Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Should the article be split?

The article is said to be too long right now, and it is expected that it will only get longer. Even if some things are removed here and there, the article is said to be too long to begin with right now. So should it be split? Psalm84 (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: From the Public response section on down there is a lot of work yet to be done, as Minor4th has pointed out. Perhaps it would be better to wait until that work is well underway to decide whether or not to split. ArishiaNishi (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't care to say one way or the other without it being state what will be split out. The legal proceedings (pre-trial at this point) are obviously going to need a seperate article. But I don't know if it needs to be split out now as this developing. I checked yesterday, just after the call trasnscript was removed at 16:19 (UTC), and found that while the listed size was 178,186 bytes, there was about 74k of readable text and 41k of refs. See my sandbox history to see how I came to these numbers. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The editor who originally raised this question referred to WP:TOOLONG, where it says after 50k splitting should be considered:
A page of about 30kB to 50kB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. At 50kB and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style - see WP:SIZERULE for "a rule of thumb".
Psalm84 (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll add a section for comments on that. It seems like, as Richard-of-Earth said, the legal proceedings section is a section that will need its own page. Psalm84 (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't support. Like I commented higher above, the problem is not that this article is too long. We have 67 KB articles or longer all over Wikipedia that are justifiably that long, and this is one of them. And, seriously, if the Avatar (2009 film) article can be over 140 kilobytes, then certainly this article can manage at 67 or 120-something or significantly higher when the trial happens. And don't forget that references add to kilobyte size. The problem is that this article is divided into too many subsections! It makes the article look significantly longer than it actually is. I don't know what the deal is with editors doing this across Wikipedia. But having sections that are at least six paragraphs long isn't going to hurt anybody. It's better, in fact, as the "too long" discussion shows. Subsections should typically only be created when a section needs to be split. Not spilt for the hell of it. 213.128.0.253 (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The WP:SIZERULE guidelines recommend that a page might need to be split after 50k, though, and almost definitely at 100k, not counting things like references. Psalm84 (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I am obviously aware of WP:SIZE, but that is a guideline, a guideline that is not followed most of the time, and it says "might." Most articles on Wikipedia are not split once they reach 50 or 60k, not even once they reach 80, 90 or 100. I told you what the problem is. It's the subheadings. This article is not that long. Those ridiculous subheadings are making it look this long; they make it difficult to navigate through this article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Headings and sections, where it says "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." Also see its Paragraph subsection, where it says "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." This article is full of very short sections and subsections (meaning short paragraphs that do not warrant their own subheadings, and at least two instances where a section contains only one sentence). 213.128.0.253 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the Court section from Florida v. Zimmerman. I have no problem with that at all. When I saw that it seemed like it would definitely need to be split I checked how the sources overlapped, but they don't really except a few in the lede. I was only going to leave that in my sandbox when I saw Richard-of-Earth said there was a stub already for it. I still should have just left it, though. But IMO the article should be split. The WP:SIZERULE page says articles above 60k should probably be split, and above 100k should almost definitely be split. And while I believe the WP:TOOLONG page says you can see if anything can be trimmed also, it also says content shouldn't be removed just because of an article's length. This article, too, unlike many, is about an ongoing situation which is adding new information rapidly. Psalm84 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
See what I just said a little higher about size and subheadings. You should not have split this article at all. Not only is it not needed, you have no WP:Consensus for it. Good grief, all you had to do was reduce the number of headings. Hopefully, someone will merge the articles back together once the article is properly formatted. 213.128.0.253 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn't split the article, as I explained above. There already was a stub page on the criminal case and after hearing that I added the court proceedings information there, without doing anything to this page, but I have removed that information so it's only a stub again. And the subheadings generally seem necessary to me with so many different topics in the article. Psalm84 (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is still a good deal of work to be done on this article before I would support a split. Having a rough size limit to work within encourages us to make decisions about what is essential and what is "frilly", or nice but not necessary. It's like working within a budget. And, if we can't do one page well, how will we do two, or three well? Recently some great headway has been made, and it would be good to see that come to fruition, rather than get sidetracked by a new project. I sometimes think a different workspace would help tremendously. For example, a space where we could map out the article, maintain a to do list, brainstorm, etc., before actually writing to it. (all this-- put it in; take it out; put it back in --stuff is frustrating for this new editor) ArishiaNishi (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The WP guidelines recommend splitting articles rather than removing content, though:
"The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This does not go on forever: very long articles would cause problems. So we move information out of articles periodically. In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we create new articles to hold the excised information," WP:SUMMARY.
Unneeded information shouldn't be included or should be removed, but there doesn't really seem to be much of that with this page. On the WP:Content removal page, this is how they describe "irrelevant" information:
"For example, if in the article tiger you find one or more paragraphs about light bulbs, and there is no explanation from the text why this is there, it should be removed."
Psalm84 (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose split because WP:SIZE says that "it MAY benefit the reader to consider moving to some sections..." and WP:SIZERULE allows for exceptions based on the scope of a topic. With the varied media response and claims made, all of which is notable and should be in this article, the scope of this article is large enough to keep it all in one article for now. If it begins to approach 100 kB of text, then a split would be in order - but not yet. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If it should be split, suggestions on how

The legal proceedings section could be moved. It's where most of the new information is going. Psalm84 (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

What is currently titled "Court proceedings" can go to an article titled "Court proceedings against George Zimmerman" Florida v. Zimmerman and everything below that can go to another article titled Public response to the shooting of Trayvon Martin, except the section titled '"Stand your ground" laws' which can stay, get transfered to the court proceedings article or even be put in both. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Turns out there is already an artice on the court case that is a stub. We just need to add to it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I filled in the sources and added the court section on that page. At my sandbox page is the STM page without the section and with the sources filled in. Some of the accounts of the shooting, like the prosecution's and the latest on GZ's, maybe should stay here. I do also wonder if before separating the pages there should be more commenting, or is the page large enough that it's clear that it should be done. Psalm84 (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support split of media coverage and public reaction; these aspects are notable in and of themselves and should have their own article. Minor4th 22:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This seems like the most logical split and I would support this as well. But, since this article has already spawned two separate stubs, Timeline of the shooting of Trayvon Martin and now Florida v. Zimmerman, what would the focus of this article be. I personally think it is too early for a split on the court proceedings.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Everything else :) Seriously, it could be a good and complete article with the information about the actual events, background and description of the players, witness accounts and the events leading to the charges. Also, there could remain brief descriptions of the public reaction and media portrayal, with a link to that new article for more detail. There should still be a section about court proceedings as well, but with a lot less detail and with a link to the main article about the court proceedings. Minor4th 00:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I also agree that the subheadings have gotten out of control. At first I thought it might be helpful to have more subheadings, but looking at the way it has turned out, I have changed my mind and think there should be significant consolidation of information and removal of headings. Minor4th 00:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with the 'eventual' split Minor4th proposes: actual events, background and description of the players, witness accounts and the events leading to the charges. Also, there could remain brief descriptions of the public reaction and media portrayal, with a link to that new article for more detail. ---With the exception of keeping the court proceedings in full here, and killing the Florida v Zimmerman (or whatever it's titled) stub. Cheers ArishiaNishi (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Background to the shooting

Need help with a source for the first sentence, second part; the first units were added to tax rolls in 2007. The source provided doesn't say that (anywhere I can find} it does support the first part of the sentence about 260 condo units. This was recently added, does anywhere remember where the source came from? BTW, the source for Zimmerman and Greene renting their units, says there was 263 units in the complex, minor discrepancy, but one to surely be pointed out by someone.

A word of caution about adding new text, but leaving the old references, please check them. There were four references provided for Zimmerman being "selected" as the coordinator, but three of them referred to him as "self-appointed". I removed those three, left the correct one and added another one to support "selected".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I did find the source for the tax rolls information. I'm not what happened that the source wasn't there. Psalm84 (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Information on Martin playing football with kids at Twin Lakes

