Talk:Porepunkah police shootings: Difference between revisions

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

Porepunkah police shootings → Porepunkah shootings – For consistency with Wieambilla shootings, a nearly identical event, and also since there’s no real need to disambiguate, since no other notable shootings have happened in Porepunkah. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 14:46, 30 August 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A number of media sources use “Porepunkah shooting” (ABC, The Guardian), a similar name setup is used for Osmington shooting as well as Wieambilla. At first thought, I wondered if there was any precedent for specifying the targets (i:e police officers) when it seems to be an act of targeted violence against a specific group — but, for example, École Polytechnique massacre (a femicide in Canada) simply specifies the location and not its targets. LivelyRatification (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with everything mentioned in support. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. “Shootings” on its own could imply that civilians or non-law enforcement were shot. It’s important to clarify that this was not an indiscriminate killing, but a deliberate ambush of police. StellaAquila (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@StellaAquila Most definitely agree! Distinguishing the targets, with intent, should be what is read first. There was a murder/suicide close by, some years back, yet it’s not even mentioned. The Porepunkah Police Shootings are in a different league, especially as Police Officers, who enforce the law and protect civillians were deliberately targeted with two lives taken and a third badly injured. Not all shooting incidents are the same and to be differentiated from each other. 2001:8003:349E:C000:B0E0:74B4:7CA9:25B3 (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency with Wieambilla shootings and more reliable sources. Based on my analysis, many more instances of just Porepunkah shooting are used, and I have not been able to find a source which solely uses Porepunkah police shooting.

As above _{so below} 00:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What reasons were those? Who were the police shooting at? Was Freeman shot? In the 2012 Anaheim, California police shooting and protests, the police shot and killed two people. The List of Albuquerque police shootings includes a lot of people who were shot by the police. In the 2009 Beemapally police shooting, six people were killed by the police, and after it happened, four police officers were suspended. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof It was Filby who was shooting at the Police whist they were attempting to serve a warrant. He had a handmade gun and several others in the bus he lived in. After over 20mins of negotiations, which led nowhere, Police tried to open the door using a crowbar. Filby opened fire killing two Officers and badly wounding another. He was not shot, nor wounded in any way. Whilst other Officers were taking cover, Filby ran off into the scrub. Despite knowing the Officer who was negotiating with him, he shot him dead in cold blood, only then to take another and then a third wounded. They didn’t stand a chance, as Filby was ready for a day like this. I personally don’t care what media outlets are calling this tragedy, as a long-term resident of the town, the title needs to reflect the previous lack of any such incident and establish in the page how dangerous this Sovereign Citizen Movement has become, especially to such a tiny rural town. 2001:8003:349E:C000:B0E0:74B4:7CA9:25B3 (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR. A police shooting is when the police shoot someone. See police shooting. Per WP:CONCISE, we shouldn’t include unnecessary words like “police” if “shooting” is sufficient. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof: What policy says that “a ‘police shooting’ is when the police shoot someone”? The list page you link to Lists of killings by law enforcement officers is for “lists of people killed by law enforcement” when you go to the articles not law enforcement officers killed by civilians. This article is about a civilian killing law enforcement officers and should have “police” in the title. Melbguy05 (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What policy Wrong question. English language is the problem here. The term “police shooting” is ambiguous. It can mean both “police shooting people” and “people shooting police”. We don’t use ambiguous article titles when there is a perfectly acceptable unambiguous title. As BarrelProof said, WP:CONCISE. Paradoctor (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The shooting took place in the morning, on a Tuesday, but we don’t need to say that in the title of the article. The shooter’s name was Dezi Bird Freeman, but we don’t need to say that in the title of the article. If he shot civilians instead of police officers, we wouldn’t need to call it a civilian shooting in the title of the article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The significant thing here is that the victims were police. We should mention police in the title. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The victims were uniformed police, and the incident was a direct attack on police. This is a shooting only of police officers. MondoAus (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @MondoAus Just a slight correction, not all Police were uniformed, as some were Detectives, yet they were still identifiable as Police Officers. 2001:8003:349E:C000:B0E0:74B4:7CA9:25B3 (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks; for all intents and purposes, as you state, whether they were uniformed as a police officer or uniformed as a detective, they were identifiable as police either way. MondoAus (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Law Enforcement, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Death, and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians’ notice board have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 05:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradoctor: how is the current title ambiguous or misleading? Melbguy05 (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See police shooting. Paradoctor (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t ping me, I watch where I write. Paradoctor (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Porepunkah today and took some photos. As this article already features one photo I took and added to the article, I don’t want to add too many of my own images, but thought I’d share the photos I have uploaded to Commons to see if any editors might find them helpful here. None are directly related to the shootings, but some could be used topically (primary school in shootings section, pub in reactions section, sign in background info). See below:

