Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

How to resolve the dispute over priors

An administrator has started the requested RfC below. --AzureCitizen (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

There are multiple threads here on the talk page where editors are debating over whether or not Arbery's prior criminal record should be included. Passions are running high on the issue, with allegations of WP:BDP smearing the victim vs whitewashing what the RS are reporting. With all the media attention and the usual potential for divided public opinion driving editors to come visit this article, we'll probably see a lot more of that unless we get organized. Some have called for an RFC. Channelling editors into focusing on a list of logical policy based arguments in a single thread therein would be the best way to come to real consensus on excluding or including the content, plus the RFC's listing will attract outside editors with BLP/NPOV/RS policy experience who may provide new perspectives.

The first step begins with drafting the most simplistic and neutral RFC question we can come up with for the listing. How do editors feel about this formulation?

Should Arbery's prior criminal record be included?

If you support that formulation, please comment accordingly, while if you think there is a better way to phrase it, please provide your own suggestion. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's a good phrasing of the question unless there are objections. Although this might be a tiny degree better:
Support or Oppose Arbery's prior criminal record being included in the article
Obviously I'm splitting hairs here but it's just more specific – Chrisvacc (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – a RfC on this issue and either question seems fine to me. I'd also offer that the eventual consensus established by the RfC is useful in that it can be referenced if and when this issue comes up again, and it will, I promise you that. Based on my experience as a major contributor to Shooting of Trayvon Martin, this very same issue (past conduct of TM and GZ and police) was brought up over and over on the talk page, and I'm seeing some of the same arguments used then for inclusion of past conduct, being used now for this article. RfC's worked then to combat the problem, and I think they would be useful here. I'd also point out that eventually the past conduct of both TM and GZ eventually found it's way into that article. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment the question is not should it be included. The question is very much in what context and when. This is not, for me, an RFC issue but is instead an issue of how the article is formulated today and will be formulated in the long term. An RFC here will either bring up a yea or nay, and then when matters proceed to the next stage (i.e. trial) the relevance will become more specific as / when McMichael and co make their separate statements. At that point we will better understand the relevance of his criminal record to this case. For instance if McMichael reveals he did recognise Arbery. If their motivation was indeed due to the theft of their hangun. If they suspected Arbery had taken the gun. If the man they faced off against the prior week was in fact Arbery and so on and so forth. At present that level of context doesn't exist any more than digging through the McMichaels career to look for any racially charged behaviour. I am sure at some point a news report will do so, the same way they will dig through the DA's profile but at present it is liable only to introduce imbalance. Koncorde (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. This RfC should be used for the situation stands right now but not for future precidents. The situation may (and probably will) change as the case progresses, but we should use the RfC to figure out what we do with the article right now – Chrisvacc (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
You have a point. This is a more subtle issue than just "yes, include everything" to "no, never mention anything". An RfC that oversimplifies this won't help us in the long term. FollowTheSources (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps an appropriate phrasing would be:
As the case stands on May 14th 2020 - Do you Support or Oppose Arbery's prior criminal record being included in the article
@NorthBySouthBaranof: @Dream Focus: @Kwwhit5531: @Tambourine60: @CalmHand1: @Topcat777: @Joseph A. Spadaro: @Starship.paint: @O3000: Do you have any comments on the formulation of the question? – Chrisvacc (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to give a specific date as the RfC will be dated for anyone to see, if one is initiated. This proposed RfC is not intended for the purpose of establishing an iron clad decision that - "no, never mention anything", but rather to establish a consensus about the disputed content as it stands right now at this stage of the case (as you suggested). And as the case goes forward, remember that consensus can change too, and RfC's are useful to help establish consensus for disputes over what and what not to include (when discussion doesn't resolve the issue). And to clarify my above comment, which appears to be misinterpreted as this RfC being used for "future precidents" (Sic), what I meant was that proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. And judging by the amount of times this content has already been brought up, and very likely in the near future will be brought up again, it's useful to point new queries to a recently established consensus. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Chrisvacc: - I'm afraid I believe the original question asked was better. starship.paint (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • What criminal record? I've looked at RS and can't find any indication that he has been convicted of a parking violation. Even if there is a record, clearly nothing should be included unless it is directly relevant. We don't normally go after the person killed like this. O3000 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Any input with regard to the phrasing of the question (top of this thread) for the RFC? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. There should not be an RfC discussing phrasing something that shouldn't be included. Seriously, how can you discuss his criminal record when no one has shown that he has one or what it is if it exists? O3000 (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