I replaced this information in the article which seemed to be inadvertantly removed here: "was known for playing football with many of the young people when he visited there." It was there before the latest discussion on including all 3 suspensions, and it was also there after other information about Martin playing on a football team and wanting to go into aviation was removed. Should it be included again now? Psalm84 (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The key question is, "was known" by whom? If the "whom" did not include Zimmerman, it would seem irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
This is how the source, CJR.org, put it: "According to DeGregory, Trayvon Martin was known by many of the young people at Retreat at Twin Lakes because he played football with them when he visited." This detail seems useful because it says something about how Martin was connected to the neighborhood. Psalm84 (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
It's a humanizing detail about Martin and it's sourced. Just as relevant as similar details about Zimmerman. I think it should stay. What's the problem? Apostle12 (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Where is the Wikipedia policy on humanizing? If there's similar irrelevant detail on Zimmerman, it should go too. This article is already far too big and we haven't even reached the trial. Oh, and we actually have a tag which asks "By whom?" Should I add it? HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
It is ridiculous that there would be references in the article to Martin's football playing and not his suspensions for drugs, vandalism, and possession of burglary tools. MiamiManny (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't inadvertently removed. It was removed because the suspensions kept getting reverted as "irrelevant" and the football and aviation information is less notable and was from the same source. It makes no sense to leave out the most notable info about the suspensions but leave in less relevant, less notable info about playing football and aviation. Either we include information about the people or we don't, but we can't include only positive information and selectively keep out negative. Minor4th 07:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This sentence wasn't from the same source as the other football and aviation information. You also didn't remove it when you removed that information. It was removed by another editor later on. And with the information in the article about one suspension, some somewhat positive information doesn't seem out of place. Psalm84 (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
HiLo48, I think your focus is too narrow. If this article isn't a human tragedy, I don't know what is. The more accurate our perspective on the human beings involved, the better this article can become. Where does it say we can't build the article to provide this perspective? Truly don't understand your skewed attitude.
I think, since the editors are divided 50/50 on whether to include info on the suspensions, we should err on the side of inclusiveness. In other words, I think we should include info on the suspensions, as well as any other information that will communicate to readers who Martin was and who Zimmerman is. One editor objected that Martin's bio was too short; I agree, so let's fix it and stop messing around. Apostle12 (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Amen. I agree 100%. MiamiManny (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You ignored my point about the article already being too big. And I disagree with virtually everything else you wrote there. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
TS Apostle12 (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
That means nothing to me. It's a good thing I've given up trying to logically converse with this person. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm reverting the info out. We are not to "humanize" Martin according to how we wish to portray him. Either we give a complete description of what the reliable sources say, and that includes the suspensions, or we leave it all out. To selectively keep positive info and systematically revert out negative info violates NPOV. Minor4th 08:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You speak as if your opinion is "the last word" or otherwise authoritative. Pure posing; it's not.
Nevertheless we agree more than we disagree. We both want enough information in the article to provide a decent picture of the two main people in this drama, Zimmerman and Martin. "Article too long" or "not enough space" are specious arguments, since we could do it with less than 500 words. Don't understand those with a "keep it out" agenda. Apostle12 (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps rather than discussing "those", you could discuss their arguments. HiLo48 (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly how to write these bios sections is an interesting question. I'm not sure myself at the moment. I wish we could get advice from a professional biographer. One way we could do it is to include identical basic categories for each. Name, age, height, weight, race, where they lived, work/school, parents, and interests. (If I missed anything, add it and let's discuss.) Only positive neutral info. Then, if we are going to include problematic or negative information, that could go elsewhere. This would 'humanize' them without being pov. The idea of humanizing humans always makes me 0.o, since... don't we already feel empathy and compassion for all human beings by default? Maybe not. What do the rest of you think? ArishiaNishi (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As I have said before, I think any info (positive or negative) that fairly describes Zimmerman and Martin should be included. I do not understand NPOV objections based on a desire to exclude either positive or negative information; the real problem would be if there were a purposeful attempt to demonize either party or create an otherwise imbalanced presentation of the facts--in other words, sensationalism. The article has never suffered from that problem.
This article mainly concerns two human beings. How we can pretend the article is a good one without discussing who they were (are) is beyond me. Who they were (are) is directly relevant to the topic of the article, despite assertions to the contrary. I don't get why this has become so controversial. Apostle12 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The first issue that jumps to my mind with adequately describing 'who these two people are' is the observer effect. Secondly, it's a huge responsibility to describe another human being. Would you want me to explain who you are to others? People are just too precious and too complicated for any one of us to take that responsibility lightly. That's why I think we should avoid the attempt, and list basic biographical info. in the bio, and nothing else. In other sections like background to the incident, the trial, etc. information that passes the tests of BOP can be introduced. ArishiaNishi (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Apostle12, I have a very serious suggestion for you. Leave this topic alone for a while and spend some time caring for other articles on Wikipedia. Your contribution history shows that almost all your posts in at least the past two months have been on this article. You are in no position to suggest what is normal or should be normal for a Wikipedia article. So, please broaden your experience. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Funny, I don't recall soliciting your advice. In any case, my experience is hardly limited to this one article. Apostle12 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Watch yourself with regard to WP:NPA. You are shooting too soon at a target you have misidentified. Apostle12 is a veteran editor with much experience on high visibility articles including ones that are FA level. Your accusation is dead wrong and this personal vector is going to produce nothing positive. Rein it in, pardner. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
My observation is accurate. My guess at an explanation for behaviour (something I do all the time as a high school teacher) may be wrong. Can you explain the narrow focus and unusual perspective, eg. "humanization"? (My recommendation still stands.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
A high school teacher...well then, we must all stand at attention!Apostle12 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Binksternet for your kind words; though we sometimes disagree, I appreciate the mutual respect we have developed during many years of collaborative editing.Apostle12 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, FFS, drop the public love-in and get a room you two. Is there an explanation for your obsession with this article, and your determination to "humanize" Martin? I do hope you have read Nil Einne's post below re this NOT being a biographical article. That's really the point here. This article is about a shooting death. Things not relevant to that event really should be questioned. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
How unfortunate.Apostle12 (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Without commenting on the specific proposals at hand, I would again remind editors there is a reason we don't have biographical articles on either participant and we should always bear this in mind when writing, and in particular, not turn this article into the equivalent of a biographical article for either participant. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
A few sentences devoted to letting readers know who Zimmerman is, and who Martin was, hardly constitutes "turn(ing) this article into the equivalent of a biographical article." Apostle12 (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you give an example of the few sentences that you think would let the readers know who Trayvon Martin was/is, and likewise for George Zimmerman? Maybe we are having a communication problem here with phrases of the form 'let readers know who (someone) is'. The story of the blind man and the elephant comes to mind. Also, this discussion might be more appropriate on one of our talk pages? ArishiaNishi (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

age of him in photographs, and was one doctored?

How old is he in the photograph protestors keep showing? That information should be under where the image is in the article. Also, was that image doctored to make his skin lighter and smoother in appearance? Dream Focus 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No reliable source has suggested this photo was doctored. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Shorter heavier

Near the end of the lead of the section Shooting and investigation, I propose making the following change of adding "shorter heavier" along with supporting ref.

Propose changing from,

After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman took place which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.

to

After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a confrontation between Martin and the shorter heavier Zimmerman took place,[1] and ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.

  1. ^ Robles, Frances (3 Jul 2012). "Doctor: George Zimmerman had black eyes, broken nose but no head trauma". McClatchyDC.com. McClatchy Newspapers. Retrieved 2012-07-07. Zimmerman was much shorter than the nearly 6-foot Martin, but was 45 pounds heavier.

A good reason for adding this comparison of Zimmerman's size to Martin's was given by the above ref, "Zimmerman's size compared to Martin's has been a heated topic of discussion both in court and the blogosphere, as people on opposite sides of the controversial issue debate who had the upper hand during the altercation." --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

I think it needs its own sentence and it needs to be stated in more neutral terms, like "Besides the difference in race, the relative age, height, and weight of the two has been debated in the media." The actual differences between them are kind of subjective. Trayvon weighed less, but he was taller and younger, but not that much taller, and not so young he would be frail (that's my own synth, by the way), and George was heavier, but he was also shorter and older, but again, not that much shorter, and not so old he would be weak. We have no idea how much in shape either person was, how trained or untrained they were at fighting, etc, so really it is hard to say much about this other than just like everything else, it leads us to no real conclusion. -- Avanu (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included in this section at all because it cannot be presented in a neutral manner. In the section above, we give the height and weight of Martin and Zimmerman, as well as their ages. If there is a conclusion to be drawn from their relative ages, weights, and heights, then the reader can draw that conclusion without our reminding them here of the disparity. Does being older, shorter and heavier translate to meaning one has an advantage or disadvantage in hand to hand combat? We can't say either way, so there's no justification in adding that information to the neutral and factual recitation of events in this section. If there is notable commentary about their age/height/weight differences then maybe that could be discussed in the media or public reaction section. Even so, I would urge caution because the sources conflict remarkably in their reporting of these individuals' height and weight. Minor4th 04:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Minor4th. If you put it in, it implies something; it's just too ambiguous.Apostle12 (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Their height and weight are listed in their bios, I thought that was the whole point of putting that info in there, was for comparison. You don't normally expect to see someone's height and weight listed as a detail of their biography. I think the present sentence is more neutral than giving one of them a descriptive detail like "shorter and heavier". Regardless of how tall either one was or how much they weighed, it ended with Zimmerman shooting Martin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Martin family and the news media made the physical differences between Martin and Zimmerman a notable part of this case as it was played out in the court of public opinion. The early discussions of the case gave Martin's weight as 140 lbs, with pictures of Martin as a pre-teen, based on material released to the news media by both the PR firm and the legal firm hired by his parents, with news media playing up the public domain 2005 booking info giving Zimmerman's weight as 250 lbs. A big deal was made in the media that the 2005 Zimmerman outweighed the 2008 Martin by 100 lbs, to question the credibility of his claim that Martin attacked him and put him in fear of life or limb. In 2012, Martin was a 17-year old 5'11" 158lb football player and Zimmerman was a 28-y.o. 5'9" 180lb insurance adjuster. The physical differences between Martin and Zimmerman have been made a notable part of this case, "Shooting of Trayvon Martin", whether or not it would be a detail of a Trayvon Martin biography. --Naaman Brown (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your points, I just think that it needs to be discussed on its own in the article, rather than during the narrative of the events. Neither of these two men thought they were about to encounter a life-changing event. So the idea that one guy is a little heavier or taller or whatever is kind of pointless right there, unless we are the bard of the inn trying to regale the crowd. -- Avanu (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The point is whether or not the sentence should be changed to include a physical description of one and not the other. We should aim for a NPOV when describing the altercation between the two participants and not single one out for a physical descriptive detail. What the news media, the PR firm and legal firm did is a separate issue. BTW, in 2012, Martin was not a football player.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and I appreciate the effort that went into forming them. One thing I see is that this proposal is controversial with respect to the editors here, with most if not all of those responding so far not liking it. However, the issue of size difference between Zimmerman and Martin has received significant coverage in the media, mostly with Zimmerman portrayed as being much larger than Martin because of their weight differences. Although you may not like the proposed addition of "shorter heavier" in the Shooting and investigation section, I think the ref makes another comment that may be acceptable to most if not all of you, if it is put in the Public response section of the article. Please comment on whether or not to put the info from the following excerpt of the previous ref into the public response section.