Thanks for your contribution. There’s not a lot of room left without crowding the article, but the primary school photo could go in the Shootings section where its lockdown is discussed. The other two are perhaps less relevant for inclusion. WWGB (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some room can be made by converting the bizarre Dezi Freeman infobox to a simple thumbnail. Known for… “Alleged murder of police officers” in the article on the shooting. Good grief. 49.185.124.85 (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pub and the town sign are not specifically mentioned in the article. Images should be related and not merely decorative. And let’s not forget that the shooting did not occur in the town. WWGB (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you’re right. I do think photographs of rough terrain would be a welcome addition. 49.185.124.85 (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Category:Mount Buffalo National Park may be helpful. While I have some other (middling) photos of the town I didn’t upload to Commons, I didn’t attempt to enter the national park for obvious reasons. LivelyRatification (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an image of the national park would be good to demonstrate the difficulty of the terrain. These three are the most relevant I could see in that category. Which one would be the most helpful? I think the third one (File:Mount Buffalo National Park 2.jpg) would be the best option.

SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LivelyRatification (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems outside of the first 48 hours (WP:RSBREAKING), media reporting is not describing the event as an ambush. One such source from The Age used seems ambiguous, it describes the incident as “an ambush”, “this looks like an ambush”, and “accused of ambushing police”. 103.87.254.62 (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying we should change anything in the article that calls the attack an ambush? I think I would have to disagree here, just based on the definition of an ambush and the reports of what occured in Porepunkah, which match that definition closely. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the sources have stopped describing this as an ambush. In light of that, I don’t think it’s a great idea to debate definitions, but using Cambridge definition: “To suddenly attack someone after hiding and waiting for them”, I don’t see that there is evidence the killer was hiding and waiting for the police, rather than simply being at home when they came to execute a warrant. 103.87.254.62 (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I should’ve updated my knowledge of what happened based on latest information. I thought this was a clear ambush under dictionary definitions, but now some articles are mentioning dialogue with Freeman before the incident occurred. If that’s the case, then I think changing the mentions of an ‘ambush’ would be ok. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this, this article mentions police speaking with Freeman before climbing through a window of the bus. The article currently says police ‘search an abandoned bus before being ambushed’. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to this revert by Melbguy05, who says “BLPCRIME only applies to living persons. The word alleged is used.”

I can’t make sense of this. Are you saying Freeman is dead? Moreover, do you believe Freeman is a public figure? 103.87.254.62 (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whops my mistake. WP:BLPCRIME applies. Sorry, too many late nights not enough sleep. What wording do you suggest instead? Melbguy05 (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my edit, I wrote “attended the “Four Gully Farm” property to execute a search warrant,” which is along the lines the Guardian takes. If we want, we can go into more detail and explicitly say that the warrant was a response to crimes Freeman was alleged to have committed. 103.87.254.62 (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be worth mentioning the alleged crimes. He is a public figure, as he has achieved notoriety through his alleged actions of shooting two police officers and then evading capture. I don’t think it does any harm to his reputation to mention that police were there to serve a warrant against him for sexual offences, given that we have a honking big photo of his face next to a section called “Shootings”. The allegations may be complete bunkum, but I think they’re important context — he was accused of serious offences, and then allegedly committed more. LivelyRatification (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]