![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So...Wikipedia will allow a page for pretty much anything now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1312:C45E:890:3094:25CD:759D ( talk) 07:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Levivich, fancy meeting you here. —valereee ( talk) 17:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
This page is a joke. Nobody gives a damn if a black person is running. Illinois v Wardlow discussed a person (race doesn't matter) running from the police, only after observing the uniformed police enter the area, while in a high crime area (i.e. a documented drug area, area with an increase in burglaries and violent crime). Whoever made this page is ridiculous. Onursides ( talk) 14:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
"trespassing incident" implies that a trespass misdemeanor had been committed.
"A jury was shown videos on Thursday of Ahmaud Arbery walking around a vacant property on earlier visits to the mostly white southern Georgia neighborhood where the Black man was chased and shot by three white men who are now on trial for murder.
The videos were pulled from surveillance cameras installed in an unoccupied, half-built house in Satilla Shores that plays a crucial role in the case. Arbery visited the site multiple times at night in the months before his death, the final visit taking place just minutes before he was shot.
"I got a trespasser," Larry English, the property owner, said in a call to police after the first recorded visit made by Arbery on the night of Oct. 25, 2019, which was played in Glynn County Superior Court on Thursday. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jury-sees-video-ahmaud-arberys-prior-visit-neighborhood-he-was-shot-2021-11-11/
And, in reference to my other statement about Trespass not necessarily implying a misdemeanor, as some states have an offense of Trespass violation, here is a sample citation illustrating a state with a trespass violation law : Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE I, ARTICLE 140 SECTION 140.05 Trespass § 140.05. Trespass.'
A person is guilty of trespass when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.
Trespass is a violation. [2]
Another: HAWAII PENAL CODE 708. Offenses Against Property Rights §708-815 Simple trespass. (1) A person commits the offense of simple trespass if the person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.
(2) Simple trespass is a violation. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993] [3]
Folks from all over the world read Wikipedia, not just Georgia, hence my assertion that "Trespass" does not necessarily imply "misdemeanor" to readers. The lack of a trespass violation statute in Georgia does not affect the implication of the word trespass among the universe of Wikipedia users.'
No cited sources make this claim. This is a link to tresspass under Georgia law Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21. This link Criminal Trespassing Law notes in "many states, laws require there be a warning" ... "or a locked door" but no warning had been given https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/cops-planned-on-giving-ahmaud-arbery-trespassing-warning/ and the door was not locked.
You are setting up a straw man argument by citing a subsection that does not apply to the circumstances of this incident, and then knocking it down. Sub 3 only applies when you overstay your welcome, so to speak. He would have to remain after receiving notice from the owner to vacate the premise. Such instances as a visitor or friend or worker or neighbor who was legally there, but at some point had their permission to be there revoked. The proper subsection of the law that applies here would be "subsection (b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority: (1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;"
Tom, you have to approach things with a basic level of common sense. Certain things are basic understanding, not needing to be said. Do you believe that, not knowing you, I can go into your backyard, use your patio furniture to get some sun, maybe even fire up your grill to cook, swim in your pool, unless and until you inform me that I cant? I wouldnt be breaking any laws unless you came home and told me to leave? Is that really your position?
