Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 8

Requested move 21 June 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)



Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery → Killing of Ahmaud Arbery –  I believe this article should be reconsidered for the title change. Please reconsider this based at least in part on the proposed flowchart to the right for article titles which makes perfect sense. It will be reasonable for consistency. When person a dies as a result of human action, regardless of intent or criminal responsibility, it is a killing. Google Dictionary (kill): verb: cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing) "her father was killed in a car crash"; noun: an act of killing, especially of one animal by another. Dictionary.com: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of. MacMillan Dictionary: to make a person or other living thing die. Collins Dictionary: to cause the death of (a person or animal). "More than 1,000 people have been killed by the armed forces; The earthquake killed 62 people; Heroin can kill". The medical examiner has ruled homicide. Also note: the title of the article, Killing of Rayshard Brooks. "Shooting" is not the best title word because many shootings are not fatal. It is better to be precise. If we want to be more descriptive, we could title it the "Shooting and Killing of Ahmaud Arbery", but this is too wordy; "Killing" is the best fit. We have to deal with reality: Ahmaud Arbery was killed by a gun. We must not downplay the seriousness of the matter by the mere title "Shooting".Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The word "killing" comes with it the connotation of unjustifiable/wrongful death (or in the minds of some is equivalent to murder). The image flowchart is quite flawed. For example, do we ever have articles about non-fatal shootings? The present title is 100% accurate and COMMONNAME. -- Netoholic @ 10:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Unjustifiable killing is murder. Mikus (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet Killing of Rayshard Brooks uses "Killing". COMMONNAME has not been determined and is debatable. I have seen both killing and shooting. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources-what are the sources for killing connoting unjustifiable or wrongful death? If so, they would suffer the same contradiction in proper usage in English. I have not read every Wikipedia article so don't know if there are non-fatal shooting articles and, if so, that is not to say there won't be some. Regardless, such matter is a strawman argument in my mind because, as said, shooting is imprecise. Killing is precise. As an encyclopedia English Wikipedia needs English language precision and internal consistency. "Killing" is recognizabile, natural, precise, concise and consistent. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes and that may be the commonname, but its not relevant here. If you want to talk about precision and consistency, then probably every article about a death should just use "Death of" as that is always precise and correct. I don't know if we have to go to that extreme, but there is certainly too much variation in titles and too much effort being expended arguing in repetitious RMs for the same articles. Getting back to this article, it sounds from your last line "We must not downplay the seriousness of the matter" that this is more a matter of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS than of WP:TITLES policy. -- Netoholic @ 11:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Death is not as precise because death can be due to many factors including, for example, drowning. Killing is more direct and defined in English (cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing)). You are misinterpreting the intent of my statement as to seriousness. Any killing is more serious compared to a shooting and I believe a title should reflect this. Accuracy is important. Inversely, perhaps your being wed to "shooting" is a wish to downplay the event? Let's try to avoid WP:USTHEM Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Netoholic and per WP:CONSISTENT. The above proposal should be submitted in the form of a mass "Shooting of..." → "Killing of..." nomination, rather than singling out this main title header while leaving all other "Shooting of..." headers unchanged. As for Killing of Rayshard Brooks, that header is currently inconsistent per entries under Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States and the proposed change — Killing of Rayshard Brooks → Shooting of Rayshard Brooks — is currently being discussed at Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is already a drive to reconsider the naming of articles titled "Shooting" where there is a death since there are so many recent RMs regarding those articles. Although other articles may use "Shooting" the subject article is one of the recent ones to go through an RM in the middle of the discussion on changing, thus I don't think pointing solely to articles following the current convention is a reason not to move this article to "Killing". Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In very widely publicized cases, English Wikipedia has separate articles for the victim and for the victim's death — George Floyd and Killing of George Floyd as well as Trayvon Martin and Shooting of Trayvon Martin {Killing of Trayvon Martin is a redirect}. There was a successful nomination regarding Death of Yoshihiro Hattori → Shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori at Talk:Shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori who, as in the case of Trayvon Martin or Ahmaud Arbery, was fatally shot not by a police officer, but by a civilian.
 * In all fairness, English Wikipedia does have a very small number of articles, probably five or fewer, delineating non-fatal shootings, such as Shooting of Charles Kinsey, thus providing some strength to the argument that "Shooting of..." main headers should be reserved solely for non-fatal shootings. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also non-fatal: Shooting of David Ortiz. BD2412  T 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support purely on consistency grounds. It does appear that "Shooting of X" titles are inconsistent with our other articles where a death is involved. We don't have "Strangulation of X" or "Knifing of X" articles; they are always "Killing of X" or "Murder of X".  It would appear logical that the "Shooting of X" title should be reserved for articles, if we have any, where the incident was non-fatal, and the rest moved.  I further note that when you put "Shooting of" into the search box, the first ten results are all of the shooting of black people by US police officers - except this one. Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support He was killed, and Netoholic is wrong about it implying unjustifiable/wrongful death. "Killing" implies untimely death at the hands of someone, which is exactly what this situation entails. "Murder" implies unjustifiable/wrongful. Clearly Arbery was killed, as he should still be alive. He wasn't merely "shot" as it is useful to clarify in the page title that he did not survive the shooting, improving precision. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support He was shot at and he died, hence he was killed. If the trial finds that he was killed unjustifiably, it will become murder. Mikus (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The same proposed renaming was considered just last month and was not adopted, so we should not need to go through this all again so soon. The nominator provided definitions of "kill", but not definitions of "killing", which is the word proposed to be used here. The word "killing" typically implies deliberate intent – see these Collins, MacMillan and Oxford definitions.  