Talk:Killing of Latasha Harlins

message: This article says Soon Ja Du was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, but the article on the 1992 Los Angeles riots says she was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.  The vast majority of web references say voluntary manslaughter, including a court transcript, so this page is probably the one that is wrong.
It states Latasha 'threw' the orange bottle on the counter. The cctv film shows Latasha handing over the bottle, she doesn't throw the bottle. Linclinc (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Accuracy 

message: Take a look and compare. These two articles are identical in scope with a few details unique to both. ie. names, ages, roles of Billy and Charles Du, Du's lawyer, video proof, Tupac. It seems like a waste of space to have the two when they don't go into the actual lives of the two individuals, and all we know about them stems from this one incident. I'm not entirely sure what the new article should be called - I'm trying to find an article which was titled after an incident with a similar background - Would this be a precedent? As voluntary manslaughter is still murder by definition, it could be called "Murder of Latasha Harlins," but I'm sure someone wants think of something that sounds "less biased." (The Lake Effect 09:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with the merger idea.  Definitely think that "Death of . . ." or even "Killing of . . ." would be a better title.  Whether voluntary manslaughter is truly the same as second-degree murder is a subtle legal point that in truth would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction even within the United States, to say nothing of possible legal variances in other countries.  One could certainly make an reasonable argument that there's no substantive difference, and that "murder" is therefore just as appropriate a word.  But it isn't Wikipedia's place to make such an argument.  So, since Soon Ja Du was not convicted of murder, a "Murder of . . ." title definitely should not be used.  Mwelch 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to try merging the two. --Seazzy 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold!  8-)  Mwelch 21:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's better than the current title but even 'Death' isn't completely descriptive.  Harlins was shot and killed in a criminal act.  A correct title should mention this.  ThatSaved (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of [[Soon Ja Du]] and [[Latasha Harlins]] articles 

message: Soap Box Section 
Even though Wikipedia is not a soapbox, several users have used this page to express the opinion that Harlins deserved to die or that her death is somewhat less tragic because she was stealing. This idea, weak to begin with, becomes totally useless once one realizes that she WASN'T stealing, and one realizes this soon after beginning to read the article.  Of course, those expressing this opinion are of the anonymous hit and run type, who can't be bothered with reading the text or the links. So I'm creating this section for them to speak their anger and ignorance, and so those wanting a real discussion don't have to be disturbed with their useless opinions. 130.156.29.112 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Du, a tiny elderly woman, used her hands to grab Harlin's backpack.  As the storekeeper, she had a right to do that if she suspected shoplifting.  And the girl WAS concealing merchandise.  Du never tried to hit her, but Harlin wailed on the old woman.  She was assaulted in her own store and in my opinion she had a right to defend herself. 76.115.59.36 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case you ever work in the retail industry, you don't have a right to grab a customer or their things, even if you suspect wrongdoing. You can always ASK to look in their bag etc., but they might say no, in which case you can't really do anything. - 15:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

text: She probably planned on stealing it, noticed she was seen, and pulled the money out to cover for her actions.  She still attempted to leave the store without paying.  So drop the snotty sarcasm, people . . . it doesn't help and cases like this are not cut and dried. 76.115.59.36 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

text: 100% self defense. Du shouldn't have even received the probation. Latasha Harlins didn't deserve to die but deserve the reaction from an elderly store owner who probably never experience what she experienced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.180.95 (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

text: You don't put something into your back pack if you intend on paying for it. The money may have been a ruse if she was confronted, to say she was going to pay for it. If you were going to pay for it, you don't start punching someone smaller than you when they come up and point out that you've put store merchandise into your back pack. You tell them "Sorry about that, I am going to buy this, I should have got a shopping basket". The article is written pretty POV for the dead girl. She didn't deserve to die for stealing juice, but from the sounds of it she assaulted the older/smaller shop owner quite viciously (probably something she'd been through before) and obviously felt extremely theatened to take retribution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

text: The store owner put herself in harms way, but she was trying to prevent stealing. But where I'm from, the store owner would scream out to you before approaching you, especially if you towered over them. They'd rather lose $2 in merchandise than to lose their life. Since Latasha died with $2 in her hand, it's safe to assume that she was going to pay. Also, Latasha proceeded to leave the store after placing the juice on the counter, so it's safe to assume she wasn't going to steal. Chic3z (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "placing" sounds rather delicate. Do you want a gif of how the juice was left? Money in hand doesn't make intent to pay a safe assumption. As above that is an easy out if caught. Many caught for petty theft would rather pay than get criminal charges but this doesn't insert a desire to pay prior to being caught. Ranze (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Off-topic chat

message: This article contained several paragraphs copied (or nearly copied) from  (despite that page's prominent "reproduction prohibited" notice). Regrettably, the most recent revision I could find lacking the plagiarized text was from way back in December. I reverted it to be safe. Just thought I should explain myself. --kine (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  plagiarism! 