Tom - As I said, you have to read with common sense. Clearly, not every word you see used on Wikipedia needs to have a definition supplied. Wikipedia is not meant to be a dictionary, as is stated on the page "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. We should come to Wikipedia with a basic understanding on the generally agreed-upon meaning of basic words. A reasonable man reads the word "trespass" and understands that it means to be present on another's property without reasonably believing that they have right and permission to be there. It is a simple english word that requires no definition. Other examples would be basic words such as kill, eat, touch, walk, steal, etc... I dont understand your aversion to the simple english word "trespass" being used without a definition given by someone involved. I could just as easily challenge the use of the term "jogging", since the usual activity of jogging does not include a stop on the property of another, consisting of a vacant house under construction, without permission of the owner. I could say "Tom, show me where the activity of jogging includes snooping around inside a house belonging to another person without said person's permission to be there, or remove the term "jogging". The word you objected to earlier, "burglary", was actually used in this case by an educated lawyer, much more educated in the law than myself. In fact, the man who used the term "burglary suspect" to refer to Arbery has an extensive background in the legal field, to wit: He is the current elected District Attorney for the Waycross Circuit, He has worked as a criminal prosecutor for some 36 years. As an Assistant District Attorney in Waycross and Brunswick , as Chief Assistant in Waycross for 20 years and served as the District Attorney the last 5 years ; he has been actively involved in over 100 murder cases and assisted other prosecutors with at least 100 more. He cant estimate how many Aggravated Assault cases involving gunshots and wounds of all types; He has attended countless schools, classes and seminars on criminal prosecution and criminal acts and evidence. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6916-george-barnhill-letter-to-glyn/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf
"Fleeing" requires running from danger. Arbery was out running Ahmaud Arbery: What you need to know about the case. No source was cited claiming that Arbery was specifically fleeing. Running & fleeing not being the same thing. --JollyTom 16:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
****As a longtime reader and supporter of Wikipedia, I am disturbed at the overall substance and tone of your edits. It's as if you have a preconceived agenda when looking at edits and additions to this entry. You delete factual information, even when it is cited properly, if it doesn't further your narrative. I have not seen that on Wikipedia before. It is usually a place where contributors can post factual information related to the subject, as long as it is properly cited. Readers are entitled to have the most information available presented to them. It just seems like in this case, you are bending over backwards in contortions to push a certain narrative, and in doing so, you are denying the readers the benefit of getting a more complete picture.****
I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to characterize your edits all over Wikipedia. I didnt see any other topic you edited. I was only referring to this topic. Sorry if I wasnt being clear.
References
Multiple sources [12] [13] establish that Arbery was out for a jog. However the claim that Arbery was "running from" as a fact (rather than an allegation) remains unsourced and so following [ Verifiability norms] a [ | Citation needed] has been added.--JollyTom 23:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
--------------- A printed source making an unsupported statement does not establish anything, regardless of how many sources repost the unsupported statement. A reputable news source [1] reporting on trial evidence reveals that:
A jury was shown videos on Thursday of Ahmaud Arbery walking around a vacant property on earlier visits to the mostly white southern Georgia neighborhood where the Black man was chased and shot by three white men who are now on trial for murder. The videos were pulled from surveillance cameras installed in an unoccupied, half-built house in Satilla Shores that plays a crucial role in the case. Arbery visited the site multiple times at night in the months before his death, the final visit taking place just minutes before he was shot. (See the Reuters News Service reporting).
So apparently video evidence produced in court shows that Arbery was shot minutes after trespassing at the vacant house in question. He is on multiple videos filmed over several dates that were circulated around the neighborhood to try to end these incidents. There was no evidence that supports the "out for a jog" claim. This false narrative regarding jogging was never supported by any proof. It is unclear why it keeps appearing as conjecture in news stories without any evidence to support it.
Lets work to keep Wikipedia as factual as it always has been, without giving in to a seeming agenda which this case appears to lean towards, using unsupported leaps of logic. We can observe the facts of this incident without trying to twist facts to fit a certain popular narrative, however implausible it is.
Thanks Tom.'
References
The full "hot pursuit" quote from George Barnhill, District Attorney of Waycross is: "It appears Travis McMichael,Greg McMichael, and Bryan William were following, in hot pursuit, a burglary suspect, with solid firsthand probable cause, in their neighborhood, and asking/ telling him to stop." And concludes "For the above and foregoing reasons, it is our conclusion there is insufficient probable cause to issue arrest warrants at this time" george-barnhill-letter
This is a link to the current "criminal investigation" of "possible prosecutorial misconduct" by the district Attorneys initially involved. gbi-receives-request-ag-carr-conduct-investigation-handling-ahmaud-arbery
There appears to be additional context for the reader in this example of "Running while black" that could be added to the page, perhaps?--JollyTom 23:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)