Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 7

111:

The question is whether to discuss Arbery's criminal record in the article, which looks superficially like a simple yes/no question. Editors do not agree, and purely on the numbers, the debate superficially appears to be inconclusive. The context of this RfC is that it's taking place during a wave of protests concerning the alleged murder of George Floyd, so racial tensions in the USA are running very high, even by US standards. The All Lives Matter people are very keen on whataboutery.Discussion closers on Knowledge are expected to look beyond the numbers and weigh the arguments in the light of Knowledge's policies and guidelines. The matter is intricate, and involves the interaction between quite a number of those policies and guidelines, so I would like to describe my analysis of the debate in quite a lot of detail. I apologise for giving such a long closing statement.The arguments raised were as follows:1) That the disputed information should be added to the article because it appears in reliable sources, and Knowledge articles should be a summary of what the reliable sources say. I agree that the disputed information is reliably-sourced, and I concur that, if it meets Knowledge's content policies and guidelines, it should be included.2) That the article is about the shooting incident and not a biography of Ahmaud Arbery, so information that is not directly relevant to the shooting should not be included. I think this is true, but the sources do strongly imply that the criminal history is one of the main reasons why Arbery was shot, so I conclude that it was directly relevant.3) That to include the disputed information would be UNDUE. This is a reference to one of Knowledge's three core content policies, and in context I understood it as a concern that although the information is reliably sourced, the reliable sources are not unbiased. Wikipedians sometimes need to construct impartial articles from biased sources. I gave that concern full weight, and I conclude that the disputed information should not be presented in Knowledge's voice. I note that a later section of the same policy, at WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, describes how to deal with biased sources.4) That there is a violation of BLP. I was unable to give this point as much weight as the concerns about WP:DUE. BLP enjoins editors to remove unsourced or poorly-sourced negative information about living people or those recently deceased. There is nothing in BLP, or anywhere else in our content policies, that requires us to remove negative information that's immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports what we say. BLP is not a whitewasher's charter.5) That to include the information risks violating WP:SYNTH. As the information is in the sources, the mere decision to include it could not violate WP:SYNTH. However, we do need to be immensely careful about the way in which the disputed information is presented.6) That racists would want us to include the disputed information. This may be true, but it is not grounds to exclude it.After weighing these arguments against the policies and guidelines in this way, I conclude that the disputed information

2963:

If BLP is meant to apply to inconvenient criminal records then thousands of Wiki pages must be expunged of criminal records immediately. Also if on the record criminal records are not relevant from 2 years ago, how is a disciplinary procedure against McMichael senior when he was a police officer 14 Years ago relevant? Does BLP not apply to him? He was a PRIVATE citizen when he attempted the alleged CITIZENS arrest, so his police history 14 Years ago is completely and total irrelevant. Then there is the claim that the priors are not relevant to the issues at hand. Okay let's look at this. He is accused by the suspects of theft. He has criminal charges relating to theft. He may have been suspected of taking a firearm from a car. He has a firearm conviction. How are these not relevant? Knowledge should be about proven facts that are backed up by reliable sources. Removing facts does not help an article, it simply leaves the reader less knowledgeable. Knowledge should be about providing MORE information to the reader... not less. To argue for LESS verifiable reliable sourced facts is to argue to make the reader LESS informed. Editors should side on the side of providing as much information to the reader as possible, not try and distort their view to their own narrative. I would rather a reader have MORE facts than LESS facts because then they can form their own view rather than being directed into some kind of narrative. If the McMichaels had a criminal record I would absolutely want them to be listed here and so too should Arberys. To deny the reader the FACTS is to deny them Truth.

1495:

relationships between victims and accused murderers seem to me generally relevant, and obviously so given that McMichaels apparently investigated Arbery on criminal charges two years before he was alleged to have killed him. My opinion is that the simple fact of their history is notable, and I do not understand why some are demanding "proof" that McMichael's "recognized" Arbery on 2/23/2020 for this to be relevant; for example, if it turned out they were twin brothers, but didn't know it at the time and it had nothing to do with the motivation for the shooting, I believe that curiosity would also be notable and worthy of inclusion. And I don't see how to explain the history with McMichael without touching on what numerous sources describe as Arbery's convictions for shoplifting, probation violation, and bringing a gun to a school (for which he reportedly received the probation).

1845:"Arbery's past behavior explains his more recent behavior" (support argument, above) seems nonneutrally selective. For example, one could assert his past criminality suggests his running in the video was evasion rather than jogging. But if his past behavior is supposedly such a guide, then how about that he has jogged in the past? Does that mean it's "more likely" the intent of his running was jogging? I think including his criminal history in itself implies it is informative of his intent, potentially skewing objective consideration of sourced information. His criminal history is not relevant to the shooting or what immediately preceded it in any fashion that isn't highly speculative. 119:. As well as the inline citations to reliable sources, there must also be in-text attribution. In other words, the new phrase or sentence in the article should open with words such as "according to". Because it is so very important that this information is not given disproportionate prominence, the new phrase or sentence should be as brief and succinct as possible. It should not appear in the lead, it should not be given its own heading, and it absolutely must not in any way seem to excuse or justify Arbery's killing.If anyone has any questions about or objections to this close, please bring these to my talk page in the first instance. I hope this helps.— 471:

to provide background (I.e. how long ago the crimes were, what outcome of the criminal acts were) or were referencing the potential overlap of McMichaels / Arbery due to his prior trial by DA (however it is unclear how much he was party to the prosecution in that case, as I believe it was done by the office but not necessarily with any input from him). However, by default the answer is no. His prior record was not known nor a factor at point of shooting, or unlikely to be known, and would be speculation to include it as a motive on behalf of McMichaels. If it is later used in arguments for / against their actions then that becomes more pertinent.

2527:" (because "felon" has this ring to to) to "see, it's his own fault/the shooting was justified". And it's a very white kind of thing to talk about violations and probation as if there are really objective values at stake here--in Georgia, in the South, in a judicial system that a blind man can see is rigged against people of color and the poor. So, if one day your old car breaks down or your mom is sick and can't drive you to your appointment with your probation officer and you thus violate probation, BOOM there you go--it's in the local news, and when you get shot it's all over the local news and we can go "see, he had it coming". I found 1520:- I added a sentence on it a few days ago and it was deleted. To me, his prior convictions are obviously relevant, because the McMichaels are likely to argue that this was an attempt at a citizen's arrest and, given McMichael Sr's career, that the victim was a "known criminal". Now, whether you buy that line of defence or not is another question (I, personally, don't) but it's kind of absurd that the current description of Arbery's life tells us little more than that he was a linebacker and frequent jogger, and also that Knowledge is omitting something news organisations are referring to - whether they are left-leaning or right-leaning. 1907:-It is important to include relevant background information on people who are involved in controversial cases. This information is more importanat to establishing Arbery's character than knowing which high school he attended. That information is already in the article. The fact that people are saying that adding such language into the article makes it partisan is actually a sign of their own one-sidedness, for nothing else would warrant keeping out factual, well-sourced, and pertinent information that just happens to reflect badly on Arbery. 713:, according to this article, that’s the same district attorney who offered an opinion before he was even assigned to the case, the same district attorney who also offered an opinion while stating he was about to recuse from the case, and according to GA AG, the same district attorney who neglected to inform all this to the GA AG. Also, the same district attorney that claimed there was a video of Arbery burglarizing a home, which mysteriously has yet to turn up. 1963:“This family are not strangers to the local criminal justice system,” Barnhill wrote in his letter to Carr. Arbery’s mother, requested Barnhill’s recusal from the case. Her attorney, Lee Merritt, said that the father and son would have “gotten away with murder” if Barnhill had not recused himself. “This speaks to the wider issue of mass incarceration,” Merritt said. “If Black people have any kind of criminal record somehow that justifies their murder.” 449:, at least for the shoplifting charge. Gregory McMichael was involved in the investigation of Arbery's shoplifting case, so that establishes a prior relationship between the two, and also establishes that McMichael was aware of Arbery's criminal past. Of course, it may be that McMicheal's involvement also informed him of Arbery's firearm charge, but that is speculative for now. Certainly, the shoplifting is relevant background to the shooting. 1499:

student. It was further reported that he ran from police when ordered to stop, and that two officers were injured apprehending him. Given that the instant article goes into some detail about the actions of the Glynn County Police Department, isn't it obviously relevant that they, too, had at least one prior run-in with Arbery? And doesn't the nature of that encounter necessitate documenting at least this part of his specific criminal history?

