Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2020

The second of the two sentences: "After passing the truck's front, Arbery turns left.[31][33][35] Meanwhile, Travis McMichael, holding his shotgun, approaches Arbery at the truck's front.[34][36] " is not correct.

According to source [33]https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/05/us/ahmaud-arbery-jogging-georgia-shooting/index.html "...and just as he's passing the front of the vehicle, he makes a left and begins tussling with the man with the shotgun." This is also what can be seen in the frame by frame analysis of the video. 109.40.131.74 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

According to Source 33, "...and just as he's passing the front of the vehicle, he makes a left and begins tussling with the man with the shotgun." According to Source 34, "Travis McMichael steps out of the driver's side of the truck with a shotgun as Arbery approaches. Arbery tries to run around the passenger side of the truck. Travis McMichael approaches Arbery at the front of the truck." Both statements are sourced. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding the name of the guy who filmed

Since Bryan has now been officially charged by the GBI, this section is moot, as he is no longer just the guy who filmed. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:05, 21 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.

Why is his name keeps getting back? Who is adding it? Please read WP:BLPNAME, there is no value of his name to be mentioned. The guy is already receiving death threats etc and he probably doesn't need his name to be mentioned. WP:BLPNAME says, "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." Please explain, how does his name serve this article?-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether his name is used or not, the 36 second video needs to be mentioned in the lead where it was before (I restored it). The video is mentioned in the third and fourth paragraph in the lead, and those mentions of it don't make any sense unless it's already been referenced earlier, and the video has it's own dedicated section in the article. The video is relevant and notable, and if it wasn't for the video going viral and the ensuing coverage, this article wouldn't even exist. Debate his name if you must, but the 36 second video should remain in the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree with both of these points. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam, Isaidnoway, and AzureCitizen: - the actual video was 4 minutes long, but only 36 seconds was released. William Roddie Bryan may not be as innocent as he claims. Remember, Gregory McMichael told the police that Bryan also tried to cut Arbery off, but failed. Is it clear and obvious that Bryan is not directly involved? I don't think so. starship.paint (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I figure we should wait until he's charged by the authorities with a crime, then he'll go from a potentially innocent bystander who filmed the event and received death threats for being involved to a potentially guilty defendant whose name should be added to the "persons involved" list (as well as other due places in the article). Taking private individuals and BLP crime into consideration, isn't that what we should do? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
According to his lawyers press conference he was unarmed during the incident...did not have communication with the McMichaels prior to the shooting...is a key witness, and has been cooperating with the GBI. Leave his name out, but reiterate my comment above about the 36 second video in the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:47, 19 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.

2017 Video

Seems the concensus is this video is not going to be added to the article so making this nonadmin (but involved) close of a discussion of folks talking past each other anyway. Revert me if I am in error.--MONGO (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

