities for young black men have stopped this? probably. but by the time he committed these acts, his choices had been clearly moving this way. did he decide to stop any of this behavior and, say, volunteer at a church,or even uhuru house? no evidence for this. i do know there was a brief mention on tv news about whether the police dept sent in cops too rapidly, when a standoff might have been better. but that was not followed up on. this article doesnt have to be so controversial if people can follow common sense. and i am NOT going to make any of these edits, i dont trust the process right now, and dont feel i would be respected if i did so. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
A strikingly similar incident has occurred in India with the same no. of casualties. Any chance it could be mentioned in this article ?. Also, it'd be nice if someone could have a look at the article and wikify it. -- Roaring Siren ( talk) 06:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
With such a heinous murder and rape spree, why isn't there a picture of the thug? His spiteful, bastard face must be seen to have the full effect: Mugshot
Also, it should be mentioned somewhere, maybe in a Controversies section, that the Oakland black community and black activist groups actually came to Mixon's defense- calling him a soldier, a hero, and a victim: Source 1 , Source 2 50.29.10.210 ( talk) 09:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is biased and violates the NPOV guideline. The man was never convicted of murder and thus should not be definitively identified as the killer. The discussion of the Uhuru movement is more than biased. This article needs to be rewritten from something other than a police officer's perspective. Esplace ( talk) 00:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2009 shootings of Oakland police officers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on 2009 shootings of Oakland police officers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2016 shootings of Des Moines police officers which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 08:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
In the section describing the shootout on 74th, it was stated there was a young girl wounded by shrapnel from the flash grenade. Would it be appropriate to list her as an injured civilian under the 'Victims' section? She may not have been injured by Mixon but it was a result of his (at the time suspected) presence in the apartment. 2603:7080:6238:F37F:D1E3:92E2:C707:2EF2 ( talk) 02:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2009 shootings of Oakland police officers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of 2009 shootings of Oakland police officers be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | On 3 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to 2009 murders of Oakland police officers. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Perhaps mention of the hip hop generation in conjunction with the general atmosphere of Oakland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hip_Hop_Generation#Chapter_1:_The_New_Black_Youth_Culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.144.194 ( talk) 00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
We have extensive multiple sourcing that the weapon involved was an AK-47. Only one source said it was an SKS. The Oakland Police Department originally indicated it was an SKS, then they changed that to an AK-47. We really should resolve this point and not keep switching back and forth in the article. It would also be good to resolve the issue of whether or not either weapon had been converted to be fully automatic, rather than semi-automatic. Apostle12 ( talk) 21:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The news reports mentioned an assualt weapon. Can someone find a description of the weapon used? There is certainly a gap between the weapons that officers are allowed to use and the ones that criminals are able to get their hands on. 64.230.85.80 ( talk) 18:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's some info from
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/22/BAV116KEU0.DTL
Doomed SWAT sergeants didn't expect an AK-47
"When Oakland police Sgts. Ervin Romans and Daniel Sakai burst into an apartment on 74th Avenue on Saturday, they knew they were entering a dangerous situation... What they didn't know was that the killer, Lovelle Mixon, had somehow gotten hold of an AK-47 assault rifle, police officials say. All they knew was that the gunman who had shot motorcycle officers Sgt. Mark Dunakin and Officer John Hege about two hours earlier used a handgun. "Nobody knew he had an AK-47," said City Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente, who was among four council members to join Mayor Ron Dellums and acting Police Chief Howard Jordan for a late-night press conference Saturday. The bulletproof vests that Romans and Sakai wore were no help - when Mixon fired his automatic rifle through a closet door in the apartment, he hit the two sergeants in the head..." -
Tripodian (
talk)
20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I added the Category: 2009 Crimes at the bottom of this entry, but when I actually go to the category, "2009 Oakland police shootings" isn't listed there, even though it should be. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.211.103 ( talk) 20:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added a couple notes on the fact that the nature of the weapon isn't known. There is a pretty vast firepower difference between the military AK-47 and the civilian semiautomatic version with similar appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.71.141 ( talk) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The "civilian vs. military" nature of the is not the issue. The weapon was an SKS, which was a semi-auto predecessor to the AK and it was originally designed in the 1940s. An SKS needs to be heavily modified before it can fire full-auto. The cops were probably not expecting a rifle and so only wore soft body armor. The 7.62x39mm rounds fired from an SKS would penetrate the soft kevlar armor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.16 ( talk) 17:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the origin of the AK known, country of manufacture ect? Geo8rge ( talk) 15:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the citation for this assertion: "It may have been a semi-automatic civilian version; such weapons are treated as assault weapons under California law because they resemble military weapons and are chambered to fire 7.62X39 cartridges." These weapons weren't banned by California because of their appearance. They were banned because they were originally designed for use on the battlefield and are effective killing machines when configured for semiautomatic-fire only. Whatever your personal view, if you are going to attribute a motivation to California legislators and law enforcement in enacting a ban, provide a primary source. Forward Thinkers ( talk) 18:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The rather more neutral term "kill" does not convey the reality of this crime. Lovelle Mixon was carrying a loaded semi-automatic weapon when his car was stopped for a traffic violation. Rather than risk incarceration, since a warrant had been issued for his arrest due to a parole violation, he chose to exit his car and fire without warning, hitting two police officers in their heads. Since both died, this qualifies as "murder"--the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.
