Talk:Killing of Amadou Diallo

Untitled

Amadou Bailo Diallo (September 2, 1975 - February 4, 1999) a 22-year-old man from Guinea was killed by four white members of the New York City Police Department's Street Crime Unit on February 4, 1999.

1999-1975=24. Granted, his birthday was 7 months off. Still, new math? I'm not fixing it myself because I don't know if it's 1975 or "a 22-year-old" that's wrong. --Charles A. L. 20:43, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah! Everything I've seen on the web says he was 22, and the sites that mention his birthdate also say he was born on September 2, 1975. Was he in suspended animation for a year or something? It seems like no one bothered to do the math. I've left out the age entirely, it's implied by the dates anyway. Tualha 01:06, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

I removed this text in my last edit:

Although he was in the country legally, his visa was set to expire in April, 1999 which led to him filing a false asylum request with INS. In the filing he claimed to be from Mauritania, and that his family were victims of "human cleansing". His parents, Saikou and Kadiatou Diallo, were actually wealthy and well-educated Guineans. Some theorize that Diallo might have fled from police due to his fear over the fraudulent filing.

I think it's not really relevant, and didn't fit in well with the rest of the article. I read on one site that it was a theory put forth by one of the defense attorneys, the reasoning being that Diallo thought the cops were INS agents and panicked, perhaps doing something that would justify the use of deadly force. All very well, but it strikes me as farfetched and not really belonging here. As for the undisputed facts about the visa and false claim, ok, they're true, but as I said, not relevant.

Opinions?
Tualha 05:24, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Article Name

I moved the page from Amadou Diallo (shooting victim) to Amadou Bailo Diallo, because seems a bit biased to call Diallo a "victim" in the title. There is still a lingering controversy over whether:

1. the police were wrong to shoot him (he's a "victim"), or
2. he responded improperly to arrest (he's not a victim)

We can avoid applying victim to him, simply by using his middle name. --Uncle Ed 19:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

He was a victim in either case. -- Jibal (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Article statements?

Since the only people who know what happened in the hallway shooting are either a)dead or b)have potential reason to lie shouldn't some of the statements in this article be a little more qualified? I'm thinking of the "did not threaten the officer's in any way". Since the officer's defence was that they explicitly felt threatened this implies that they were lying. Also when it states that the fallen officer "appeared to be shot" that buys into the officer's story about what happened. I also have a chronological question about the fallen officer. My understanding was that he fell either before or right as they began firing. Some of the claims I remember implied that the fall seemed to confirm their impression that Diallo was armed. ok

I think all of this is moot, since no weapon was ever found at the scene. I'm sure even if this excessive use of force was neccessitated by a threat, the first thing they did would have been to point out the firearm the suspect had. V1rtue 21:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is very biased against the NYPD. The authors have no knowledge of police procedure and in fact sound more like the typical anti-NYPD rants of police haters like Al Sharpton. The NYPD protects people. If Diallo was not complying with the officers instructions that is a red flag to officers and makes them more alert. I am not going to edit this article, but I will leave it to you all to make it fair and balanced, not biased towards the dead perp. Spring3100 01:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you called a man never charged with a crime nor suspected of one outside of this incident a "perp" completely invalidates your entire argument. And the argument that the "NYPD protects people" is just as invalid as it is, in and of itself, an opinion and therefore biased. Beyond that, whether he was "complying" or not is almost a moot point considering that it could be argued that the officers did not comply with the Fourth Amendment, protecting against unreasonable search and seizure. Either way, last I checked not complying with an officer is not a crime punishable by death. And besides, he wasn't "not complying" he was misunderstanding. There is a difference. NinedenLtD 21:45, 12 January 2006.

Sorry, but if i misunderstand four individuals wearing badges and yelling "stop, this is NYPD" and I then run away and go digging for something in my jacket -- i should very well be prepared to be shot. There is such a thing of taking responsibility for one's actions -- and in this case this individual took the ultimate responsibility. It sucks, but trying to play this boring blame game is ridiculous. That tax papers gave his family $3,000,000 is just ludicrous. It is all racial bias and extreme political correctness out of control. Your statement "not complying with an officer is not a crime punishable by death" is not only ridiculous, but moronic. Not complying with an officer is a SURE WAY to get killed. You become a cop in a major city and come back here in a year and respond to that -- if you have the balls.

They were NOT wearing badges. They were in plain clothes. If they DISPLAYED their badges from a distance, how could he be expected to see that they were genuine? If they displayed them from close-up, they could have taken him down manually. Even if they suspected, why did they fire 41 bullets? Their story was that the guns had a hair-trigger (a lie) and that the bullets could hit him without having any apparent effect (an absurd lie). David Kessler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.180.52 (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Since Diallo is, unfortunately, not alive to tell us what he was thinking, it is a bit of an assumption to assume he was misunderstanding. Perhaps he was just afraid of the police as plenty of people are, especially those who are of so called minority races, whether or not this fear is justified. It's a bit pretentious to assume you know what he was thinking or why he reacted the way he did.

