Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery - Wikipedia

Ahmaud Arbery was not a "participant" in this event. He was the VICTIM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.195.219 (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

In this case, how does this entire event possess any notability and differs from so many common murder and homicide cases? Just because a video was released? Or due to "religious leaders, athletes, and other celebrities" claiming it was racially motivated? 93.159.149.134 (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comment is clearly an example of modern lynching by court of public opinion. Maybe wait at least until defense makes its case? 93.159.149.134 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Reply - I support either shooting or death, until the investigation is complete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Reply - The investigation has nothing to do with this being called a lynching. People who lynch individuals are found to have lawfully lynched them. It is even legal to lynch people for stealing cattle in some states. Calling it a lynching is simply acknowledging the facts as laid out by the shooters; they stopped and killed an individual they accused of crime without an trial. That is all it takes for something to be a lynching. All of you are trying to drag politics into this basic fact. living^fract@lk 14:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

A court isn't what defines something as a lynching. Most states, and federal law, have no formal definition or law about lynchings. The idea that we have to wait for a judge to declare it a lynching is itself against the idea of neutrality on this site. If we were to follow this impossible and absurd standard being suggested here, then essentially the entire list of Lynchings In The United States would have to be removed. living^fract@lk 14:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jogging should be the word used here. "Running" implies he wasn't exercising and has a negative connotation especially when describing people of color in a case like this. "Running" also sounds too definitive when there is a clear difference between running and jogging. We should go by the family's claim as most news articles are doing. Having "Running" in the sentence is immediately taking a stance against the family. Besides that, an overwhelming amount of news media outlets refer to him as jogging or a jogger. This includes CNN, CBS News, Washington Post, Fox News, The Hill, MSNBC, The Guardian, NPR, ABC News, BBC News, Vox, USA Today, Vice and Buzzfeed News.
Miss HollyJ (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Running - there is no objective evidence that Arbrey was jogging. There is objective evidence that Arbrey was running when he fled the scene of the burglary. Juno (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please don't make things up, thanks. Miss HollyJ (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Running – jogging implies a POV interpretation of what he was doing – i.e., that he was out getting some exercise and was not in a hurry. Per the Jogging article, "Jogging is a form of trotting or running at a slow or leisurely pace. The main intention is to increase physical fitness with less stress on the body than from faster running but more than walking, ..." Jogging can be referred to as running, but running implies an interpretation of the intention and pace of the activity that may be unwarranted here. Of course it is OK to say that someone said he was jogging. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Whether it was for 'exercise' or not is at the heart of the matter. Wikipedia should not attempt to explain why he was running, and jogging is a form of running. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Simply using "running" is too vague. Jogging is more specific. Miss HollyJ (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Jogging is more specific" – yes, but in a non-neutral way. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Running" is not neutral. It implies something negative in this case. Miss HollyJ (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

To those pretending there isn't a negative connotation to "running" in this context, do you agree there is a different framing in saying those accused of shooting were "driving" or "pursuing" or "chasing"? They were objectively driving, but to use that word gives a different narrative. The preponderance of sources state he was jogging. Until there is clear evidence, reported in the media, that he was "fleeing" or "running away from", the reported narrative is that he was jogging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.140.139 (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

If I understand correctly, there were only two men in the pickup truck. I believe that the fact that Arbery was black and the other men are white is a fundamental part of what makes the incident notable. It would be much less newsworthy and interesting to the general public if there was no difference in race between the man who was killed and the men who killed him. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Happily, it's been corrected. As to the assertion that "every source… reports that the shots did not begin during a struggle" — nice try. Neither the video nor most sources suggest that to be true. Try the NYT: "Mr. Arbery runs around the truck and disappears briefly from view. Muffled shouting can be heard before Mr. Arbery emerges, tussling with the man outside the truck as three shotgun blasts echo."^[1] Ditto CBS, etc. Tambourine60 (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Entire article needs to be updating to reflect that there are two arrests. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think that its worth mentioning the burglary in the lead, in not in the opening sentence. Juno (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Should not be in the lead unless there's a proven connection to the shooting. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Arbery's criminal history has nothing to do with his murder whatsoever besides being a potential poor excuse for his killers. It should not be mentioned whatsoever in the article unless the perps try to bring it up during their trial.★Trekker (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Until there is any evidence of a link from the two burglaries to Ahmaud Arbery, why is this even a section? Who cares about the details of what crime someone thought someone else committed? It implies he was shot because he committed the burglaries. There is no evidence of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.140.139 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply