Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery

Celebrity Opinions

"Numerous religious leaders, athletes, and other celebrities condemned the incident." -- This is irrelevant. It contributes absolutely nothing to the quality of the article.

Defence's case

In this Vice article (https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/n7j8gm/a-black-jogger-was-chased-and-shot-by-2-white-men-in-georgia-2-months-ago-and-nobodys-been-arrested-yet), it reports

""Given the fact Arbery initiated the fight, at the point Arbery grabbed the shotgun, under Georgia Law, McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself," Barnhill wrote in a letter to local police, according to the Times.

That attorney said there’s video footage of the shooting, and video footage of Arbery “burglarizing a home immediately preceding the chase and confrontation.”"

And, what about this from the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/us/ahmed-arbery-shooting-georgia.html): "In a separate document, Mr. Barnhill stated that video exists of Mr. Arbery “burglarizing a home immediately preceding the chase and confrontation.” In the letter to the police, he cites a separate video of the shooting filmed by a third pursuer.

Mr. Barnhill said this video, which has not been made public, shows Mr. Arbery attacking Travis McMichael after he and his father pulled up to him in their truck.

The video shows Mr. Arbery trying to grab the shotgun from Travis McMichael’s hands, Mr. Barnhill wrote. And that, he argued, amounts to self-defense under Georgia law. Travis McMichael, Mr. Barnhill concluded, “was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself.”

He noted that it was possible that Mr. Arbery had caused the gun to go off by pulling on it, and pointed to Mr. Arbery’s “mental health records” and prior convictions, which, he said, “help explain his apparent aggressive nature and his possible thought pattern to attack an armed man.”"

what happened to this evidence, was it discredited or a lie? or did it become politically unwise to mention this? I'm honestly so confused because it makes all the difference in explaining why they would attempt a citizen's arrest. Doesn't excuse loss of life, of course--but it makes the whole story make some kind of tragic sense. At the moment the wiki and press narrative is that pure evil is the explanation, and that is not as parsimonious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 11:25, May 6, 2020 (UTC)

• @Aussiewikilady: - article revamped and the things you mentioned are added at Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery#Prosecutor writings. starship.paint (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

white supremacists???

Why does article say the defendants were white supremacists??? None of the articles cited make this claim. This kind of biased writing is unacceptable. I am removing the phrase until new sources can be provided to back up this statement. Encyclopedia articles should be neutral. And not making personal attacks. Report the facts plz. If the facts are that these were white nationalists then you can report it. But don’t put it in there as a smear. Henrylesliegraham (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That edit was vandalism and it's been corrected. CalmHand1 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Move to "Lynching of Ahmaud Arbery"

This case is clearly an example of a modern lynching given the definition of lynching, "a premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group." The fact that the individuals were waiting with loaded firearms clearly makes the action premeditated, and they were acting as vigilantes. A prosecutor, court or jury finding the lynching to not be illegal after the fact does not make it not a lynching. living^fract@lk 05:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Livingfractal: - have you heard of WP:Original research? It is not up to you to say whether the shooting fits the definition of a lynching. It is up to the sources. If the majority viewpoint of reliable sources is that this is a lynching, we can move the article. It's up to you to prove that this is the case. starship.paint (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved back to the original title. Three assailants is NOT much of a group. Love of Corey (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A lynching has a formal definition, and we can certainly talk about Point of View neutrality, but this has nothing to do with "original research". Vigilante justice by a group or mob which results in death of the accused without formal trial is, and always will be, "lynching". living^fract@lk 06:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A group is defined as "three or more" living^fract@lk 06:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You need a source with this, not your thoughts. Also no one was convicted or even charged here yet.--KasiaNL (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

https://newsone.com/3937291/da-blamed-ahmaud-arberys-killing-aggressive-nature-resign-leaders-say/ https://www.latestnewssouthafrica.com/2020/05/06/ahmaud-aubrey-shooting-video-surfaces-online-its-so-horrific/ https://ktt2.com/ahmaud-arbery-chased-down-and-murdered-59542 living^fract@lk 06:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• The first source, Newsone, reports it as a "lynching", with the quotation marks, so that's not its actual view. It states many people characterizing it as a lynching. Your second source, is desktop cancer. I'd advise everyone not to click on the latestnewssouthafrica source. Your third source, KTT2, is some sort of a forum, that in no way is a reliable source. starship.paint (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Y'all are clearly trying to insert a point of view by avoiding the technical term for this "extrajudicial killing" living^fract@lk 06:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Conviction of murder or a hate crime is not what defines something as a lynching. You and your family dragging some guy raping your daughter into the lawn to be executed is a lynching; it doesn't matter if no jury would convict you. living^fract@lk 06:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please understand I completely sympathize with you and have seen the video personally. Having said that please try to be NPOV, the reason Wikipedia values neutrality is because of very emotional issues like this, starting an edit war is not the way to handle these things, instead discussing any changes that might be controversial on a talk page and reaching a consensus before reverting someone else's revert is important. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Only the first link looks like an WP:RS, and in it, it says "people" describe it as a lynching without clarifying who exactly said it. We need RS to describe it as a lynching, and not as part of an op-ed either. Otherwise, such a title would just be inflammatory. Love of Corey (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Livingfractal's move warring is inappropriate. No consensus for move, original research, and BLP issue!--KasiaNL (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The most reliable news sources: news agencies (1) Reuters, and (2) Associated Press, call it a shooting. No mention of lynching. starship.paint (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This makes title crystal clear for shooting NOW. Maybe historians see in future different, but can't jump gun to future!--KasiaNL (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