message: Discussion here: 130.156.29.230 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources noticeboard

message: I am undoing several edits made today by an IP user.  This has very little to do with the facts in the edits, but more to do with no sources given.  From the articles I read none of the facts asserted by this editor were ever established.  I could easily be wrong.  If reliable sources can be provided that would verify the edits, by all means revert me.  I will be leaving a similar message on that editor's talk page.  Thanks. Tiderolls 22:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits of 5/1/09 

message: I've reinserted several citations that were deleted without explanation.  Verifiability is an import part of Wikipedia, see WP:V
68.38.183.158 (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand why you added the citations back, but all the information that the original citations refer to is obtainable through the court transcript.  I deleted the citations to the articles, because the articles which the citations refer to have very sensational titles, favoring Harlins' side over Du's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saaws (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be the case, but I would think sources would always be welcome, if they are reliable.  However, as a compromise, I offer this.  All inline cites can be removed and put in the external references section.  Cite 4 can be removed because its title is somwhat sensationalized, cites 1,2,8 and 10 can be removed since they aren't links. 68.38.183.158 (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Cites 

message: Does anyone know what has happened to Soon Ja Du?  Did she end up going back to Korea?  Does she still run a liquor store?  A followup would be nice I can't find anything online but I will keep looking.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.49.209 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: She moved to a more rural part of California with her husband, not sure if she's dead now though since she should be in her eighties. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 11:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soon Ja Du 

message: Most of the narrative in the section "Summary" does not follow NPOV guidelines.  The section says that it is a summary of the court case, but it is clearly not. The summary section uses language like "Du erroneously concluded" and " who falsely[4] claimed having been robbed". I think this section should just recount the facts as they appear in the case, and not make conclusions based on information that is unknowable. --Mherlihy (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the summary is pretty accurate.  The wording could have been a bit better but it does tell the truth.  Du, unfortunately, lied about being robbed (Harlins never took money from the register).  Harlins only had two dollars in her hands and there was still money in Du's cash register.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JinaBean (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Did you read any of the cites?  "Slain girl was not stealing juice, police say." reads the footnote that is part of the excerpt you've copied above.  This section is not MAKING conclusions, it's repeating the conclusions of the police and the jury. ThatSaved (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Saying you were robbed doesn't automatically mean you are saying cash was stolen. It can also refer to merchandise. Harlins stole the juice soon as it passed her zipper regardless of what cops say. Ranze (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I propose this article be moved to the title Death of Latasha Harlins. Subject is notable primarily for the incident in which she died. The article focuses on the incident, the aftermath, and the legacy, with substantial space dedicated to Du's trial, and the effect on the culture. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: - As there has been no comment in the past week, and as per WP:BOLD, the article has been moved. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Move 

message: Details of the breif struggle before Harlins's death should be mentioned for completeness.
:From your title and your comment, it's obvious you know little about this case or the article.
:24.187.214.210 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Latasha Harlins Assualt 

message: Although I have little reason to believe that someone who would shout "STOP IT NOW" has the ability or desire to engage in productive dialogue, I for one will attempt to follow wiki protocol by initiating talk page discussion.  Phrases that have weasel words such as "some members" and "numerous...businesses" are not desirable in Wikipedia.  The rationale, weak as it is, given for retaining this phrasing is that it is cited, but not only is this not obvious, because there are no direct links to the sources, it is of dubious relevance.  The fact that sources use this language is no reason we can not try to IMPROVE on the phrasing per Wiki's manual of style.  Keeping the templates that have been inserted and have been in existence for quite some time are the best method of bring attention to this issue.  24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: As "mike" well knows, not all killings are legal. There was a criminal conviction in this case.  The court documents refer to the killing as being unlawful.  JamesBurnsLives (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the court, that is. It is not as uncontroversial as it seems. 104.218.136.34 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, according to the court.  That's how it's done it most countries.  JamesBurnsLives (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the edit warring is still continuing and you don't seem to be anywhere near consensus, I have made a request for another full protection. Widr (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus? I understand you desire to be neutral, but users who maintain that a killing which resulted in a standing criminal conviction is lawful are trolling. JamesBurnsLives (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Hi All,
I'm sure the jury really recommended the maximum sentence, but none of the citations actually say this. I've also been unable to find the jury recommendation online. Can someone post a link so we can properly cite it?
Thanks,
Editgram (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need citation for Jury recommendation 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Killing of Lizzie O'Neill which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 18:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Hi, 
So I understand this might bring my personal biases to the table, but my personal review of the video suggests that Du did not throw a stool, but that Latasha attempted to get the backpack, failed, Du pulled the backpack behind the counter then threw it at her. I don't think it was a stool. 
Yes, of course my review of the video is not backed by a secondary source, but I believe the current edit of this article does not back Du has thrown a stool either. 
Multiple previous talks have also mentioned she might have thrown the backpack instead of the stool.
But of course, it is 4:50 in the morning, I was on a hankering to get to what I believe is a decent study for the tape of the killing, and I am all out of time for now.
Jzburda (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backpack or stool?