"When he was in high school, Arbery was sentenced to five years probation as a first offender on charges of carrying a weapon on campus and several counts of obstructing a law enforcement officer. He was convicted of probation violation in 2018 after he was charged with shoplifting, court documents show."[1] Rreagan007 (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Easily found sources, Arbery was convicted of bringing a handgun to Brunswick High School in 2013, court records show. He was also convicted of stealing a television from Walmart in 2017. and the original arrest in 2013 and convicted of probation violation in 2018 and new reports say the father investigated him prior to the shooting. This is the background information that has been under discussion for some time now, and what the proposed RfC would be about. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Are these felonies? (No, and one cite above actually just claimed that two relatives were charged with crimes. What is this -- the sins of the relatives? Even linking to that article is a BLP vio.) Are these sources good enough for such (no)? Is any of this relevant to being killed? (No one has shown such.) Frankly, you are both on the line of POV violations for even posting this. O3000 (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
It is Georgia, so who knows if it's a felony, but in my state bringing a handgun to school is a felony. As far as the TV is concerned (how does one shoplift a TV?), I guess that depends on the value of the merchandise being shoplifted as to whether it's a felony or not in Georgia. And his background is not a big secret, it's been reported in multiple reliable sources, and the family lawyers have addressed his background as well – any reference to alleged conduct from high school or shoplifting is absurd and has nothing to do with his murder. As far as it being relevant to being killed, that is TBD by reliable sources reporting on this case. But at the moment, the discussion is whether or not to have a formal RfC to determine consensus on this content. My guess is that you would be opposed to the content, as would I at this particular moment in the case. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Are there any sources saying that he was killed because he brought a gun to school or shoplifted something at some point in the past? FollowTheSources (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of, do you know of any? Isaidnoway (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, his past criminal history and one of the suspect's involvement in his criminal prosecution is one possible motive, which I assume is why we mention the suspect's link to the decedent in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I think all of these discussions should be stopped until multiple reliable sources show some sort of connection. Seems half the page here is about how bad the dead man was. This is still a BLP. O3000 (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
By "BLP" do you mean Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? I was under the impression that only applies to living persons. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Please read the WP:BDP section of BLP. O3000 (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Objective3000: - "I've looked at RS and can't find any indication that he has been convicted of a parking violation."
Sounds like a case of Confirmation Bias
His convictions are all over news outlets NewsGuard (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I dont support a RFC for something that is as obvious as this, the WP:OR policy of Wikipedia is clear cut, " To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article"(emphasis is mine). If someone wants to change this policy then go discuss this and start a RFC there.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There are sources about the shooting that discuss the deceased's criminal history and the defendant's participation in/knowledge of the criminal prosecution, so I'm not really sure what else you're looking for. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand SharabSalam. I've been reading this Talk Page for an hour and you always say "No Original Research," and in many cases it's not even appropriate. How is it Original Research when many sources are reporting on his all his convictions? We're just saying what the sources say. NewsGuard (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
NewsGuard, you must show evidence of how this is directly related to this shooting. All I am seeing here is editors trying to add this "In 2013, Arbery was "charged with two felonies, possession of a weapon on school property and obstruction of an officer with violence." https://thebrunswicknews.com/news/local_news/police-arrest-four-in-span-of-an-hour/article_23db5ae1-9e5d-519e-a683-c1a216c042c0.html" totally irrelevant, no proof that it is relevant to the topic of this article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Gregory McMichael was involved in the investigation of Arbery's shoplifting charge, so that crime, at least, is directly relevant to the shooting as it establishes a prior oppositional relationship between the two. WWGB (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: They are directly related and absolutely relevant. The theft charges are relevant because he may have been attempting to burglarize that house. There's a possibility that he ran when he saw the McMicheals before he got to take anything. The gun charges are relevant because they could indicate a pattern of violence - in other words why did he try to grab that guy's gun? Saying "No original research" is silly. It's not original research when it's right in the articles. NewsGuard (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
NewsGuard, "he may have been attempting to burglarize that house", we don't make assumptions based on our own thoughts. This clearly shows you where you are doing original research.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Wow NewsGuard I agree with @SharabSalam: and what @NorthBySouthBaranof: and @Objective3000 and Objective30: said in an earlier comment. Those prior convictions are definitely not relevant. I mean give it a break... we all know there was no possibility that Arbery wanted to steal anything that day. There’s nothing illegal about checking out a construction site. He was just out going for a nice jog and these guys literally hunted him like you hunt a deer or dog or a cat or fox. They hunted him as if it were for sport. And all he wanted to do was get some sunshine and check out a building he was curious about while he was jogging. To even imply he would take anything shows how racist you are.