31: 1671:. 1) The fact that McMichael had previously investigated Arbery for shoplifting and would have been made aware then of Arbery's high school gun incident is relevant, as he was involved in Arbery's killing. Also potentially significant is that McMichael may have omitted this from his report to the police, only claiming he knew Arbery was the one on surveillance video. As more facts come out, this angle is likely to become more relevant. 1756:

which I have no legal responsibility for. Having previously been a police officer, might conceivably have given the person(s) an understanding of the limits of power - instead of seemingly granting them vigilante rights, with no responsibility for outcome. It is a courtesy to the killed person to exclude their (pretty minimal and distant) record - though including it would only advertise the wholly disproportionate response anyway.

1795:, as two of the players here have inter-acted prior to this event. This appears reliably sourced. That truly colors things differently than if there had never been interaction between them. Leaving such material out strikes against the reader seeing possible motives and pre-concieved suspicians of those involved; thus, this information is very germaine to the event. 2635:, What I get out of this is that McMichael previosly investigated him, which is the notable part, not the fact that Arbery had a record. So perhaps we include a sentence that mentions that fact, but doesn't necessarily go into depth? From the sources I've looked through they didn't specify which of Arbery's cases McMichael had worked. What about: 822:. We already reference Arbery's past criminal convictions in the article, we just don't explicitly state what those past convictions were for. This will just leave readers of this article wondering what those past criminal convictions were for, and some readers will assume they were for worse crimes than what he was actually convicted of. 2448:

I would love to WP:AGF, but correct me if I'm wrong: did you not accuse me of failing to source this same information (as to conviction) on the Administrator's Messageboard at 15:01, 10 May 2020? I got a "final warning" as a result of your complaint and responded by re-citing the RS (I had previously

1928:

nailed it. We need to balance this appropriately. We have to be extremely careful to not conduct any synth or OR, and we may wish to keep it short and be very careful about quoting the sources exactly and minimally. Again, balance, as this appears to only be a small portion of the controversy and, as

1391:

he recognized Arbery. The police report has a record of him saying it and also describing what McMichael claimed that Arbery did in a previous alleged encounter just a couple of days prior to the shooting encounter. McMichael not only said he recognized Arbery from a previous encounter, but also that

1104:

What I meant is that it seems unreasonable to declare that "The father and son certainly had no idea whether or not he had a criminal history when they confronted him", if Gregory McMichael had previously been involved in a prosecution of Arbery and said he recognized him. Note that immediately above

2962:

I don't know if I get a say on this as an IP editor, but it seems bizarre to me that a criminal record would be excluded. Some here have argued it is because of BLP, but this is nonsensical. Arbery priors don't disappear with his death. He has been charged and convicted of a crime in a court of law.

2331:

The NYT article says: "according to local news". They attributed instead of stated as fact. The Times then went on in the next paragraph saying that Mr. Barnhill’s office most recently drew attention for its prosecution of a black woman for multiple felonies because she helped a first-time voter use

788:

In Georgia, it must be posted for the act of entering or remaining on the premises to be prosecuted as criminal trespassing per O.C.G.A. 16-7-21(b)(2). An important exception to that is if the person enters with the intent of committing a crime per (b)(1), but that has not yet been shown to be part

505:

for now until more sources of higher quality are available. It is worth noting that this may have been a case of mistaken identity as well, for there were various reports of trespassing incidents, and the older McMichael said at the scene after the incident that he thought the victim "Mr. Arbery had

470:

because there is no single answer. I echo WWGB in thought. In context where it is relevant, pertinent, and of relevance there is no harm in it being included. An example might be when referencing the DA's assertion that he came from a criminal background in order to quantify what he is asserting and

2564:

Airtight sources have already pointed out that his criminal record directly ties to Gregory McMichael, and therefor this incident, in that McMichael had been involved with investigating Arbery for one of his past criminal offenses (it isn't specified whether it was the shoplifting charge in 2018 or

1955:

Court records show that as a student in high school, Arbery was sentenced to five years probation as a first offender on charges of carrying a weapon on campus and several counts of obstructing a law enforcement officer. He violated his probation when he was convicted in a shoplifting case in 2018.

1494:

Connection to Gregory McMichael: according to the AJC, McMichael "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." Prior

1292:

have all made it a point to present this content as relevant to the story of the shooting. It is perplexing why Knowledge would wish to be so willfully one-sided in presenting this article, where the sports achievements and career ambitions of the deceased are highlighted, but his illegal activity

773:

That's simply not correct under modern law. Just being on someone else's property without their permission is trespass, regardless of whether anything is posted. And under the old common law, breaking and entering was required for burglary, but most modern burglary statutes have done away with this

187:

dead, which means BLP still applies to him. Thus to include mention of his criminal record, we need airtight sources that connect his criminal record to his death (seeing as this is an article about his death, the only reason he is notable). I don't see such sources. Also, the coverage feels pretty

110:

This RfC concerns our article on the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a black American who was shot dead in February. The sources say he was unarmed and out taking exercise when two white Americans confronted him. During the confrontation, it's alleged that one of the white Americans shot Arbery dead.

2261:

He was arrested. I cannot find any source that says he was convicted. If convicted, I cannot find any source that it was a felony. If a felony, I cannot find any reliable source that says the shooters were aware of who the man was at the time of the shooting. Even if all of this is true, piss poor

1885:

I'm not sure we can make sense of the thing without including at least soem mention, especially in connection with McMichael's previous involvement. There are enough reliable sources discussing it that it should be possible to write at least a short neutral paragraph that doesn't imply that Arbery

1755:

just remember that you committed a shoplifting several years ago, I'm justified in chasing you with vehicles and threatening you with guns, because you may conceivably have had dishonest intent when you entered an open building site today, or even possibly previously - a site which is not mine and

1537:

any inclusion in the biography portion. It would be UNDUE (though, honestly, so is much of the other stuff about his hobbies) as that part of his life is not relevant to this homicide. If RS widely mention his past criminal history or other alleged behaviors with respect to the McMichaels' alleged

966:

There are a few other sources, but they essentially say the same thing. I don't think the accused have said anything on it - I think it might incriminate them in that it gives them a motive. Now this is just speculation, but I think that retired cop may have been killed him because he was upset he

1314:

It should include specifics where it relates to any past link between his shooters and him, and to relate what the shooters are saying. In particular, the article currently mentions McMichael had helped with a previous prosecution -- it should also say what the charge was for, and what outcome.

743:

Regardless, he was a district attorney giving his professional legal opinion. And there is video of Arbery trespassing. Whether or not that trespass constitutes burglary depends on Arbery's intent. If he was just curious and wanted to look around a construction site because he's interested in the

2994:

I haven't mentioned anything about running investigations, I simply stated that priors backed up by reliable sources should be reported. Investigations are done by courts of law and the police with a judgement made by a jury or judge. My comment was that these should be reported on(from reliable

1629:

The firearms conviction is clearly much more serious than shoplifting. While both are misdemeanours, the sentence for the firearms offence was far more serious because of the nature of the crime. It has been covered in reliable sources. However, it is not relevant to Arbery's death unless the

1432:

say that McMichael said he recognized "the suspect" (who was definitely Arbery – no one is suggesting that "the suspect" was not Arbery) and that when he had seen him just "the other night", McMichael said Arbery had "stuck his hand down his pants which lead them to believe the male was armed".