Wikipedia actually has a very consistent naming convention to use "Shooting of" for non-murder articles about shootings (nearly all of which are about fatal shootings). For example, see recent RM consensus outcomes for Talk:Shooting of Sammy Yatim, Talk:Shooting of Breonna Taylor, Talk:Shooting of Atatiana Jefferson and Talk:Shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori. Also see the very consistent naming pattern of the large number of articles in Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States and Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in Canada. The only exceptions in those categories that I'm aware of are Killing of Rayshard Brooks and Killing of Andres Guardado, which were both created in just the last few days, and one of which is undergoing current RM discussion. Wikipedia article titles should have a measured and formal tone, not sensationalistic headlines driven by recent outrage. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Killing does not imply fault, only agency. "Death" is passive, "killing" is active and "murder" is intentional. Killing is the right term here, factually accurate, neutral and 100% BLP consistent, while "death" seems like Bowdlerisation, deferring too much to the feels of the accused - a really bad look right now. Guy (help!) 17:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as clear, concise, correct, and commonsensical. However this page is part of a large organizational issue on Wikipedia and I would encourage and  to take this to WP:VP to get consensus for wider change.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Further to the discussion above, I have created Category:Non-fatal shootings, and populated it with all instances that I could readily find. So far, this includes eight titles with the word "shooting" in the title (of which six are "Shooting of" titles), and five titles using a variation of "Attempted assassination of". BD2412  T 18:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No Ronald Reagan? Mikus (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as Ronald Reagan and other public figures are concerned, the more-appropriate Category:Attempted assassinations of Presidents of the United States has existed since 2013 and its parent Category:Failed assassination attempts has existed since 2007.
 * However, not every assassination is done with a firearm, most shootings are not considered assassinations and most non-fatal shootings are not considered to be assassination attempts. For example, the currently active Shooting of Nikola Štedul → Attempted assassination of Nikola Štedul at Talk:Shooting of Nikola Štedul is an effort to clarify that specific main title header, taking into account that, presently, the simple form almost always turns out to mean.
 * In fact, to the extent that I can determine, English Wikipedia has only four headers describing non-fatal police shootings — three in the U.S. (Shooting of Abdullahi Omar Mohamed, Shooting of Charles Kinsey and Shooting of Jesse Hartnett (Jesse Hartnett is the name of the non-fatally shot police officer, not of his non-fatally shot assailant) as well as one in the UK (Shooting of Stephen Waldorf).
 * This very small number of English Wikipedia articles about non-fatal shootings also includes Shooting of David Ortiz (apparently, not an attempted assassination of a public figure) which may be the sole main header describing a non-fatal shooting that did not directly involve a law enforcement professional. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Opposed. Already been hashed before. Shooting is more informative. Furthermore, most Wikipedia articles on shootings have fatalities and are intentional.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – per consistency with similarly titled articles. Killing does not imply that one has been convicted of murder. He was killed and his killers are facing murder charges. Saying "Shooting" is ambiguous as mentioned in the image above. cookie monster  (2020)  755  00:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Consistency with other articles is generally helpful, and no significant reason for avoiding this consistency has been presented. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - per the flowchart, per consistency, per "killing" doesn't mean justified or unjustified, per "shooting" not being clear as to whether the person died...basically per nom, the other support arguments above, and the usual arguments in support of moving articles to "killing". Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 16:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Killing of Rayshard Brooks has been mentioned several times above; the RM to move it to "Shooting of" has now been closed as "not moved." See Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 17:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Ahmaud Arbery was not only shot but also killed. That is the most notable aspect of the subject and should be clearly indicated in the title. The incident was clearly ruled a homicide and the article should indicate that prominently. A new consistency can be established. Killing only indicates actus reus and not mens rea. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.--- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think this is a line call. To some killing has connotations that it doesn't have to others. This already complex case (noting for example the connections of one of the accused to the police department) has now become highly topical following the recent Black Lives Matter protests etc.. Whatever happens now, this is not likely to be the last RM for this article. Andrewa (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * American dictionaries define "killing":
 * American Heritage:
 * Merriam-Webster: ("kills" defined as )
 * Dictionary.com (Random House): ("kill" defined as )
 * British dictionaries:
 * Oxford Learner's:
 * Cambridge:
 * Collins: Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 20:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is funny because in English law, there are such things as "lawful killing" and "unlawful killing". The word deliberately is not in reference to criminality but only indicates that the person took the act intentionally and not accidentally, as in a car accident. There is no doubt that they intended to kill him. A court will determine if their intent was criminal. That does not discount the fact that they shot him at least three times with intent to kill. Whether it was justified is not at issue here for this RM. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A person accidentally drops a loaded gun and it goes off; the bullet strikes someone else, causing their death. To me, that person was accidentally killed, or killed by an accidental discharge. That doesn't sound wrong in any way (I'm American), but apparently those three British dictionaries would say one cannot be "accidentally killed". Then there's the difference between intent to shoot and intent to kill. Say an officer loads a gun with a non-lethal (rubber) bullet and shoots it at someone, but that bullet hits the person in the eye and kills them. The officer intended to shoot, but they didn't intend to kill. (This isn't a hypothetical.)
 * In this case, though, "killing" is correct under both American and British dictionaries, because there is no question that the shooter intended to kill. It may or may not be adjudicated a murder, but it's a killing under any definition of the word, literally. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 23:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - There's been a homicide, so the article is either a "Killing of" or "Murder of" article. There's been no conviction, so it's a "Killing of" article for now, will need to be changed to "Murder of" if a conviction is recorded. Bacondrum (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at that beautiful, straightforward logic. Look how easy the title question is resolved if we form consensus for this approach. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 23:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at that beautiful, straightforward logic. Look how easy the title question is resolved if we form consensus for this approach. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 23:54, 28 June 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.