They say they wanted to ‘protect their community’ but really they probably just wanted to make sure there were no black people around in their neighborhood. Most white people from Georgia are like that.
Bringing a gun to school isn’t that big of a deal and in NO WAY indicates any violent tendencies about him. How can you even say that. This is a Bio of Living Person [BLP] violation and probably more violations if you ask me. The theft charges… you can’t say that. Even if he was convicted how do you know he wasn’t framed? Most white people think that all black people look alike anyway so it could have very well been a different black guy and they just thought it was Arbery. He wouldn’t have stolen anything. To act like you know is just racist.
They cut him off and cornered him and he had no other choice. Like if you were being hunted for sport like that you’d probably do the same. Everyone would. 162.213.53.20 (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I think a perfectly fine way to word the RFC is "Should Arbery's past criminal history be included". The RFC should also note that many trustworthy secondary sources that reported on this incident reported this criminal history as well, it isn't something people want to add out of the blue. CalmHand1 (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – If an editor adds Arbery's priors, it is sure to result in an edit war by those who don't want such. In reply to the above query, already there are denials or minimization of Arbery's priors. The question is significant as reports indicate that the interaction between McMichaels and Arbery go back to the time when McMichaels was a DA investigator and then Arbery was charged with shoplifting and violating probation over some gun law conviction. This report is also relevant to an alleged justification for the McMichaels to be armed in pursuit of Arbery. (PeacePeace (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC))
And this is exactly the sort of synthesis we need to avoid. Attempts to create an argument or justification where reliable sources have not created such a link, nor where the people involved have made such a link is utterly against RS, NPOV and BLP on all sides. We cannot speculate as to what motivated McMichaels, and we must be careful when using RS who do speculate to ensure it is in their own words.
Also, no, there is no justification to be in armed pursuit of someone. Alleged or otherwise. Koncorde (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Police engage in armed pursuit of people all the time. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rreagan007: - the McMichaels are not police. starship.paint (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say that they were. But your comment didn't exclude police. Regardless, if they were attempting a lawful citizen's arrest under Georgia law, then they are essentially acting as police in the situation. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rreagan007: - (1) it wasn't my comment, and (2) I'm sure even a lawful citizen's arrest doesn't confer temporarily confer you the status of police and all the rights that come with it. It's not equivalent - you're still just a citizen, not law enforcement. starship.paint (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
It probably doesn't. But the citizen's arrest law in Georgia does allow you to pursue a suspect and detain them. And Georgia law generally allows open carry of firearms for self-defense. And I haven't seen anything that would suggest those two rights under Georgia law cannot be combined in a single event. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not the RFC itself, nor is it a thread for discussing whether or not editors will agree to permit an RFC go forward. Read WP:RFC carefully; there is no such requirement. Any editor, at any time, can start an RFC. RFCs are the approved process for organizing a discussion and requesting outside input concerning disputes over article content (all part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution system). So far, this Talk Page has been a mess on the issue of whether or not to put prior criminal record information into the article. The issue has popped up in multiple different threads above and will continue to pop up in new ones going forward I'm sure. An RFC provides a location for everything to be consolidated, in one spot, with editors casting a single !Vote. Sure, there will be follow-on replies to comments (and maybe unnecessary repetitive replies by editors who don't respect WP:BLUDGEON), but by ordering the process it will be more manageable than what we've seen to date. If new threads pop up on the same "priors" issue, they can be politely shut down and redirected to the RFC to stop further repetitive disruption. Obviously, some editors may make comments in an RFC that step out-of-line with regard to BLP; that's no different from them making comments anywhere else on this page (as amply demonstrated already). By keeping it within a single RFC thread, BLP violating material can be identified faster and dealt with more efficiently. It's a way to keep this contentious dispute manageable and will eventually get it boiled down to a consensus which will govern the issue going forward. The whole point of asking for input with a simple neutral formulation of the RFC question was to move that process along without arguments erupting later over how the question was phrased. Let's get that done, then all the threads above arguing over the criminal records can be collapsed under text bars directing all editors down to the RFC. None of the old discussions will continue therein, and no new threads should start up as long as the RFC is still running and new editors are directed there. If editors post off tangent comments here in this thread instead of addressing how to word the central RFC question, then "Should Arbery's prior criminal record be included in this article?" is likely to be the way the RFC is phrased when it starts. The sooner, the better, because it doesn't look like this situation will be improving on its own anytime soon. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
There were others too:
@Dream Focus, Kwwhit5531, Tambourine60, Topcat777, and Joseph A. Spadaro: NewsGuard (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2020 (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.