1773:

am I the only one that finds the very vague wording "involved in a previous investigation of him", odd. The claim of course comes from the now recused prosecutor, but what does it actually mean? That the accused merely saw the file on the previous investigation? That he actually interacted with

369:

the problem is that this article is not about Arbery personal life. This article is about the shooting. If you are going to bring prior criminal history you will have to provide an evidence that this is related to the shooting. We don't have that evidence yet. If they are relevant we would have

2350:

If one is found in "violation of their probabtion" then they were convicted, as the NYT piece states clearly as do other sources that that say he was in "violation" that have been repeatedly posted here they you continue to wikilaywer against disruptively. One isn't found in violation of their

1498:

Connection to Glynn County Police Department: The Brunswick News states that, along with with two other police departments, Glynn County Police were involved in the arrest of 19-year-old Arbery in 2013 after he brought a handgun to a basketball game at Brunswick High School, where he was not a

1123:

There is no reason to believe or disbelieve this (other than it's obviously what an accused would say in this situation). The claim that they had some sort of past connection is already in the article. But, we need more than that in RS to trot out past misdeeds of the dead person in a BLP/BDP.

2382:

Objective3000, you did not read the paragraph correctly. "Court records show that Mr. Arbery was convicted of shoplifting and of violating probation in 2018; according to local news reports, he was indicted five years earlier for taking a handgun to a basketball game". Notice the semi-colon?

2977:

Your last sentence just says it all about your comment, "To deny the reader the FACTS is to deny them Truth", which is so stupid that it makes me cringe. We don't do investigations here. We avoid adding irrelevant content that still no investigation has concluded that it is relevant or

274:

to his death. This article is about his shooting, not his entire life, so it's not the right place to air dirty laundry. And, to be frank, it appears that some editors are eager to denigrate the recently deceased so as to provide a defense for the people who killed him, which is tacky,

987:

Yeah that's what I'm thinking. They could have interacted with each other and had no memory of it, or just didn't realize that they had interacted with each other before. In that case, the priors are irrelevant. If the guy did recognize Arbery, that's another matter. But

758:

Walking through another person's property is not trespass unless posted or you break and enter. It certainly doesn't constitute burglary if nothing is taken. Regarding his "professional opinion", the GA AG is now reviewing the investigation after intense criticism.

1959:

Arbery was unarmed and jogging when the McMichaels chased him in a truck and shot at him three times. They claimed Arbery was a possible suspect in a string of robberies and instigated the confrontation. Footage shot on a cell phone shows a different sequence of

2485:

It's unknown at this time (unless there is another RS out there) as to whether or not the 2018 shoplifting conviction was a misdemeanor or a felony. The "felony probation revocation" case discussed in the NYT's article is referring to a prior felony. Regards,

1074:

he recognized Arbery from prior incidents," which means it's a statement attributed to the defendant. So it's difficult to fathom what you mean when you say "Should we accept this?". What exactly is it that you're asking editors to "accept"? Regards,

1675:

2) It's also relevant because Arbery's killing and the video are now part of the national conversation, and racists are siezing on Arbery's scant criminal history to claim 'he was no angel', to justify his extrajudicial execution by White racists.

2535:

In the end, every suggestion that something from five years ago or some shoplifting conviction somehow were involved in his death isn't just SYNTH, UNDUE, and a BLP violation, it's whitewashing (unfortunately that is not against Knowledge policy).

1645:

For now, include the shoplifting and note the suspect's involvement in Arbery's arrest. Wait until the trial to decide on the firearms offence, however, if it is admitted as evidence, it will, per my above reasoning, be relevant to the article.

2763:

Yea ofc. It has been there for a long time, nobody disputed it. Everything should be directly related to the topic of this article, which is not "Arbery history" but the "shooting of Arbery" which has nothing to do with the gun in the school etc

1332:

Not relevant to the topic at this time. Need RS that states how prior indescretions are directly related to his death. And as I understand it, the shooter may have mistaken Arbery for someone else. There is too much speculation at this point.

882:. Hence it is relevant why exactly he was involved in the investigation. If this is because of the previous shoplifting, that should be included. If this is because of another real or alleged crime, noticing this another crime is inevitable. 1262:

as they relate to Arbery. McMichael's previous interactions with Arbery may be relevant, but that should be treated with caution. Even though he's been charged with murder, we should avoid SYNTH when presenting possible motive on his part.

2896:

expressly does not use Arbery's name in any narrative of McMichael's statement, and actually explicitly says that "McMichael stated that they called out to the unidentified male." Nowhere is McMichael quoted using the man's name. There is

1634:, or at least, the American equivalent, which, if prosecuted federally, would be Federal Rule of Evidence 404. Its inclusion would, at that point, be warranted, as it would be a fact of case, if found admissible, and for our purposes, is 1447:

The police report expressly says "McMichael stated that they called out to the unidentified male." Nowhere in the police report's narrative of McMichael's statement does McMichael use the name of the "unidentified male." Therefore, it is

2995:

sources) in a wiki article because the more information the reader has the more informed they will be. Arguments could be made if prior legal troubles are relevant to any article, but the reader is not LESS informed from knowing them.

2045:

You provided three sources. Two are stated as claims made by unidentified defenders of the shooters. One says "alleged". None of these qualify as sources that he was convicted of shoplifting. And, none of them use the word "felony".

2866:

It means that content will not be added to the article, until a consensus forms from this RFC that it should. If a consensus never forms to include it, then it won't be added. That's what Isaidnoway is referring to with regard to

1033:

As a footnote to that remark, I'd like to point out that the cited source did not support the exact phrasing that was used in that quote from the article, so I changed that quoted statement to say "He said he recognized Arbery from

744:

construction process, then it's not a burglary. If he entered with the intent to look for something valuable he could take, then it was a burglary. That would be a question for a jury to decide had he lived and been prosecuted.

1774:

Arbery at that time? Editors are constructing a whole back-story between the two, without any certainty that the victim and one of the accused even interacted in the past, let alone that either remembered each other from then.

3009:

So, should we include their medical records, school transcripts, what their exes said about them, when they lost their virginity? No, we report what has been shown to be relevant. And we are very careful about negative info.

1946:. Yes, in proper context. Of course it should NOT be included to imply that the victim was a criminal. But it must be included simply as information relevant to this complex story, as RS say. For example, as explained 526:– I have seen no RS say that there is a direct connection between his record and his killing, the subject of the article. There is no evidence that the shooters knew this was the person one before had investigated. 1625:

as the article is about his death, not his life. However, as evidenced by the third source I provide, there is substantial context which makes it relevant: one of the suspects was involved in arresting Arbery for

3128:

to insinuate in any way they knew and had any reason to inflict the death penalty. If anything is to be added after the murder happened it needs to be made crystal clear it was discovered well after his death per

3024:

Interesting you say that because in the article it mentions Arberys interest in becoming an electrician and him being a linebacker in a football team. Are these as relevant as priors, or less so in your opinion?

2365:

Are you saying that you have to be convicted of a crime to have your probation violated? That's SYNTH as well as being incorrect. And watch it with the claim of disruptive wikilawyering. I'm doing no such thing.

2565:

the gun violation/officer obstruction in 2013). That's a pretty direct connection, even ignoring the fact that Arbery being chased on suspicion of theft makes his past theft-related charge relevant to the page.

1089:

It's already in the article, and I have no problem with that as a claim. So, I don't know what else the editor could have meant given the edit to which he responded, other than to suggest it was the "truth".