"Zimmerman's size compared to Martin's has been a heated topic of discussion both in court and the blogosphere, as people on opposite sides of the controversial issue debate who had the upper hand during the altercation."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the concept, especially if you can find additional sources that make your point. Perhaps cite different sources that portray their heights and weights differently than what we eventually found out was accurate. I have said it before, I think the media coverage of this case is notable in and of itself and should have its own article. Minor4th 18:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify your position regarding the above quote in my last message, would it be acceptable to you to put the above sourced quote into the Public response section of the article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe what Naamon Brown said (above) is relevant. The media story about who was bigger, stronger, heavier, more athletic and fit, short and stocky, tall and thin would be difficult to contain in a short "Public response" blurb. And the problem remains--no one can say with any certainty whether Zimmerman or Martin had the upper hand based on their physical differences alone. I favor keeping everything the way it is, along with their physical descriptions. This will allow readers to evaluate the public discourse (along with various assertions, back and forth) from their own perspectives. Apostle12 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Your comment seems to be about the original proposal, not this alternate one which you haven't really addressed. Here again is the quote from the reliable source that I suggest we incorporate in the Public response section, in case you may not have seen it.
"Zimmerman's size compared to Martin's has been a heated topic of discussion both in court and the blogosphere, as people on opposite sides of the controversial issue debate who had the upper hand during the altercation."[1]
--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how their different sizes has been a "heated topic of discussion in court". I don't recall the judge mentioning it when he found probable cause to charge Zimmerman. I don't recall the judge mentioning it at Zimmerman's first bond hearing, or in his order to revoke bond or his order setting his second bond. It's not mentioned in Zimmerman's account of events or his recorded interviews or in the prosecution's account of events. I do get what you are saying about the media's initial portrayal of them, but I don't understand how the court is involved in this "controversial issue debate".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, no mention so far in court. Though it wouldn't surprise me if the issue resurfaces at trial. Apostle12 (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Isaidnoway, Regarding your question, I wouldn't know where it appeared in court. Sorry, I'm just going by the reliable source. Perhaps you would have more confidence in the source if I mentioned that the author's works have been cited 26 times in this Wikipedia article. Aside from your not remembering or not knowing whether it was discussed in court, do you have any other evidence that the "court" part of the quote from the reliable source is wrong? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
So far, we have Isaidnoway not recalling whether it was discussed in court; Apostle12 saying it was not mentioned in court; and a reliable source definitely saying that it was discussed in court. Since Isaidnoway doesn't know, and I have know reason to believe that Apostle12 has any better knowledge in this regard than Isaidnoway, I think the quote from the reliable source would improve the article and should be added. Of course, under the circumstances I wouldn't be able to add the info alone without it being reverted, so if there are any editors out there in silent agreement with me, please speak up. Otherwise I won't waste any more of my time or anyone else's. Thanks.
"Zimmerman's size compared to Martin's has been a heated topic of discussion both in court and the blogosphere, as people on opposite sides of the controversial issue debate who had the upper hand during the altercation."[2]
--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I stand corrected, Zimmerman's attorney introduced a picture from the 7-11 video footage to show Trayvon Martin's size in comparison to the clerk and how he did look with the hoodie. He went on to say it does stand in stark contrast to the pictures that have been out there, the airbrushed photographs. The judge interrupts him to say that I think you want me to rely on record evidence, right, just saying, there's so much out there in the community, about this stuff and what's going on, but when it comes down to this, you want me to rely upon evidence. So, if this is what the RS (and you apparently) consider a "heated topic of discussion in court" on comparing Trayvon Martin's size to a 7-11 clerk, I really don't see how it is an improvement to this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, you found one example. Perhaps there are more that you don't know about. I appreciate your honesty and personal analysis, but you know that we go by reliable sources, not personal analysis and not trying to read the minds of authors of reliable sources. So you also don't know what the author took into account for the comment. Oh, and on a previous comment of yours that "shorter heavier" only refers to Zimmerman, that's not true. It's referring to both Martin and Zimmerman as a comparison of the two. If you like, we could say that Martin was taller and Zimmerman was heavier, if that makes a difference for you. In any case, I won't fight you on any of the additions I suggested. My suggestions are there for you or anyone else here to use, modify, or not use, as desired. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. Maybe another editor will take up your offer. I prefer not to use false information in an article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect you to do otherwise if that's what you feel. To complete your comment regarding the court discussion, could you give a link to the court transcript that you were referring to? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This belongs more in the media bias/criticism sections, not in the narrative of the events of that night. The media had claimed zimmerman was about 250 pounds and trayvon was something like 120 pounds or something. Both figures being completely fallacious, like much of the early media coverage of the case.Whatzinaname (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this alternate proposal was for the Public response section, not for the narrative of the events of that night. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Other than the gunshot wound of course, Martin had no injuries other than the bruises on his knuckles from beating Zimmerman senseless. Zimmerman had significant injuries. So, you can just say Martin had the upper hand, the stronger of the opponents. Zimmerman was the one screaming for help obviously since he was the one being beaten down, not able to land a decent hit on the kid attacking him. Dream Focus 02:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Quotes taken from this article: The autopsy also found that Martin had one small abrasion on his left ring finger below the knuckle.
The discovery documents include FBI reports stating that analysts were unable to determine whose voice is heard crying out for help in 911 calls, citing poor audio quality and the “extreme emotional state” of the person screaming.
Zimmerman was offered three chances to be taken to the hospital, but Zimmerman declined each time, according to police reports released by the prosecution. (emphasis added)-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Isaidnoway, are you trying to revive the patently false claim that Zimmerman was not injured?Apostle12 (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so; he's just correcting a series of factual errors or misstatements in the previous post. One small abrasion below one of Martin's knuckles ≠ "bruises on his knuckles from beating Zimmerman". Analysts unable to determine whose voice yelled for help ≠ "Zimmerman was the one screaming for help obviously". Et cetera. MastCell Talk 23:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Right...all to the good. I was referring to the inclusion, with emphasis added, of Zimmerman's declining three chances to go to the hospital. Apostle12 (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Zimmerman being "beat senseless" and had "significant injuries" and "being beaten down" is the kind of rhetoric that indicates a visit to the E.R. is warranted, but yet he didn't think his injuries were "significant" enough to go to the hospital. There is no doubt there was an altercation between the two and Zimmerman substained injuries, we have evidence of his injuries. But if Zimmerman concluded that he didn't need to go to the E.R. that night, then why the rhetoric and hyperbole in the editor's comments.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I see; your clarification makes perfect sense. I believe the editor's point (however poorly stated) was that Zimmerman, when Martin allegedly was pounding his head against the concrete, felt physically overmatched at that moment. According to the rules of self-defense, if Zimmerman believed his life was in danger, and especially if he thought Martin was going for his weapon, he was justified in using the weapon to defend himself. After the altercation was over, it does not surprise me that Zimmerman felt it unnecessary to go to the hospital; in fact this can be a symptom of dazed thinking--I once refused to be taken to the hospital after a serious auto accident, even though it turned out I had a concussion and was certainly in danger. I think it would be difficult to make a case, based on the superficialities of Martin's and Zimmerman's differing physical descriptions, that either necessarily had the upper hand. Apostle12 (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right in that what matters is what Zimmerman thought "at that moment", and obviously that is what he will have to argue for his case of self-defense, but I think the prosecution will try to make a big deal out of the fact he didn't think "afterwards" his injuries were life-threatening enough to warrant a trip to the E.R., which actually is irrelevant as to to what he thought at the moment it was happening.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the question of who was yelling, so far the only scenario in any RS that I've seen, has been where Zimmerman is yelling for help while Martin has him pinned down, since it was from Zimmerman's account. Although some or all in Martin's family believe it was Martin yelling for help, has there been any account in an RS that gives a scenario, hypothetical or otherwise, where Martin would be yelling for help? If so, it might be a good addition to the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
One audio expert concluded it was not Zimmerman and therefore had to be Martin, however a colleague working with the same forensic evidence disagreed, concluding that it was Zimmerman who was yelling; overall it was inconclusive. The prosecution's Affidavit of Probable Cause relies on Martin's mother for voice identification; conflicting testimony (early, negative testimony by Martin's father and positive testimony by Zimmerman's father) is ignored. Apostle12 (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Experts Tom Owen and Edward Primeau, who are listed as potential prosecution witnesses, concluded that the screams did not come from Zimmerman. That information has been reduced to half a sentence in the article with no mention of their conclusions. Expert Alan Reich concluded that it is Martin pleading for his life, and expert James Ryan concluded that "it’s hard to scientifically say anything definitive with audio like this".[3] And their conclusions have been totally removed from the article. So, what remains is Zimmerman's assertion that it was him, mentioned 4 or 5 times in the article, while Martin's mother gets a weak assertion that it was her son in the prosecution's account, which has now been edited to include Zimmerman's relatives as well. It would seem the consensus among the editor's is that Zimmerman's claim is more relevant than Martin's mothers claim.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a general comment, the remarks about the tape can be grouped into those of Martin's and Zimmerman's families in one group, and others who tried to use technical analysis in another group. Zimmerman's testimony that it was he yelling for help is referring to the incident, not the tape. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

possible additions to public reactions section

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-memorial-trayvon-martin-20120710,0,2499570.story Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 3

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved, again consensus is unclear here and until the variety of possible titles editors are proposing is narrowed to a clear choice, consensus is unlikely. As long as the content in the article reflects sources and the current situation accurately, the current title remains valid and redirects can deal with the alternatives Mike Cline (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