Later, when Lovelle Mixon chose to hide in the closet of his sister's apartment, he armed himself with an AK-47 assault rifle and chose to fire through the wall and door of the closet, killing two more police officers. This also qualifies as "murder"--the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.
When officers returned fire and killed Mixon, they were fulfilling their duty to the citizens of Oakland. This was a lawful "killing," performed with honor.
Words matter. We should not shy away from using the word "murder" when that is what it is. Apostle12 ( talk) 22:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on this one. I suppose nobody is calling Mixon a murderer because they haven't seen the word mentioned in any news article. Plus one can say - well, how can you call someone a murderer if he hasn't been adjudicated i.e. convicted of murder. Besides, the dude is dead and can't defend himself. Well, to that I say: "murder-suicide" - the person doing the killing is dead, can't defend himself, but he's labeled a murderer without any problem... Sarenk ( talk) 23:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. In a typical news or professional writeup for a murder-suicide, the murderer is not called a murderer but a "killer", and the other party (the victim) is "killed". Kill and killer are fact-based words, murder is a legal term, as someone pointed out. In this case, "shot and killed" is the appropriate terminology. Carlsson E. ( talk) 02:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
"Murder" is a completely inappropriate term in this instance ... hence, I changed it in the original article edit a day or so ago. "Murder" is a legal term that has legal implications. We have absolutely no idea if Mixon comitted an "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being" (as an earlier post suggested). Those are certainly not facts and they are certainly not sourced. That is merely an assumption on the part of a Wikipedia editor. It is indisputable that Mixon killed these four officers ... and that is what Wikipedia should be reporting. This is a killing, not a murder ( ... or, rather, four killings, but not four murders). Mixon may have been high on drugs at the time ... he may have been psychotic or delusional ... he may have thought he was killing in self defense ... he may have "snapped" in anger or rage or fear ... he may have heard voices telling him to kill ... who knows? None of us knows. All of those situations could very plausibly have happened. And, thus, this event could very plausibly be termed a manslaughter or a "not guilty of murder by reason of insanity" or whatever. The bottom line is ... Mixon committed a killing. It may (or may not) have been a legal murder ... we have no idea about that. But we do know (and can report) it as a killing. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
I'd like to point out there's been no trial, so he is not a convicted murderer. It seems there hasn't even been time for a real investigation--though in his absense, it's likely the truth will be stretched (which is not to say that he didn't probably murder the police officers.) It's just that the truth matters, and we'll probably never know it--we certainly don't thus far. 147.105.3.10 ( talk) 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In jurisdictions where common law applies, which includes most of the United States including California, common law murder is defined as the:
The first three elements are relatively straightforward; however, the concept of "malice aforethought" is a complex one that does not necessarily mean premeditation. The following states of mind are recognized as constituting the various forms of "malice aforethought":
If Lovelle Mixon were alive, I would be the first to insist we not use the term "murderer" or "murder" until he enjoyed his day in court. Yet post-mortem trial and conviction are not possible in American jurisprudence. Given the specifics of this case, no conviction is necessary for reasonable people to arrive at the conclusion that the words "murderer" and "murder" are legitimate when refering to Lovelle Mixon and his actions. Only a true sophist could argue otherwise. Apostle12 ( talk) 22:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for editing the context of my post and labeling it 'sophistry.' Shall we continue the name-calling? You obviously are bent on incendiary language, which is obviously why you are insistent on using the term "murder," even though the only word we seem to have is that of the police--the guy killed a cop, so you know they're going to come out with hyperbole, which you obviously embrace. GROW UP! 174.149.223.244 ( talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
(I was at 147.105.3.10 before) By the way, the "neutral" view you despise is Wikipedia policy. 174.149.223.244 ( talk) 18:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see the previous section regarding use of the term "murder."
I propose that the name of this article be changed to "March 21,2009 Murders Of Oakland Police Officers."
Again, words matter. The current article could refer to shootings BY the police, when actually gunman Lovelle Mixon MURDERED four police officers. Apostle12 ( talk) 23:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The current title sounds ok to me. A few months or years down the road, the media may start calling it the Oakland massacre or the Oakland incident or something short and catchy - like the Newhall Massacre. Right now everyone knows that the "2009 Oakland police shootings" is all about. Sarenk ( talk) 23:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
One important consideration is the length of the title. Wiki searches are picky and case-sensitive. Not sure if you want Wiki users to type in "March 21,2009 Murders Of Oakland Police Officers." to get to this article. Sarenk ( talk) 23:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Use of the term "murder" without a trial amounts to police propaganda. It seems likely he killed them, but he cannot be found to have murdered them without a trial. Propaganda such as this paints the police as "the good guys" and everyone they encounter as "the bad guys." I know from personal experience that the police are not always "the good guys," and this type of thing reinforces a stereotype that the police are always good and right. I say it's good enough to try to honestly account for what probably happened, since the guy will never be tried, and that includes avoiding words that amount to incendiary devices. 99.200.213.44 ( talk) 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, per latest reported evidence, the killer was also a rapist. He raped a 12-year-old child and as many as five women. 1processserv ( talk) 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the word "killer" over "murderer", but I'd like to make a point none the less. You don't need a criminal trial in order to be a criminal. If I go across the street to the 7-11 and steal something, I'm a shoplifter. If I get arrested and convicted, I'm a convicted shoplifter. If I don't get convicted, I'm still a shoplifter. Now, in order to report something as fact, you need proof. But that proof doesn't have to be a conviction. Personally, I see more than enough proof to confirm that Mixon is the murderer of 4 police officers. But there will be people who will make excuses for whatever reason to defend him, and because of that I think using "kill" is much easier and just as accurate, and probably more objective as well. But anyways, thanks to everyone who did contribute, it does seem professionally and responsibly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.36.103 ( talk) 16:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Just state the facts in a concise manner, and leave the POV words out. Joe6packed ( talk) 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the infobox contains the name of the perpetrator, should it also contain the names of those who were killed? JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 19:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I tried to edit the article, putting in the fact Sgt. Pat Gonzales, the lone surviving cop, shot and killed an unarmed, black, 20-year-old Gary King Jr. back in September of 2007. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070922/ai_n20521923 Also, Mark Dunakin, one of the deceased officers, has been known to terrorize and harrass citizens of Oakland since he arrived on the force. http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/police-2-oakland-residents-4/ Also, Lovelle Mixon has not only never been convicted of rape, but never even CHARGED with rape. This is PURELY the reporting of the San Francisco Chronicle. Some one continues changing the true information I put in for their opinions. Wikipedia is obviously in the pocket of "mainstream," European-American owned media. I had to edit out all the "black activists" and "black newspaper" references in the article, but I'm sure that will be re-edited as well. "Blacks" are Americans as well, and no prefix to the media or activists (i.e. adding "black") is necessary. Lovelle Mixon has never been tried or convicted of rape. These are all libelous allegations, and in poor taste (libeling a dead person) presented by the San Francisco Chronicle. I thought Wikipedia was objective and worldly, but I was wrong. I also tried editing all the "many" references in the "aftermath" section of this article, since that is the author's opinion. In the "aftermath" section, opinionated words such as "many" are used instead of SOME. And far too many of the sources for this article are from the very-biased San Francisco Chronicle. But again, that was changed back as well. I'm sure this post will be deleted as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operationnation ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Operationnation ( talk) 08:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The only "rock solid" evidence about Mixon being linked to rapes is from the San Francisco Chronicle and the now vengeful Oakland PD. The fact is, these rapes allegedly happened in the last year. Why are they only coming to light now? Why did the Oakland Police and San Francisco Chronicle not talk about these rapes in this "black" neighborhood before these cops were killed? These alleged and libelous rapes only became crimes (and news) once police were murdered. These "rapes" were not a problem to police or the SF Chronicle before Lovelle Mixon struck. It was ok for these crimes to be committed in "the black community" to Oakland PD prior to Mixon. The fact is, Mixon has never been charged or convicted of rape. End of story. This is blog material; heresay from a police department wanting revenge on a man who took out 4 of their guys.