774:

requirement, so going through an unlocked door or even an open door can still constitute a burglary. And entering with the intent to steal is all that is required, not actual stealing, for it to be burglary.

2933:

If McMichael didn't recognize Arbery, then Arbery's prior criminal record is entirely irrelevant, because McMichael had no idea at the time he was chasing someone with a prior criminal record for anything.

1014:

You may have also missed the statement in the article that says "He said he recognized Arbery from prior incidents, including one where Gregory said he saw Arbery reach into his pants as if for a weapon."

899:

Does not appear to be relevant to the incident. The father and son certainly had no idea whether or not he had a criminal history when they confronted him. His criminal history isn't relevant to his death.

3061:

To respond to the opening remark of "I don't know if I get a say on this as an IP editor", and as a general response to other people who might be wondering about that question, I would say that IP editors

1591: 3074:

said at one point that your "edits here, amount, especially in aggregation, to gross violations of the BLP and obvious POV pushing". Drmies is not the sort who would make such comments lightly. —

1452:

to suggest that McMichael knew he was calling out to Arbery, which means we have no evidence that McMichael could tie the "unidentified male" to anyone's criminal history. It is false to say that

2306:

And we have seen repeated instances where it is stated that the shoplifting was a "violation of his probation" and under Georgia law, any shoplifting of a mechandise over 300 dollars is a felony.

2506:

Sorry, but I don't understand all this discussion of whether the shoplifting was a felony or not. What difference does that make? Did someone try to change the article to say it was a felony? —

390: 2244: 394: 1205: 1538:

motives, then that should be mentioned with caution. There is no clear evidence, for example, of burglary by Aubrey so any mentions of that would need to clearly state it is alleged.

2733:, Ah, thank you, I must've missed it...its late. At any rate, that still strengthens my belief that if we mention any case, it should only be the shoplifting one, not the gun case. 1070:

You'd have a point if BarrelProof was arguing that the article should state in Knowledge's voice "He recognized Arbery from prior incidents." Instead, he's quoting text that says "

2397:

You got me there; so there's one source of a shoplifting conviction. Where does it say this was a felony? And why on Earth would a shoplifting conviction be relevant to his death?

2805:

had been added to the article. Since the content was already disputed and under discussion with no consensus for inclusion, I went ahead and removed it, with a reminder that the

354:

his criminal history is irrelevant unless it is shown to be directly related to his shooting death. Nothing that I've seen in reliable sources suggests that it is. Sydney Poore/

967:

couldn't nail him with anything from the earlier investigation. Now that I think about it, it might not merit inclusion until there are some more extensive sources on it per

2014: 398: 2227: 2178: 1956:

Barnhill alluded to these misdeeds when he wrote to the Glynn County police that charges weren’t warranted against the McMichaels in Arbery’s February shooting death.

1138:

You seem to be assuming that I'm saying some things that I have not said. Also, at this point, the one prior clear connection between Gregory McMichael and Arbery is

571:- Arbery's past behavior explains his more recent behavior. This article is treating Arbery as a saint - down to the grad photo with the aura in the background. 2637:

McMichaels had previously been involved in an investigation of Arbery, according to a prosecutor who had worked the case, although it was unclear for what reason.

1351:

If he may have mistaken Arbery for someone else, it would be useful for editors to consider. Do you have something you can link to, or was it speculation?

488:

for basically the reasons above. Until there's more coverage in the RSes (which may come), I say we err on the side of protecting a (recent) BLP. Cheers.

1238: 789:

of the fact pattern in this case. If there is to be further discussion about this, how about taking it up below in the "Discussion" subsection? Regards,

2690:, Where? I don't doubt its there, its just a big article and I can't say I felt like reading the whole thing again, and couldn't find it in my search :) 2307: 389:

Many many many reliable sources are reporting on it and it's relevant to the controversy. Definitely DUE weight. Articles that have reported on priors:

2262:

reason to track someone down and kill them. The connection is extremely tenuous for bringing up a past record of a man in an article about his killing.

406: 597:- you're right that he was not a saint, he was just an unarmed human who was confronted by two men with guns, one of whom who directly approached him. 879:

only with respect to prior events related to his shooting. A suspect in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery was involved in a previous investigation of him

2096: 2071: 94: 2610: 1195: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2453:. And was this not three days before you claimed, here on the Talk page, that this information had no RS? If so, how could you WP:IGF write: 3026: 2996: 2964: 720: 679: 604: 307: 1733:

His past criminal history didn't cause him to start jogging in that area. It seems merely an attempt to cast a shadow on the proceedings.

2709:, its in the article. The CNN source that is cited above is in the article and is even named <ref name="CNNPreviousInvestigation": --> 2893: 2153: 1929:

others have noted, the sources don't clearly outline the connection. Thus again, we should quote carefully and keep it quite minimal.

1392:

it was a very recent encounter and that Arbery had acted in a threatening way in that encounter – as if he had a concealed firearm. —

862:- Except for the mention that McMichael worked on a shoplifting investigation of Arbery; other crimes are not demonstrated relevant. 1852: 2203: 1315:

Other than those, at most a summary level may be given about other criminal records not directly involved with the topic. Cheers

2741: 2698: 2646: 2596: 1609:

Firearms offences (2013), viz. taking a handgun to a basketball game taking place at a school, thereby violating laws concerning

1200: 439: 237: 199: 163: 130: 3124:. You would need compelling proof that any of the three men chasing him knew he had any criminal past. Absent that it would be 1691: 435: 190:

The hypocrisy of folks trying to add a black dude's criminal record in a case where he was not the criminal is not lost on me.

211:

You seem to be implying a racist agenda on the part of editors that disagree with your point of view, which certainly isn't

2523:, it makes a huge difference to those who wish to go from "he wasn't perfect" to "he was convicted" to "he was a convicted 1487:

Arbery's criminal history, including arrests and convictions, seems to me to be specifically relevant in more than one way:

146:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3152:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2939: 2906: 2614: 1989: 1973: 1595: 1461: 1419: 887: 867: 1990:

One of the men accused in the fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery was involved in a previous prosecution of Arbery (cnn.com)

921:

per CNN "One of the men accused in the fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery was involved in a previous prosecution of Arbery"

370:

evidences after the investigations. If they are not, we wont have evidence and we would have not included them anyway.--

47: 17: 2606: 2018: 1654: 1228: 922: 880: 212: 2015:

Merritt told CNN over the weekend that Arbery’s alleged criminal background was a shoplifting conviction in his past.

1229:"A suspect in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery was involved in a previous investigation of him, recused prosecutor says" 1105:

my comment is someone saying that "If the guy did recognize Arbery, that's another matter." He himself said that he

839:

per WWGB, atleast the shoplifting charge. I think it's relevant, particularly the possibly knowledge of this by the

1302: 1272: 336: 284: 166: 134: 38: 2023:

a shoplifting conviction. His mother said that has nothing to do with this and her son is the victim in this case.

2022: 1912: 1525: 3070:

to be acting in good faith unless evidence shows otherwise. However, as for you specifically, I did notice that

3030: 3000: 2968: 2935: 2902: 2289: 1969: 1457: 1415: 883: 863: 726: 685: 610: 313: 2712:

As an investigator, McMichael had helped with a criminal prosecution of Ahmaud Arbery in 2018 for shoplifting

3044: 3015: 2754: 2439: 2402: 2371: 2341: 2267: 2051: 1833: 1374: 1129: 1095: 1061: 764: 656: 542: 507: 2121: 1856: 1672: 1587: 2919:

You're right. There is zero evidence that McMichael remembered Arbery's name. Has anyone said otherwise? —

2876: 2491: 2466: 2411:

No, there are multiple sources, just because you refuse to acknowledge them doesn't mean they don't exist.

