Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Should the article say the first shot was before or after the struggle?

This article mentions in two different sections that a shot is fired before Arbery takes hold of the shotgun. 5 articles are cited to backup this claim, however none of them actually mention this detail. Additionally, if you watch the video this is clearly not true. This inaccuracy makes the McMichaels incontrovertibly the aggressors when in reality the situation is less clear.

The first instance of this error is in the second sentence of the article: " A shot was fired by Travis McMichael, after which a struggle ensued between Arbery and Travis that was captured on video, ending with Arbery being fatally shot.[5][6]"

The second instance appears in the section titled 'Shooting'."It appears from the video that the audio of a first gunshot is heard before Arbery and Travis struggle with each other in front of the truck.[37][41][44] " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.122.220 (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The view of the two men is obscured by the truck when the first shot is fired. So there's no way to tell if the struggle starts before or after that first shot. Topcat777(talk) 21:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Armed men in a truck chasing an unarmed man on foot who never posed a threat to them - they're already incontrovertibly the aggressors here. The question is whether or not there was any legal justification for that aggression. The GBI says there wasn't, hence the murder charge. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)^{[Inappropriate under WP:TPG - See WP:NOT]}

(ec) The sources are articles written by professional journalists who have watched the video and have done their best to describe to report what appears to have happened. From the perspective of the video, it appears that the first shot happened just before McMichael and Arbery begin grappling over the shotgun. Wikipedia follows what the reliable sources say. Of course, the sources have also written their words carefully not to state it as an independent fact, e.g., "But it appears from the video footage that by the time the clearly unarmed Arbery is tussling with Travis McMichael, who is holding the long gun, a shot has already been fired." ([1], italicized emphasis). We should probably do the same thing when using Wikipedia's voice for the way it's described in both instances in the article. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Even the article you linked does not include this detail. In fact it claims the opposite: "As Arbery crosses back in front of the truck a gunshot is fired. Arbery is then seen struggling with a man holding a long gun as a second man stands in the bed of the truck brandishing a revolver. Two more shots are heard before Arbery stumbles and falls face-down on to the asphalt." Unless this claim can be backed up by a source it needs to be removed in the two sections outline above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.122.220 (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You just said the source says that a gunshot was fired before Arbery was seen struggling with the gunman. That's what our article says. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

How is "They disappear behind a truck and then a shot was fired" the same as "A shot was fired by Travis McMichael, after which a struggle ensued between Arbery and Travis"? (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.122.220 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you're just having trouble finding the right words in the sources. Have a look at the article right now at the first paragraph of the lead, and find the spot where the text says "The video appears to show a shot fired by Travis McMichael just before a struggle ensues...". Do you see where there are three reference links after the word appears? Here are the relevant quotes from within those references:

1st source: "...it appears from the video footage that by the time the clearly unarmed Arbery is tussling with Travis McMichael, who is holding the long gun, a shot has already been fired..."

2nd source: "Though Arbery appears to be close to the shotgun, there does not appear to be a scuffle between the two men before Travis McMichael fires the weapon the first time."

3rd source: "...the footage appearing to show Arbery only began grappling with a man after the first shot."

Does that clear things up for you? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The wording used by those articles is much more appropriate because they represent that a shot is fired before we can see the struggle. The current verbiage strongly implies that the shot lead to the struggle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.122.220 (talk) 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I decided to do some deeper digging on that point, and discovered that while many media reports say the first shot appears to come before the struggle, others report that it's not possible to determine whether the shot or the struggle happened first because Arbery and McMichael were blocked from the camera's view by the pickup truck, and some report the first shot after the struggle starts. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

As the reports I found are all reliable secondary sources, I believe BLP requires that we incorporate all three RS interpretations until the day a trial court makes findings of fact that can be cited here on the article. I've therefore added them here with an edit summary directing back to this thread. Further comments would be welcome here get other's opinions, and I'm sure editors will want to digest the quotes in the referenced sources carefully when parsing through this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

As the Original Poster I find this compromise agreeable and I think your update is well put. Thanks AzureCitizen.

@AzureCitizen: - I replaced your two CNN sources with an existing CNN source in the same section. All report similarly, and there are author overlaps between the articles. starship.paint (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

REAL NAME: Аhmаud Mаrquеz Аvеrу

Аhmаud Аrbеrу isn't his real name - his real name is actually Аhmаud Mаrquеz Аvеrу

See: https://www.news4jax.com/news/2013/12/09/police-man-brought-gun-to-high-school-basketball-game/ SpringBreakForeverr (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

His first name is Ahmaud and his middle name is Marquez, so it's probably more likely that the last name "Avery" is just a mispelling/misreporting of "Arbery" from that local area news article in 2013. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree, because you expect recent coverage to check name better than news4jax in 2013.--KasiaNL (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbery priors