More sources already used in the article without lynching. (3) The New York Times, (4) The Guardian, (5) NBC News, (6) CBS News, (7) BBC News. starship.paint (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

https://nypost.com/2020/05/07/ahmaud-arberys-mom-cant-bear-to-watch-video-of-modern-lynching/ living^fract@lk 18:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/07/ahmaud-arbery-parents-call-for-arrests-killing-song-daily-jog living^fract@lk 18:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Like other: My vote is no to calling it lynching. Original research of a highly motivated poor critical thinker, and no consensus for a move. Critical thinking should be taught more in all schools. It is a tragedy, but not a lynching--there is a video of the victim doing a sharp 90 turn and running at the man and trying to grab his gun. Lynchings were not like that at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 13:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Personal attacks are inappropriate. living^fract@lk 18:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh this is why Livingfractal tagged the article with {{POV-title}}. No. Arbery's mother is the only person who has used the word "lynching" in this context, as far as I am aware. That's her POV. We will not integrate it at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden, the apparent Democratic presidential nominee, on Thursday addressed the brutal attack of black jogger in Georgia, who was chased and gunned down by two white men, saying the incident amounted to a lynching “before our very eyes” and demanding a “transparent investigation.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-slams-arbery-shooting-grave-injustice-demands-investigation-n1202291?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma living^fract@lk 19:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay then, that is someone else calling it a lynching. Of course, he's not a legal authority on this matter, rather someone trying to score political points in the lead up to an election, so that does diminish it somewhat. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reply - I support either shooting or death, until the investigation is complete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Although I would not mind the word lynching per se, since I think it was accurate here (or perhaps more of a setup), I believe Wikipedia needs to be as objective as possible, and focus on FACTS. Even more so before a court case could be held. So the facts should be documented and verified, but until a court ruling has been made, wikipedia should NOT unilaterally describe any "wanted" outcome either way, in favour of anyone involved here. Let the courts do their job; wikipedia's job is to focus on the FACTS. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery became a viral video? Source: Vox

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hack of Jeff Bezos' phone

Created by Colinmcdermott (talk) and Starship.paint (talk). Nominated by Starship.paint (talk) at 05:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC).

• This strikes me as in somewhat poor taste — "became a viral video" make it sound like it's "The Hampsterdance Song". I see what it's trying to say, but the tone is wrong. (The linked source does have that issue in the headline, too, but it doesn't come off that way quite as strongly with the headline's wording, to me anyway.) Just my 2¢. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 21:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that although the people involved in the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery were immediately identified by police, arrests were only made 74 days later, after a video of the shooting was publicized? Sources: WaPo and AJC

@Goldenshimmer: - how about the above? starship.paint (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolves my concern, looks good to me! Thanks starship.paint. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 04:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Goldenshimmer - thank you. Do you have concerns about the article itself? starship.paint (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

starship.paint: As an article it seems solid, and while I'm certainly no DYK expert, it seems to meet the guidelines. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 23:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(←) Needs full review - prior tick did not address the criteria. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(If it's any help, I did go through the list at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria and it appeared to meet all the points, in case that wasn't clear from my earlier comment. Of course, if I missed something or otherwise did it wrong, never mind, and sorry for the trouble! First time commenting on one of these, so I'm not used to the procedure...) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 21:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Goldenshimmer No big deal. It was everyone's first DYK review some time. All you need to do is list out that each criteria is met. I've pasted the checklist below. Just put a y in all of the fields that apply, and the review will be good to go. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The Squirrel Conspiracy Thanks! I've filled it in (hope you don't mind I replaced your signature in the template, since I didn't want to inadvertently "forge" it!) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 22:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Sourcing: while I'd consider WGXA and The Daily Beast aren't the best sources — former's part of Sinclair Broadcast Group, which hasn't a stellar reputation, and the latter's quite tabloidy — the first is used in conjunction with other sources, and the latter is attributed when used alone, so I think it's fine. Note that aside from the hook and a couple other things I checked, I'm mostly taking it on faith that the citations provided support the text. Plagiarism-free: to the best of my knowledge — I don't see anything where the text "smells" like plagiarism, anyway. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 22:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Review looks good now. Thanks Goldenshimmer and sorry for all the hoop-jumping. This project loves its bureaucracy sometimes. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 00:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The McMichaels' and William Bryan's activities before the shooting

Kwwhit5531 - you added [1] Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael, and William Bryan saw Arbery outside their property and stated later to police that they had seen him earlier on home security footage. Both McMichaels' armed themselves, Travis with a shotgun and Gregory with a pistol. They then began pursuing him in their pickup truck, while William Bryan followed close behind in his own vehicle, sourced to Waycross District Attorney George Barnhill's letter.