John Cummings (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I saw this as well, and have been arguing that Arbery's history with the GCPD is relevant—but have gotten a lot of pushback about it supposedly being a WP:BLP violation and WP:UNDUE. (Redacted) But check the Rfc above; assuming editors here are consistent, it's hard to see the "direct connection to the shooting" they've established as a standard. My personal guess is also that the full video will come out fairly soon, as it's obvious that the Guardian edited this. Tambourine60 (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Could very well show the plight of blacks in Georgia and why they fear police and people with guns, and why they run when someone with a gun challenges them for no reason. But, I see no reason to include at this time. And, you really need to stop repeating his record over and over and over and over. Seriously, how many times have you brought this up? O3000 (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
O3000 I assume you're editing in good faith – so how is it that you're suggesting a goal of this article may be to "show the plight of blacks"? Perhaps you're not aware of the ugly history of trafficking in grotesque racial stereotypes? I can't fathom why one would need to resort to the use of gross generalizations about black people as a whole such as: "they fear police and people with guns" and "they run when someone with a gun challenges them"? Are you unaware of how offensive those characterizations are? What, in God's name is the basis for such assertions? I can only imagine you're simply not informed that the vast, vast majority of African-Americans and other blacks in Georgia—and the world at large—are law-abiding, and that a great many are successful and wealthy, own firearms, and/or are themselves law enforcement officers. Just like whites and other racial groups, it may surprise you to know. And I can assure you that these valued members of American society do not need whatever you imagine to be their "plight" exposed, let alone in a patronizing and paternalistic fashion. Tambourine60 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It's well-known and widely documented that there is racial bias in policing, that racial profiling exists, and that only one-third of African-Americans trust the police. This is not debatable, it's simple fact that the criminal justice system in America is biased against African-Americans and has been since the days of slavery. You add the Ku Klux Klan, which was literally white men with guns chasing, intimidating, and murdering African-Americans... and yeah, you might start to have the historical perspective of why a black jogger would try to get the fuck away from two armed white men chasing him in a truck. (I wouldn't have stopped either, and I'm white as snow. Why the fuck would I stop for a couple of armed yahoos screaming at me, to give them a better shot?) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I hardly disputed that. But what's your source for asserting that, as a race, "they run when confronted" as you put it? Or that, as you claim, "they fear police" — certainly there are tens of thousands of black Georgians who don't live in fear of law enforcement. Black Americans are the victims of violent crimes in hugely disproportionate numbers, and it may surprise you to know that many of us not only don't "fear police" as you broadly assert, but advocate for more law-enforcement. Tambourine60 (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
African-Americans are more likely to be very worried that they or someone in their families will be a victim of police using deadly force than they are to be very worried about becoming a victim of violent crime, according to the latest Economist/YouGov poll. Source.
The results of the study found that overall people of African Descent are more fearful of encountering law enforcement in the United States of America, and felt safer coming in contact with police in other countries. As frequency of travel outside the U.S. increased, so did the feeling of safety with foreign law enforcement. Ultimately, the results of this research serve as not only a reminder of the changes needed in policing practices against Blacks in the United States, but also as an indicator of how those policing practices force people of African Descent to live in fear of the police in America. Source.
Sixth, and finally, African Americans’ ongoing experiences with the police may cause them to confront or resist police authority, assert rights, or flee upon seeing or encountering the police, each of which can precipitate police violence. Source.
Irrational fear, particularly of people of color, has shaped the American criminal justice system since the nation's colonial beginnings ... Many of the propagators of this apartheid trafficked in. racist fear-mongering to justify discriminatory treatment of African Americans, warning white America about the inherent criminality and violent propensities of black men. This Article explores ... how bias-motivated civilians weaponize law enforcement to respond to their irrational racial fears through misuse and abuse of 911 and other emergency response systems. Source.
Based on a 2017 national survey of 1,000 Black Americans ... survey respondents ... expressed the belief that his presidency shows that the United States is a racist society, will strain police-minority relationships, and will create a climate in which African Americans are more likely to be arrested or subjected to police violence. At issue is not just African Americans’ distrust of President Trump but, importantly, whether his emphasis on “law and order” and dismissal of minority-group concerns attenuates the legitimacy of law enforcement in the eyes of African Americans. Source
Study results offer a nuanced understanding of the patterning and mental health consequences of police violence for young Black men. Participant disclosures of witnessing and experiencing police violence began in childhood and spanned through emerging adulthood, met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth Edition criteria for trauma exposure, and embodied theoretical conceptualizations of racial trauma. Exposures to police violence fostered distrust of police and informed participants’ appraisals of their vulnerability to police violence across the life course. Source.