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 article is about the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, not Ahmaud Arbery and any priors. This page was previously vandalised by stormfront who added priors to tarnish his reputation and gaslight, those were removed but have now been readded. Since Arbery was a victim of a crime, crimes committed 8 years ago are no more relevant than what the victim had for breakfast; more importantly sources that are used to verify these priors are attributed to parties that have a vested interest against Arbery. If these items are included, they should at the very least be moved to the section prosecutor writings, as placing them in the background section primes the reader towards accepting the defense's case that Arbery was shot because he was a burglar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.184.5 (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Strongly disagree, and prior vandalism is irrelevant to the issue, as well as who was responsible for it. Many, many mainstream news sources have considered this information noteworthy – that's really all we need to know. Wikipedia is not a court of law with evidentiary rules. Arbery was pursued by Gregory McMichael because he believed he recognized him from video of prior burglaries. The fact that Arbery has been in trouble with the law is obviously information a reader would want to have – and had the McMichaels shot several unarmed black men in the past, it would be equally relevant and worthy of inclusion. And it obviously belongs in the mini-biographies of the people involved; it would be a mistake to move it to "Prosecutor writings" (a terribly named and bizarre section to begin with) — surely the main relevance of Arbery's criminal history is not that one of the DA's wrote about it. All that said, I don't see how the "mental health" stuff belongs here, and would favor it being moved to a section about the DAs reasoning for not bringing charges. Tambourine60 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC) I re-added them, and they were not originally added by anyone from Stormfront, but by another editor yesterday. They are not there to tarnish the victim's reputation, he and his family have my full sympathies for an act that I personally consider to be murder, the priors are important to understand why the second D.A. chose not to pursue charges, just as the background of Gregor McMichael as a former law enforcement officer is important to understanding the first D.A.'s recusal (she used to work with him). Arbery was arrested and convicted of the offenses mentioned, and while it is personally unpleasant to mention a murder victim's past mistakes, it is also necessary for understanding the events described in this article.--Kwwhit5531 (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC) If that's the case then greater emphasis should be made on McMichael's connection to the DA in the background section also, as it currently stands that section is limited and does not adequately convey conflicts of interest, instead reading more like a career summary. This event is significant because it represents not only a murder, but an element of suspected perfidy within the justice system. Priming the reader with Arbery's priors implies that the case is more significant as a point of law regarding self defense and citizen's arrest. If we're saying that criminal history is deemed a significant factor to be fleshed out to this degree we should also flesh out McMichael's DA connection; otherwise prior criminal history should be compacted and read closer to a description that Arbery had some criminal history, it does not represent NPOV to give a laundry list of Arbery's priors and contrast that with a short career summary. Another point, I tried to remove the sentence ' In the four months prior to Arbery's death, there were also three calls to the Glynn County Police Department reporting a trespasser on the site of a house under construction.' in the burglaries section before this article was locked, nowhere in the ABC source given does it actually state that there were 3 calls reporting a trespasser on site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.184.82 (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC) I completely agree with you, that section was missing essential info on Gregory McMichael. I've added that information and hopefully soon will soon have further background in this article on the other individuals involved (Travis McMichael and Wiliams Bryan). I'll check that sentence you mentioned next. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Alright that was in the source: "Officers with the Glynn County Police Department have been called to the Satilla Shores neighborhood three times since October 2019 over reports of a trespasser on the construction site of a new home being built near the McMichaels' house, according to police reports obtained by ABC News.". I added that quote to the citation as well, and if you want to make sure yourself (always smart to do with Wikipedia citations, trust no one) then follow the hyperlink and go down to the second to last paragraph to read it. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Absolutely—it's absurd to take out the specifics when they're clearly in the cited material. Am changing it back since obviously the reversion was made by someone who hadn't read the article. Tambourine60 (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Prior problems with the law are absolutely not necessary for understanding the events described in this article as his killing had nothing to do with those prior issues. That's the whole point. Readers may want to know that, but isn't that rather the issue? When a black man is shot, readers want to know if he's a "bad guy" i.e. did he deserve it? I don't see the same thirst for information when people are killed. I was once arrested for reckless driving. I'll bet if I get killed, that info won't come up anywhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.186.43.40 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Totally agreed, it should not be there at all, but if it's going to be there it should at least be there in a balanced way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.184.82 (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC) This information is definitely essential to understanding the circumstances of this incident as it shows that Arbery was not necessarily some random saint as his proponents would like people to believe. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Random sainthood is entirely irrelevant, he could have been a serial killer, but that doesn't make extrajudicial killings acceptable. this comment is pretty clear evidence that there's some actors here that would like to bias the neutrality of this article against Arbery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.218.92 (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC) His prior theft charges aren't relevant but this is: "Ahmaud Arbery was 25 years old.