European Americans do not want to hear the fact that the surviving cop, Gonzales, murdered an unarmed "black" man just 18 months ago. http://revcom.us/a/103/gary-king-en.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070922/ai_n20521923 http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/22/BAFDSC1H0.DTL Since the SF Chronicle seems to be the standard for "evidence" in this entire article, the last link is from their paper. The commentary about Mark Dunakin "terrorizing the black community for years" is from the SFbayview.com. I don't see why this source is any more or less reliable than the Chronicle. One is the paper for European Americans...the other for African Americans. And you seem to be very concerned about the OPD's feeling instead of journalistic integrity and accuracy, with your quote, ""the OPD is not likely to tolerate his reputation being maligned." What does that have to do with the truth that Gonzales shot and killed an unarmed "black" man in 2007? Or is this article supposed to be sympathetic to the OPD? The only HARD evidence of Mixon "raping a 12-year-old" is the SF Chronicle and OPD in revenge mode. Let's remember that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operationnation ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Operationnation ( talk) 08:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, so its ok to call a newspaper a "black" newspaper and call activists "black activist" and continually refer to the "black" neighborhood in Oakland, but there is no such thing as a European American community? You are discredited for wanting to believe everything the SF Chronicle writes. All the alleged rapes you obviously WANT Mixon to have committed happened in February, yet ZERO Oakland citizens were made aware of these alleged rapes until Mixon killed Oakland police. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/26/MN3516N0KN.DTL But I'm done with this. This entire article and your comments are the "blatantly racist drivel" and I hope you and Wikipedia get pleasure out of biasing history. Operationnation ( talk) 14:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Your 'lecture' on "civility guidelines" needs to extend to all. More on Oakland citizens and police; and the lack of a "protect and serve" relationship. Courtesy of the main source for this entire article, the SF Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/28/INO216MACK.DTL I (and Operation Nation) will continue placing the dispute tag on this article until the truth about the two cops, Gonzales and Munakin, are included on the article's main page. We'll monitor and add it back everytime someone deletes it. And I agree with you re: Chauncey Bailey. Operationnation ( talk) 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
"Brian Wilkins" is ME. I don't hide behind internet names or badges. I assume Apostle12's last comment was meant to be an intimidator? Ok, well, I'll play along and leave your "2009 Oakland police shooting" Wikipedia article to yourselves. Have fun and I look forward to perusing the updates. "Angry Diatribe 2009"! Operationnation ( talk) 09:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
"It was the single deadliest attack on California police officers since the Newhall incident in 1970, when four California Highway Patrol officers were shot " I hate to be a stickler to the details here, but I think this is really 2 incidents not one. Perhaps: "It was the single deadliest single day for the California police since the Newhall incident". Geo8rge ( talk) 15:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The shootings happened a block from each other and were very close together timewise - and all done by the same person. Plus what happened on 74th was just a continuation or outcome of what happened during the traffic stop on McDonald. AgentMcDonald ( talk) 20:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
im new to some of these details, but does this seem like a long list for external links? arent they mostly references? would external links be more like, say, the official website for OPD, or a community group involved? i am not going to edit it, as im still unfamiliar with the intricacies of references, links, etc. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 20:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe references shouldn't be duplicated under external links, but I suspect it's for the benefit of people who just want to read the original sources without having to wade through each link in the text, which seems to be changing every day depending on which camp you're in... And oftentimes when an editor whacks a sentence, the reference goes with it. Whereas an external link is more permanent no matter what happens to the text.... AgentMcDonald ( talk) 20:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Community wasn't told of Oakland girl's rape http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/26/MN3516N0KN.DTL
Why does the POV box keep getting taken down when people are still discussing the neutrality of the article? Stop being political and concede that some people think this is not a fair representation of what happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Microfiche troisieme ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Do we need to expand the "Victims" subsection to include a short profile of each officer? The "Perpetrator" section tells readers who Mixon was, but the article is bereft of specifics concerning the lives of the officers. I could probably put something together, however the sourcing is lacking. Any ideas? Apostle12 ( talk) 20:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I realize that sourcing is a problem in providing details of Mixon's life, but perhaps Sista T. is not entirely reliable. Given the time Mixon spent in prison (most of the last six years), his age (26), and the information that he quit school at 17, it's hard to see how he would have had the time to become a "certified plumber." As a general contractor myself, I am somewhat aware of state licensing requirements, and I doubt Mixon could have fulfilled them given the time he had available. Also makes me wonder why he would have turned to crime--licensed plumbers make good money.