I could find a few hundred more, but this should suffice for now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
While this video and incident has no "direct connection to the shooting", the reporting of it is consistent with multiple reliable sources also reporting on Arbery's past history with the GCPD, the AJC mentioned this incident as well. But, it has yet to be determined whether or not his past history is relevant background info for this article. WP has different standards, policies and guidelines for relevancy/significance of content than news media orgs do. There is no deadline on WP and consensus will determine what we include and/or exclude. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Striking my comment since the original comment I was replying to was redacted and partially removed, now mine won't make any sense without the context of the original comment.12:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway: please restore my edit [2], [3]. This is one of the exact issues at the current WP:AN discussion [4]. Tambourine60 received a partial block [5] and almost a full block for this issue. In the above post @Objective3000: is also aware of this, when they wrote "And, you really need to stop repeating his record over and over and over and over. Seriously, how many times have you brought this up?". Perhaps you are not aware that editors are allowed to redact or remove material that is a BLP issue, and in this case this is an end around to place irrelevant material on the page somewhere. If Tambourine60 has a problem with the redaction then he can go to the AN discussion or open a new AN discussion , or ping an admin. If you read my edit history instead of undoing my edit you would see what's going on. So, right now, that post in violation of BLP, and contravenes the results of the AN discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I have removed it again. @Tambourine60:, it's been said a number of times - stop repeating laundry lists of prior issues over and over again, regardless of whether they're sourced. It's getting tedious having to tell people this. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Black Kite, I find it hard to believe that after the block, the AN discussion, the talk page posts, a user talk page full of warnings and advice, this user is still allowed to smear a dead man. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Drmies, I haven't "smeared" anyone. I was warned and briefly blocked for the BLP violation of not citing sources, which I have wholeheartedly and sincerely apologized for and have not repeated. All I did in this case was to scrupulously do exactly that, while articulating a perfectly reasonable opinion about the possibility of including only some GCPD interactions with the victim. I've read BLP guidance: "If someone has been convicted of multiple counts of murder and grand theft, it's not a BLP violation to mention those facts… It's not OK to block someone for citing The Washington Post in a matter with which you disagree." And if you're concerned about BLP violations, there is a user on this page describing the McMichaels, despite their being innocent of any crime, as "killers". Is that a "smear", or perhaps even a BLP violation, pray chance? Tambourine60 (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
When MSM news sources bring up these past issues, are they too engaged in a smear campaign of a dead man?MONGO (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes? For sales/ad revenue primarily. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
So The Guardian pubished this video to increase their sponsor viewership?--MONGO (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes? Am I supposed to defend The Guardian (wordplay somewhat intended)? They don't post things they think won't catch interest I'd presume, being a business and all. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Its just odd since The Guardian is a RS and they clearly state in their highly abbreviated version that this showed an unreasonable and unjustifiable attempt to tase the victim. I concur with that assessment. My take is they published it to fit that narrative, not to make the victim look guilty or to smear him. I cannot see how the tasing video, even the full version linked to below, is a smear of the victim. I think they show a series of negative experiences the victim had a the hands of law enforcement and maybe even some examples of bad policing. I do concur though that the press is a business and tends to report along the lines of what will expand or satisfy their viewership and therefore drive profits from their sponsors.--MONGO (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
If by "past issues" you mean unwarranted harassment of someone sitting his car doing literally nothing wrong and rightfully declining to allow a warrantless search based upon zero reasonable suspicion... I mean, if anything, this video demonstrates why a lot of Americans don't trust law enforcement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
So a policeman who believes that a "suspicious" person or situation should not be approached is a good thing? The initial officer who questioned Arbery in the 2017 video stated he found the situation worthy of investigation. Maybe police should just drive around in the prowlers and ignore all suspicious activity? I await the full video because no doubt this one was abbreviated from the full rendition.--MONGO (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
If you're unfamiliar with the history of racist policing in the United States, I suggest you need to study a bit of American history. And no shit the officer would say "he found the situation worthy of investigation." Just like murderer Roy Oliver said he "had no other option than lethal force" when he shot and killed an unarmed 15-year-old black youth in the passenger seat of a car in Texas. [6] Black lives have always been cheap in this country. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