^Even if Diallo didn't comply with the officers' instructions 41 rounds is a little much... --S0ulbythepound 04:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Too much? Based on what? Should they have fired 1? 2? 10? This isn't hollywood, one hit or 10 won't instantly stop a person. Besides, there were four officers. And their aim was pretty bad - only 19 hits from a few feet away. --Mmx1 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Does that then justify 41 shots at an individual or the need for better training (in both soft and police skills)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.133.1.78 (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the profile of some guys can be really interesting in behalf of understanding their opinions. The action taken by the cops shows no respect for human life whatsoever. Of course this isn't hollywood (as some people say) were a guy can withstand several shots. With at least one you can kill a guy. A couple of shots to the air, or even to his legs could have been enough. Their intention was not to "stop him instantly" but to kill him right away. By the way, some people understand police duty wrong. They are no jurors to decide this matters. Could this guy (if the police officers are not lying) run because he was into something ilegal? Indeed. But again, even if he was the rapist they were looking for, they are not allowed to use this excesive force. Deciding if the guy lives or dies is not their job. My english sucks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necky (talk • contribs).

Police in the United States (or NYC, at the very least) should not ever shoot at a suspect's legs. Pretty much all police officers are trained to fire at center mass, should they ever need to fire their weapon. (Whether or not any shots were justified is a different question.) Ford MF 04:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

AUTHORS, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH:

Several years after Mr Diallo's death, I was in Manhattan one night, walking down Central Park West towards a subway station. As I walked past the Museum of Natural History, I examined the architectural details, ignoring all else. Suddenly, I heard a commotion way up ahead at the intersection. A driverless cab came careening down the sideway towards me with 2 passenegers in the back seat trying to get out. I leaped onto the museum's iron fence as the cab grazed my fanny and crushed the bookbag I had hanging from my shoulder against the fence. The cab hit the fence and deflected back towards the street where it plowed into a sycamore. The passengers, a couple, were in the midst of jumping out on each side of the cab. The woman's head slammed into the door frame so hard that the door wouldn't close afterward. The man ran around to her and dragged her, staggering and dazed, into the street, hailed a cab and rode off. A crowd assembled where we just all stared in amazement at the crashed, empty cab. Soon, a small, trembling man approached us with his arms extended towards us offering his wallet out for identification. From what I've read, in the same manner as Mr Diallo did to the police who shot him. The driver was also an African, attending Columbia University. The couple had pulled a gun on him demanding his cash or his life, so he bailed out. I don't blame him.

My point, if you've missed it, is that life in many other countries, including many of Africa's, is far different than here. When in a time of such extreme stress, a foreigner's reactions will be instinctive. If authories aren't to be trusted and carrying ID is a requirement of daily life, and offering it up immediately will protect oneself, that explains the actions of both of these men. Aren't police taught to recognize cultural differences and reactions? In Mr Diallo's case, this incident was an unquestionable and needless tragedy. Wordreader (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Cultural references

This section is huge, and dwarfs the rest of the article, unreasonably and unnecessarily. It needs to be trimmed or streamlined so it's more useful to readers than a mammoth list of everyone who's ever mentioned Diallo's name in a song ever. If no one else is interested in doing it, I guess I'll put it on my to-do list. Ford MF 23:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

When the author refers to Mr. Diallo as an "immigrant," he is not giving you the "entire" story. While Mr. Diallo may have had authorization to work in the United States, he had in fact gotten his residency by filing a fraudulent asylum application with the US Department of Justice. Mr. Diallo was in this country because he lied under oath on numerous occasions as to his nationality and regarding the death of his parents (they recovered 3-million dollars as compensation for their loss) at the hands of officals in Mauritania. Mr. Diallo was in fact Sengalese, and not from Mauritania.

While these facts do not alter the culpability of the NYPD, such an ommision could be evidence of the author's bias. What this "West African Immigrant" was doing in this country and how he got here, is relevant background information. This is the reason his fraudulent asylum application was admitted as evidence at the criminal trial. Amadou Diallo: West African immigrant, or a fraudulent "huckster?" Lets let the readers decide, not the author.

1) Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~).

2) Scoundrel or saint, he's just as dead. Ford MF 01:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• note from concerned reader*....will the author of this page get his skinhead neonazi facts straight? Amadou was born in Liberia and the 'object' he was bringing out of his pants was a wallet. Clearly to show his ID. I am white and after reading actual court transcripts can still see that this is clearly a racially motivated murder. Because of authors such as this, racism will unfortunately never end.