Anyway, based on the source, I've changed the description to read that Mixon "worked as a plumber and custodian." You don't need to be a "certified" (licensed?) plumber to do plumbing work under someone who is licensed. If you find another source to clarify this point, please let me know. Apostle12 ( talk) 05:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The entire article states PST (Pacific Standard Time), throughout. Shouldn't it be PDT ... Pacific Daylight Time? Or am I mistaken about that? Does anyone know for sure? Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 04:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC))
I'd like to bring up the title of the article. Generally, as I have seen it, the term "police shooting" is used to describe an incident in which a police officer shoots someone. I think a revision to the title should be considered. In this instance, of course, one person was killed by police; but this was secondary to the main incidents. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 07:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Listing possible legal actions against 2 of the police officers in the section listing them as victims is poor encyclopedic reporting. If the allegations are sourced properly, (not just indymedia, but court records or more mainstream report) i would recommend a section called "community reactions" or controversies, where concerns like this can be listed. the allegations do not relate directly to the killings, unless and until there is a report that shows inappropriate behavior at the time of THIS incident.i will admit that such behaviors of oakland police do relate indirectly to this article, but this article cannot considered a forum to hash out police brutality/community relations. Lovell Mixon was by all accounts, in addition to whatever good qualities he had, a dangerous person who appeared to have lived by the sword and died by the sword. could better economic conditions and more opportunities for young black men have stopped this? probably. but by the time he committed these acts, his choices had been clearly moving this way. did he decide to stop any of this behavior and, say, volunteer at a church,or even uhuru house? no evidence for this. i do know there was a brief mention on tv news about whether the police dept sent in cops too rapidly, when a standoff might have been better. but that was not followed up on. this article doesnt have to be so controversial if people can follow common sense. and i am NOT going to make any of these edits, i dont trust the process right now, and dont feel i would be respected if i did so. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
A strikingly similar incident has occurred in India with the same no. of casualties. Any chance it could be mentioned in this article ?. Also, it'd be nice if someone could have a look at the article and wikify it. -- Roaring Siren ( talk) 06:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
With such a heinous murder and rape spree, why isn't there a picture of the thug? His spiteful, bastard face must be seen to have the full effect: Mugshot
Also, it should be mentioned somewhere, maybe in a Controversies section, that the Oakland black community and black activist groups actually came to Mixon's defense- calling him a soldier, a hero, and a victim: Source 1 , Source 2 50.29.10.210 ( talk) 09:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is biased and violates the NPOV guideline. The man was never convicted of murder and thus should not be definitively identified as the killer. The discussion of the Uhuru movement is more than biased. This article needs to be rewritten from something other than a police officer's perspective. Esplace ( talk) 00:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2009 shootings of Oakland police officers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on 2009 shootings of Oakland police officers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2016 shootings of Des Moines police officers which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 08:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
In the section describing the shootout on 74th, it was stated there was a young girl wounded by shrapnel from the flash grenade. Would it be appropriate to list her as an injured civilian under the 'Victims' section? She may not have been injured by Mixon but it was a result of his (at the time suspected) presence in the apartment. 2603:7080:6238:F37F:D1E3:92E2:C707:2EF2 ( talk) 02:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)