[27] He had attended Brunswick High School, graduating in 2012. He was a linebacker on the school's football team and played in the Georgia/Florida all-star game in his senior year.[28] Arbery studied in the electrical systems program at South Georgia Technical College during the fall 2012 and spring 2013 semesters[29] and his mother said he was pursuing a career as an electrician.[30]" This article is beyond hope. Chrisvacc (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Why are these racially-charged event articles always written in an extremely biased fashion by a very specific type of editor and locked in the days following the media frenzy, the exact time when the most people will be reading the article? It's always the case that these articles (see Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Ahmed Mohamed) have an extreme slant and leave out specific details that radically change how the events that took place are interpreted. Yes it is relevant that someone who was potentially attempting to burglarize a home has a history of criminal activity. What kind of maniac is this clown "EvergreenFir" and why does this imbecile have any administrative privileges over an article like this? CNN has reported this information but it is being kept out of this article.74.109.249.32 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC) BLP We cannot list a person's criminal history without it being WP:DUE and germane to the article. I am removing them for now until consensus is clear that they should be included. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Shouldn't we keep it until a consensus is reached? It's why the father and son were not charged by the second D.A so it relevant to whats already happened, from my understanding their still claiming self-defense based on his criminal record so its relevant at the moment, and assuming they plead not guilty it will likely play a major role in their defense and therefore is relevant or germane to the future. Also, I'm not sure how BLP: Biography of Living Persons, could possibly be relevant here. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC) @Kwwhit5531: effect on family members is considered in the policy; see WP:BDP. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC) @Kwwhit5531: No, see WP:BDP. We cannot add material like that without it being DUE and there being consensus for its inclusion. We would do the same if it were about the McMichaels. We can mention in the part about the initial distric attorney's decision that past criminal history was a factor, but listing it out in the biography portion is UNDUE in my opinion. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Good point. This consideration applies to both "sides" in this article. Hmm 2A01:388:390:111:0:0:1:C (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC) I really don't mean to insensitive to his family and if you read my earlier comments you'll see I'm not trying to steer this article towards one side or another. As to the effect on his family, we simply are stating things that are a matter of public record (reported on by local, state, national, and I would assume international media), and which he was convicted of (pleaded guilty, assuming I remember correctly), the crimes were relatively minor (neither were violent crimes) so its hard to see why they would present a danger to his immediate family. Also Arbery died in February, it just feels recent because it only started to be reported on at a national level (also when this article was created) a few days ago (when I learned of it myself even though I actually live in Georgia), so he's not necessarily as recently dead as it perhaps feels (though I realize the policy says an indeterminate length). As I've already mentioned several times its relevant due to the D.A. choosing not to pursue charges. The reason this article was created (why it qualifies as notable) is because several days ago this became a massive national controversy due to the fact that no arrests were made for months. Had those convictions not occurred its possible the McMichaels would have been charged months ago and this controversy would not have occurred, as that was the primary reason the D.A did not pursue charges. To not include that information, which arguably caused this article to exist as a result, seems to me to leave out crucial information on the subject of this article. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC) A quick response to EverGreen: if the material is UNDUE in the background why is it relevant later on in the article, I mean they apparently even may met in the past or McMichaels was at somepoint aware of his existence to some extent according to one of the sources--Kwwhit5531 (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC) I won't add this information, as you've made it clear that you want a consensus reached before adding anymore information on his arrest record, and I will respect that, but I thought I should also point out that its come to light that, "Greg McMichael once worked in her office. In that role, he investigated a 2018 shoplifting charge against Arbery. At the time Arbery was on probation for a gun-related incident that took place when he was still in high school. His probation was revoked after McMichael’s investigation."', that seems like pretty relevant information to include in the article. Strangely, the fact that McMichaels had been the cause of Arbery's parole revocation, is not mentioned in either the police report (nor is William Bryan's filming of the incident, strange how it seems he didn't mention the film he just took to police that day, which I'm sure if he is also charged, which is under consideration, he will argue shows a "justifiable homicide" and therefore should exonerate him) or in Barnhill's letter. My point here not argue either sides case, but simply to show that information is a) relevant B) important for everyone involved. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC) References Come on, people are twisting themselves into knots to exclude this. [redacted] Many mainstream sources have included this information and it's hard to see how it's irrelevant that an ex-cop chasing someone he thought had committed a burglary, also knew the guy's priors and in fact had HELPED CONVICT HIM in the past. This is precisely why it's being mentioned in mainstream sources. If the fact that an ex-cop had helped put Arbery away before he chased him and his son shot him isn't WP:DUE and germane, what the hell is? Tambourine60 (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC) ADMIN ACTION - Completely unsourced claims that I cannot confirm at all in reliable sources have been redacted. Please do not readd without a valid source; BLP still applies to the recently deceased. Consider this a final warning, @Tambourine60: --Masem (t) 01:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC) It's precisely because people can do what you do - present a collection of facts and give them a meaning - that we have policies that exclude insinuation. Guettarda (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Agree with the above by Guettarda. If we're including his priors, it is done not as an element related to McMichaels until reliable sources make the link clear. Instead almost all RS from what I can see are explicit in stating that it is if McMichael knew Arbery, and if he recognised him in this instance. However, it is clearly relevant information with regards to the statement by the second DA relating to recusing himself. Failing to clarify what the DA is accusing Arbery of through lack of filling in the obvious blank leaves it op to spurious claims. As such it almost certainly should be a note included at that point, however until his priors have significance (I.e. McMichael suggests he was afraid Arbery had a gun because he knew of his prior, or knew that he was a convicted thief because of the shoplifting, or knew he was a parole violator) then it's not overly relevant outside of possibly colouring the DA's reason not to prosecute (and his attempt to colour any investigation of his conduct by casting aspersions about Arbery's family). Koncorde (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC) User:EvergreenFir, I agree with you completely. And Guettarda. And a bunch of IPs with more sense than some registered editors here. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC) There's no "insinuation" of anything; it's purely factual information. The fact that his criminal history has been covered by numerous mainstream sources in articles about Arbery's shooting is all we need to know here.Tambourine60 (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC) If that is what you think, then you don't really know how Wikipedia works, or the world for that matter. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC) @Tambourine60: It's the relevance that matters. It's wrong for us to make a case that McMichael was acting as some kind of a vigilante or something like that. Guettarda (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Indeed. The context where such factual information is included can have a very strong insinuation. It's one thing to say that articles say the words. It's another to present some information outside of the context, or a new context. Koncorde (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC) @Tambourine60: you made the claim above with emphasis added by me "and it's hard to see how it's irrelevant that an ex-cop chasing someone he thought had committed a burglary, also knew the guy's priors and in fact had HELPED CONVICT HIM in the past." Please provide a source for this claim, or stop making such claims. I looked at the 2 sources used in our article previously [2] [3] and AFAICT neither of them make that claim. Just because the ex-cop had helped convict him, doesn't mean he recognised or remembered him, I don't know how long his career was but if it was long there's a fair chance there are number of people he helped convict who he wouldn't recognise. This may have been relatively recent, but AFAICT, if McMichael has claimed to have recognised Arbery from his previous encounters, it's not yet public knowledge and McMichael hasn't made a public statement since this blew up. Actually CNN mentions they tried to contact McMichael and see e.g. [4] [5] Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Where did I claim McMichael recognized Arbery? McMichael did say he recognized him (Redacted), but that's not even the issue. My point is the fact that McMichael had helped convict him before seems obviously worth mentioning—are you seriously suggesting that when someone is accused of murder, the fact that he previously prosecuted the person he's accused of killing is irrelevant? If nothing else, it's a newsworthy coincidence and has been mentioned in numerous sources cited elsewhere in the article. Also, maybe someone can articulate for me why the Chief of Police's indictment for an utterly unrelated matter is relevant, but the fact that Arbery was a convicted felon with a history of theft, illegal possession of weapons, and running from police isn't? Tambourine60 (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC) I included the quote above. I don't see how you missed it. He clearly did not "know the guy's priors" when "chasing someone he thought had committed a burglary" if he did not recognise the guy. AFAICT, at the time he was doing the chasing we don't even know if, even if someone has started to explain to McMichael a roughly outline of the case and MrMichael's involvement, whether he would remember it at all, let alone "know"/remember "the guy's priors". We can assume he knew something at some stage probably most of the person's priors, but this may not have been when "chasing someone he thought had committed a burglary" as you implied with your comment. There are issues separated in time, and you seem to be conflating the 2, suggesting they were occurring at the same time with your comment. I don't want to get into the other stuff like what is and is not relevant. I only joined this discussion to ask you stop making claims which are not supported by sources. Anything else you can discuss with other editors. Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC) I don't understand what you're not comprehending here. I never claimed or even inferred that McMichael remembered his priors at the time—only that he had knowledge of them, which is a statement of fact. Obviously I can't speak to what was in his mind at the time. I still think it's relevant that there was a HISTORY between the two individuals—is that so outrageous? Your argument seems patently absurd to me: that a criminal-justice history between a dead man and the man accused of murdering him—indeed that one helped convict the other of a crime—is irrelevant because there's no proof they remembered or recognized each other at the time. Is that really your position? Tambourine60 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC) @Tambourine60: You may wish to retract part of your above statement - no source reports that there is any "security footage of past burglaries." There is zero evidence that Arbery has ever committed burglary and no reliable source has ever reported such. Unsupported defamatory statements are not permitted on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC) @NorthBySouthBaranof: Quit threatening and bullying me with your bogus legalese. I wrote that McMichael "thought [Arbery] had committed a