Shooting of Trayvon Martin → Death of Trayvon Martin – Three months after the last move request, I think we may want to revisit the issue to directly compare the two most popular options from the last request. That discussion was a bit muddled, involving the status quo name and three four alternatives; some editors found the format confusing and misplaced votes. Votes for Shooting of Trayvon Martin were split evenly; a majority of editors who responded to the Death of Trayvon Martin were supportive of that name. I'll summarize some of those arguments: It fits WP:NAMINGCRITERIA well, especially in terms of conciseness and consistency with many other "Death of" articles. Martin was not just shot; he died, and had he not died, it's likely the event would have been much less high profile. "Death of" better represents the whole scope of the article, whereas the shooting itself was, in many ways, just the beginning. Finally, while Google hits aren't a great tool in these cases, "trayvon martin death -wikipedia" beats "trayvon martin shooting -wikipedia" 84.9 million to 55.2 million. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

*Support rename toShooting Death of Trayvon Martin Minor4th 23:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I wonder why? Is there a policy consideration or is it just a matter of preference? I think it's the most suitable title. Or possibly Fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin. Those are most descriptive. Minor4th 00:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It is likely an interpretation of WP:PRECISION ("Be precise, but only as precise as necessary.") In this case, Martin only died once so there is no reason to clarify the modus of his death in the title. The article can do that. —  AjaxSmack  00:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it's partially that and partially WP:NAMINGCRITERIA's "Consistency" point, "Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles." Doesn't mean you can never create an article with a novel name structure, just that it's discouraged when there are existing patterns to follow. --BDD (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support change to Shooting death of Trayvon Martin or in the alternative, Fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support "The Death of Trayvon Martin" for the reasons put forth in the request. It's simple, it conforms to convention, and it's easily searchable. The mechanism of death is well covered in the article. ArishiaNishi (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support"Fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin." It is not so much Martin's death (lots of people die) as the manner of his death that makes this event notable. Apostle12 (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The shooting aspect is not why this case is notable. Martin could have been stabbed or hit with Zimmerman's car and the episode would have virtually garnered the same notability. It is the racial implications that drove this story to the national discourse. It is widely thought Zimmerman may be racist and racially profiled Martin triggering the fatal events of that night.--Ziggypowe (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
If it is the 'racism' that makes it notable then why not call it "The night of racism, where a not-quite-white guy stalked a black kid"? The claims of racism drove this to international prominence, but most of our reliable sources have indicated that it is highly unlikely that George was any more racist toward black people than most black people are toward other black people. -- Avanu (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
"The night of racism, where a not-quite-white guy stalked a black kid"? This does not describe the notable factor in the events of that night, the fact that Martin was killed. Particularly, by a presumed racist. Hypothetically speaking, say Martin was a common thug and attacked Zimmerman for no sound reason and Zimmerman justifiably shot Martin in self defense. If such was true, do you believe this story would be nearly as notable? Or would it be notable just because Martin was shot? So again, it is the racial implications that drove this story to the national discourse and made it infamous.--Ziggypowe (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, this is a bit of a red-herring. We can look at the reasons for why it rose to international prominence, from a Sanford officer's child attacking a homeless man just a few months prior, and historical racism, that the police either took Zimmerman's word for it or relied on the stand your ground law, the likelyhood that Trayvon was behaving and dressed like young men who had recently committed burglaries, and so he might have been legitimately 'profiled', etc. But it is neither a neutral or a reasonable point of view to rename the article with anything that relates to this, although I could easily see a news story titled: "The Trayvon Martin Story: Race relations in modern America". You've got a lot of elements wrapped into one story, which is probably part of its interest for people. -- Avanu (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It should be "Death of." Too much emphasis on the shooting aspect. If Martin was stabbed instead of shot, would you call the article "Stabbing of Trayvon Martin," "Stabbing death of Trayvon Martin," or "Fatal Stabbing of Trayvon Martin?" I don't believe you would. I would not.--Ziggypowe (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, I would. The shooting aspect IS important to a lot of people, because it has to do with Zimmerman being armed serving in a Neighborhood Watch capacity. Of course we know he wasn't on duty 2-26-12, just running a private errand. Just to be clear, favor "Fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin," not "Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin." Apostle12 (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose — "Death" seems too tame for the violence of the incident, which is brought out much better with "shooting". At first sight, "death" could mean from illness, accident, etc. One could argue that at first sight, "shooting" does not necessarily mean he died. Choosing between the two, I think "shooting" better fits the topic. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - in this case the shooting is as notable as the fatal outcome. Death of Trayvon Martin sounds too passive and not descriptive enough for this article, which is mostly concerned with the circumstances of the shooting. If the name is changed, it should be Fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin or Shooting death of Trayvon Martin or something similar that keeps the reference to the "shooting." Minor4th 21:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Agree with Minor4th, but also I don't like the phrasing "shooting death"... sounds like "shooting pain". While not every shooting ends in death, if you told someone a guy got shot, they would probably think death right off the bat, rather than thinking, "well, that's not so bad". Trayvon dying is not the central focus of the tale here. George shooting him is. -- Avanu (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose name change as proposed. Looking at similar articles that begin with Death of ..., those tend to be about subjects that are notable for more than the circumstances of their death: e.g. Death of John Lennon. There are other articles beginning with Shooting of ... or The shooting of ... in which the subject is notable only because of the shooting itself: e.g. Shooting of Kayla Rolland and Shooting of Hosie Miller. In maintaining consistency of article naming, this article is appropriately named and should not be renamed, although I would also support renaming to Fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin or Shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Minor4th 23:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Point well taken, as Martin is only known for the fact he was shot and his death.--Ziggypowe (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Death of" is too passive. Somebody pulled a gun and pulled a trigger, shooting Martin. I think the active sense of "Shooting of" better fits the topic. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose the name change as formally proposed. Agree with Binksternet (above) that "Death of" is too passive. This is why I think "Fatal Shooting of Trayvon Martin" would be the most appropriate title. Apostle12 (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is supposed to emulate an encyclopedia. Would you expect to open an encyclopedia and find this event under "fatal shooting...", or "death of" no because there is no other shooting/death of a trayvon martin to confuse it with. Further, no one searching for information on the shooting will be ignorant of the fact it was a fatal shooting. Hence it's unencyclopedic and superfluous. Also, it just seems to be a "change for change's sake" -- something we are also not supposed to do at wikipedia. Depending on the court case it be compelling to change it "murder of", but that's a discussion for a different time, if ever. Whatzinaname (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Any chance we could change the proposed name change to "Fatal Shooting of Trayvon Martin"? Apostle12 (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose move - The current title seems a good balance of description, precision, and concision. Anyone having heard about the incident will recognize the title, and redirects can be used to direct traffic in from the alternate wordings. VQuakr (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Note for closing admin Some of these support and oppose votes seem to be supporting or opposing names other than the change proposed. This is turning out to be more like the last requested move than I had hoped. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move to 'Fatal shooting of' or 'Shooting death of' Per Isaidnoway and others. Sorry that it's still muddy, but I have always and still believe that we need both the shooting and the fact that it was a death in the title. I slightly prefer "Fatal shooting", but would be fine with "Shooting death" which no longer sounds awkward to me. Also, I think that it would have been appropriate and courteous for editors who have been actively engaged in this article to be notified on their talk pages that this discussion was happening again. That is not canvassing, as long as people on all sides of an issue are notified. There are a lot of editors who have a long and deep edit history here, and as one of them, I would have liked to be notified. Tvoz/talk 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose move - Current title is succinct. No need to go for a longer title. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move because it's more neutral. In American English (and for Americans reading U.S. newspapers, the term "shooting" tends to imply an unethical act. The current title obscures the fact that there is controversy over whether the shooting was (1) justified because it was in self-defense or (2) unethical (either because Martin wasn't really attacking anyone and someone merely "pulled a gun on him" for no good reason, or because "everyone knows" that whenever an unarmed man is shot there's never a good reason for it). --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Please keep "Shooting of Trayvon Martin." The title describes in essence what happened the night of February 26. Trayvon did not died in a car accident, or poisoned, he was unarmed, walking the street under the rain, talking over his cellular phone and he was killed with a gun. Circulo de Lectura, July 11, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circulo de Lectura (talk • contribs) 06:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Martin certainly was not killed with a gun while he was "walking the street under the rain, talking over his cellular phone." He was shot while involved in a violent altercation with George Zimmerman, an altercation he may very well have initiated. A jury will need to decide who initiated the altercation; at present we do not know. If Martin initiated it, and if the violent beating Zimmerman suffered is deemed to have been life-threatening, we will know that Martin was killed because Zimmerman was defending himself from Martin's thuggery. Apostle12 (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
"... "everyone knows" that whenever an unarmed man is shot there's never a good reason for it" In 2010 over 800 murders in the US were with "personal weapons" eg, hands or feet, technically by unarmed assailants. --Naaman Brown (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Death could mean anything (heart attack, stroke, suicide, drug overdose, any sort of accident in which he maybe fell or was cut or smashed to pieces, or dying from a disease). The current name is much more discriptive about what happened and should be kept. United States Man (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Significant new discovery dump

Some key items getting bubbled up in the media  :

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

  • Serino says Zimmerman has "hero complex" but "not racist"
    • Serino tells FBI that gang members in area "dress in black and wear hoodies"
    • Note the report, media, and myself are not making any claims regarding Martin's choice of clothing here, not intended to imply he was involved with the gangs - merely that suspicious by Zimmerman was based on attire

Zimmerman's neighbors and coworkers say he was not a racist, and according to CNN "Many of Zimmerman's neighbors, whose identities are redacted, told federal agents they did not know him. Those who did had nothing derogatory to say about him"

  • New audio between dispatch and police released, including description of Martin passed to police, and dispatcher relaying reports of gunshots
  • interviews with police from Zimmerman's earlier assault incident
  • interviews with zimmerman's ex-fiance who had the restraining order
  • photos of Martin's hoodie, and a second sweatshirt he was apparently wearing under the hoodie, both with bloodstains

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/12/2892510/more-evidence-released-in-zimmerman.html