If past problems with the police department are included, so too should be Arbery's past

  • Note that Calmhand1 was blocked as a sock of an indef-blocked editor (thank you Bishonen), this section should never have gotten started but by now it's too extensive to remove. What is sad here is that no one saw fit to remove or tweak the tendentious section title. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

To include the past problems with the police department but to exclude Arbery's past criminal history makes no sense and is wildly unbalanced.CalmHand1 (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. The past problems with the police department go directly to the credibility of the initial police investigation. There has been no such relevance demonstrated of Arbery's prior criminal history - because, for example, it is a known fact that he was unarmed, so a prior conviction for possession of a weapon is completely irrelevant. Similarly, what do you propose is the relevance of his shoplifting conviction? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of Arbery's past crimes

A formal RfC has begun on this topic. Editors should visit the section "RfC on Arbery's criminal history" to comment and !VOTE there if interested.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The McMichaels stated that their entire impetus behind pursuing Arbery is that they believed he was a burglar involved in recent burglaries in the area. Given that he had a past burglary conviction, it's entirely relevant to the circumstances of the case. Given that he had a past conviction for a theft-related crime, it's entirely relevant to the circumstances of the case.CalmHand1 (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
He did not have a "past burglary conviction" and if you don't retract that libelous statement, you may be subject to sanctions. If you can't edit this article with a clear eye toward the facts and an avoidance of sensationalistic and false claims about the article subject, you should probably voluntarily cease editing the article before such sanctions become necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times reports as follows in regards to Ahmaud Arbery; "He had been convicted of shoplifting a couple of years ago." Here's a link to the article. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/us/ahmaud-arbery-georgia.html CalmHand1 (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
If you are unaware of the significant legal and practical difference between shoplifting and burglary, you should probably avoid editing this article because a baseline level of competence is required here, and you are demonstrating that you don't have that level of competence to discuss matters of criminal law. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
They're both forms of theft. The fact of the matter is that Arbery is a former convicted criminal for actions in regards to theft, who was suspected of more criminal activity in regards to theft. That past criminal history is thus entirely relevant given that being suspected of such theft is the entire reason he was pursued. CalmHand1 (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@CalmHand1: burglary is unlawful entry. Your source says shoplifting, that's different. I've [2] struck your statement. starship.paint (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Burglary is a much more serious crime than shoplifting. The latter is something you might associate with rebellious teens, the former gets people killed. Anyone who can't tell the two apart, or who refuses to recognize the distinction, has effectively disqualified themselves. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Given that they're both theft-related crimes, and indeed, recent thefts were the very reason that the McMichaels suspected Arbery to begin with, it's simply utter whitewashing not to include this fact. Even media outlets sympathetic to Arbery included all of this information. CalmHand1 (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
There were no "recent thefts." The only theft reported to police for weeks prior was the theft of a gun from Travis McMichael's car on January 1. [3] Moreover, the McMichaels aren't police officers - if they suspect someone of a crime, they're welcome to call the police. They are *not* empowered to take the law into their own hands based on their mere suspicions. That's why they're in jail awaiting trial for murder right now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, they're both crimes and both apples and oranges are fruits. Difference is that shoplifting is typically a misdemeanor while burglary is usually a felony. Huge difference in scale. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources have said that in an interview the neighbor, Larry English, also said he had $2,500 worth of fishing equipment stolen from him. If that's true, there were at least two thefts in the area that the McMichaels were aware of. "Larry English, a man building a home in the McMichaels’ neighborhood, said someone stole $2,500 in fishing gear from him earlier this year, but he never reported the theft." - via https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/5/6/21249202/ahmaud-arbery-jogger-killed-in-georgia-video-shooting-grand-jury .
Whether English is correct or not, the fact is that the McMichaels stated they believed he was a suspect from recent thefts. That's why including his past theft-related history is directly related to this case. CalmHand1 (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
That's contradicted by later statements from English, who told the Washington Post that nobody had stolen anything from his house.
Moreover, Georgia's self-defense law explicitly says that the use of deadly force in property crime cases is not justified - you cannot legally run down and shoot someone because you suspect that they may have stolen property. [4] The McMichaels did not have the legal right to pursue and shoot Arbery, even if they thought he was a burglar. Their recourse was to call the police and allow the police to handle the matter. And at the point in which they threatened Arbery with deadly force by brandishing firearms at him without justification, Arbery had the legal right to defend himself against two armed men. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
It sounds like Mr. English has some serious explaining to do in regards to his directly contradictory statements. Initially he said $2,500 worth of material was stolen, and now he claims nothing was stolen? Bizarre. I wonder if the death threats he was reportedly receiving (see here: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/owner-empty-house-ahmaud-arbery-allegedly-entered-shooting-might-not-n1205191) had anything to do with him changing his story.
In regards to your second point, understand that I'm not here to argue whether the McMichaels were legally warranted in initially pursuing Arbery. That is fully up to the courts to decide. I'm simply here explaining that Arbery's past theft-related offense is relevant to the article due to the fact that a theft-related offense is what he was suspected of doing, and why he was pursued by the McMichaels. CalmHand1 (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@CalmHand1: - it is not Wikipedia's place to question whether Mr. English has some serious explaining to do. I've already advised you, get good sources first, then do an RFC. If you craft a poor RFC, your chances of success will be drastically decreased. starship.paint (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