burglary". This is clearly true. The police report states: "McMichael stated there have been several Break - ins in the neighborhood and further the suspect was caught on surveillance video." DA Barnhill wrote to the PD: "It appears Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael, and Bryan William were following, in hot pursuit, a burglary suspect…" The NY Times quoted Barnhill: And because Mr. Arbery was a “burglary suspect,” the pursuers, who had “solid firsthand probable cause,” were justified in chasing him under the state’s citizen’s arrest law. In a separate document, Mr. Barnhill stated that video exists of Mr. Arbery “burglarizing a home immediately preceding the chase and confrontation.” Vox reported: "In the police report filed after Arbery’s killing, Gregory McMichael said the burglar had been caught on surveillance video and that Arbery matched the description of the suspect." You may wish to offer an apology for your obnoxious tone. Tambourine60 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC) @Tambourine60: What Arbery's killer thought in his head, or told police, may or may not have any relationship to observed reality. Please show the source which *factually states* that there is surveillance video of Arbery committing burglary. Not "McMichael says there is surveillance video." If you can't find such a source, then it's you who may wish to offer an apology. Because the word of an accused murderer caught on video gunning down an unarmed man in the middle of the street is entirely insufficient for stating, as a fact, that Arbery committed burglary, particularly given that Arbery isn't alive to defend himself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC) @Tambourine60: Stop making bullshit claims. You did claim above (emphasis added) "and it's hard to see how it's irrelevant that an ex-cop chasing someone he thought had committed a burglary, also knew the guy's priors and in fact had HELPED CONVICT HIM in the past." If you make such bullshit claims unsupported by sources again, you should expect to be blocked. "Your argument seems patently absurd to me: that a criminal-justice history between a dead man and the man accused of murdering him—indeed that one helped convict the other of a crime—is irrelevant because there's no proof they remembered or recognized each other at the time. Is that really your position?" I cannot have such a position when I have explicitly refused to comment on the inclusion of such material. My sole purpose here is for you to stop spreading bullshit. If you agree to stop spreading bullshit which is not supported by reliable sources then I am done here. You are free to discuss the inclusion of the material with other participants. I do not wish to engage in that discussion as I have already made clear. Let me repeat one last time. My only wish is for you to stop spreading bullshit like you did when you claimed "ex-cop chasing someone he thought had committed a burglary, also knew the guy's priors" implying that these were both something that occurred at the same time when you have acknowledge you have zero evidence for that. Nil Einne (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC) If your panties are twisted because you think I "implied" they happened at the same millisecond in McMichael's brain when I never stated any such thing, then I feel sorry for you. You will note there is a comma before "also" and not after "priors"—which is intended to group the latter two things in a different time period than the first. In other words, "in the past" clearly modifies "knew his priors and in fact had helped convict him". Why you think I'm "implying" that "knew his priors" took place at the same time as "thought he'd committed burglary" is anyone's guess—maybe grammar and punctuation aren't your strong point? And I NEVER claimed that Arbery had committed burglary, period, but for some reason you keep falsely claiming I did, which to me qualifies as "spreading bullshit" and hounding. I have showed you that the DA (who's neither McMichael nor an "accused murderer") wrote a letter to the State AG "factually stating" that there is video of Arbery committing burglary. I don't know what more you'd like than an official stating it on official stationary. Now, why don't you give it a rest? I have made it clear that I did not state (and obviously could not state) what you believe I "implied". Yet you are persisting in stalking me here and on my page like some prissy schoolmarm, hectoring and lecturing me while threatening me with being "blocked". For the last time: please stop harassing me. Tambourine60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC) @EvergreenFir:I just want to make it clear now having read this thread, after not checking Wikipedia yesterday, that I think my intentions when I originally started this thread are being misunderstood. I never added info on his arrest record in an attempt to violate NPOV. I did so only because I thought a sentence in the article mentioning his arrest record was relevant as along as it was well sourced (in this case the D.A's letter citing it as a reason not to pursue charges). It was, I must make clear, never an attempt to push this article into NPOV, nor was it an attempt to make Ahmaud Arbary look bad, or an attempt to speculate on Gregory McMichaels actions, nor anything else. I only wanted to add a simple factual statement about his arrest record, and probably would now add additionally that Gregor McMichael was responsible for his parole being revoked as well. Once again I would never attempt to add speculation in addition to those simple statements. Also when an admin reverted my edits and told me to wait for a consensus I did so and continue to comply. Having said all this I believe his arrest record should be added, and if anything additional reporting in the last few days has simply made me feel that the info is now even more relevant. thanks Kwwhit5531 (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC) It should be removed from the "background" section. There should be no "background" section because it suggest something not in reliable sources and therefore WP:OR.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Given that there is now a plethora of information in the "Background" section on the history of the Glynn County PD that has exactly zero to do with Arbery, isn't it relevant to mention their specific history with him? They arrested him in rather dramatic fashion in 2013 when he brought a handgun to a basketball game. Tambourine60 (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Reliable sources mention the criminal record. Its whitewashing to remove it. And he may have recognized the guy and knew he was a criminal, having worked on a case with him before, that relevant to the article. Dream Focus 23:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC) I also fail to understand how including Arbery's criminal past is an issue with either WP:DUE or WP:BLPCRIME. In terms of the former, there's no question that Arbery's past has been featured in numerous reliable sources about his shooting. It's not a "minority view" but a fact that mainstream sources have seen as relevant and included in coverage of the subject. As to the latter, it's clear this applies: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Reread that last phrase. Arbery was legally convicted of crimes multiple times. How is it that a WP:BLP violation? Tambourine60 (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC) His criminal past is a huge part of the controversy. Leaving it out is whitewashing. Period. During the Trayvon Martin case a lot of outlets tried to supress things that made Martin look bad and when it finally came out it was even worse becasue it appeared as though they were whitewashing evidence. The outlets that did this looked terrible. So if Wikipedia partakes in similiar whitewashing - when it all comes out - it's just going to be more evidence of untrustworthiness on Wikipedia's part. All the evidence is right on this talk page. In a case where one party is accusing the other party of attempted burgulary including Arbery's criminal past is absolutely due and anything else is a blatant gutting of Neutrality – Chrisvacc (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC) I strongly agree with you, Chrisvacc. Arbery's past criminal history is very due information to be included in the page. Many secondary sources and media outlets across the entire country and ideological spectrum included these facts. This page should thus include them as well, lest it be whitewashing, as you noted. CalmHand1 (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Agreed. And as to consensus, it's quite clear that a good majority of those commenting under the "Priors" section are entirely in favor of including Arbery's criminal past, although there's some question of in what section to document his record. Enough of this selective bullshit—how is McMichael's license standing for a job he retired from months before germane (when it's clearly used to disparage his character), but someone who has actually been convicted of felonies by a jury of their peers not relevant when they were pursued (whether legally or not) for allegedly committing similar offenses? Tambourine60 (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC) You're welcome to initiate an RFC to determine whether or not there is consensus for inclusion of such material. Absent such a clear consensus, a wide number of editors have objected to its inclusion, and the burden for inclusion of disputed material lies with those who wish to include it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC) No that's okay. I'll just let you guys ruin the article and engage in the blatant whitewashing. Just know when all that stuff gets blown up during the trial I'm going to very publically point to this page as evidence of the cover-up. This is a Neutral Encyclopedia, not a place for you to push your liberal viewpoints of a on the world. But just know that this is why people don't take Wikipedia seriously. – Chrisvacc (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC) The fact that you think it's "liberal" to view disfavorably an act of vigilantism which ends in the violent death of an unarmed person who posed no threat to anyone is quite telling. David A. French might suggest that conservatism involves more respect for the rule of law than that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC) @Tambourine60: @CalmHand1: Of course it's selective editing. Some of the editors working on the article are of the opinion "poor innocent young puppy-loving black student who only wanted to persue his dreams of being an electrician HUNTED by two evil white men" and that editorializing unconsciously comes out in their edits. Don't get me wrong, I'm also of the opinion that what these men did was attrocious but people can make their own choice after being presented with evidence. These two guys being idiotic vigilantes is not the point. Wikipedia is a Neutral Encyclopedia not an opinion editorial piece in the New York Times. The definition of bias is to selectively choose facts that only support your view. His priors are clearly a huge part of the controversy, and McMichael knew who he was because he's worked on his case. It's clearly a necessary pert of the story. But it was deleted because of politically motivated bully power-editors. So whatever... I'm not going to argue. I have way more stuff to do that to fight a 3 hour Wikipedia battle over this blatant corruption. – Chrisvacc (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC) @NorthBySouthBaranof: viewing things disfavourably is not the purpose of an Encyclopedia. PERIOD; end of story. These are opinions. These are Editorials. Go make your own HippiePedia and editorialize. This is a fact-baced Encyclopedia. "violent death of an unarmed person who posed no threat to anyone" is an Opinion. This is Epistomology 101 - understanding the difference between facts and opinions. Your opinions should not affect the facts that you present. This is very basic Journalism. – Chrisvacc (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Our job is to present all of the facts so that people can come to their own conclusion. Your job is to present some of the facts in order to hopefully sway somebody's opinion. That is not how Neutrality works. – Chrisvacc (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC) No, at this point it's what the available evidence as published in reliable sources indicates. It's why the two McMichaels are sitting in jail right now - there is probable cause to believe they committed murder. What this has to do with "hippies," I have no idea. And "neutrality" on Wikipedia expressly does not mean we take a "view from nowhere" - instead, it means we reflect what reliable sources say about something. That reliable sources also view violent vigilantism disfavorably should not be a surprise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Are you kidding? So you're making the claim that no reliable sources are reporting on his priors? That's the claim you're making? – Chrisvacc (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC) I'm agnostic on the issues here, but am disturbed by what would appear to be politically motivated censorship of widely sourced, pertinent information. Arbery's priors include theft, bringing a handgun to a school he didn't attend, running from police, and parole violation. BLP protects those who have not been convicted of a crime. Looking at the comments, the consensus seems to be in favor of including the material, no? Tambourine60 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Relevance Issues (Both Sides of the Debate)