  • Serino tells FBI he was pressured to make charges though he felt there was not sufficient evidence, accuses dept of media leaks
  • Different spin/editing on serinos statements re zimmerman repeating he was not racist, but seemed scripted
  • A witness told prosecutors that her son, a minor, had felt pressured by Sanford Police to say the injured man he saw was wearing a red top. The boy’s testimony is considered critical, because it backed up *Zimmerman’s allegation that he — wearing red — was being pummeled.
  • The day Zimmerman turned himself in to be charged with second-degree murder, authorities confiscated a handgun from his car.
  • A gun dealer told police that some time in mid-March, Zimmerman called to say he was afraid for his life and “needed more guns.”
  • A police sergeant on duty at the station the night Trayvon was killed said he didn’t notice any injury to Zimmerman’s nose, but said he was “grunting as if in pain.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/12/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE86B1AD20120712

  • repetition of Serinos description of local gang members wearing clothing similar to Martins. Serino says gang members call themselves "goons". (possible name of gang? or just a nickname?)\
    • Note the report, media, and myself are not making any claims regarding Martin's choice of clothing here, not intended to imply he was involved with the gangs - merely that suspicious by Zimmerman was based on attire
  • Zimmerman saying he needs more guns because his life is in danger
  • Some descriptions of "brutish" behavior by zimmerman described by ex-fiance
    • Somewhat in conflict with description from above)
  • Some [confusing to me] descriptions of if zimerman had eye contact/communication with neigbors just prior to shooting, and reactions just after


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/documents_from_trayvon_martin_case_PjYavZahwYa8Va6r1umLyM

  • Zimmerman had cuts on head minutes after shooting
  • Officer tried to use plastic bag to stop Martin's bleeding

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/12/more-documents-released-in-trayvon-martin-case/

  • six calls in 9 months from zimmeman to police
  • described in article as "increasing frustration with suspects getting away"
  • report of a recording of a previous incident where Zimmerman wants to follow suspect but is stopped by wife
    • I heard this recording on TV this morning, so the audio is available as well
  • Ex fiance says zimmerman had temper, somtimes exacerbated by acne medicine. Threatened suicide by pills/driving into lake

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57471108-504083/trayvon-martin-case-sanford-police-gave-different-accounts-of-george-zimmermans-injuries-documents-say/

  • Police gave conflicting reports of zimmermans injuries

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-shooter-george-zimmerman-called-overzealous-soft/story?id=16762044

  • ex-fiance says zimmerman hit her in the mouth for chewing gum, and kicked a dog

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/More-George-Zimmerman-Case-Documents-to-Be-Released-162190305.html???

  • Plagarized quote cause I don't want to retype it
    • Also included is an FBI interview with Sanford Police Sgt. Arthur Barns, an African-American officer who has been with the department for 25 years.According to the report, Barns said the number one crime in Sanford is burglaries, and said they have been an issue in the area of the Retreat at Twin Lakes."Barns believes the African American Community would be in an 'uproar' if ZIMMERMAN is not charged. The community will be satisfied if an arrest takes place. As for the civil rights investigation, if it is determined to be a violation of Trayvon Martin's civil rights then it will reflect negatively on the Sanford Police Department and fingers will be pointed at them for not doing their job properly. Barns feels the community is at a 50/50 split whether it was a hate crime or not," the report said. "Barns felt the shooting was not racially motivated, but it was a man shooting an un-armed kid."


And possibly for the media reactions section

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw that information about Serino being pressured and just added something about it.Psalm84 (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The primary source for all the above stories

http://www.local10.com/blob/view/-/15491178/data/1/-/14w3bvp/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Some personal oservations from the primary

  • Tons of the reports from police on the scene are mentioning an asian male, who provided the plastic bags to try and stop bleeding, an was inside the crime scene tape. anyone know who this is?
  • According to interview with Officer Tim Smith Zimmerman's gun was not removed from him until the police station!
  • Smith says zimmerman bleeding from nose, had head cleaned with peroxide at scene, complained of headaches, declined "rescue", did not observe any bruising of hands, was wet on back had grass on him
  • Martin's wound described as "Sucking chest wound", which explains the plastic bag references in above stories
  • various conflicting neighbor statements about who they thought was on top, primarily based on size it seems
    • several witnesses describe "guy with white shirt" on top.
      • Neither was wearing a white shirt?
  • some details about Zimmerman not returning calls from his previous attorneys, and the attorneys working with police to try and get in contact
  • When Martin's father listened to the "help" recording  : was in a daze, and could not give full attention, could not identify, did not say it was not martin
  • Much better description of how neighborhood watch got started : zimmerman went around gathering signatures to start watch, someone called police to report/ask about it, officer wendy dorival attended HOA meeting on 9/22/11, gave presentation on watch program, 50 in attendance, Zimmerman elected as "comitte chairman", said "you watch, do not take action"
  • slightly different version of same story, saying 25 were there, and HOA elected him as watch captain



Gaijin42 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

More primary stuff

  • Zimmerman interview on 27th
    • Zimmerman's "personal errand" on the night of the shooting was going to Target for groceries.
    • Zimmerman describes martin as "Fidgety tall guy"
    • "do you have a problem motherfucker"
    • zimmerman claims to have made eye contact with several witnesses while under martin, who said they would call 911
    • martin put hand over zimmermans mouth/nose
    • martin felt/saw gun while on top, and reached, zimmerman slapped hand away, drew, fired
    • martin says "you got it ok, you got it" after being shot (last words?)
  • Claims of abuse towards zimmerman by his mother/family
  • paramemeidc on scene describes zimmerman as "covered by a significant amount of blood on face and back of head"
  • lacerations on head, possible broken nose
  • cause of death "gunshot wound to chest", type of death "homicide" - might resolve some earlier debates if they come up again
  • detailed autopsy findings on path of bullet etc.
  • several surveilance cameras which covered relevant areas of the neighborhood were not recording at the time (described as not operational).
  • clubhouse surveilance was recording
  • news stories reporting zimmerman buying additional guns and afraid for life, are refering to a new gun bought after the incident (which was in his car at time of arrest)
  • In earlier zimmerman assault arrest, officer flashed badge at zimmerman prior to being shoved

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Details on gangs from primary, from gang taskforce leader

  • 3 gangs in area using name "Goons"
  • 14th street goons - blue and black colors, all black members
  • washington oaks goons - affiliated with bloods, all black except one white member
  • midway goons, all black
  • also hispanic gang , the surenos
  • known for wearing hoodies and multiple sweatshirts
  • no known gang activity in retreat at twin lakes

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


I've just started watching these, but that story at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/12/more-documents-released-in-trayvon-martin-case/ was an example of lousy journalism, particularly a point where the smugly smiling woman, Meg Strickler, says that Trayvon Martin is a "skinny little kid, not as big as Mr. Zimmerman, not even in way shape or form." We've gone over the evidence here at Wikipedia and based on that, Martin was lighter and thinner, but he was also taller. We don't know how in shape either of them was, and we don't know what sort of experience either of them had in fighting. Her attitude in the video is strange, especially for a criminal defense attorney. The man arguing with her, Mark Eiglarsh, is asking where the evidence is, and she seems smugly unconcerned about that. Personally I think she is simply using this interview as a stepping board for more clients who will see her as a sympathetic attorney. -- Avanu (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Question on who was on top

Is there any possible chance Zimmerman could get the bloody injuries on the back of his head, if he was on top? How would that be possible? He would've had to be the guy on the ground getting beat, and his head slamming against the ground. Did the police reports, anything about this investigation, mention that yet? Is there any doubt it was Martin on top? And can't they detect the angle the gun was fired at? If he was on the ground firing upward, they'd be able to tell. Dream Focus 15:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Re "I notice it getting mentioned in the discussion above." — The difference is that it was mentioned there in discussing a source that might be used in the article. So far you're just expressing your opinion and inviting discussion of the subject, just like one would do in a forum. Please note the banner at the top of the page and stop. Thanks.
On the other hand, if you are asking for any reliable sources regarding the topics you mentioned, instead of inviting a forum discussion, that would be OK. Is that what you meant? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

9-1-1 screams, yelling out for help

I see Isaidnoway is adding some info about the screams, primarily backing the Martin side. I have no problem with this, but I think we should present the evidence to the contrary as well. Martin's father said it was not his voice, Zimmermans family has said it was Zimmermans voice, and other audio experts have come up with inconclusive or contradictory results. You can't just cherry pick one side of the evidence for the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Martin's father saying it was not his voice was already in the article, Zimmerman's family saying it was Zimmerman's voice was already in the article. Martin's mother identifying the screams was part of the probable cause affidavit that was already in the article. Newly released discovery about the cousin reported by a RS was just put in. So, I really don't get where you are coming from about cherry picking one side when all of the information you mention was already in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
On further review, I agree with you completely. I saw your additions, and when I read that section I had thought everything regarding the call was together, so when I didn't see that info, I raised my concern. I have subsequently re-read the entire article, and agree there is sufficient balanced coverage of this issue throughout the article. I do however agree with the concern raised below about confirmation bias, and that reogranizing this info may be helpful. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that recent edits to the "Prosecution's account of events" section gives undue weight to the Martin side. In the "Zimmerman's account of events" section, opposing statements are included; that should be true for the both sections, especially with regard to the screams. Apostle12 (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now reinstated the following section which was improperly deleted from the article during the last month. Unfortunately the individual edits take so long to download (more than 1 minute) that I cannot trace when this section disappeared. It is well-sourced and should appear in both "Zimmerman's account of events" and "Prosecution's account of events."

