Talk:Running while Black

random comment 2 sept 2020

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)

Wikipedia page topic guidlines link [[1]]

A paper in science direct on the topic Running while Black: A distinctive safety concern and barrier to exercise in White neighborhoods

A newspaper article NY Times ahmaud arbery running while black --JollyTom 0945:, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

back to article space

@Levivich, fancy meeting you here. —valereee (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Of all the gin joints articles in all the projects in the world... Levivich 18:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Wait, there's a gin joint here? What's your thought on Running while Black? —valereee (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Er, as a page move, and then to B/w. —valereee (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd support that. Levivich 18:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

random comment 25 july 2021

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)

'Fleeing a trespassing incident' removal.

"trespassing incident" implies that a trespass misdemeanor had been committed.

Wrong. In most states, there is an offense of trespass violation also, which is not a misdemeanor.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21.(d) "A person who commits the offense of criminal trespass shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Please cite the offense of "trespass violation", and a source saying it had been committed --JollyTom 23:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

                     'I'm not sure what you are asking for. You are asking two things in one sentence. For clarity, I will address them separately. One example of a source saying a trespassing incident had been committed by 
                  Arbery is Reuters News Service , reporting on trial evidence. This was the court evidence 
                produced : "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.

Being on a property and committing trespass are not the same thing. This is a citation that he was on the property, not one saying that criminal trespass was established as a fact. (See also the Mr English quote below).--JollyTom 16:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

                  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.

Whilst it's clearly a fact he was on the property, that's not the same thing as committing criminal trespass.--JollyTom 16:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

                    "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/

This a citation of an allegation of trespass, it does not establish that trespass was indeed committed. Whilst Reuters can be used to site that Mr English made the allegation, Reuters does not say it separately in the article. Mr English does not fulfill the requirements of a reliable source [[2]], so the statement of trespass can not rest solely on this allegation. --JollyTom 16:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

---

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]

"Under that definition, a person does not transgress when he enters or stays in a place open at the time to the public" are words from the same citation of Hawaii law. What matters is it's not obvious that in Georgia simply being on a property is criminal trespass. It may or may not be, however to state it as a fact a citation from a reliable source is required, and none has been provided. --JollyTom 16:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

---

                      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.

'

Wikipedia defines trespass to land as a crime [[3]]. Whilst in the USA the wikipedia article does say it's a mostly a misdemeanor [[4]], and it is a misdemeanor in Georgia. What's important here is that Trespass is a crime, and it is not obvious that Mr Arbery had committed that crime. So it can not be stated in the article as a fact unless it is properly sourced.--JollyTom 16:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

This is misleading. You talk about "in many states", but in Georgia, where this happened, there is no need for a warning. You are just inserting a red herring.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses §6-7-21."(b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he...(3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person...after receiving notice from the owner..." --JollyTom 15:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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;"

"...unlawful purpose". Exactly, and it's those words at the end of the quoted subsection, "...for an unlawful purpose", that turn just being on someone's property into trespass [5]. Whilst multiple citations here mean it's clearly a fact he was on the property, it's not obvious that he had an "unlawful purpose". Thus in turn, it’s not obvious that “trespass” had been committed. I’m not saying it had or had not been committed, (nor that we should debate it here); just that it’s not obvious and so open to challenge. A quote stating that trespass had been committed from a verifiable source is all that is required. Otherwise it needs to be "boldly removed". The allegation of trespass is established though, perhaps "allegedly running away" would work? --JollyTom 22:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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?

"Wikipedia does not publish original research", [[6]]. What an anonymous contributor considers as common sense, or what I "believe" is neither here nor there. "...contributors can post factual information related to the subject, as long as it is properly cited...". Cite the claim of trespass to a reliable source or remove it. --JollyTom 21:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Georgia law doesn't say that just being on someones else property is a crime, there are caveats. https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-7-21.html.

(a) ... maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person.

(b) (1) ... for an unlawful purpose

(b) (2) ... after receiving, prior to such entry, notice... that such entry is forbidden

(b) (3) ... after receiving notice from the owner...to depart.

Whilst a reader can take a view on whether trespass was committed, to state it as a fact requires a citation from a reliable source, not of Mr Arbery's presence on the property, or an allegation of trespass, but that the crime of trespass, as a fact, had been established. None of the citations make this claim--JollyTom 16:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JollyTom (talk • contribs)

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" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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

Wikipedia it's self states that trespass is a crime[[7]]. A reader could therefore assume that it was established that a crime had been committed. Which is not supported by citation.--JollyTom 17:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The term jogging has multiple citations from reliable sources. [8] [9] --JollyTom 17:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(Clarification, it wasn't actually me that objected to the use of 'burglary').--JollyTom 17:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The District Attorney you quote above - George Barnhill - is currently under criminal investigation for his handling of the case [10].

"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)

Fleeing commonly defined online means "to run away or escape from a dangerous or otherwise negative situation." A situation of being in someone's house or property without permission, is certainly negative, and often dangerous.

Wikipedia's [Content_removal essay] states "When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed." The "fleeing" claim was unsourced.--JollyTom 15:35, 2 December 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 am disturbed at the overall substance and tone of your edits." These are all my contributions [[11]] which go back to 2006. Please cite examples of "a preconceived agenda". --JollyTom 21:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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.

No worries. --JollyTom 22:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

References

"Fleeing" or "Running From" Citation needed

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 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.

There is no dispute that he was on the property, however trespass requires, in Georgia [14], "..unlawful purpose" or some other additional factor (such as remaining on a property after being asked to leave) for criminal trespass to be established.

The prosecution stated that Arbery was out jogging[15], and their version of events prevailed[16] in a court of law as judged by a jury of peers "beyond reasobable doubt" [17]. Where is the citation from a reliable source stating that the prosecution's claim was a "false narrative"?--JollyTom 21:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

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

chasing a burglary suspect "in hot pursuit".

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)

Not sure what you're suggesting be added, JollyTom? Can you clarify? Valereee (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)