Number of counts and investigator testimony
(1) Counts: I don't understand why there are 4 counts of felony murder. We have 3 defendants. Is one of them charged with two counts? Why? I also don't understand why there are only 2 counts of aggravated assault and not 3 counts (autopsy says Arbery was hit by all 3 shots fired).

(2) Prosecution of the McMichaels and Bryan: It says "The investigator testified that none of the three had called 9-1-1". I understand this as meaning that Arbery wasn't reported to the police before the shooting and that no 911 calls were made by any of the defendants until after the shooting. This is demonstrably false. The police were called around the time when the McMichaels started the chase and were on their way while the chase was happening. As the article states correctly, they arrive right after the shooting so they have to have been called several minutes before. Second, Greg McMichael was on the phone with the police while the shooting happened. Several 911 calls have been published in connection with the shooting. I think the article should reflect that.

Chaptagai (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If the court case later determines Arbery was not "jogging", this page must reflect that.
The "jogging" claim was spurious from the beginning and remains so as we have video showing Arbery took off sprinting from the house he was in when people saw him in it. If the court later determines that he wasn't "jogging" this page must reflect so. MWise12 (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the court determines this and RS report on it, then it will change. Not before just because an internet video detective says so. Praxidicae (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The majority of RS say that Arbery's parents and lawyers claim he was jogging, not that he factually was jogging. The jogging claim being factual, and not a claim by Arbery's parents and legal team, is a minority of the RS's viewpoints. MWise12 (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything that disputes that doesn't come from a right leaning rag mag or is this just more Fox News nonsense? Praxidicae (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that the majority of RS do not say, in their own voice as if it's fact, that Arbery was jogging. They say, accurately, that these were claims by Arbery's parents and legal team. MWise12 (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So you are disputing the idea that he was moving around at a faster than walking pace? Even if he had ulterior motives (for which I see little evidence), "jogging" strikes me as an appropriate description here.  I think you're loading this particular term with too much meaning.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed and I'd further caution MWise12 about attempting to change the narrative by making it sound like Arbery confronted the men who killed him when that is not waht the sources say. Praxidicae (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that his legal team specifically chose the word jogging, and there's a militant effort by editors here to keep the word "jogging" there as if it's fact, shows that this isn't a small issue. MWise12 (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To Praxidicae, the current wording of the sentence makes it sound like Arbery was shot in the back while jogging down the street. Stating that it was during a confrontation makes it clear that's not what happened. Saying there was a confrontation doesn't imply Arbery started the confrontation. MWise12 (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Wording of the lead
The lead needs to make these three things clear;

1) Arbery was pursued.

2) While being pursued, the McMichaels got out of their vehicles and there was a confrontation.

3) This confrontation is when the shooting happened.

The current wording of events in the lead makes it sound as if Arbery was shot in the back, or in a driveby, when that is not what happened. MWise12 (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * it is covered in the second paragraph. I know some are desperate to find ways to justify extrajudicial killings but we summarize what sources say. Not armchair detectives on YouTube videos. Praxidicae (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you retract your suggestions about my "motives" or I'll notify an admin that you're attacking an editor personally over legitimate concerns with the wording of a page. MWise12 (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I said some people. Of which there are many, as evidenced by the less reliable sources reporting on this. No one said anything about you. Praxidicae (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that you said "Not armchair detectives on YouTube videos." implies it was about me.
 * In any case, your statement preceding it was incorrect. At no point in the lead (including the second paragraph) is the total sequence of events I described made clear. You mentioned reliable sources, but they give a much better summary of events than this page's current lead, hence my comments. MWise12 (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * it is literally in the same lead you are talking about. Arbery had been pursued and confronted by three white residents, Travis McMichael and his father Gregory, who were armed and driving a pickup truck, Praxidicae (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Praxidicae that the lead already makes clear what occurred: Arbery was chased by armed men, who confronted him, cut him off (trapped him), and fatally shot him, and who are now set to stand trial for murder. I'm not sure what exactly you think is unclear. If you have a proposal, make your proposal. Neutralitytalk 17:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also tend to agree that the lead is fine as is, but a word of advice, MWise12: aspirational statements of what the article should say or convey are fine, but not particularly useful. More helpful would be concrete suggestions or drafts reflecting the changes you'd like to see.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this sequence of events starts at a very out of context moment, AFTER the pursuit had already begun. The full sequence of events were that Arbery arrived and went into someone else's house, was running (or jogging) away from that house after 911 was called on him for being inside of it, and THEN the McMichaels chased him. The entire order of events as they're currently presented in the lead's first paragraph are devoid of context, let alone the problems with them despite that. MWise12 (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That so-called "context" seems to mostly be an attempt to blame the victim here. That won't fly. Neutralitytalk 17:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If listing the whole sequence of events comes off as "victim blaming" to you, I think that says a lot about the sequence of events. MWise12 (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020
He was recorded breaking into a construction site. 72.183.184.103 (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Relevent Legal Precedent
In 1985 in Tennessee v. Garner,the Supreme Court struck down a Tennessee statute that allowed a police officer to “use all the necessary means to effect the arrest" of an individual whom the officer suspected was fleeing or forcibly resisting detention. The case involved a Memphis police officer who shot and killed a teenager who jumped over a fence at night in the backyard of a house that the officer suspected was burglarized, though the officer was “reasonably sure” the suspect was unarmed. “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable,” said the 6-3 decision, written by Justice Byron White. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6000:7A40:9079:18C0:340C:811 (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And? This was a summary execution by a civilian. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"with the McMichaels striking Arbery with their pickup truck"
The source cited for this statement attributes this act to William Bryan and his truck, not the McMichaels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:79D0:66E0:6475:3F4:105A:1705 (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Shooting of Greg Gunn § Requested move 3 September 2020
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shooting of Greg Gunn § Requested move 3 September 2020. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Killing of Lizzie O'Neill § Requested move 4 September 2020
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Killing of Lizzie O'Neill § Requested move 4 September 2020. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2020
Moo813 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Need to add that they pursued him because Arbery had trespassed at the house. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/18/us/ahmaud-arbery-surveillance-timeline/index.html
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Court proceedings
As court proceedings can become quite complicated, it may be helpful to add some short table or overview with the more important RESULTS. I don't mind the details and time stamps, these are fine, but I reason in favour of a table to see a quick overview of what the court found (once the proceedings are done; of course right now this is an open case, so we have to wait, but I mention this in particular because many people are probably interested in what the court will come to determine). 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:715F:7F61:13E7:2FA0 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"Out while jogging"
Jogging as a hobby is usually meant to mean running at a low or medium pace for the purpose of increasing physical fitness. It is true that when he came into confrontation with the suspects mentioned in the article he was "jogging" as in running a medium pace but there is no evidence that his running at the time was part of a recreational pursuit in and of its own. To describe Arbery as "out while jogging" in the lead implies that he was doing according to the phrase "out for a jog". Therefore the lead should remove this and related comments and refer to them instead (in more specific terms) in the relevant paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.172.102 (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The attached BBC source says “ Ahmaud Arbery was jogging in February when he was confronted by Gregory and Travis McMichael”. No need to change anything. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Mugshot
why does the article feature a high school foto rather than a more recent mugshot from when Arbery was arrested? Should be changed! https://cf-images.us-east-1.prod.boltdns.net/v1/static/6009760719001/2eb0ba6d-11dd-475e-b4fd-39de4174412a/866a7bb1-b72d-4b70-9385-5ac7ebae73e8/1280x720/match/image.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.125.224.20 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Because the article is about his killing not his arrest. WWGB (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It's dishonest to use an old picture which does not reflect his criminal tendencies.

Arbery's mum angry at people using her son's name to make money
See https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-54055954

Can we add this in the reaction section -- Eatcha 19:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Mental heath
His condition is documented and relavent.

--Bojackh (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it belongs in the lede, and your edit removes, without explanation, the relevant and unchallenged factual statements that Arbery was unarmed and jogging when he was confronted and fatally shot. Additionally, the characterization of his activity as "caught" is, at best, an opinion which cannot be presented as fact in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't know I needed your permission to improve the article. And relevent facts include that in 2018, Arbery was diagnosed with schizoeffective disorder. He told doctors he had delusions that sometimes commanded him to rob and hurt people. Are you seeing why this should be in the lead now? --Bojackh (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please learn how to thread discussions on a talk page using colons.
 * Your edits have been reverted because they are not improvements, and frankly verge on BLP violations. As discussed, your edit removed the unchallenged factual statements that Arbery was unarmed and jogging when he was confronted and killed - these facts are clearly relevant to the article. On the contrary, there is no allegation that Arbery "robbed" or "hurt" anyone in this incident. You're welcome to ask for a third opinion or open a Request for comment on the issue. What you are not free to do is unilaterally edit-war your proposal into the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * "not an improvement" is just your pov and your not wanting to admit his mental health issues are relevent frankly verge on BLP violations and your inability to maintain neutrality or even attempt to find a middle ground actually might be worth reporting. Bojackh (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not work on the basis of finding a "middle ground" between the truth and a smear campaign. The article already discusses the killers' defense's attempt to have Arbery's mental health brought up at trial, and discusses the judge's ruling that the character of the victim is neither relevant nor admissible in a murder trial. As this article is not a biography of Arbery, I believe that's sufficient discussion of the issue.
 * As for "reporting" me? Good luck with that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * smear campaign? yeah that's not going to help you any. The AJC said he had a specific condition and that it manifested in ways that match the description of his behavior. Bojackh (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The AJC said he had a specific condition and that it manifested in ways that match the description of his behavior - please quote the specific passage of the source you believe supports this claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't event check my links before you deleted them? Bojackh (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I read it. I see nothing which supports your claim. If you disagree, quote the specific passage of the source you believe supports the claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you want me to say. Try reading it again? Bojackh (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's very simple. I want you to copy and paste the specific section of the source which states, as a fact, that Arbery had a specific condition and that it manifested in ways that match the description of his behavior relevant to his killing.
 * If you can't do that, then you're admitting the source doesn't say what you desperately want it to say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What's in it for me? Bojackh (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "This source says something, but I refuse to quote the part of the source which says it." Cute. But actually, prima facie evidence you're misrepresenting the source. GLHF. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Good analysis of Arbery killing available
A good analysis of events that led to Ahmaud Arbery killing and subsequent events as of this writing is available at The Case of Ahmaud Arbery. The user who post the YouTube videos under the name Audit the Audit analyzes bodycam footage and other public information, and then provides legal commentary with appropriate citations.

For The Case of Ahmaud Arbery it details Arbery's past contacts with law enforcement, crime problems at the house being built, 911 calls, background on the father, background on the son, and the political gerrymandering that occurred after the killing.

Information from the video may help with this article.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A self-published YouTube video from an anonymous account cannot be a reliable source here, and therefore this is not actually a useful link. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Other Defence Points Not Mentioned
It looks like this piece already touches on many of the points the defence has tried to raise and the judge has rejected - Arbery's felony record for theft, felony record for unlawful gun possession on school grounds, his being on probation when shot, and his non-compliance with prescribed medication, but it fails to note that 人族 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your characterizations are unsupported, refuted by evidence, and violate BDP, and have been redacted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Op-ed quotes removed
I disagree with the idea that we should be including opinionated quotes about a criminal case from uninvolved lawyers, and have removed them; this is particularly because the quote implies criminality in the actions of a man who was shot and killed by two people now on trial for murder, a man whose actions are - as the judge in the case has noted - not on trial here, and never will be on trial, because those two men killed him. Just because Arbery is dead does not permit us to offer uneducated speculation or accusations about his actions. BDP clearly applies here. Sorry that you don't get to smear a dead man. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Your initial objection was to "puffery". If other quotes need to be added from the AJC article, so be it; however, the unique perspective of attorney Sadow should be included in full as he is a recognized Georgia criminal attorney, and as a NPOV matter for the section. The section is "Reactions" with subsection including "commentators, and the public" and includes the statement of the uninvolved former attorney David A. French. I don't believe that the Atlanta Jornal-Constitution and its writer would have published all the Sadow quotes if they didn't find them useful and compelling, or thought them unfairly prejudicial. In any event, for NPOV other expert viewpoints are necessary and give the reader differing perspectives. Although prior criminal convictions have been thus far excluded by the judge, acts during the time in question are still open or there would not be a trial. What you are stating is a prejudgement, which an editor should not represent. The Sadow op-ed entry was previously reviewed and left as is by an administrator, excepting only removal of blockquote indents. Except for one part of the quotes with which you now personally disagree, you left the entry. The point is to reflect differing perspectives on an important set of occurances; there must be balance, regardless of our personal viewpoints. For those previously unaware, the now debated edit is:
 * Steven H. Sadow, a nationally recognized Georgia criminal defense attorney, was quoted in an op-ed by Bill Torpy in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution opining that the judge presiding over the state trial of the McMichaels and Bryan was certain to undercut the defense case because "everyone from the public, to the prosecutor, to the judge can only accept one verdict, otherwise they’ll be castigated", further stating his opinion that the innocent jogger scenario "is the only narrative the public can be told because of public perception of what happened", and "[I]t’s unthinkable there might be another narrative of criminal behavior of a young Black man because that’s what the public cannot hear at this time."

In summary, the debated content reflects NPOV as including an expert's apparently unique perspective regarding which a reader should not be deprived.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That something is published in the AJC makes it permissible to include; it does not require that we include it. I think the balance of policy tips decidedly in favor of protecting a dead person who cannot defend himself, namely because he was gunned down in the street by two white men who were allegedly attempting to unlawfully detain and/or kidnap him. There is no evidence that Arbery committed any crime, and thus to introduce an uninvolved third party commentator's uninformed speculation of "criminality" is quite simply right out. Your claim that Sadow is an "expert" is laughable - there is no evidence proffered that Sadow is an "expert" on this case, or has examined the evidence at all whatsoever. Your proposed addition has been rejected by two separate editors; your option now is to open an RFC in search of more opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are, apparently, around 32,000 attorneys in Georgia, and I'm pretty sure most of them have an opinion on the Arbery case, it's just that they didn't feel the need to share it with the world (Sadow does appear to think himself something of a celebrity lawyer, so perhaps that's part of it). Regardless, as NBSB says, we can't give UNDUE prominence to a random attorney's claim that insinuates criminality on the part of Arbery, it's simply not in line with BDP and it's certainly not NPOV. Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that it was the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that called on Sadow and they determined that his comments should be put in their publication. The journalist Bill Torpy who wrote the article has been with the paper for 31 years. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Drugs in the system
Specifically the wiki speaks of him not having drugs in his system (autopsy section). This is not accurate. He did have Marijuana in his system. (That will not be introduced in court as it's irrelevant and the murderers had no idea it was in his system.) But to say specifically he did NOT is wrong. We could strike it or make it accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvtpotter (talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅., when you want to request something be changed on a Wikipedia page, if you can provide a link to a source, that makes it easier for other editors to help. —valereee (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2021
Under this section, Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney, you changed Jackie Johnson's last name to Jackson. Please correct this it's very confusing 2600:1700:E901:6390:5CD7:6229:6E78:216C (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Lisa S
 * ✅ melecie   t  12:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Running shoes
I know it's semi-protected, but could someone put a link to a picture of the running shoes? Here's a link to a video of the white Nikes that Arbery was wearing at the time, per the coroner.