CalmHand1, let me try again, maybe this time you will get it. Although it seems very hard to make you understand. We can't add theft-related history in the background of this shooting incident because that would suggest that it is confirmed that McMichael actually killed Arbery because of that reason when we actually still dont know. Do you get this?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam It does not suggest that at all. If it suggests anything, it's that there is a possibility that Arbery could have been involved in a theft. It does not insinuate the McMichaels were justified. To add, we could make your same argument against including information about past issues in the police department - that it suggests the police were somehow trying to cover this up. That's why it should be fair to include both these pieces of information. CalmHand1 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of more serious, User:CalmHand1 has a strange edit history. This is literally the only article they've edited using this account and all they've tried to do is make the victim look worse. Is this what a WP:SPA looks like? FollowTheSources (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've added absolutely no facts that mainstream secondary sources haven't also reported. I have no bone to pick with either side of this case, but I do want things presented in a fair way. Including past problems with the police but not Arbery's past theft-related history is an example of things not being presented in a fair way. CalmHand1 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
What other accounts do you use? FollowTheSources (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@CalmHand1: - I believe you won't get anywhere without an WP:RFC (examples are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law). But before you start one, I would advise you to gather a list of reliable source articles which establish his prior convictions as relevant. Sources are ranked at WP:RSP. If a source isn't ranked there, I would say, a rough guide would be to consult whether the source is ranked in the green box here. starship.paint (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
CalmHand1, you have failed to provide any source that makes any relationship between the shoplifting and the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery. Adding it to the article would be an original research and off-topic.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
A great many sources reporting on this incident mention the past criminal record. This is because it's relevant that a man who was pursued for suspected theft had a history involving theft. If a bunch of sources didn't also note these facts, you'd have more of a leg to stand on. I am not arguing anything here other than the fact that this criminal background information is relevant to the page. CalmHand1 (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Except that there was no theft committed. Arbery didn't steal anything. That's not even in dispute. Implying that he was guilty of theft before he was killed is simply not acceptable, because it's not true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. These repeated attempts to paint the victim in the worst light are a violation of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. Also, as I pointed out below, it may well be the case that these two POV-pushing SPA's are a single entity. FollowTheSources (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
As far as we know so far, there was no theft committed that day, but previous thefts in the area were why Arbery was suspected of wrongdoing on that day. We don't know whether he was responsible for the past incidents or not. What we do know is that the McMichaels believed he might be, which is what sparked the chase. This is the reason for why the criminal background information is relevant to the page. It does not imply that Arbery was guilty. If it did, we could just as quickly argue that including information about past problems in the police department implies that they mishandled the case (which we also do not yet know). This was my original point. CalmHand1 (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Your arguments are getting you nowhere, CalmHand1. This is the third time I'm telling you, you need an RFC. starship.paint (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Comparing the police department with Arbery is pointless. They are not the antagonists here. The inclusion of Arbery's record is moot, but past failures of the police is no justification for doing that. WWGB (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In 2013, Arbery was "charged with two felonies, possession of a weapon on school property and obstruction of an officer with violence." https://thebrunswicknews.com/news/local_news/police-arrest-four-in-span-of-an-hour/article_23db5ae1-9e5d-519e-a683-c1a216c042c0.html Topcat777(talk) 13:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Charges are irrelevant here unless a conviction was secured. Further evidence? WWGB (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
"...he was sentenced to five years’ probation as a first offender on charges of carrying a weapon on campus, and several counts of obstructing a law enforcement officer..." https://nypost.com/2020/05/08/father-of-georgia-shooter-had-investigated-ahmaud-arbery/ Topcat777(talk) 14:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
What does that have to do with all the tea in China? The McMichaels are not police officers and had no legal right to threaten Arbery with deadly force. In fact, Arbery had the legal right to resist their assault under Georgia's Stand-your-ground law. It is not, in fact, legal in the United States for armed men to pursue you and threaten you with firearms to "Stop, stop, we want to talk to you." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
"It is not legal" - Maybe. Maybe not. You have a license to practice law in Georgia? I'm sure these incidents in Arbery's past will be brought up in court.Topcat777(talk) 14:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
This is not a court. WP:BLP applies here. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
"This is not a court." Right. It looks more like one of those "high tech lynchings." Topcat777(talk) 14:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Then stop trying to lynch a dead man. O3000 (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not lynching anyone. Obey the rules. They're posted at the top. Topcat777(talk) 15:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Guys just let them do what they want. Let them leave out the priors. I'm going to use this all as evidence of editorial bias on Wikipedia. This specific whitewashing is just a symptom of a bigger problem on Wikipedia – which is bully Social Justice Edit-warriors that violate the ethos of objective, neutral journalism. So let them leave it out then I'll just leak this Talk Page to the press and we can use it to solve the bigger problem. Let them leave the priors out. I'm serious. – Chrisvacc (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
And that is quite enough. You have crossed the line into outright disruption and threats, and are now banned from editing this article indefinitely. See your talk page. Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources to establish that the McMichaels threatened anybody with guns or to establish when Arbery first saw a gun? Of course once Arbery ran in passenger side front of the truck & saw McMichael's with a shotgun in hand on other side of the truck, we may assume he felt threatened by that gun. As to taking the law in your own hands, that is what the Citizen's Arrest law allows. If there are reliable sources for the history of entrance to that house & the McMichael's long established interaction with Arbery, I would recommend those factors be added to this article. (PeacePeace (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC))
Yes, there are reliable sources which establish the McMichaels brandished firearms at Arbery.
There is no indication that a citizen's arrest was attempted. Gregory McMichaels told the police that they yelled at Arbery "Stop, stop, we want to talk to you." That is not a statement which indicates "You are under arrest," and a person is clearly under no obligation to stop when armed private citizens in a truck demand that you stop and talk to them - what, do you think armed men have a right to forcibly detain and question anyone in a public place? That's ludicrous. To quote David A. French's analysis, According to Georgia case law, one cannot use the citizen’s arrest statute “to question” a suspect. In fact, stating an intention to question a suspect can be evidence that the individual claiming a right to make a citizen’s arrest is “uncertain and did not have immediate knowledge” that the victim had been the perpetrator of the alleged crime. [5] Now, the McMichaels may certainly argue in court that they believed they were attempting a citizen's arrest, but that's speculation at this point and will have to wait for their defense to become clear. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Well according to the New York Times, the Georgia DA made the determination that they had attempted a lawful citizen's arrest: "A Georgia prosecutor, George E. Barnhill, cited the state’s citizen’s arrest law as the reason Gregory McMichael, 64, and his son, Travis McMichael, 34, should not be held responsible for Mr. Arbery’s death. In a letter to the Glynn County Police Department, Mr. Barnhill, who eventually recused himself from the case, wrote that the men were in “hot pursuit” of Mr. Arbery, and that they had “solid first hand probable cause” that he was a 'burglary suspect'."[6] Rreagan007 (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof There are a lot of places reporting Arbery was convicted of bringing a handgun to Brunswick High School in 2013, court records show. He was also convicted of stealing a television from Walmart in 2017. and the original arrest in 2013 and convicted of probation violation in 2018 and new reports say the father investigated him prior to the shooting. T — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsGuard (talk • contribs) 06:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The DA report saw a connection of Arbery's past behavior with his behavior on February 23, 2020.- "Arbery's mental health records & prior convictions help explain his apparent aggressive nature and his possible thought pattern to attack an armed man." If the McMichaels had been involved in some racial incident in the past it would certainly be included in the article. Topcat777(talk) 14:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And that report was written by Barnhill, who had to recuse himself for a COI. 24 hours after he took the case, he decided no charges. Of course he was reversed after intense criticism. This is all so tenuous, and shouldn't even be mentioned on the TP as fact. O3000 (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Corey Sasser Death Relevant?