1950:, this is relevant to the refusal of the judge and to claims by suspects, even if their claims were false: 1721: 1649: 1631: 1555: 1504: 1356: 1080: 794: 695:

According to this article, the district attorney George Barnhill said that "Arbery initiated the fight".

3138: 3098: 3079: 2985: 2924: 2771: 2721: 2678: 2511: 1876: 1816: 1566:

clearly UNDUE and SYNTH, also a pretty transparent way of sneaking in whitewashing POV into the article.

1438: 1397: 1338: 1320: 1298: 1151: 1114: 1043: 1020: 377: 332: 295: 280: 1316: 2817: 2431:

I'll ignore that ridiculous accusation. As you can see above, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge.

2419: 2032: 1908: 1848: 1679: 1569: 1521: 827: 779: 749: 700: 250: 220: 126: 3130: 2953: 2901:

that at the time of the incident, McMichael knew that he was chasing a person named Ahmaud Arbery.

2857: 2843: 2622: 2570: 2459:

I've looked at RS and can't find any indication that he has been convicted of a parking violation."

1968:

Should that appear on the page? Yes, certainly, because this is highly relevant info for the case.

1687: 1293:

is swept clear; while the career wobbles and concerns of the living are not being sheltered by the

1268: 738: 715: 674: 642: 628: 599: 581: 559: 431: 418: 402: 302: 2290:

Court records show that Mr. Arbery was convicted of shoplifting and of violating probation in 2018

3040: 3011: 2750: 2749:

Incidentally, I can't find any source that says the shoplifting charge resulted in a conviction.

2529: 2435: 2398: 2367: 2337: 2263: 2047: 2008: 1829: 1779: 1761: 1370: 1285: 1125: 1091: 1057: 997: 948: 905: 760: 652: 538: 476: 358: 3142: 3102: 3083: 3048: 3034: 3019: 3004: 2989: 2972: 2957: 2943: 2928: 2910: 2880: 2861: 2847: 2824: 2775: 2758: 2744: 2725: 2701: 2682: 2666: 2649: 2626: 2599: 2574: 2545: 2515: 2495: 2470: 2443: 2426: 2406: 2392: 2375: 2360: 2345: 2318: 2301: 2271: 2256: 2055: 2039: 2000: 1977: 1938: 1916: 1899: 1880: 1860: 1837: 1820: 1803: 1783: 1765: 1743: 1725: 1695: 1661: 1578: 1558: 1529: 1508: 1465: 1442: 1423: 1401: 1378: 1360: 1342: 1324: 1306: 1155: 1133: 1118: 1099: 1084: 1065: 1047: 1024: 1001: 982: 952: 935: 909: 891: 871: 854: 831: 798: 783: 768: 753: 731: 704: 690: 660: 646: 615: 585: 563: 554:- And we should be wary for sockpuppet accounts voting 'support' on this issue multiple times.-- 546: 518: 497: 480: 458: 422: 381: 361: 340: 318: 288: 254: 240: 224: 202: 2872: 2487: 2462: 2221: 2129: 1925: 1717: 1539: 1500: 1352: 1076: 989: 968: 790: 493: 2383:"according to local news" refers to his 2013 indictment, not his conviction for shoplifting. 2332:

a voting machine. Do we know that the shoplifting was over $ 300? Even if we do, sounds like

1297:

policy. I'm quite certain that the "Support" opinions, though, will be summarily ignored. -

1056:

No, we didn't miss the statement from a person arrested for homicide. Should we accept this?

672:- you seem to be an expert in predicting the future. Send me some lottery numbers, will you? 3134: 3094: 3075: 2979: 2920: 2765: 2730: 2715: 2687: 2672: 2662: 2541: 2520: 2507: 1947: 1934: 1872: 1812: 1736: 1599: 1434: 1393: 1334: 1147: 1110: 1039: 1016: 977: 930: 849: 530: 371: 2834: 2810: 2734: 2706: 2691: 2654: 2639: 2589: 2561: 2412: 2356: 2333: 2314: 2025: 1751:

Not demonstrated to be relevant. It takes a fairly tortured logic to argue that because I

1705: 1622: 823: 775: 745: 710: 696: 514: 246: 230: 216: 192: 156: 120: 1369:

recognize him before chasing him down, no matter what is said after the fact by lawyers.

229:

Fair, I'll strike that. I still stand by the fact that it is a BLP violation and un-DUE.

2245:

Family attorney Lee Merritt has acknowledged Arbery’s 2018 arrest on shoplifting charges

270:

We would need reliable sources that not only mention his criminal history but tie it in

2949: 2868: 2853: 2839: 2806: 2632: 2618: 2583: 2566: 2388: 2297: 2252: 1996: 1683: 1264: 667: 638: 592: 577: 555: 454: 427: 414: 1828:

So far, his criminal history is not connected to his death so should not be included.

151:

Per above discussion which has failed to resolve the issue, and call for an RfC I ask:

3067: 2809:

to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.

2432: 1894: 1796: 1792: 1775: 1757: 1610: 1294: 1281: 993: 963: 944: 943:, oh, I missed that update. Did the accused remember Arbery from that interaction? – 918: 901: 534: 472: 355: 180: 176: 1716:

reliable sources indicate that this was relevant to the killing or the aftermath. --

3125: 1639: 489: 410: 509:. Not that any of this should have led the McMichael's to apprehend the subject.-- 3071: 2658: 2537: 1930: 1635: 1621:

The oppose !votes are entirely correct that ordinarily the shoplifting would be

972: 940: 925: 844: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2352: 2310: 651:

What recent behavior? Who said he was the attacker? These BLP vios must stop.

510: 2132: 2097:"The killing of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed black jogger in Georgia, explained" 2384: 2293: 2248: 1992: 450: 2351:

probation if they are innocent of the probation violating offense! Doh.--

2154:"'It's Murder': This Shooting of an Unarmed Black Man Is Roiling Georgia" 1888: 2072:"Glynn County commissioners say DA blocked arrests after fatal shooting" 1673:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/us/ahmed-arbery-shooting-georgia.html

2657:, this was just another right-wing apologist, and they're blocked now. 528:

I also see no evidence that he was convicted of the shoplifting charge.

300:- with respect, I don't believe accusations of racism are helpful. 2852:

So does this mean everyone is decided or does this vote continue?

154:

Should Arbery's prior criminal record be included in this article?

1616:

Shoplifting (2018), viz. minor theft and violation of probation.

1365:

Um, isn't the onus t'other way 'round? It's speculation that he

1038:

said he saw Arbery reach into his pants as if for a weapon.". —

1289: 1233: 25: 1811:

His past criminal history has nothing to do with his death.

1227:

Andone, Dakin; Barajas, Angela; Morris, Jason (May 9, 2020).

506:

looked like the suspect in a string of break-ins in the area"

1196:"Father of Brunswick shooter previously investigated victim" 1712:

needed to cover McMichael's prior investigation of Arbery

1456:

in any context - McMichael never said the person's name.

2204:"Police: Man brought gun to high school basketball game" 1383:

The idea that McMichael might have recognized Arbery is

2801: 2450: 1143: 1036:

a prior recent incident 'the other night', in which he

245:

I appreciate your response and commend you for that.

2892:- Something which has been overlooked is that the 2588:Which sources? Could you link those you refer to? 2449:cited it in the Article) at 23:19, 11 May 2020 2243:Are you suggesting Arbery was not a shoplifter? 2122:"Two Weapons, a Chase, a Killing and No Charges" 188:un-DUE to me, and like POV pushing on our part. 3066:intended to get a say in debates and should be 8: 2226:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 3089: 1602:) indicate Arbery has been convicted twice: 634: 573: 2202:Lasch, Tim Pulliam, Brianne (2013-12-09). 1846: 1677: 1410:say that McMichael recognized the suspect 2710:. The article in Knowledge already says 399:The Atlanta Journal Constitution Article 2179:"Police arrest four in span of an hour" 2062: 2019:shoplifting conviction in Arbery's past 1186: 215:and is conduct unbecoming of an admin. 183:grounds. Arbery may be dead, but he is 2711: 2636: 2219: 1453: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2070:Boone, Christian; Jr, Bert Roughton. 7: 142:The following discussion is closed. 24: 2671:This is already in the article.-- 3148:The discussion above is closed. 1387:speculation. McMichael directly 1241:from the original on May 9, 2020 1208:from the original on May 9, 2020 1201:The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 1194:Boone, Christian (May 7, 2020). 103:RfC on Arbery's criminal history 102: 29: 2120:Fausset, Richard (2020-04-26). 3039:He's dead. Have some respect. 1871:, on UNDUE and BLP grounds. -- 1450:entirely-unsourced speculation 537:, and we’re better than that. 113:may be included in the article 1: 2948:What if he did recognize him 2177:Hall, Michael The Brunswick. 1710:Support to the limited extent 1142:mentioned in the article. It 407:Christian Science Monitor CSM 2152:Glawe, Justin (2020-05-05). 2095:Collins, Sean (2020-05-06). 18:Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery 2013:- sources for shoplifting, 3167: 2611:AJC (Atlanta News) report 1978:19:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC) 135:12:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC) 3150:Please do not modify it. 3143:16:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC) 3103:19:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 3084:16:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 3049:12:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 3035:12:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 3020:12:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 3005:11:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2990:10:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2973:09:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2958:07:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2944:06:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2929:06:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2911:06:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2881:16:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2862:14:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2848:14:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2825:08:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2776:10:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2759:10:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2745:10:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2726:10:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2702:10:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2683:10:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2667:14:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2650:10:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2627:09:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2600:08:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2575:07:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2546:23:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2516:06:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2496:15:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2471:04:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 2444:15:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2427:15:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2407:14:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2393:14:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2376:14:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2361:14:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2346:14:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2319:13:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2302:13:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2272:13:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2257:13:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2056:11:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2040:11:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 2001:05:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1939:16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 1917:15:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 1900:21:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 1881:20:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC) 1861:07:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC) 1838:15:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 1821:03:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 1804:21:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 1784:11:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 1766:12:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 1744:11:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 1726:21:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 1696:15:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 1662:13:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 1630:defence brings it up as 1579:07:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 1559:19:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1530:18:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1509:05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1466:05:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1443:05:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1424:05:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1402:02:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1379:00:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1361:00:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1343:23:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1325:22:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1307:21:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1273:19:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1156:02:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1146:a couple of hours ago. — 1134:02:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1119:02:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1100:01:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1085:01:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1066:01:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1048:02:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1025:01:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1002:21:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 983:19:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 953:19:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 936:19:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 910:18:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 892:18:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 872:17:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 855:16:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 832:16:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 799:19:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 784:17:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 769:16:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 754:16:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 732:16:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 705:16:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 691:16:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 661:16:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 647:16:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 616:16:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 586:16:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 564:13:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 547:10:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 519:07:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 498:05:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 481:05:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 459:05:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 423:04:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 382:04:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 362:04:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 341:04:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 319:04:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 289:04:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 255:04:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 241:03:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 225:03:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 203:03:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 167:03:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 144:Please do not modify it. 117:not in Knowledge's voice 2799:- It appears that the 2605:Sure. This is the CNN 1632:bad character evidence 2457:What criminal record? 