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/ahmaud-arbery-murder-trial-day-8-gbi-medical-examiner-explains-gunshot-wounds

Eric Fraker (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Why? Every reader already knows what running shoes look like. WWGB (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Because a claim is mentioned in the article that he was wearing 'Timberland boots' and the claim is denied without citation. I think some citation should be added to the denial. I'm referring to this line: "According to an analyst from the Middle East Media Research Institute they claimed Arbery was wielding a hammer and wearing Timberland boots when he was shot dead; Arbery was wearing running shoes." Eric Fraker (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The claim is not "denied without citation". Read the cite at the end of that paragraph. WWGB (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2021
Change "he was wearing running shoes" at the end to "he was barefooted" as this has been confirmed by both the defense and prosecution today at trial. 2601:283:4880:B4E0:CC2B:F2C2:5BC9:659C (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Murder of Ahmaud Arbery
Verdicts just returned, page move should proceed. Enwebb (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I moved the page per WP:BOLD. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

If found guilty change to murder
If they are found guilty change this to Murder of Ahmaud Arbery--Fruitloop11 (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is our policy; and it will be done. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  07:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All three: Guilty. Rest in peace, Ahmaud. Bodding (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Details of previous allegations of using jogging as a cover for petty theft
The defence entered documentation citing specific examples of where Ahmaud Arbery had previously used jogging as a cover for petty crime: https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/69162/114-Notice-of-Intent

The court ruled this inadmissible as the McMichaels did not necessarily know this at the time of the incident, but it is surely important to the reader's picture of the case.

Suggested edits:

Ahmaud Marquez Arbery, aged 25,[42] lifelong resident of Brunswick, nicknamed "Maud" or "Quez", graduated from Brunswick High School in 2012 where he had been on the football team.[43] He attended South Georgia Technical College during fall 2012 and spring 2013 to train for a career as an electrician.[43][44][45] Family and friends said he frequently jogged for exercise in and around his neighborhood.[42] The defence attempted to introduce evidence of Arbery's repeated history of using jogging as a cover for petty crime, but the court judged this inadmissible as the McMichaels were not aware of these at the time. LINK: https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/69162/114-Notice-of-Intent --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenKiely (talk • contribs) 11:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources can't include original research, such as the one you linked to above. In any case, in the Trial section under "Pretrial rulings", it already says that Judge Walmsley made the following pre-trial ruling: He ruled that the defense could not introduce evidence of Arbery's prior "bad acts", noting that the McMichaels were unaware of Arbery's past at the time of the killing. He justified his ruling by stating that the "character of the victim is neither relevant nor admissible in a murder trial", and that such evidence might also mislead the jury into thinking that Arbery's killing was "somehow justified" on potential "future dangerousness". Source that was used: "Judge: Arbery’s imperfect past can’t be used by defense at trial" That information should stay in the Trial section, and not be added to the Persons Involved section. JJMM (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

How should the sentence beginning Additional evidence was presented read ?
The article currently reads:

''Additional evidence was presented by the prosecutor to support the murder charges, including a statement to the GBI by William Bryan that Travis McMichael said "f---ing n---er" as Arbery lay dying.  Seeing as Wikipedia is not censored, and the source does not contain the quote “Travis McMichael said "f---ing n---er"” either in a redcated or unredacted form, how should the sentence beginning Additional evidence was presented by the prosecutor'' read? 2601:1C0:5382:250:71F6:778A:2579:1404 (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This hasn't had previous discussion and doesn't need an RFC. The source includes the redacted quote and our article matches the source. VQuakr (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - the second source cited said “Mr. Bryan said that after the shooting took place before police arrival, while Mr. Arbery was on the ground, that he heard Travis McMichael make the statement: fucking nigger,” Dial said in testimony.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 02:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * agreed. To be clear I didn't mean "this doesn't merit discussion", just that I didn't think an RFC was warranted at this point. Sources seem to be split on whether they expurgate the quote. As discussed at WP:BOWDLERIZE, we shouldn't be the ones to obscure offensive content, but the situation is a bit muddier when some sources do bowdlerize and some don't. What do you think? VQuakr (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - 100% no need for RFC, and censoring just confuses, so I'm against censoring.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ok. I'm unenthusiastic about including the epithet, but not really opposed. Between yourself, the OP, and the strong argument based in policy to include the full text of the epithet, I think there's consensus here. VQuakr (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - thanks. I'm going to remove the RFC from the title.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Personal details
How come there is no section on Arbery's personal details? I was hoping to find some more background on the victim via the wikipedia article but there seems to be none? Is that intentional? There are newspaper articles that give such information but I thought I would find it here first. 78.18.245.212 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It was recently deleted. What do others think? Upon reflection, I think that the material on Gregory McMichael is crucial.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 07:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems strange not to have any section on background/main bio details of the victim, and probably the accused(s)? It is already a detailed article, but in my experience, most of these kinds of articles do provide the core background details? 78.18.245.212 (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it's strange not to provide some personal details on the victim and the murderers, if only to give the most basic work/education/origin information. This is currently one of the most high-profile court cases in the US, we should aim to be inclusive and informative. Some details about the victim can be found at https://fitnessfreak360.com/ahmaud-arbery-biography-wiki-age-career-killing-of-ahmaud-arbery-who-was-ahmaud-arbery/ Oathed (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored the longstanding content (present since May 2020? November 2020?). I found the part on Gregory too important to remove. If there were a part on Gregory, why not basic details on the others?  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be some background on the victim. I came to this article hoping to read personal details of Ahmad Arbury.  Perhaps not even so detailed as his resume would have been, but simple facts such as where he was born. 37.223.36.215 (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I've cleaned up and revised the biography section of Arbery. I've cited recent news sources, which are also archived, for anyone who wants to learn more. Neurogeek (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Missing TLDR
The article is beating around the bush. For someone who doesn't already know the case, what is the big deal about Ahmaud Arbery? Like why is it a national story?