MONGO, somehow I don't think you are unfamiliar with the history of racist policing in the US. Don't know about you, but I've never been tazed, and I've never been pursued for four minutes by a bunch of armed people in two cars--a pursuit some might call "dogged", yes. But to answer your previous deflection, "When MSM news sources bring up...", I can only say that MSM news sources are not, as far as I am aware, editing Wikipedia articles or posting their stories on our website, in article space or elsewhere. If they are, please do tell me or another administrator, because that wouldn't be right of course. I mean, they might also be committing a username violation, and I'm real strict on those. It also makes me wonder whether you are aware of a. the WP:BLP, and b. the discretionary sanctions uninvolved administrators can hand out for disruptions in the BLP area. Do I have to go through the history of your talk page? Please tell me no. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I forgot to disclose, MONGO, that there is an empty house on my street, where renovation work seems to have stopped a few weeks ago. My kids and I have been in there two or three times now, and none of us think it would be right if we were to get shot for that. But that's just by the by, cause we don't see color, of course. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Lets not make any mistake here about my stance. I do not see this as a justifiable homicide, a citizen arrest attempt nor a positive outcome. I wasn't even necessarily going to support inclusion of the video details, even with secondary MSM reporting about what those videos demonstrate. However, I did wonder why we are suppressing MSM reporting on the victims past history of "run ins with the law" either because the local police are all racist profilers, or something else. My point is that in none of the videos posted do I see evidence that the victim previously acted poorly and if anything they show a pattern of harassment of him to a degree. Further, what if the accused are exonerated? In court, no doubt the victim's past history is going to come up and will be part of the defense as to the thinking or nonthinking or profiling or whatever of why the accused acted so forcibly. There is a full video of the tasing event [7]. My take on that video is that the officer that attempted to tase Arbery was trigger happy and the initial officer seemed to be rebuffed in his attempts to search/impound the vehicle by his superior. Those arguing for the benefit of Arbery are described in that article as saying the video demonstrates that Arbery was targeted unnecessarily and harassed. I really don't think your personal experiences are relevant at all to be honest, but since we're going down that track I was once accused of trying to break in to another person's apartment. It turned out that it was a case of mistaken identity (they had confused similarly colored vehicles) that was resolved within 2 hours but I too felt harassed as I knew I was innocent.--MONGO (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
MONGO, my guess is that a cursory search of YouTube will turn up the full video, and that it reveal that The Guardian has engaged in what RS are fond of calling "deceptive editing". Based on long experience, I'd even bet that the police will be revealed to have been courteous and opted to give Arbery a break. And for fear of looking like a fool, I certainly would not be quick to ascribe bad motive to the police in this instance, let alone to make completely unfounded accusations or insinuations of "harassment" and "racism". Tambourine60 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Curiosity is a sign of intelligence -- unless you're a cat. O3000 (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
(Redacted)
Just how much speculation, SYNTH and sarcasm are you going to engage in to smear this recently dead person? O3000 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
(Redacted)
NorthBySouthBaranof, sorry if I'm slow, but why would "relevance" be dependent on what "we" are "looking to document" in terms of Arbery's "compliance"? Aren't we looking to build an NPOV encyclopedia here? One could be forgiven for thinking you're trying to build some sort of case. Tambourine60 (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
That's my point - the video shows nothing more than that Arbery was questioned by officers about a shoplifting allegation, detained without incident, and taken into a Wal-Mart office. So unless we're trying to show that... Arbery peacefully complied with police officers when questioned about an alleged crime... the video doesn't add anything to this article. If you're thinking that there's some, like, smoking gun "killer app" video of Arbery walking out of a Wal-Mart with a TV under his arm... no, that's not there. The video is literally just the police accusing him of a crime, Arbery submitting to arrest, and that's it. So like I said, there's nothing relevant to this article in the video except possibly that it shows Arbery being arrested without incident. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Prior acts are relevant insomuch as they show a pattern of behavior. If there were other videos of the McMichaels confronting black joggers in their neighborhood with guns, I think that would be very relevant to include, as it would show a pattern of behavior. And likewise, I think these videos (Redacted). This certainly would help to explain why (Redacted), which certainly isn't something I would ever think of doing were I in that same situation. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    I've redacted two BLP violations; your personal opinions about the article subject are irrelevant here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    Forgive me for not properly citing my previous comment to reliable sources. Let's try it again. Prior acts are relevant insomuch as they show a pattern of behavior. If there were other videos of the McMichaels confronting black joggers in their neighborhood with guns, I think that would be very relevant to include, as it would show a pattern of behavior. And likewise, I think these videos show that when confronted by an officer “Arbery repeatedly demands to know why he is being questioned and begins to argue with the officer…‘He raised his voice and approached [the officer who] observed veins popping from his chest which made [the officer] feel he was becoming enraged and may turn physically violent toward [the officer].’"[8] This certainly would help to explain why when “Travis McMichael, got out of the truck holding a shotgun, and (Gregory McMichael claimed) Arbery “began to violently attack”[9], which certainly isn't something I would ever think of doing were I in that same situation. Rreagan007 (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but neither accused is a police officer. One of the accused HAD been one until 1989, he had a similar role until a few years ago, but specifically lost his right to carry or use any of the 'privileges' of police membership (badge/weapon/badged car etc), because of a failure to attend training on matters fairly directly connected to this incident - the proper exercise and limits of authority. Neither of the accused had anything other than the vaguest suspicion that a crime MAY have been perpetrated by going into the building site, neither had any justification for thinking that a citizen's arrest was either justified or necessary - especially since they both knew the site was equipped with cameras, and one of the two allegedly knew who Arbery was.
Countries in which people are not entitled to a reasonable answer as to why police are questioning them/ pointing guns at them/ demanding to search them or their vehicle or homes, are usually called police states! The right to ask such questions is not generally thought of as 'prior bad behaviour'. Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
That's why it matters so much whether or not they were performing a lawful citizen's arrest or not. If they were, then they are essentially acting as police officers. If not, then they are just unlawful vigilantes with guns. And whether or not they had reasonable suspicion to perform a citizen's arrest is still an open question, which I'm sure will be adjudicated at their trial. Reasonable suspicion is actually a fairly low standard. In your opinion, they did not. In my opinion, based on all the facts I am aware of right now, they probably did. And in many ways the U.S. has already become a police state, but that's a discussion for another place and time. But I've seen no evidence that the McMichaels ever pointed their guns at Arbery prior to the physical altercation. And you can certainly ask police questions, but if you do it in what the officer perceives to be a threatening manner you're likely to get tased or shot. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the McMichaels ever said "I'm placing you under citizen's arrest." To the contrary, the police report says that Gregory told officers they yelled "Stop, we want to talk to you," which is not a statement of arrest. There is no "citizen's detain for questioning" law. You either arrest or you don't. Private citizens have no right to use force to compel someone to stop and talk to them. In fact, Georgia courts have ruled that saying you want to "question" someone is prima facie evidence that the purported arrestor does not have the required knowledge of a crime to lawfully make a citizen's arrest. (See David French's article.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
As I said, this will certainly be a central question at the trial, but a Georgia DA certainly thought it was a valid citizen's arrest. Ultimately we will just have to wait and see what is decided at the trial concerning this issue. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Is this the Georgia DA that had the case for one day and had to recuse himself for a COI? If so, we should stop using him as a source for anything. O3000 (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
He is a legal professional who gave his professional legal opinion on material elements of this case. He remains a valid source. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
"Demands to know why he is being questioned." "Raised his voice and observed veins popping from his chest." Listen to yourself, man. Are you saying that citizens have no right to ask why they're being questioned or detained? Isn't the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures one of the most fundamental of American rights, one of the reasons we revolted against Great Britain? Are you saying that invoking one's Constitutional rights is "suspicious behavior"? And you're taking as gospel truth the word of an accused killer sitting in jail awaiting trial for felony murder. I have edited your statement to make clear that the claim that Arbery attacked anyone is the allegation of an accused murderer, not a fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not taking anyone's word for it. I originally stated what I saw in the video, but that was deemed a BLP violation and removed, so I had to use the words of the witnesses who were there when the videos were taken as cited in reliable sources. And as I state above, if you are protesting a police officer's attempt to perform a stop, search, or arrest in a way that is perceived to be threatening to a police officer, it's a likely outcome that you will be tased or shot. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
And the video clearly shows that at no time was Arbery a threat to the officer. You seem to be suggesting that police are above the law. That may have been true in Nazi Germany - it is not true here in the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
That's your opinion. My opinion and the officer's opinion as cited in reliable sources above is that he was behaving in a threatening manner. And yes, thank you for bringing in Nazi Germany into this conversation, as that is so very relevant. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Snapchat photos of crime scene with dead body posted by McMichael relative