1586:. Reliable sources ( 1454:McMichael said Arbery 1428:That's right. But it 1312:Support - with limits 440:few or no other edits 42:of past discussions. 442:outside this topic. 3131:fruit of the gibbet 2936:NorthBySouthBaranof 2903:NorthBySouthBaranof 2607:report on the issue 2533:to be good reading. 1970:My very best wishes 1922:Oppose with caveats 1458:NorthBySouthBaranof 1416:NorthBySouthBaranof 1109:recognize Arbery. — 884:My very best wishes 864:NorthBySouthBaranof 391:News 4 Jacksonville 213:assuming good faith 2530:Devil in the Grove 2286:The New York Times 2183:The Brunswick News 2126:The New York Times 1886:was a bad hombre. 1406:The police report 1286:Graham Media Group 403:The New York Times 145: 1898: 1863: 1851:comment added by 1802: 1702:Oppose in general 1698: 1682:comment added by 1577: 443: 143: 133: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3158: 3092: 3091: 2982: 2838: 2804: 2802:disputed content 2768: 2739: 2718: 2696: 2675: 2644: 2594: 2587: 2232: 2231: 2225: 2217: 2215: 2214: 2199: 2193: 2192: 2190: 2189: 2174: 2168: 2167: 2165: 2164: 2149: 2143: 2142: 2140: 2139: 2117: 2111: 2110: 2108: 2107: 2092: 2086: 2085: 2083: 2082: 2067: 2012: 1984:Reliable sources 1892: 1801: 1799: 1741: 1739: 1659: 1657: 1652: 1640:reliable sources 1576: 1574: 1572:Volunteer Marek 1567: 1552: 1549: 1546: 1543: 1299:Buckaboob Bonsai 1251: 1250: 1248: 1246: 1224: 1218: 1217: 1215: 1213: 1191: 980: 975: 933: 928: 852: 847: 742: 723: 718: 682: 677: 671: 637: 636: 632: 607: 602: 596: 576: 575: 425: 387:Strongly Support 374: 333:FollowTheSources 310: 305: 299: 296:FollowTheSources 281:FollowTheSources 235: 197: 161: 125: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3166: 3165: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3088: 2980: 2832: 2800: 2766: 2735: 2716: 2692: 2673: 2655:User:CaptainEek 2640: 2590: 2581: 2557: 2236: 2235: 2218: 2212: 2210: 2201: 2200: 2196: 2187: 2185: 2176: 2175: 2171: 2162: 2160: 2158:The Daily Beast 2151: 2150: 2146: 2137: 2135: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2105: 2103: 2094: 2093: 2089: 2080: 2078: 2069: 2068: 2064: 2006: 1986: 1909:Display name 99 1797: 1737: 1735: 1655: 1650: 1648: 1570: 1568: 1550: 1547: 1544: 1541: 1522:LeverageSerious 1256: 1255: 1254: 1244: 1242: 1226: 1225: 1221: 1211: 1209: 1193: 1192: 1188: 978: 973: 931: 926: 850: 845: 736: 721: 716: 680: 675: 665: 633: 626: 605: 600: 590: 572: 533:This remains a 447:Partial support 372: 308: 303: 293: 231: 193: 157: 148: 139: 138: 137: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3164: 3162: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3027:118.208.20.226 2997:118.208.20.226 2965:118.208.20.226 2914: 2913: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2850: 2828: 2827: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2761: 2669: 2615:NY Post report 2556: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2234: 2233: 2194: 2169: 2144: 2112: 2087: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2004: 2003: 1985: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1965: 1964: 1961: 1957: 1952: 1951: 1941: 1919: 1902: 1883: 1865: 1864: 1840: 1823: 1806: 1786: 1768: 1746: 1728: 1699: 1665: 1664: 1643: 1627: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1614: 1611:gun-free zones 1604: 1603: 1581: 1561: 1532: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1496: 1489: 1488: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1346: 1345: 1327: 1309: 1275: 1253: 1252: 1219: 1185: 1184: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 958: 957: 956: 955: 913: 912: 894: 874: 857: 834: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 739:Starship.paint 663: 649: 629:Starship.paint 621: 620: 619: 618: 566: 549: 521: 500: 483: 461: 444: 384: 364: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 324: 323: 322: 321: 264: 263: 262: 261: 260: 259: 258: 257: 206: 205: 152: 149: 140: 109: 108: 107: 106: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3163: 3151: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3127: 3123: 3120: 3119: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3060: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2981:SharʿabSalam▼ 2976: 2975: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2899:zero evidence 2895: 2894:police report 2891: 2888: 2887: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2836: 2830: 2829: 2826: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2808: 2803: 2798: 2795: 2794: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2767:SharʿabSalam▼ 2762: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2743: 2740: 2738: 2732: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2717:SharʿabSalam▼ 2713: 2708: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2700: 2697: 2695: 2689: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2674:SharʿabSalam▼ 2670: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2648: 2645: 2643: 2638: 2634: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2598: 2595: 2593: 2585: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2563: 2554: 2548: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2532: 2531: 2526: 2522: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2504: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2484: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2458: 2452: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2434: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2282: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2229: 2223: 2209: 2205: 2198: 2195: 2184: 2180: 2173: 2170: 2159: 2155: 2148: 2145: 2134: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2116: 2113: 2102: 2098: 2091: 2088: 2077: 2073: 2066: 2063: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2010: 2009:Objective3000 2002: 1998: 1994: 1991: 1988: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1942: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1927: 1923: 1920: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1903: 1901: 1896: 1891: 1890: 1884: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1867: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1844: 1841: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1830:BetsyRMadison 1827: 1824: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1807: 1805: 1800: 1794: 1790: 1787: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1772: 1769: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1754: 1750: 1747: 1745: 1742: 1740: 1732: 1729: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1700: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1674: 1670: 1667: 1666: 1663: 1660: 1658: 1653: 1644: 1641: 1638:by the above 1637: 1633: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1615: 1612: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1582: 1580: 1575: 1573: 1565: 1562: 1560: 1557: 1554: 1553: 1536: 1533: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1516: 1515: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1497: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1486: 1483: 1482: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1431: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1331: 1328: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1313: 1310: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1282:New York Post 1279: 1276: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1261: 1258: 1257: 1240: 1236: 1235: 1230: 1223: 1220: 1207: 1203: 1202: 1197: 1190: 1187: 1183: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1073: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1003: 999: 995: 991: 986: 985: 984: 981: 976: 970: 965: 962: 961: 960: 959: 954: 950: 946: 942: 939: 938: 937: 934: 929: 923: 920: 917: 916: 915: 914: 911: 907: 903: 898: 895: 893: 889: 885: 881: 878: 875: 873: 869: 865: 861: 858: 856: 853: 848: 842: 838: 835: 833: 829: 825: 821: 818: 817: 800: 796: 792: 787: 786: 785: 781: 777: 772: 771: 770: 766: 762: 757: 756: 755: 751: 747: 740: 735: 734: 733: 730: 728: 724: 719: 712: 708: 707: 706: 702: 698: 694: 693: 692: 689: 687: 683: 678: 669: 664: 662: 658: 654: 650: 648: 644: 640: 630: 625: 624: 623: 622: 617: 614: 612: 608: 603: 594: 589: 588: 587: 583: 579: 570: 567: 565: 561: 557: 553: 550: 548: 544: 540: 536: 532: 529: 525: 522: 520: 516: 512: 508: 504: 501: 499: 495: 491: 487: 484: 482: 478: 474: 469: 465: 462: 460: 456: 452: 448: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 424: 420: 416: 412: 408: 404: 400: 396: 395:NY Daily News 392: 388: 385: 383: 379: 375: 373:SharʿabSalam▼ 368: 365: 363: 360: 357: 353: 350: 349: 342: 338: 334: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 320: 317: 315: 311: 306: 297: 292: 291: 290: 286: 282: 278: 277:if not racist 273: 269: 266: 265: 256: 252: 248: 244: 243: 242: 239: 236: 234: 228: 227: 226: 222: 218: 214: 210: 209: 208: 207: 204: 201: 198: 196: 191: 186: 182: 178: 174: 171: 170: 169: 168: 165: 162: 160: 155: 147: 136: 132: 128: 124: 123: 118: 114: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3149: 3121: 3063: 2898: 2889: 2873:AzureCitizen 2871:. Regards, 2819: 2818: 2812: 2811: 2796: 2736: 2693: 2641: 2604: 2591: 2559: 2558: 2534: 2528: 2524: 2488:AzureCitizen 2463:Tambourine60 2456: 2454: 2421: 2420: 2414: 2413: 2285: 2211:. Retrieved 2207: 2197: 2186:. Retrieved 2182: 2172: 2161:. Retrieved 2157: 2147: 2136:. Retrieved 2125: 2115: 2104:. Retrieved 2100: 2090: 2079:. Retrieved 2075: 2065: 2034: 2033: 2027: 2026: 2005: 1943: 1926:Mdaniels5757 1921: 1904: 1887: 1868: 1847:— Preceding 1842: 1825: 1808: 1788: 1770: 1752: 1748: 1734: 1730: 1718:Mdaniels5757 1713: 1709: 1701: 1678:— Preceding 1668: 1647: 1626:shoplifting. 1583: 1571: 1563: 1540: 1534: 1517: 1501:Tambourine60 1484: 1449: 1429: 1411: 1407: 1388: 1384: 1366: 1353:AzureCitizen 1329: 1311: 1277: 1259: 1243:. Retrieved 1232: 1222: 1210:. Retrieved 1199: 1189: 1181: 1139: 1106: 1077:AzureCitizen 1071: 1035: 896: 876: 859: 840: 836: 819: 791:AzureCitizen 714: 673: 598: 568: 551: 527: 523: 502: 485: 467: 463: 446: 386: 366: 351: 301: 276: 271: 267: 232: 194: 189: 184: 172: 158: 153: 150: 141: 121: 116: 112: 78: 43: 37: 3135:Gleeanon409 3095:Steve Quinn 3076:BarrelProof 2921:BarrelProof 2731:SharabSalam 2688:SharabSalam 2521:BarrelProof 2508:BarrelProof 1873:K.e.coffman 1853:24.29.63.96 1813:Gandydancer 1738:scope_creep 1435:BarrelProof 1394:BarrelProof 1335:Steve Quinn 1317:Markbassett 1148:BarrelProof 1144:was removed 1111:BarrelProof 1040:BarrelProof 1017:BarrelProof 992:applies. – 438:) has made 36:This is an 3090:(Redacted) 2835:Isaidnoway 2831:Thank you 2813:Isaidnoway 2737:CaptainEek 2707:CaptainEek 2694:CaptainEek 2642:CaptainEek 2613:, and the 2592:CaptainEek 2562:CaptainEek 2555:Discussion 2415:Isaidnoway 2213:2020-05-11 2188:2020-05-11 2163:2020-05-16 2138:2020-05-16 2106:2020-05-16 2081:2020-05-16 2028:Isaidnoway 1182:References 990:WP:CRYSTAL 969:WP:CRYSTAL 824:Rreagan007 776:Rreagan007 746:Rreagan007 711:Rreagan007 697:Rreagan007 635:(Redacted) 574:(Redacted) 331:Stricken. 247:Rreagan007 233:CaptainEek 217:Rreagan007 195:CaptainEek 159:CaptainEek 122:S Marshall 95:Archive 10 2950:NewsGuard 2854:NewsGuard 2840:NewsGuard 2633:CalmHand1 2619:CalmHand1 2584:CalmHand1 2567:CalmHand1 2133:0362-4331 1684:Gorkelobb 1412:as Arbery 1265:Guettarda 668:Topcat777 639:Topcat777 593:Topcat777 578:Topcat777 556:Shadybabs 531:WP:BALASP 428:NewsGuard 415:NewsGuard 411:KDRV News 90:Archive 9 85:Archive 8 79:Archive 7 73:Archive 6 68:Archive 5 60:Archive 1 2334:WP:SYNTH 2222:cite web 1924:I think 1849:unsigned 1798:GenQuest 1776:Pincrete 1758:Pincrete 1706:WP:UNDUE 1692:contribs 1680:unsigned 1636:verified 1408:does not 1385:not just 1239:Archived 1206:Archived 994:Muboshgu 964:Muboshgu 945:Muboshgu 919:Muboshgu 902:Muboshgu 877:Yes, but 841:murderer 717:starship 676:starship 601:starship 473:Koncorde 436:contribs 356:FloNight 304:starship 272:directly 185:recently 3068:assumed 2890:Comment 2869:WP:ONUS 2807:WP:ONUS 2797:Comment 1960:events. 1944:Support 1905:Support 1789:Support 1771:Comment 1669:Support 1584:Support 1518:Support 1485:Support 1278:Support 1245:May 10, 1072:He said 837:Support 820:Support 709:Ah yes 569:Support 490:Dumuzid 464:Support 352:Oppose' 39:archive 3122:Oppose 3072:Drmies 2978:not.-- 2820:(talk) 2764:etc.-- 2659:Drmies 2609:, the 2538:Drmies 2433:WP:AGF 2422:(talk) 2035:(talk) 1931:Waggie 1869:Oppose 1843:Oppose 1826:Oppose 1809:Oppose 1749:Oppose 1731:Oppose 1656:(talk) 1564:Oppose 1556:(talk) 1535:Oppose 1330:Oppose 1295:WP:BLP 1288:, and 1260:Oppose 1212:May 8, 941:HAL333 897:Oppose 860:Oppose 722:.paint 681:.paint 606:.paint 552:Oppose 535:WP:BLP 524:Oppose 503:Oppose 486:Oppose 468:Oppose 367:Oppose 309:.paint 268:Oppose 181:WP:DUE 177:WP:BLP 173:Oppose 3126:WP:OR 3041:O3000 3012:O3000 2751:O3000 2525:felon 2436:O3000 2399:O3000 2368:O3000 2353:MONGO 2338:O3000 2311:MONGO 2284:From 2264:O3000 2048:O3000 1895:help! 1623:UNDUE 1371:O3000 1126:O3000 1092:O3000 1058:O3000 761:O3000 653:O3000 539:O3000 511:MONGO 16:< 3139:talk 3099:talk 3080:talk 3045:talk 3031:talk 3016:talk 3001:talk 2986:talk 2969:talk 2954:talk 2940:talk 2925:talk 2907:talk 2877:talk 2858:talk 2844:talk 2772:talk 2755:talk 2722:talk 2679:talk 2663:talk 2623:talk 2571:talk 2542:talk 2512:talk 2492:talk 2467:talk 2451:here 2440:talk 2403:talk 2389:talk 2385:WWGB 2372:talk 2357:talk 2342:talk 2315:talk 2298:talk 2294:WWGB 2268:talk 2253:talk 2249:WWGB 2228:link 2208:WJXT 2130:ISSN 2052:talk 1997:talk 1993:WWGB 1974:talk 1948:here 1935:talk 1913:talk 1877:talk 1857:talk 1834:talk 1817:talk 1791:per 1780:talk 1762:talk 1722:talk 1688:talk 1651:SITH 1526:talk 1505:talk 1462:talk 1439:talk 1430:does 1420:talk 1398:talk 1389:said 1375:talk 1357:talk 1339:talk 1321:talk 1303:talk 1269:talk 1247:2020 1214:2020 1152:talk 1130:talk 1115:talk 1096:talk 1081:talk 1062:talk 1044:talk 1021:talk 998:talk 971:. ~ 949:talk 906:talk 888:talk 868:talk 843:. ~ 828:talk 795:talk 780:talk 765:talk 750:talk 727:talk 701:talk 686:talk 657:talk 643:talk 611:talk 582:talk 560:talk 543:talk 515:talk 494:talk 477:talk 466:and 455:talk 451:WWGB 432:talk 419:talk 378:talk 359:♥♥♥♥ 337:talk 314:talk 285:talk 251:talk 221:talk 179:and 115:but 3093:--- 3064:are 2714:.-- 2617:. 2101:Vox 2076:ajc 1889:Guy 1793:DUE 1753:may 1704:as 1551:Fir 1548:een 1545:rgr 1542:Eve 1367:did 1333:--- 1290:CNN 1280:as 1234:CNN 1140:not 1107:did 979:333 974:HAL 932:333 927:HAL 851:333 846:HAL 401:, 175:On 3141:) 3133:. 3101:) 3082:) 3047:) 3033:) 3018:) 3003:) 2988:) 2971:) 2956:) 2942:) 2927:) 2909:) 2879:) 2860:) 2846:) 2774:) 2757:) 2724:) 2681:) 2665:) 2625:) 2573:) 2544:) 2514:) 2494:) 2469:) 2461:? 2442:) 2405:) 2391:) 2374:) 2359:) 2344:) 2336:. 2317:) 2309:-- 2300:) 2292:. 2288:: 2270:) 2255:) 2247:. 2224:}} 2220:{{ 2206:. 2181:. 2156:. 2128:. 2124:. 2099:. 2074:. 2054:) 2021:, 2017:, 1999:) 1976:) 1937:) 1915:) 1879:) 1859:) 1836:) 1819:) 1782:) 1764:) 1724:) 1714:if 1708:. 1694:) 1690:• 1598:, 1594:, 1590:, 1528:) 1507:) 1464:) 1441:) 1422:) 1414:. 1400:) 1377:) 1359:) 1341:) 1323:) 1305:) 1284:, 1271:) 1237:. 1231:. 1204:. 1198:. 1154:) 1132:) 1117:) 1098:) 1083:) 1064:) 1046:) 1023:) 1000:) 951:) 924:~ 908:) 900:– 890:) 870:) 830:) 797:) 782:) 767:) 752:) 703:) 659:) 645:) 584:) 562:) 545:) 517:) 496:) 479:) 457:) 434:• 426:— 421:) 413:– 409:, 405:, 397:, 393:, 380:) 339:) 287:) 279:. 253:) 223:) 64:← 3137:( 3097:( 3078:( 3043:( 3029:( 3014:( 2999:( 2984:( 2967:( 2952:( 2938:( 2923:( 2905:( 2875:( 2856:( 2842:( 2837:: 2833:@ 2770:( 2753:( 2742:⚓ 2720:( 2699:⚓ 2677:( 2661:( 2647:⚓ 2621:( 2597:⚓ 2586:: 2582:@ 2569:( 2560:@ 2540:( 2510:( 2490:( 2465:( 2455:" 2438:( 2401:( 2387:( 2370:( 2355:( 2340:( 2313:( 2296:( 2266:( 2251:( 2230:) 2216:. 2191:. 2166:. 2141:. 2109:. 2084:. 2050:( 2011:: 2007:@ 1995:( 1972:( 1933:( 1911:( 1897:) 1893:( 1875:( 1855:( 1832:( 1815:( 1778:( 1760:( 1720:( 1686:( 1642:. 1613:. 1600:4 1596:3 1592:2 1588:1 1524:( 1503:( 1460:( 1437:( 1433:— 1418:( 1396:( 1373:( 1355:( 1337:( 1319:( 1301:( 1267:( 1249:. 1216:. 1150:( 1128:( 1113:( 1094:( 1079:( 1060:( 1042:( 1019:( 1015:— 996:( 947:( 904:( 886:( 866:( 826:( 793:( 778:( 763:( 748:( 741:: 737:@ 729:) 725:( 699:( 688:) 684:( 670:: 666:@ 655:( 641:( 631:: 627:@ 613:) 609:( 595:: 591:@ 580:( 558:( 541:( 513:( 492:( 475:( 453:( 430:( 417:( 376:( 335:( 316:) 312:( 298:: 294:@ 283:( 249:( 238:⚓ 219:( 200:⚓ 164:⚓ 131:C 129:/ 127:T 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index