There are relevance issues concerning both sides (those supporting Arbery and those supporting the accused).

For example: "In the four months prior to Arbery's death, there were three calls to the Glynn County Police Department reporting a trespasser on the site of a house under construction. It is unclear who the trespasser may have been.[53]" relevance not made clear and some of the historical criticisms of the police dept also lack sufficient explanation as to their relevance.

I stress that these issues stem from contributions from both sides of the debate. However, it would seem that the best approach would be:

1. to better explain the relevance of parts of the article to the subject;

2. omit those sections lacking an explanation of relevance; or

3. move things into their own independent articles.

Not taking sides here. Many parts of this article don't flow well and could be improved. Also, this is obviously an emotive topic. Can we please try to be nice to each other. In sincerity 2A01:388:390:111:0:0:1:E (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

There are two sides to the debate? What debate? Was a man not shot? Is it not on video? Have people not speculated about the things included in the article such as what crimes may have taken place previously in the local area as context? Koncorde (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That context is not relevant. How can you not see that. Of course there is a debate, you only need to read this talk page to see people from two very opposing sides. My comment was made in good faith. Yours is just impolite. 2A01:388:390:151:0:0:1:59 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Following my post, Koncorde, this very issue turned into a debate under "If past problems with the police department are included, so too should be Arbery's past crimes." Your being so abusive to me was unwarranted. 2A01:388:390:151:0:0:1:59 (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"That context is not relevant". Oki doki. Koncorde (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The relevance has not been explained in a way that is relevant pursuit to Wiki or legal standards. It's only potentially relevant as it potentially relates to the killers state of mind in the alleged used of self defence. But you have not linked it to claims about the killers state of mind. All I asked in my original post was either explain better or omit. You should be very careful with "context" re BLP/B(previously)LP as it can amount to D. All I asked was for better explanation and could we be nice to each other and you replied in demeaning terms. You are clearly not a lawyer and have made no reference to wiki policy or guidelines, just that your own subjective belief of what is relevant. It lacks cogency and is not very gentlemanly. You pretend that there is no debate going on on this talk page about relevancy... have you seen the other talk topics? How many are characterised by support and oppose and to and for arguments? A man can be killed and what follows can be a debate, as is very apparent from the history and talk page. Speculation without reason is not a great excuse for D. You, Sir, are not an Englishman. 2A01:388:390:151:0:0:1:59 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't know their states of mind. End of discussion on that one. Omitting what is covered in reliable sources is only going to be done if information is viewed as undue. Explaining the relevance of crimes that happened in the vicinity of a subsequent death sounds like WP:SYNTH (or a purposeful exercise in excluding such information). In the absence of a statement from either men, there won't be more context.

"You pretend that there is no debate going on on this talk page about relevancy... have you seen the other talk topics?" That is the problem isn't it: There isn't a debate over the relevancy of background information that isn't related to either Arbery or McMichael. The question of information being included in other discussions is largely related to information that would be impacted by BLP / BDP and / or prejudicial to the reader. Koncorde (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Gun probation

There have been repeated attempts to include material like this[6] but no consensus to do so. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Issue of BLP has been raised. Whose L?

Are we equally concerned about BLP regarding the McMichaels as regarding Arbery (who is dead, but died so recently that he would probably be included in the L)? Is there some way to maintain the uncertainty over who provided the impetus to pull the trigger and to maintain the possibility that Arbery had his hand on the gun? (PeacePeace (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC))

What source states that Arbery had his hand on the gun before he was shot, or that he pulled the trigger on the gun aimed at himself? If sources don't provide that as a potential uncertainty, we can't either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing the article, I don't see anywhere where we state expressly who pulled the trigger, so it's unclear what you want changed. Which section of the article do you think needs to be modified? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@PeacePeace: I just started reading this article but from looking at this Talk page I'd say no. It seems like BLP is only being mentioned when it comes to Arbery. Also @NorthBySouthBaranof: the Autopsy shows that Arbery was shot during the struggle for the shotgun. “This 25-year-old died of multiple gunshots wounds sustained during a struggle for the shotgun,” according the report dated April 1.source

If a user opened a discussion like this, please don't reply. Just remove the comment per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. See WP:DENY.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you are treating Wikipedia as a forum. Wikipedia is not a forum.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Should the lead say "two armed men" or "retired police officer Gregory McMichael and his son Travis McMichael"

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.

---

My edit got reverted. [7] Saying "two armed men" leads people to a negative narrative about these two. Why not mention instead it was a retired police officer and his son doing a citizen's arrest? Dream Focus 17:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't know that they were engaging in a citizen's arrest. We certainly can't start the article with a suggestion that he was being arrested. If it was a citizen's arrest, they were citizens with no police powers The fact one was once an officer doesn't matter here. That fact is covered in the body. It is important in the lead to say what actually happened. What actually happened is that Arbery was chased down by two armed men. O3000 (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times article [8] states "According to documents obtained by The New York Times, a prosecutor who had the case for a few weeks told the police that the pursuers had acted within the scope of Georgia’s citizen’s arrest statute, and that Travis McMichael, who held the shotgun, had acted out of self-defense." So that is quite relevant. Dream Focus 17:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You mean the prosecutor that had to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest, and was ultimately reversed? No way we should put his opinion in the lead. O3000 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Because its in the official court documents and the reason they were not prosecuted originally. Dream Focus 17:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that kind of thing belongs in the body in full context. O3000 (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A retired police officer has no special status or powers of arrest. So no, it's not relevant for the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Dream Focus, arrest for what? There's no suggestion of any crime, even from the killers' own side. Guy (help!) 20:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

doing a citizen's arrest is at odds with the facts. The fact that that claim was made by a prosecutor with a conflict of interest doesn't make it true. We have more recent court documents that assert that they committed murder, so based on that logic, we'd sooner use that language. Of course, we wouldn't use either description. Neither is acceptable, nor is "lynching". Guettarda (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus, these comments of yours are very troubling. You know a man was shot and killed, right? Drmies (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I know people are innocent until proven guilty and the article should be neutral as possible. Dream Focus 00:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahmaud Arbery was also innocent until proven guilty, but he'll never get a day in court. Neutrality does not mean ignoring the fact that two armed civilians chose to take the law into their own hands and as a result of their actions, another unarmed man who never threatened their lives is dead from two shotgun blasts to the chest. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like your mind is made up then and facts don't matter. Talking about facts, you lack them. He was shot twice. Once was through the hand when he tried grabbing the end of the shotgun(in the police report) and the second fatal shot was through the shoulder(also in the police report). This is why they have courts of laws for such things so a jury gets to see all the evidence and facts and not just use their feelings based on what media celebrities told them on twitter.118.208.20.226 (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. Per the autopsy done by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation: An autopsy report released Tuesday showed that Ahmaud Arbery, the 25-year-old African-American man pursued by two white men and fatally shot in Glynn County, Ga., in February, was shot twice in the chest, had a third wound on a wrist and had no drugs or alcohol in his system. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I just warned the IP for their edits here, which amount, especially in aggregation, to gross violations of the BLP and obvious POV pushing. If they continue this, please report them at WP:AIV. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: - Gregory was a policeman for 7 years. Then, Gregory was an investigator for over 30 years. Somehow, you want to stress that Gregory was a retired policeman. I can't imagine why. starship.paint (talk) 09:49, 13 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.