Intro should be something like, "The case is notable for the amount of fear of a racist trial outcome, a fear founded in the fact that the McMichaels were not arrested until 74 days after the killing. The case is also notable for leading to the repeal of Georgia's flawed citizen's arrest law." But no, we only see the main point at the end with Jon Ossoff's comment. Say what needs to be said, up front!


 * Wikipedia articles are based on information from reliable sources and not opinions of editors or original research. It is clear from the intro why the case has been a national story for over a year. However, I agree it might be good to say something like the following at the end of the intro: The historic civil rights mobilization necessary for prosecution led to changes in Georgia legislation: a new bipartisan hate crime bill was passed, and the state's citizen's arrest law was changed in a unanimous vote. There are sources already in the article that can be used or new ones can be added. JJMM (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * " - I've added In the aftermath of the killing, Georgia enacted hate crimes legislation in June 2020, then repealed and replaced its citizen's arrest law in May 2021 to the lede, but I'm unaware of occuring.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 05:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , Great, thank you. Sounds good. Also, thank you for adding the clarifying refs. In the "Reactions to the verdict" section, I had added a source that quoted Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff as saying, "A historic civil rights mobilization was necessary for the killers to face prosecution at all. The circumstances of Ahmaud Arbery's murder and the struggle required to secure a prosecution demonstrate profoundly the urgency of reforms to make equal justice real in America." Source: "Ahmaud Arbery verdict represents 'progress' toward 'true justice,' civil rights leaders say." I was thinking of paraphrasing/referencing the first part of this quote to go with mention in the lede about Georgia's legislative reforms, but what you've written in the intro is fine. The first sentence in that paragraph already says, "The local authorities' handling of the case, whereby the McMichaels were not arrested until 74 days after the killing, after the video went viral, sparked nation-wide criticism and debates on racial profiling in the United States." JJMM (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - it's not acceptable if Ossoff says it, he's a politician and may very well have exaggerated. If a reliable source said it (instead of quoting another person), it would be acceptable though. Cheers.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021
For reference 193, the link is incorrect. It links to an article from the Guardian rather than to USA Today. Change the link from “ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/24/ahmaud-arbery-murder-georgia-reaction” to “ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/11/24/what-malice-murder-charges-murder-ahmaud-arbery-explained/8747459002/” so that it matches what is referenced. 2601:249:1580:A640:4DFB:E185:6044:F997 (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Done, it is now merged (with another ref that had the correct url but different ref name) as reference 36. JJMM (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Handphone?
Is use of this term an ENGVAR thing? I’m from the northeast and have never heard of a cellphone referred to as such, but maybe it’s more common around the area the murder happened. Took me a couple of rereadings to understand what was meant by the term. If maybe a more common term isn’t substituted in, maybe link the first usage of it to clear up any confusion? Just spitballing here. Ghost Stalker (Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 21:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I’m not American and that’s the way it’s called here. I’ll change it to cellphone.  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

"and had plans to re-enrolled"
Grammar issue, please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.115.190 (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. clpo13(talk) 03:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)