May be useful references

John Cummings (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Good grief. But, I would not include. We can't visit the sins of the sister on the brother. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Gross, but not sure that it's relevant. Is the accused killer involved in that, like texting her the photo or something? Or did his sister take the photo herself and then post it, having nothing to do with her brother? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, as they say in K-pop and in posts on talk pages like these, "it's verified", no? Now, and Objective3000, this goes out to you too--I'll play devil's advocate here for a moment, and say that the article is about the shooting, not about the sister's brother, and this stuff if well-verified, so why not? "It's verified and relevant", which is what all those say who want to include the victim's previous run-ins with the law. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Verified is easy. Relevance, not so much. This is still a BLP. And why do K-Poppers keep killing themselves? O3000 (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Objective3000: - why do K-Poppers keep killing themselves? - have a read [10], and this other link is about Korean celebrities. [11] starship.paint (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Pondering a bit on why V is a pillar and relevance not, I realize it is. I can present any number of possible relevancies in a bar discussion (assuming I could find a bar that is open). But, I cannot verify a one of them. That is, verifiability must include relevance as you must verify relevance to include. (Try saying that ten times quickly.) O3000 (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
John Cummings, Lindsay is the new Karen? Guy (help!) 14:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not feel that the sister's social media pictures are relevant to the shooting so I don't feel they should be included in this article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure - Images of Arbery's body were shared on social media by the killer's sister strikes me as relevant. The article currently includes a mural of Arbery and the fact that neonazis criticised Trump for saying something sympathetic. This article is about Arbery's death and the aftermath. Guettarda (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Is it in any of the top-notch sources? I couldn't find any. O3000 (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Here’s the crux. Mentioning that the sister did such suggests that the family, as a whole, has a cavalier attitude toward the killing of blacks. (BLP violation removed) And it may be anecdotal evidence of a wider problem. But, it isn’t really evidence of anything other than extraordinarily bad taste. At least as of yet. I think we need to stick to the preponderance of RS. Which will evince. Patience. (Did that answer your question @Drmies:)? O3000 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Bryan arrest

As it appears that the person who made the blurry video has just been arrested for murder, I suggest we not use the video as any kind of evidence of anything. [12] O3000 (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

His arrest and charges have been added, but I don't know what you mean by not using the video as any kind of evidence. The video is relevant and notable, and needs to be included. As far as screenshots from the video, I agree they should be left out. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The video was made by someone that may be a part of the crime. Given the ability to modify videos at this time, why would we use it? We have editors here attempting to draw conclusions based on something developed by someone accused of involvement. O3000 (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
O3000, nobody is allowed here to draw conclusions based on video, whether Bryan was arrested or not.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, CNN is already being used as is an NBC source and an AP source. These are good for RS coverage. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Autopsy information: homicide, etc.

@AzureCitizen: I appreciate you trying to integrate the information I added to the lead in with the autopsy—but a couple brief issues:

  • It's important to note in the lead that the manner of death was homicide and cause was gunshots sustained while struggling for the shotgun, as those are critical facts. The way the lead reads now, Arbery's shooting could have been a suicide. Check the articles on the shootings of Martin and Brown; they both are clear about the basics of what happened. This one's still in flux, but it seems at a minimum that we need to include that it was ruled homicide and its immediate cause.
  • The autopsy really ought to be in a different section, since it was not part of the GCPD investigation and was released by the GBI. I kind of made it a different sub-section, but I think it needs to be moved out of that, or the section heading needs to be changed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tambourine60 (talk • contribs)
The lead includes that three people have been charged with felony murder. I think that makes it clear it was homicide, and certainly not suicide. But, yes, the autopsy report should be mentioned in the lead. WWGB (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Since I'm a nitpicker, my impression is autopsy results in a lot of US jurisdictions, and this probably includes Georgia, can have an indeterminate or similar cause of death which may included cases where they cannot decide if the death is suicide or homicide? I assume if the official autopsy result is suicide, it would be difficult to charge someone with felony murder without carrying out another autopsy. Definitely there can be cases where it's disputed whether a death was felony murder or suicide e.g. where someone alleges a person's suicide was staged. And actually another thought occurred to me. I wonder if it's possible for a death which no one disputes was a suicide to result in a felony murder charge in a state with a very broad definition of felony murder. For example, a death by heart attack an be charged as a felony murder in some jurisdictions [13], as can a co-felon being killed by the police [14] [15]. This doesn't seem to apply to Georgia which requires "causes the death of another human" [16] although then again Georgia also seems to allow felony murder for someone who provided the drugs resulting in an accidental drug overdose [17] [18] but Florida for example just says "When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate" [19]. I couldn't find specific commentary on this issue, the closest is that brief commentary at the end of that Penn Law Review article and [20]. However it may not be as far fetched as first comes to mind. The obvious example is a suicide bomber who whether by good fortune or intent, only managed to kill themselves. Could anyone else involved be charged with felony murder? The example which initially came to mind would be someone killed themselves because they realised they were caught and couldn't stand to go back to prison or whatever. (In fact I was initially thinking they could have told their co-felons they would do so, but it's unlikely this is necessary.) You can come up with other reasons why one participant in a felony eligible for felony murder may kill themselves e.g. they hurt a mob boss's child, they end up trapped in a situation where they are soon to die (albeit that may complicate the legal arguements), as an act of political protest, etc. Ultimate point being, I don't think Tambourine60 is wrong in that people being charged with felony murder does not demonstrate that there is no dispute over this being a homicide. Edit/final comment: A final thought is I was restricting myself to co-felons. If you include victims, it seems even more likely that this has arisen before. E.g. someone who is held captive kills themselves. I still couldn't find any sources dealing with this although I did find [21] which deals with actual cases rather than the hypotheticals of Jrank. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Interesting! I wasn't actually suggesting that there's a possibility of felony murder charges brought without a death being ruled a homicide—I simply don't know enough about that to say. If that's common knowledge, then I suppose it's redundant information. As to the charging murder for cooperating in a suicide—people have been definitely been charged for killing others when they survive a suicide pact; there was a woman in LA who was charged with killing her children after she attempted to drown herself with them in the ocean as part of a traditional Japanese ritual[1]. As to non-suicidal people, that girl in MA who was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the Death of Conrad Roy "texting" case, and of course Dr. Kevorkian did hard time. This law dictionary even claims: "Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful."[2] And this paper[3] goes into detail about the "Decriminalization of Suicide". But there continues to be a lot of debate just about the felony murder rule, and your questions are intriguing… Tambourine60 (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Pound, Leslie. "MOTHER`S TRAGIC CRIME EXPOSES A CULTURE GAP". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 2020-05-22.
  2. ^ "Legal Dictionary - Law.com". Law.com Legal Dictionary. Retrieved 2020-05-22.
  3. ^ "The Decriminalization of Suicide" (PDF).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Who would like to update the lead? And what about moving the autopsy out from the GCPD section—I've found a source stating that it was GBI Regional Medical Examiner Dr. Edmund Donoghue[1] who performed the autopsy, with the report released April 1. I'm happy to do both, but am not totally sure where the autopsy section should go… Thanks! Tambourine60 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "GBI Dr. Edmund Donoghue".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

African-American

From time to time, editors have removed or added back "African-American" from both the lead and/or from the "Persons involved" section. Bringing this up to establish consensus going forward (as it will probably happen again):

Should "African-American" be in the article?

  • Support as nom: Keep "African-American" in the first sentence of the lead, and omit it from the "Persons involved" section, as seen in similar articles like Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Shooting of Michael Brown. Arbery's race is indisputably a part of this story for it's notability and the RS attention give to it (just like Martin and Brown); having it in the lead is important. Like the Martin and Brown articles, however, there is no need to say it again in a background section for style reasons. We've already told the reader up front in the first sentence of the lead, and there is an accompanying picture for the reader to see. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - and also support in the lead identifying the McMichaels as white, instead of leaving that to an assumption, it's also consistent with SOTM and SOMB articles. Racial profiling is mentioned in the lead and the body of the article as well, and most sources also mention them being white and Arbery as African-American. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I've added that to the lead as seen here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Isaidnoway - whether real or perceived, the racial disparity in these incidents is undoubtedly part of the public perception and discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion in the lead, remove from "persons involved" section. It is obviously relevant, so inclusion in the lead is appropriate, but it's unnecessary to restate it in the persons involved section. There is a fine line between including race as relevant information and repeatedly pointing out race and potentially amplifying race as an issue. Plus Arbery's picture is right there in that section, so the reader can see for himself that Arbery is black. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the second instance again, unless a consensus forms here to include it twice instead of once. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Rreagan007, the lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the body. How can we leave their race out of the body? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I understand your logic, but I still don't think we should be repeating the race angle multiple times due to concerns of amplifying the race issues involved. Perhaps if the defendants are eventually charged with hate crimes we can add more about the race angle, but until then I think it's best to err on the side of caution. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion in the lead, and also that the McMichaels are white, because it's an obviously integral detail to this story. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    And include their races in the article body too, as the lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the body, and should not include anything that is not in the body. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
"Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." However, the MOS says that doesn't apply to basic facts, so it's fine to have it in the lead while not repeating it in the first section of the article. Do we consider his African-American race a basic fact? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
AzureCitizen, doesn't seem "basic" in this context. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The fact that Arbery was black and the McMichaels were white is definitely important in understanding this incident as it joins a sizable collection of similar tragedies we have articles on. I'm sure we would all agree that if both had been white, this killing would not have been notable enough for a Wikipedia article. At the same time, things like gender, race, age and other basic facts are still basic facts. They are immutable characteristics that we really only need to tell the reader once, part of the basic experience that every human being who can read can understand. I think the importance of stating it right up front at the start of the lead but not repeating it again in the first paragraph after the table of contents lies in reader's perceptions of what Wikipedia editors appear to be doing by deliberately making it redundant. The style of the SOTM and SOMB articles got it right by stating it up front as a basic fact but refraining from stating it again in the next section, especially with a photo of Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown pictured there (same as this article). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pretty much every source seems to think that colour was relevant, so clearly yes. Guy (help!) 21:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Clearly relevant because it's the reason why the killing has sparked controversy.
I just uploaded this image to commons from Flickr.
Message on the outdoor church sign at Glendale United Methodist Church in Nashville, TN calling for justice for Ahmaud Arbery. #BlackLivesMatter
It might help you understand why "African American" should be mentioned. Also, it will help anyone who wants to enrich this article with more images.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

New details from preliminary hearing

  • Travis McMichael testified that he fired the first shot from the shotgun straight into Arbery's chest [22]
  • Gregory McMichael testified that he did not see Arbery commit any crimes, but chased Arbery because he "knew instinctively he was a criminal" [23]
  • According to the GBI, Travis McMichael stood over Arbery's body and said "Fucking nigger." [24]
  • GBI says Arbery did not steal anything either that day or any day previously [25]
  • Bryan hit Arbery with his truck as he repeatedly tried to flee them [26]
  • The McMichaels did not call 911 before grabbing guns, jumping in their truck, and chasing Arbery [27]

More will surely follow. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it was Bryan that him him with his truck. O3000 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Yep, you're right, thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof, I think Justin Trudeau summed up the current situation in America very eloquently in about 20 seconds. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/justin-trudeau-pause-hesitates-answer-question-donald-trump-george-floyd-protests-canada-a9545566.html Guy (help!) 16:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 7 June 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Change “jogging” to “running or jogging.” Jogging implies a specific physical activity performed for exercise. It is not known whether he was indeed exercising or moving quickly for some other reason. 136.49.208.103 (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Sources call it "jogging". WWGB (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery/Archive_6&oldid=1056987241"