In subsection District Attorney's Office for the Brunswick Judicial Circuit is this included sentence relevant: "One of the officers involved in the shooting of Small—(Redacted)—subsequently murdered his ex-wife and her boyfriend before committing suicide in 2018." ? Thanks Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I have already removed the name of the officer in question as a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. But more generally, I'm not sure I see the point of the sentence, its kinda WP:COATRACK-y. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, I removed that sentence for being too tangential to anything relevant to the shooting. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Georgia citizen's arrest law

The relevant information on the citizen's arrest law was added to the article by starship.paint. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

It seems to me that this entire legal case is going to hinge on whether or not the defendants were attempting a lawful citizen's arrest or not, yet we don't even mention citizen's arrest at all in this article. There are plenty of reliable sources (NYT, CNN, WaPo, etc) that have been covering the citizen's arrest aspect of this case, so I think we should at least include a little bit about it in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It's also going to hinge on what level of force is permissible for a private citizen to apprehend someone they suspect of a minor property crime. One can suggest that a citizen's arrest for a suspected minor property crime is permissible, yet that it is illegitimate for a private citizen (who may or may not have any training) to use deadly force to stop someone they merely suspect of a minor property crime. Even police officers cannot shoot someone who is fleeing unless there is probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others.
The fact is that we don't know whether or not a citizen's arrest was actually attempted - the police report is not clear, but does not contain clear evidence that one was (according to the report, neither Gregory nor Travis stated to the police that they told Arbery he was under arrest. Instead, they yelled "Stop, stop, we want to talk to you."). We should probably avoid undue speculation about this until the issue comes up in court, as I'm suspecting it will. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I am unaware of reliable sources to sustain the POV that the McMichael's were trying to use deadly force to accomplish anything. NPOV demands that we consider the possibility that the arms were only for self-defense. As I recall it was the local DA who justified the McMichaels by citing the Citizens arrest law. Generally there is recognized that detainment is not arrest, though I don't know how Georgia defines these matters. Neither have I ever heard of a Citizen's Detainment law. In view of the BLP principle, I think we are obligated not to give a negative interpretation of actions living people take so long as there is a reasonable legal innocent explanation.(PeacePeace (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC))
We should avoid speculating on what will or won't be someone's defense at trial to charges of felony murder. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, the only defense to felony murder is that you weren't in the process of committing a felony at the time the person was killed. In this case, the underlying felony is aggravated assault. However, if they were in the process of performing a lawful citizen's arrest, then that would likely mean they did not commit the assault and therefore no felony murder. But the main point is that reliable sources are covering citizen's arrest law in regards to this case, which means reliable sourse think it is relevant to the case. Thus, I think we should include it in the article also. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: - please (1) propose a text, and (2) reliably source it. starship.paint (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, at the very least I think we should mention that the DA cited the citizen's arrest law in Georgia as the reason why no arrests should be made. So in the article I would suggest adding the following bolded text: "On April 1, Arbery's autopsy report was given to Barnhill.[70] On April 2, Barnhill wrote a memorandum to Glynn County police, recommending that no arrests be made.[8][9] Citing Georgia's citizen's arrest law, Barnhill wrote that the McMichaels were within their rights to chase "a burglary suspect, with solid firsthand probable cause....[7] Rreagan007 (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rreagan007: - I added it with my own wording, see [8]. Barnhill pointed to Georgia's citizen arrest law as justifying the killing of Arbery (the Georgia law states that either a crime must be committed within the citizen's "immediate knowledge", or there must be "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" for a felony crime). Please always ping me. Sorry for the delay, I was dealing with a sockpuppet case related to this very page. starship.paint (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: Thanks. I'm satisfied with that. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2020 (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.

BLM navbox at bottom of article

There is currently a Black Lives Matter nav box at the bottom of the article, and this shooting article is listed as "Deaths protested" in 2020 in the navbox. WP:NAVBOX advises that The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article, but I'm not seeing any mention of any BLM protests in this article. I found a couple of sources - Black Lives Matter OKC holds mobile march and a quote from Opal Tometi (co-founder of Black Lives) - "Despite the fact that we're in the midst of this pandemic...people were running for Ahmaud". Considering the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX, and the unique situation of a pandemic and social distancing guidelines forbidding the gathering of large crowds (typical in a protest), should we mention in this article the mobile march in OKC (dozens of cars...putting signs on their vehicles as they held a procession) and/or the comments from Tometi, or any other sources that may exist that discuss BLM in relation to this shooting. And furthermore, was BLM significant/notable enough in relation to this shooting to mention them at all in this article. I was considering removing the navbox, but thought better, and am opening up a discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, that and more should be added. Like this. I can only imagine we'd see more marching in the streets, if not for the need to keep six feet distance from each other right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the BLM template as the article makes no mention of that organisation. WWGB (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of Police Report

Per, WP:BLPPRIMARY, I think the "Police Report" section should either be removed insofar as it is simply a retelling of things gleaned from the report, or resourced so as to rely on quality secondary sources. Just a thought. Have a nice weekend, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you know 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)

(
)

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
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
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)

Removal of mention of prior involvement of Gregory McMichael in a prosecution of Arbery