Independent experts vary in their interpretations of the low-quality audio of the phone recordings.[1] The FBI was not able to determine whether it was Zimmerman or Martin who could be heard crying out for help in 911 calls, citing both poor audio quality and "the extreme emotional state of the person screaming."[2][3]

Until a short time ago (again I find it difficult to trace when things changed), the article had a section called "Voice Recordings," which I believe should be reinstated. In this section all of the voice evidence, both pro-Zimmerman and pro-Martin, should appear. Then we could put a note, both in the "Zimmerman's account of events" and in the "Prosecution's account of events" section, directing them to the full collection of statements by experts, the FBI, Martin's relatives and Zimmerman's relatives--this would eliminate redundancy and ensure that readers are exposed to the full range of statements and opinions on this matter. The bottom line is that there is little agreement on this issue, another matter to be decided by the jury when the case goes to trial.

Out of time, can't do more until later. Needs work. Apostle12 (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A case could be made that this is a case where full redundancy is justified. The source of the screams heard on the audiotapes, either Zimmerman or Martin, is so controversial, and so important, that a full rendition of reliably sourced evidence may be necessary in both the "Zimmerman..." and "Prosecution...", sections, perhaps presenting the pro-Zimmerman info first in the "Zimmerman..." section and the pro-Martin info first in the "Prosecution..." section. We must avoid prejudicing either point of view. REALLY out of time now!Apostle12 (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) Officer Smith heard Zimmerman say, "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me". (Sanford police investigation section). (2) The police determined that Zimmerman yelled for help at least 14 times in a 38 second span. (Sanford police investigation section). (3) A witness to the confrontation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help. (Witness accounts section). (4) One eye witness statement given the night of the shooting describes a black male, wearing a dark colored hoodie on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help. (witness accounts section). (5) Zimmerman said he called out for help while being beaten. (Zimmerman's account of events). (6) As they struggled on the ground, Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top of him, Zimmerman yelled for help probably 50 times. (Zimmerman's account of events). (7) In an interview with prosecutors on March 19, Zimmerman's father identified the screams as George Zimmerman's, stating, "There is no doubt who is yelling for help. It is absolutely my son". (Zimmerman's account of events). (8) During a bond hearing on June 29, the 911 recording was played in court, and Zimmerman's father testified that "it was definetely Georges" voice heard screaming for help on the recorded 911 call. (Zimmerman's account of events). Let's make it (9) Now, (just added to bolster it was Zimmerman) Other relatives of Zimmerman, including his brother, concur and are equally adamant.(Zimmerman's account of events)

By my count, that is eight nine times it is mentioned in the article that Zimmerman was the one yelling for help, through the police, his own statements, witnesses and his father.

Compare that to three times it is mentioned in the article it is Martin yelling for help. Once through a wishy washy statement by Martin's father who said it wasn't, then said it was. The second time by an interview with Martin's mother with investigators, (which by the way, they interviewed Zimmerman's father as well). The third time by an interview of Martin's cousin by investigators (just recently added).

We also mention that the question of who was calling for help has been disputed and remains inconclusive. There is a mention of FBI reports stating that analysis were unable to determine whose voice is heard crying out for help in 911 calls, and finally two possible prosecution witnesses who say it was not Zimmerman.

So, actually there is only two statements given by Martin's family members to investigators that it was Martin yelling for help. Zimmerman's fathers satement to investigators goes unchallenged in the article, and his testimony at the bond hearing goes unchallenged in the article. Is is just Martin's family members statements to investigators that you wish to oppose? I really don't see two statements given by Martin's family members to investigators as undue weight.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think as these sections read now, it's okay. Although we must report what Zimmerman says about himself, that it was him crying out as Martin beat him, most people will discount what he says as being too self-interested. Likewise, the relatives of Zimmerman and Martin, who would be expected to support their respective sons, brothers, cousins, etc. So we are down to expert witnesses and independent voice analysts,who disagree. Finally, we have the FBI audio experts who state they are unable to offer any opinion due to the low audio quality and "the extreme emotional state of the person screaming." As far as I'm concerned it's pretty NPOV as it now appears, as long as everything stays intact. A bit redundant, but like I said maybe that's called for in this instance. Apostle12 (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It looks like the article could use some organizing in this regard. I would suggest that instead of putting the same item in two places, create a new subsection "Analysis of evidence" in the existing section "Shooting and investigation", and move the two occurrences of the item into one occurrence in this new section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Organization is a good compromise. The redundancy is a bit overwhelming. Could you give an example edit here on the talk page? Where would you propose that Zimmerman's relatives and Martin's relatives statements go? I suggest Zimmerman's relatives in his account and Martin's relatives in the prosecution account.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Know what you mean about the redundancy. Might be necessary though. My only concern about putting Zimmerman's relatives in his account and Martin's in the prosecution's is that it encourages confirmation bias--some readers will only read the account already in accord with their prejudices, and they won't spot conflicting evidence and testimony. There is something very powerful about seeing both sets of relatives equally sure it is either Zimmerman or Martin calling out for help, depending on their bias. I think it actually works the way it is, because you can read first one account, then another--makes it terribly clear just how difficult this case will be to judge. We could put all the "scream" information in one section, as it once was, but it requires too much effort on the part of most readers to correlate such a section with differing versions of the same event.
I've said it before, but I believe it bears repeating, the public needs to know just how close a call this thing might be--could go either way. For those whose point of view doesn't end up getting confirmed (those who are resolutely pro-Martin or pro-Zimmerman), being familiar with all the evidence might make the difference between acceptance and civil disorder. We can facilitate such familiarity. Apostle12 (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Organizing the information and eliminating redundancy is the issue here. The facts are pretty simple here, Zimmerman has said he was the one yelling, his family has said the same. The prosecution has said it was Martin yelling through Martin's family members. It is not undue weight to include the family members opinion of who was yelling in their respective accounts, nor are we creating any sort of bias by separating the conflicting accounts.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Believe redundancy is justified for the reasons stated above. Just doesn't add up to that much. Apostle12 (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Re Isaidnoway's request, "Could you give an example edit here on the talk page?" — I copied the "Shooting and investigation" section over to WP:Sandbox and made the edit there.[4] --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Bob, for putting that together. I think it would be fine for any of us who study the article carefully, however for the average reader I don't think it quite works because most people only have time to give the article a cursory read. I think it works better to have all the info re: screams assembled in one place. Present organization may not be elegant, however it does accomplish this--readers get a clear picture of where things stand--initial police report, Zimmerman's statements, Zimmerman's relatives' statements, Prosecutors' position, Martin's relatives' statements, expert witness' opinion, independent audio experts' opinions, and the FBI opinion. Apostle12 (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Re your comment "I think it would be fine for any of us who study the article carefully, however for the average reader I don't think it quite works because most people only have time to give the article a cursory read." — Note that loading up a section with too much material, especially if it's redundant, would be undesirable according to this consideration that you pointed out. It becomes too much to read. I would suggest in the Zimmerman account section, regarding the yells in the tapes, we should replace the detailed opinions from Martin's family, Zimmerman's family and analysts, with a brief summary of their opinions, along with wikilinks to sections where the details are given. Here's a preliminary draft of the summary. It needs refs, wikilinks, etc.
"There were audio recordings of 911 calls that had yells for help from the Zimmerman/Martin conflict in the background. Zimmerman’s family says it was Zimmerman yelling for help, Martin’s family says it was Martin yelling for help, and independent analysts have differing opinions regarding who was yelling for help. (See Analysis of evidence, Martin family response, Zimmerman family response.)"
Here's a revision of my previous sample edit using this preliminary change.[5] --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I like the first version better than the second. After re-reading the article, the redundancy is unnecessary and it looks cluttered as well. I think there is enough information about who was yelling to warrant it's own sub-section. Both families were interviewed by investigators and that should be included. I suggest we move all this info to this sub-section, both families statements to investigators, the independent analysis, the FBI statement and the two audio technicians. We then could remove the families statements from Zimmerman's account and the prosecution account. I'm neutral on the summary, I don't really think it is necessary, but I don't object to it either.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea of a sub-section that presents all the information related to the screams heard on the 911 tapes. Let's try to do a bang up job on this sub-section, presenting a complete picture of everything said by family members, the independent analysts and the FBI. Would the proposed summary, with a link to the new sub-section, appear in both the "Zimmerman..." and "Prosecution..." sections? Might be necessary. Apostle12 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: I followed up on Isaidnoway's and Apostle12's comments and moved the screams info into a new section, and put summaries in the two sections where they originally were. I thought it would be useful so that we can use it as a basis for further editing along these lines. It's at least an improvement as far as significantly reducing, although not yet eliminating, the redundancy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks good, Bob. I think whatever redundancy remains is necessary. Although Sybrina Fulton's statement and the info about expert witnesses testifying belong in the "Prosecutions..." section, I moved Martin's cousin's statement to the summary, since Zimmerman's father's and brother's statements statements appear there. Tried to make the wording consistent ("yelling," "yells," except within quotes), also 9-1-1. Not sure which is correct actually - 911 or 9-1-1. We should be consistent in any case. If someone wants to change this, no problem.Apostle12 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: I moved the two summaries to be the lead sentence of the yells-for-help section and moved the remaining two occurrences of "(See Background sounds of yelling for help in 9-1-1 calls.)" into the two respective preceding paragraphs. As I was doing the editing, I noticed in the Zimmerman account section that there is some obsolete second hand account by Zimmerman's father of info that is repeated by George Zimmerman's first hand account, so at least some of Zimmerman father's account should be removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, re your edit summary, "changed sentence, experts are not in affidavit" — Thanks for correcting that. (Could you give a link to the info that your correction is based on?) The source given previously gives the impression that they are, although it wasn't clear that was what the source meant. If they aren't in the affidavit, we should indicate where the prosecution mentions them. Otherwise, we should move them to the yells-for-help section as something the source said about them, rather than what the prosecution said. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The source is at the end of the sentence, the two experts were listed as possible witnesses in the first batch of discovery released. If they are going to testify for the prosecution, then that is part of what the prosecution is saying. I suggested above to move them to the new sub-section, but you opted to leave them there and changed the wording. I will go ahead and move them. -- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes look good, however did change the note referring readers to the "Background sounds of yelling for help in 9-1-1 calls." Strongly feel the link should be direct so that readers of the "Zimmerman's..." and "Prosecution's..." sections will know more information and perspective is available with a single click. A simple "Note" designation doesn't accomplish this. That said, I wonder if the direct link (now reinstated) could be reduced in size, perhaps with a smaller font. Not technically familiar with how one might do that. Apostle12 (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, you can reduce the font size by putting <small> before the text and </small> after it, like this:
<small>(See [[#Background sounds of yelling for help in 9-1-1 calls|Background sounds of yelling for help in 9-1-1 calls]].)</small>
The result is this:
(See Background sounds of yelling for help in 9-1-1 calls.)
--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Great! Apostle12 (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Chris Serino feeling pressured