However the letter only states: It appears Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael, and Bryan William were following, in pursuit burglary suspect, with solid firsthand probable cause, in their neighborhood, and asking / telling him to stop. It appears their intent was to stop and hold this criminal suspect until law enforcement arrived.

(Issue 1) I believe that your text overreaches the source? Furthermore, notice that Barnhill keeps using "It appears", which is not at all definitive?

(Issue 2) I believe the only account of their activities was Gregory McMichael's witness account to the police, as depicted in the police report, right? We don't exactly have any proof other than that, so can't this information go into the Police report section or somewhere in the Investigation section instead of the Shooting section? The other stuff in the Shooting section are more definitive (video at the owner's house, 9-1-1 call, main video). starship.paint (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

fair enough, that should have said something more like "Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael, and William Bryan stated to police they saw Arbery outside their property and that they had seen him earlier on home security footage." Though this following part, can be verified independently due to video made by Bryan and doesn't rely on their statements "Both McMichaels' armed themselves, Travis with a shotgun and Gregory with a pistol. They then began pursuing him in their pickup truck, while William Bryan followed close behind in his own vehicle". As to sources their are four primary sources of the shooting and events shortly before it: the two 911 calls made by unknown individuals, the police report, and Bryan's cellphone video. Strangely, Bryan is not mentioned in the narrative of the police report, but he is listed as a witness in the report, as well as being mentioned in the D.A's recusal letter, which is were almost all detail actually comes from describing his involvment. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh and as to issue 2, it would probably be best to combine the two "before shootings" into some kind of "background" section. I added the section since Aubrey had a section describing events shortly before the shooting, and wanted to add section for the other individuals involved, so they don't appear out of nowhere in the article's narrative as well as provide some additional context as to how the incident began. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Jogging versus running

The word jogging should be kept in the article where it is presented as a claim: because his family said he was out jogging. However, the word jogging should not be used in an encyclopedia entry elsewhere: because it is possible he was not on a jog, but was running from his presence at a house site that he does not own. Jogging is a narrative provided by the family, and that should stay in the article, but as a claim and not in the objective framing of the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 18:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Jogging should be the word used here. "Running" implies he wasn't exercising and has a negative connotation especially when describing people of color in a case like this. "Running" also sounds too definitive when there is a clear difference between running and jogging. We should go by the family's claim as most news articles are doing. Having "Running" in the sentence is immediately taking a stance against the family.
Miss HollyJ (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Running - there is no objective evidence that Arbrey was jogging. There is objective evidence that Arbrey was running when he fled the scene of the burglary. Juno (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Running – jogging implies a POV interpretation of what he was doing – i.e., that he was out getting some exercise and was not in a hurry. Per the Jogging article, "Jogging is a form of trotting or running at a slow or leisurely pace. The main intention is to increase physical fitness with less stress on the body than from faster running but more than walking, ..." Jogging can be referred to as running, but running implies an interpretation of the intention and pace of the activity that may be unwarranted here. Of course it is OK to say that someone said he was jogging. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the term jogging is perfectly appropriate here. It is not the fault of the wikipedia users if the accused or people in favour of them wishing to use specific other terms. I consider it a colloquial term for mid-load exercise. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead accuracy and style

I don't think this is accurate: "confronted by three white men with a pickup truck". It would appear that Bryan never confronted Arbery at the scene of the shooting. "The confrontation involved Arbery trying to grab one of the men's gun"—that's an incredibly passive way to phrase the fact that Arbery lunged at Travis and tried to wrest away his gun. And "Travis fatally shooting Arbery" may not be totally accurate either, given there was a struggle for it—it would be more accurate at this point to write that "Travis' gun discharged, fatally…" Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tambourine60 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't write stories, Wikipedia attempts to present a consensus version of what appears in secondary sources. "Lunged" is editorializing language that carries a connotation of aggression that I do not believe is warranted (cf. earlier conversation about "running" vs "jogging") or found in the sources. And regarding the "gun discharged", this is also editorializing, and unsupported by the sources. Every source I can find, even those one might expect to take it easy on the shooter (eg Fox News), reports that the shots did not begin during a struggle for possession of the gun. ("The black man seems to attempt to run around the truck, and the moment he clears the vehicle, a shot rings out. A brief struggle ensues in what looks like an effort to control a shotgun, and another two shots are heard."[2]) Ford MF (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that wikipedia does not write story, I think confronted by three men is still the wrong term. The two on the pickup truck were more directly involved clearly; the third one did not seem to be as involved, even if it may very possibly be so. But wikipedia needs to be accurate, so the statement of "three white men with a pickup truck" would be wrong. Also, while I do not doubt that racism was involved here, I think it is a bit pointless to mention "white man" or "black victim" per se. The colour should not make a difference. A court case will have to investigate motives etc... 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)