Is "unarmed" an accurate description?

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.

---

Article says, "an unarmed 25-year-old." If Arbery was not shot before he put his hands on the shotgun, & if his hands were on the shotgun when he was shot, is it accurate to call him "unarmed"? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC))

Yes, it is. Furthermore, it is not for us to philosophize about, rather, we describe him the way the sources do. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

An unarmed man grabs the barrel of a shotgun held by someone else, is he armed? I say no. Arbery maybe tried disarm of McMichael, but Arbery unarmed.--KasiaNL (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Reminds me of the Bill Hicks sketch about Jack Palance; "you all saw him, he had a gun". Koncorde (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

PeacePeace, what an absolutely absurd kind of question. What are you trying to achieve here? The man was killed--are you trying to make it look like he was killed in self-defense by a man with a shotgun? Drmies (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

^ agree. 2A01:388:390:111:0:0:1:E (talk) 17:09, 13 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.

Are there reliable sources to confirm the cut off statement?

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.

---

Article says, "The incident was recorded in a 36-second video by William "Roddie" Bryan, a neighbor of the McMichaels, from a second vehicle that was following Arbery and had also tried to cut off Arbery's path before the physical confrontation."

Do you have reliable sources for the claim that a 2nd vehicle also tried to cut off Arbery's path? I didn't find that in the citations. The word "also": are there reliable sources for that? So far as what I have read (& I have read a lot), I have seen no evidence of a cut off, as the white pickup was parked on the right side of the street, not cutting off Arbery, who in fact was able to run past the pickup truck on its right side. In other words, "cut off" seems to imply a successful prevention of passing on the street, instead of a position which enhanced the possibility of a confrontation. Are we all objective NPOV on this, or are we rooting for a side? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC))

"George McMichael claims his son tried to cut off Arbery with his truck, but that he turned around and ran in the other direction. The police report mentions another person, identified only as “Roddy” — William Bryan — who tried unsuccessfully to cut Arbery off with his vehicle. " [9] WWGB (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that we only have Gregory's testimony on this, I don't think we should put this in the lede. Not unless Bryan himself confirms it. starship.paint (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it is in a police report. Where is the evidence that it is " Gregory's testimony"? WWGB (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@WWGB: NYT The police report is based almost solely upon the responding officer’s interview with Gregory McMichael. "George McMichael", as you wrote above, doesn't exist. If you want the exact sentence from the police report, it's McMichael stated the unidentified male turned around and began running back the direction from which he came and "Roddy" attempted to block him which was unsuccessful. You are presenting Gregory McMichael's words as fact, which is not fair to William "Roddie" Bryan. Note that Gregory McMichael's testimony has already proven to have inaccuracies - he claimed two shots were fired when Arbery was shot thrice. starship.paint (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@WWGB:: Bryan's attorney, Kevin Gough, said he was just a bystander with no relationship to the McMichaels. Gough disputed Greg McMichael's claim to police that Bryan was helping them attempt to head off Arbery. [10] starship.paint (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

McMichael's testimony? Then have say "according to McMichael". Probably not in lead.--KasiaNL (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

For the main paragraph in the lead, it's probably too much to have half a sentence about the McMichael's ("...chased and confronted by two armed men in a pickup truck: Travis McMichael and his father Gregory") followed by two full sentences about Bryan's involvement. There's no description of what the former were doing (the confrontation, physical struggle, shots, etc), while nearly everything that's known about Bryan in the entire article is included in the lead in those two full sentences. I've paired that back for now, and we'll see if this requires further discussion in this thread. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

McMichael's testimony? What McMichael's told the investigating officer is relevant to a determination of McMichael's actions, even though he did not apparently sign the statement. It is permissible hearsay. (The officer saw & heard nothing, except what he heard McMichael's say.) However, the officer's report of what McMichael's said to the officer about Bryan (not observed by the officer, but repeated by the officer) is not a reliable source on Bryan. Also, anything McMichael said about what Bryan was "trying to do," assumes that McMichael knew what was inside Bryan's mind. BTW, in judging what is a reliable source, wherever a source makes an interpretation of the same videos which we have all seen, I think we can deem such a source unreliable whenever it is obvious to us that the source disagrees with the same primary sources we all have seen. (PeacePeace (talk) 01:23, 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.