The song "Diallo" recorded by Wyclef Jean on his ECLEFTIC tour CD allows for more knowledge on this subject. It tells the story from the point of view from the people. It was a devastation to the morale of the African American community, and as they were pushed aside before during the trials, they must now be heard. Change is only as far a reach as we make it. Prejudice against other humans only makes our struggle a longer and more difficult. Thanks to those police officers on that day of Amadou Diallo's death, we have taken a giant step back from getting closer as the human race.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.0.157 (talk • contribs) December 20, 2006.

Was the evidence really admitted at his trial? It seems unduly prejudicial and completely irrelevant. Whether or not he had commited a crime and/or was not entitled to live in the US, this didn't affect his civil rights with regards to the charges. Also, the officers were evidently not aware of these details and so it couldn't have affected their response/fears. He wasn't on trial and didn't offer any evidence after all. Therefore, it was completely irrelevant and if it were really allowed in the trial, this perhaps just shows how screwed up the American judicial system is. No wonder there were/are so many complaints. In terms on this article, I agree the background info probably should be mentioned Nil Einne 17:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a fair point. futurebird 23:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

tapestry by William Wiley

I don't understand this part. Wiley almost certainly was long dead before this incident. What is this supposed to mean? AaronWL 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not the William Wiley linked to (though I'm about to fix that) it's a different William Wiley. At least, there is a different William Wiley, born in 1937, who makes tapestries. Gnfnrf 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

41 shots merge

I have suggested that the article 41 shots be merged into this article, as it consists of little more than token summary and a list of artists who have used the phrase. It would work much better if that content were merged into this article in the "cultural references" section, and the original article redirected here.--TexasDex 19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. The fluffiness of the 41 shots article has irritated me for a long time. Ford MF 03:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The cultural references section in this article is in everpresent danger of ballooning into a giant discussion of each and every artist who says anything at all about the shooting, dwarfing any encyclopedic coverage of the person or incident itself. There is nothing in the 41 shots article that isn't already in this article except for one sentence about Bruce Springsteen. And if that sentence goes in, then everyone adds a sentence about their favorite artist. If you don't like the 41 shots article, I'd support deletion. Gnfnrf 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Actually that does sound reasonable to me. I just kinda figured merge would be the 'soft delete' option, as most of that crap would vanish anyway. Ford MF 06:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is Chris Harman?

I'm a little confused why Amadou Diallo is referred to as Chris Harman in the article? I have never heard of him being called Chris Harman. Should his name be changed in the entries for the article?

Anthony22 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Our Chris Harman is "the editor of International Socialism, a former editor of Socialist Worker and a member of the Central Committee of the Socialist Workers Party." It seems regular vandalism at first sight, but you never know. Good that you brought it up at the talk page. gidonb 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened?

I don't know anything about this historical incident, and this Wikipedia article is woefully lacking in enlightening information. There are mentions of cultural references and protests, but nothing in this article says WHAT actually happened. Can we get an incident report or something? Anything is better than "a person was shot while unarmed, and then thousands of people protested it was racially motivated" - what was going on when he was shot? What triggered the police to begin shooting? int3gr4te 17:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I think I understand what happened. It looks like everything before the 'aftermath' section is missing - don't know why. Anchoress 06:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so I added a 'context' template

I agree, in particular I think the opening paragraph of the main 'Aftermath' section is very confusing. I don't know if an incident report would help, but a more complete and contextualised narrative certainly would. Anchoress 06:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed

'What happened' was vandals replaced the Events surrounding his death section in the article with "he is gay" vandalism. The next editors, instead of reverting it, just deleted the vandalism and failed to restore the content. I have fixed this by copying content from a revision dated April 12 [1].--TexasDex 12:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding a brief biography section

After seeing "Death of two sons", and having an interest in the Futu Djallon, thought I'd add a brief, uncontroversial bio section. I went looking for where he was born, burried, etc, and this article didn't have it. T L Miles 15:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Officers not "exonerated"

The officers were found "not guilty" by a jury of the criminal charges they faced. That means that the prosecutor did not prove beyond a reasonable doubtthat they were guilty of those criminal charges. This does not mean that the jurors believed that the officers were innocent, only that it was possible that they were innocent. A not guilty verdict definitely does not mean that they were "exonerated of any wrongdoing." 67.170.195.13 (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the presumption of innocence, a defendant is exonerated in the eyes of the criminal justice system upon being found "not guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt".

That said, the claim that they were "exonerated of any wrongdoing" is a bit of a stretch, especially given the mountain of evidence of wrong-doing on the part of the police officers. Hence, the $3,000,000 settlement paid by the City of New York in response to the civil claim. BlueRobe (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Indentation all screwed up...