This information was in the article in three separate sections. It was in the Sanford Police Department section, Sanford police investigation section and the Discovery evidence section. I removed it from the first two sections and left it in the Discovery evidence section, since that is how we learned about it. I had to expand it a little bit to include all the info that editor's wanted mentioned, using the same source and formatted the source proper so reader's could read it as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

whether or not it was in three or three hundred separate sections is not relevant; the question is, was it relevant to three separate sections, and if so, it belongs in all of them. Why is there even a "discovery" section? The whole article is supposed to contain any relevant material, regardless of it being discovery information or otherwise. You placed in the section that, itself, should be the thing moved-- to the trashbin Whatzinaname (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I moved the explanation of it to the Further Investigation section because the FBI investigation is talked about there. Psalm84 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

News about Memorial in Sanford

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/16/12757763-memorials-removal-in-sanford-sets-off-new-tension-months-after-trayvon-martin-shooting?lite

Attribution Error in 911 transcript

For edits here.

The transcript information as posted today contains two errors attributing a quote to the dispatch operator that the cited transcript clearly does not. It contains one instance of the Wikipedia transcript using a quote that the Mother Jones transcript does not. In the second instance ("Alright, where you going to meet with them at?") the MJ cite attributes it to Zimmerman but I understand how it reads as incorrect given the wording of the question itself - but the source doesn't agree with the Wikipedia transcript and I'm unable to locate another copy that isn't identical to the one this article is using.

I've edited the transcript to correct the Wikipedia transcript to match that of citation given. In almost any other article, this would qualify to me as a minor edit. But in this case, it seemed somehow important to expand on the edit summary here and make it clear that this is not in any way an attempt to misconstrue something or whatever. Simply aligning the wiki with its source.

Speaking of...I wanted to correct the attribution because I think accurately identifying who says what is important in any case. But there are quite a few inconsistencies in the wikified transcript. For the most part these include things like changing the original transcript "ok" to the Wikipedia version "okay." Later modifications change the original's run-on sentence ("Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.") to three complete and separated sentences ("Yup, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is.")

While I understand the impulse to make various tweaks to "tidy up" text when editing - I am a Guild of Copy Editors member, after all - I am unsure on the proper protocol here. When we are coping a transcript verbatim from a reliable source, is it acceptable to make edits to the text of that transcript as long as those edits are restricted to superficial aspects...punctuation, spelling, etc? One part of my editor's brain says that's reasonable (the grammar nerd side) while the other has some serious qualms about making any modifications to directly quoted block text. That's why "sic" exists.

All this said, I've never listened to the recording of the 911 call being transcribed and it may be that the Wikipedia version is more accurate than what the citation (indirectly from the city of Sanford, FL) provides. Were that the case, I have no idea what the process would be. But I assume we would still be expected to base the information in the article on information received from a reliable, third-party source. If there is an official policy on this, feel free to point me toward it. I am happy to revert the current transcript to the cited text if needed and equally happy to let it stand as is (excepting my original correction, obviously.)ocrasaroon (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The audio of the part rendered by Mother Jones as

Zimmerman: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?

sounds to me like:

Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?

but Mother Jones is considered a WP:RS and me listening to the recording is WP:OR. And listening to the audio, I don't hear any punctuation at all ;) .--Naaman Brown (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though the transcript has been sourced to Mother Jones, it's been discussed that a transcript made from a recording is its own source (WP:TRANSCRIPTION). I don't believe it's been done with the article to add the audiotape itself as another source, though. The transcript wasn't originally done by WP but by Mother Jones, which may be why that's the only source. But corrections could be made and then the source of the audio itself added. I'm not quite sure how to do that since the source would be the wikilink here. On the first mistake, though, it seems someone must have mistakenly edited that recently. Psalm84 (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I did add the audiotape as a source and make the second correction so that the attribution agrees with it. Psalm84 (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

clothes

Should we add clothing descriptions to Zimmerman and Martin? Quite a few of the witness statements talk about who was on top etc based on "red shirt" "white shirt" etc, but we don't provide the context for what that means anywhere. The witness statements are contradictory, and some of them descbie clothing that nobody is wearing, but that just goes to allow people to judge the reliability of witness statements. Without the clothes descriptions, I think we should cut out the witness statements saying who was on top or who was doing particular actions based on clothing description, because they are not understandable without the context. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please refrain from making insulting and disparaging remarks about living persons associated with this incident and mentioned in this article in the edit summaries. A short and to the point NPOV edit summary is all that is required. Angela Corey is a living person and I would think that WP:BLP would cover such remarks made about her.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Defective audio file, transcript of Zimmerman's call to dispatcher

The audio file of Zimmerman's call has somehow been corrupted and does not play. Previously, it played immediately, however it no longer does so. I wonder if I might ask someone's technical help in getting this problem corrected.

The audio file of Zimmerman's call is especially important, because the transcript has been revised so that it no longer shows exactly at what point Zimmerman got out of his vehicle in an attempt to discern Martin's whereabouts after he ran. At one point, the transcript correctly noted the unbuckling of a seatbelt and door chimes, also the beginning sound of wind buffeting Zimmerman's cellphone--all of which indicate the point at which Zimmerman got out of his vehicle. This becomes important because the prosecution's Affidavit of Probable Cause falsely says that the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin before he got out of his vehicle; this is quite untrue. In fact the dispatcher only said "Let us know if he does anything else." just before Zimmerman got out of his vehicle. Zimmerman then got out, perhaps so he could discern Martin's whereabouts, and the dispatcher's suggestion "We don't need you to do that," came only after the dispatcher noticed wind buffeting the cell phone's microphone and confirmed that Zimmerman had exited his vehicle and was following Martin.

Both access to the audio file and the transcript need correction. Apostle12 (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I just listened to it and it works fine for me. Maybe it's your media player, I use VLC. I could hear the door chime and wind as well. I listened to it while reading the transcript and it matches the audio file as well. The only difference was Zimmerman's phone number was redacted from the transcript, everything else matched up perfectly. Give it another try.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Isaidnoway. Still can't make it work, though it worked before. How is this working for others?
The transcript is accurate enough with respect to the words it reports being said, however it lacks any mention of the door chime and wind buffeting. Previous transcripts did include this information, which is important. Also, one section of the transcript is highlighted with no explanation; why is that? Apostle12 (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Does your player support the .ogg audio format? Are you given the option to download it when you click on the play button? When I click on the play button, I am given the option to download it or to use my media player (VLC) to listen to it. Did you try clicking on media help there beside the file? The previous transcript was removed because it was from an unreliable source (about.com) I believe is where it came from. The mention of the door chime and wind buffeting was considered OR by the guy who transcribed it. There is a mention of the door chime in the "Shooting and investigation" section. I believe there are other RS that cover these issues if you want to look and then expand that section. Unfortunately, the source there in that section only mentions the door chime. Someone had added all that info you talk about in that section, but the source cited there didn't support it, so it was removed, but I'm sure I've seen it covered in the media elsewhere, I'll look as well for an additional source. The highlighted portion in the motherjones transcript was in conjunction with an article they wrote about the questionable word Zimmerman said, we just have the raw PDF file, not the article that went with the transcript.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll work on it. I've heard it before, of course, but wanted to review it and became concerned that other people might experience the same problems. I think our article provides the best overview available of the Trayvon Martin shooting, and I would like to make sure everything remains accessible. Apostle12 (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The audio also fails for me, I just get a black box when I push play. I am using IE9, without java installed. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I just made an edit for improving the display of the audio file.[6] It involved changing the template. This might also help with your problem listening to it, although probably not. Anyhow, you might try checking it again. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Re Apostle12's observation at the beginning of this section, "...the transcript has been revised so that it no longer shows exactly at what point Zimmerman got out of his vehicle in an attempt to discern Martin's whereabouts after he ran." — As I recall, the reliable source for the transcript was changed to one that didn't have any commentary in the transcript, other than who was speaking. The previous wiki markup for the citation of the reliable source that included the commentary regarding the sounds of Zimmerman leaving his car was

<ref name="deutsch1">{{cite web|url=http://bizsecurity.about.com/od/creatingpolicies/a/A-Transcript-Of-The-George-Zimmerman-Police-Call.htm |title=A Transcript of the George Zimmerman Police Call|author=Deutsch, William |work=About.com|date=2012-02-26 |accessdate=2012-04-21}}</ref>

and had appeared in the references section as

Deutsch, William (2012-02-26). "A Transcript of the George Zimmerman Police Call". About.com. Retrieved 2012-04-21.