I see above that there is a discussion of whether to include "Arbery's prior criminal record". Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, I think the information about a previous connection between Gregory McMichael and Arbery is a different matter, and it should be included. This information has been in the article. It was just removed a couple of hours ago in this edit. When I reverted that removal, my edit was reverted. (The removal also merged irrelevant references with the previous sentence, which is clearly improper, but that is easily fixed.) We don't know for certain whether McMichael or Arbery was aware of that prior connection at the time of the shooting incident, but the fact that there was such a connection, and thus that there is the possibility that one or both of them remembered it, is clearly relevant. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The sanitisation of the article is becoming ridiculous. There is clear evidence from multiple reliable sources that McMichael Sr and Arbery had prior history, but it is being expunged from the article. WWGB (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Did they have prior history? Was he directly involved in the Arbery case or did he just work in the DA office that was involved? On which basis at least one recusal should certainly be considered also significant corroboration for the prior interaction - i.e. that the first DA recused because McMichael worked for her, and that she / he / they had previously also had prosecuted Arbery is intrinsic even if not necessarily persuant to the shooting itself (as no evidence he was aware of the link). Koncorde (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
According to the source, McMichael was directly involved in that prosecution of Arbery. The cited AJC source says that "... Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George Barnhill wrote that his son [...] and McMichael, then an investigator in that same office, 'both helped with the previous prosecution of (Ahmaud) Arbery.'" It says they helped with the prosecution, not just that they happened to work in the DA's office where someone was working on that prosecution. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Cheers for the summary, I hadn't yet read a lot of the supporting elements around McMichaels past in this case. I would suggest that it is included as part of the wider recusal background, rather than as background related to the actual shooting in order to keep the two segregated until such time the link is established or not with McMichaels decisions on the day. Koncorde (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
That would be a good place to put the information for now. The details came up in the context of the D.A.'s recusal letter, so inserting this content at that location in the article fits in well with storyline of events as opposed to selecting it for addition to the McMichael "bio" section. Secondly, by not putting it in the McMichael bio section right next to the Arbery bio section, it can alleviate editor's concerns that we might be over highlighting Arbery's criminal record, something for which there is no consensus as of yet in the RFC to include. I'd also recommend we delete the content about McMichael having problems keeping up his training hours for his peace officer certification, which would reduce everything therein down to a simple statement that he worked for the GCPD for 7 years and the DA's office for 24. It will make the bio sections simpler and more neutral, as editors are tempted to add information there they consider "for" or "against" McMichael's situation. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I just discovered that part about McMichael working on the Arbery prosecution is already in the "Before the release of video recordings" section, but was hidden from the reader's view due to broken ref tag. I've fixed that by making this corrective edit here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
A prior link has clearly been established between McMichael and Arbery. McMichael also claimed there was another prior link between himself and Arbery. We will never be able to get inside of McMichael's mind to learn the truth of what he was thinking that night. We will also never be able to ask Arbery what he was thinking that night. Those are the unfortunate facts of the situation. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion clearly relevant ~ HAL333 02:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Its already in the article The article says, The Georgia Attorney General's Office on May 10 characterized the following events as happening on April 7: it received a request from Barnhill's office to transfer Arbery's case to another prosecutor,[8][68] and that along with the request, Barnhill revealed that he had learned "about 3-4 weeks ago" that Arbery had previously been prosecuted in an earlier case by the Brunswick Circuit District Attorney's Office, by both Barnhill's son and one of the defendants (this is a reference to Gregory McMichael, who was an investigator with the Brunswick D.A.'s Ofice)--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The video was leaked by Gregory McMichael

Per this WSB report, the video was leaked to the press by attorney acting at the request of Gregory McMichael, who apparently thought the video would "clear up rumors" in the community. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this actually a citizens arrest

No mentions of citizens arrest outside of Barnhill's report. https://www.gpbnews.org/post/what-georgias-citizens-arrest-law-and-why-are-there-calls-repeal-it Should we include that it is contentious whether or not it was actually a citizens arrest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdi mohammed mahmoud (talk • contribs) 14:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Gregory McMichael, retirement, and law enforcement license being suspended.

His law enforcement license was suspended due to missing use of force and firearms training, which is relevant to this case given it is about excessive and improper use of force and firearms in an extrajudicial setting.[1] The inclusion of this material is DUE and the current established wording of 'retired' (without any qualifiers) is a NPOV violation that shifts the neutrality of the article towards the McMichael's defense.

I agree that this should be (and is) included. But, sources use the word retire and he worked for 30 years. So, we should use the word retire. O3000 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Using the word retire is fine when given the full context of the circumstances of his retirement. I have another source that describes the missed training as critically important and describes how Greg didn't even have arrest powers as a detective.[2] I object specifically to the use of the term 'retire' without any other descriptive or qualifying information.--Shadybabs (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Retired is the correct word. There's a lot more in those articles than we need or should go into at this moment. If he knew he was retiring, letting his training lapse is irrelevant. In contrast suggesting that the training forces his retirement would be SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with Koncorde. There is no support in the sources for the idea that his retirement was anything other than voluntary and planned. If McMichael's defense involves invoking his law enforcement training and career, then this might be explored more in reliable sources. But it's not at this time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Brice-Saddler, Michael; Jr, Cleve R. Wootson; Post, The Washington (2020-05-14). "Ex-detective charged in death of Ahmaud Arbery lost power to make arrests after skipping use-of-force training". SFGate. Retrieved 2020-05-15.
  2. ^ https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2020/05/14/retired-da-investigator-accused-in-arberys-death-missed-critically-important-training/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Caroline Small

Could someone explain how the 2010 shooting of Caroline Small is relevant to the 2020 shooting of Ahmaud Arbery? - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That discussion is introduced by a sentence saying that "Arbery's death prompted re-examinations of the way prosecutions of shootings were handled by the District Attorney's Office for the Brunswick Judicial Circuit." I suppose it is an example of a shooting case that is being re-examined. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. I believe it's weak tea. A mention of "shooting cases" with regard to Caroline Small and to Ahmaud Arbery could appear in the Wikipedia article Glynn County Police Department (although Arbery was not shot by Glynn County Police), or in the not-yet-created Wikipedia article Brunswick Judicial Circuit. The two shootings are related no more strongly than is Mr. Arbery's criminal background, which is being held back from this article. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery/Archive_4&oldid=1056987237"