The early indentation of this article is a mess. I started to try and go through the history, and fix the indentation. But it is too screwed up. Geo Swan (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Immortal Technique - The Other White Meat second verse

The reference in the second verse is much clearer: "No justice, no peace like Diallo; I'm-a do what I gotta do to stand my ground" (emphasis mine) -- Immortal Technique/S.O.U.L Purpose - "The Other White Meat"(Full) PizzaPower (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations

The following material is being moved here from the article until it can be properly sourced per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, et al. Nightscream (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath

Diallo's death, the change of venue, and the verdict each sparked massive demonstrations against police brutality and racial profiling, resulting in more than 1,700 arrests over the course of many weeks. Those arrested in the daily protests at the entrance of One Police Plaza included former NYPD officers, former mayor David Dinkins, Congressmen Charlie Rangel and Gregory Meeks, Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson, New York State Assemblyman Ruben Diaz Jr., activist actress Susan Sarandon, more than a dozen rabbis and other clergy, and numerous federal, state, and local politicians. Charges against the protesters were later dropped.

In 2001, the Justice Department announced it would not charge the officers with a violation of Diallo's civil rights. In the vestibule where Diallo died, neighbors created a shrine of letters, teddy bears, and other items. Within several weeks, there was a severe rain period and the landlord of the building put all the items in the garbage. A neighbor, Jimmy Spice Curry, rescued the items, storing them until he was able to contact Eugene Adams of Bronx Community College, who was given the items to donate to Diallo's mother.

Number of shots fired.

According to Democracy Now!'s broadcast dating from the 31st of July 2017 , 43 shots were fired, not 41. Graham Weatherspoon, retired detective with the New York City Police Department, and board member of the Amadou Diallo Foundation corrected Amy Goodman when she mentioned 41 shots; minute mark 35:08.

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shooting of Amadou Diallo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307074907/http://www.tedconover.com/diallo.html to http://www.tedconover.com/diallo.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Why does it mention his immigration issues. He wasn't being arrested because he looked like someone being sought for immigration issues... he was stopped because he looked like someone else, who he wasn't. Telling about an unrelated crime he committed just feeds the narrative that he deserved to be shot. It's victim blaming. Nacoran (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article states, "Carroll would later claim to have mistaken him for a rape suspect from one year earlier, though his claim was never confirmed by any objective evidence." I have a concern with the second half of the sentence. What objective evidence could confirm a mistaken recognition in a person's mind? I'm not sure how that qualifier could be relevant to the prior phrase. There can be no objective evidence of what concept enters my mind when I look at an image. However, without detailed knowledge of the case I'm hesitant to just cut that line - I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to leave the information completely unqualified. Any help straightening this out? Much appreciated. Jojopeanut (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No objections, and seems reasonable and consistent with the other examples.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Shooting of Amadou Diallo → Killing of Amadou Diallo – Per WP:DEATHS. Diallo was fatally shot; the officers involved were found not guilty of murder, ruling out the "Murder of" title. Recent consensus at other RMs involving fatal shootings by police (Killing of Akai Gurley, Killing of Alex Nieto, Killing of Alton Sterling) has been to use "Killing of". 162 etc. (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

-> He was not just shot, he was killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8308:20f:e600:d085:b44e:cb44:e894 (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2022 (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.

Music

Amadou is the first word of John Cena's theme song in WWE, unsure if worth adding 2601:844:4000:2C50:C85A:E8A:BA51:6160 (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Running away or showing his wallet?

The details of this incident are... sparse, in my humble opinion. I understand that Amadou Diallo was mistaken for another person. He was approached by police officers in plain clothes. They asked him to show his hands. After this, I'm very confused. The only details appear to be provided by this Newsweek article. The only legal proceeding for this incident provided by this article is Daniels v. City of New York, which is a class action suit against racism in the NYPD in general, which seems like a broad category, as opposed to the wrongful death of Amadou Diallo.

The most lack of clarity pertains to what exactly Diallo did after police said to show them his hands. He then "ran towards the vestibule" according to the officers, for which no alternative description is presented. I do not understand exactly where anyone physically is. How did they go from approaching him in one stationary spot to running through vestibules and falling from stoops? At what point did he reach into his jacket to show his wallet? Why would you do this while you are running away, let alone when you are asked to show your hands? If you are asked to show your ID, which he was not, and you first run and then reach into your jacket, that would certainly put people on edge. How are they going to see his ID if he's showing his wallet from so far away? This is a discrepancy that is treated with too little criticism by this article. Running away so that you can show your wallet?

Clearly I am missing key details? Can anyone help me better understand? Ender and Peter 18:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)