I think that Apostle12 is right that the version with the commentary that shows when he left the vehicle, relative to what the dispatcher said, is important information and at least a link to the reliable source should be included in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Update: I just added the ref to the article.[7] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has already been had. There was no source for the timestamps and the commentary was from an unreliable source. This is why the source and transcript were replaced. Please do not restore it to the previous unacceptable version. Minor4th 17:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The old discussion was about another use of the transcript, not the present use, IIRC. Perhaps you should give a link to the discussion so we can verify that part of your argument. Anyhow, what is used from the reliable source is the mention in the transcript of Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle after the dispatcher asked him a question "Which way is he running?", which is what actually happened in the call. (Listen for yourself. We have the audio file of the call in the article.) AFAIK, this is the only reliable source in the article that states this fact. Please note that the source is from a New York Times company website, the author is paid for his contribution by the website, and has been qualified for writing on the website by the editors of this New York Times company's website. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your support, and your points are well taken. One way or another, I think it is important to get this info into the article. I realize there are RS/OR implications, however anyone can verify, by listening to the audio file, the fact of the matter. We must find a way to include this critical info. Apostle12 (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Did he get out of his vehicle just to look around? Originally people misreported the wind hitting his cell phone was him breathing heavy from running around. No reason for him to walk too far down a road instead of driving. Dream Focus 19:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The answer to that question is unknown and a crucial fulcrum the case will be decided on. Zimmerman claims to have been looking for a street sign & direction of Martin and lost him, then was approached while returning to his car. Prosecution claims he chased Martin down. Nobody knows for sure, and no definitive evidence exists either way. He did get out of the car, admitted to following Martin until told "don't need to do that". Past that there is a difference of opinion. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sean Hannity interviews Zimmerman and O'Mara

It appears that Sean Hannity snagged the first interview with both Zimmerman and his attorney, which will apparently air on Wednesday night. A press release said that "Zimmerman will open up about what happened the night of Trayvon Martin’s death and his experience in the aftermath of the fatal shooting." Seems odd that Fox News website is not promoting this interview. The Huffington Post is reporting here; [8] and it is reported here; [9] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

CNN reports that Zimmerman apologized to Martin's parents. It's not really an apology, but more of a "I feel bad for them". http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/justice/florida-zimmerman-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 LedRush (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman says he's sorry

Zimmerman says he's sorry, but Trayvon Martin's shooting was 'God's plan' From Times Wire Services July 18, 2012, 9:12 p.m.

MIRAMAR, Fla. — In his first lengthy TV interview since killing Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman initially said Wednesday night that he did not regret anything that happened that night. “I feel like it was all God's plan,” he told conservative talk show host Sean Hannity on Fox News. http://www.latimes.com/news/la-naw-zimmerman-interview-20120718,0,4171414.story

Goahzzlj (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting section heading, the original seemed to be in violation of WP:BLP and out of context for the article and statement by Zimmerman. -- Avanu (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Changed it again for accuracy.LedRush (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Zimmerman has re-launched his website, [10], therealgeorgezimmerman.com, to provide a voice for him, identify and correct misinformation, and as a venue for his supporters to offer words of encouragement and financial support.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
My impression is that living costs and legal costs are making him broke, so he's going on TV to try and gain more support in order to pay the bills. Kind of hard for him to get gainful employment in the situation he is in now. -- Avanu (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be backed up by quote from Barbara Walters. (link) "He is desperate for money. The defense fund money has run out." "He's very worried about his family, his wife, and his parents, who have to be in hiding and have gotten death threats. I'm mean its hardly a good situation for anyone, and he needs money." -- Avanu (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Forum discussion

How can he be sorry if he thinks it was God's plan? Does he think God got it wrong? HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Kind of disappointing that people miss what George was really saying when he said it was "God's plan". If you care to, imagine yourself in George's shoes for a moment. This moment where his life and Trayvon's lives intersect had a lot of things that led up to it. Why George had a gun, why he suspected Trayvon, why Trayvon was there. And the time of this happened, in the evening, a rain was falling. There are a lot of things that had already happened before these two met and their lives changed forever.
But like I said, let's think about how George's shoes fit now. He's lost his job, he doesn't live at the Retreat at Twin Lakes anymore. Everyone in America knows his name and his face. How does George pay his bills now? How does he pay for an attorney? Where can he go? Many times when people are in a deep crisis, they turn to faith. Look at America on September 11, 2001 here. People look for answers in times of tragedy and pain. A lot of people want to present George Zimmerman as a monster who has no compassion and hates black people, children, and all things good. We don't know what the guy is like beyond the evidence we have so far.
And so far, we see a guy who is fairly average. And this average man is in a very un-average situation. When he says this was and is God's will, I think he simply means, "I have to hope for the best and look for answers here because it is a terrible thing and God must have a plan because I don't understand how things got this way." I think he is a desperate, beaten, depressed, and sad man now. I don't get the impression that he was stalking Trayvon, especially when you consider the history of the apartments there and the recent criminal acts.
We can also put ourselves in Trayvon's shoes, to the extent we know him, which is not well at all. But 17-year old kids are prone to do things that don't always make sense to older eyes. 17-year old kids sometimes exhibit bravado above common sense. If I had just been suspended and I was in a strange neighborhood and some guy was following me around, I might be scared, or angry, or resentful toward him. Who knows. Trayvon might have had good cause to react in an agressive/protective/confrontational way.
George didn't control the weather, time of day, or relative positions of himself and Trayvon. He didn't have control over how Trayvon would react to his actions, and he didn't control the past things that led up to that moment. They were already a part of him and Trayvon and the neighborhood and nation. So when he says "God's plan", he doesn't mean God made him pull the trigger on his gun, nor is he saying that God wanted him to kill Trayvon Martin. He is saying that this is an act so terrible and so awful that only a being beyond our human realm could put it into a framework that gives it meaning or purpose.
I'm not trying to justify anything either of them did, but we simply don't know what happened in those crucial moments. I can imagine what typical people might act like, but I have no idea what either of them did. So I hope this helps explain my perspective on his comment. -- Avanu (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a nice essay above, but we obviously cannot include it in the article. We have a good source saying that Zimmerman says he's sorry and that it was God's plan. Sure, we cannot know what he's actually thinking, but that's what he said. If we include anything, we include the words he said, not what we might think he might have meant. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I assumed you were asking a rhetorical question above when you asked whether George Zimmerman has access to the mind and thoughts of God. So I was simply giving you another perspective on this. -- Avanu (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
By the way, another example of the same mention of God in another terrible situation (here)
One of Benjamin's grandmothers said she knows the woman who owns the day care and although she has burning questions, she is choosing to forgive the employees.
"Well I can't hold her responsible because God has got this thing in control. It's God’s will, God's will," said Louria Washington. "The time that he gave us, the three years he gave us Benjamin, we just appreciate and thank God just for the three years."
Just more perspective. -- Avanu (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The tendency to stray off into the weeds on this talk page needs to stop. Not a forum guys. ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to believe or promote God's involvement or that everything that happens is in accordance with God's plan. If I did it would confirm the implausable "I had no choice" defense. I don't believe Zimmerman was sent (by God) to deliver Trayvon from his poor earthly existence. Should God's plan be mentioned in the article? Only if it is presented as a ridiculous ploy. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I would say if it is presented in the article, it should get fair and equal treatment. Not everyone is quite so cynical of a belief in a larger plan or purpose for humanity, and even if it is simply a fantasy on the part of those who believe it, we're not here to ridicule others. -- Avanu (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I know Peace is God's plan for humanity. I dont think part of that plan is the killing of innocents. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)..Further... I ridicule the defensive ploy not the people who use it. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
That, my friend, is an assumption. You and I do not know what Trayvon actually did. Only George Zimmerman knows exactly how that moment played out. I had an experience recently in real life, where I was intending to make a u-turn and instead went into the Target parking lot. I had my A/C on high and it made my knuckles cold, so I was rubbing them together to warm them. A car in front of me stopped and being late in the day, I just sort of stared into space, waiting for the car to go forward. A young man passed in front of my car, and the person with me noticed he was staring intently at the car. She asked me, "I wonder what is wrong with him?" And I came out of my daze and looked and the guy was looking very harshly at my car, so I rolled down the window and asked him if everything was ok. He became very confrontational, asking me what my problem was and so on. I was very puzzled, I had no idea why he was acting this way, so I asked again if he was ok and if there was a problem. He still pressed on with the confrontational attitude, and frankly I was getting a laugh out of his behavior, because I sort of thought it was silly. I asked him if he was on drugs, and he started to walk toward the car demanding I get out. He wanted a fight now and I still wasn't sure why. I told him I would be happy to call 911 and began to do just that. He saw this and exclaimed some stuff, I didn't hear it. It seemed to get him to leave.
So... what happened? I thought about it as we drove away. I was warming my hands, by rubbing my balled up hand into the palm of the other. If you didn't know better, you might think this was a fist and a threatening gesture. And when I asked him what the problem was, I believe in his mind, he saw it as a threat, rather than as a serious question, *because* he was already on guard from the 'fist'. The problem is that maybe in his world and at his age, he is used to a different type of interaction. I found the entire thing silly and somewhat funny that a person would get that bent out of shape so quickly and not stop and try to understand the situation before resorting to violence. BUT, not everyone reacts the same way.
If this can happen to me, on a sunny day in a parking lot in front of a suburban Target, what might happen on a rainy evening between two strangers? You assume George is a monster because he pulled the trigger, but honestly, 17-year-old boys sometimes do dumb things. I don't know what happened, but I'm willing to reserve judgement because I don't see how else I can be fair to the situation. -- Avanu (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
In no way do I assume George is a monster. What I think is summed up below:

How it could have gone:

  • "Why are you following me"?
  • "I'm Neighborhood Watch. Just doin' my job".
  • "OK...Well... I'm stayin' right over there with my Dad".
  • "No prob. My name's George".
  • "Hi. I'm Trayvon".
```Buster Seven Talk 15:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I wish it had gone that way. -- Avanu (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct time of Zimmerman's call the the Sanford police non-emergency number

When did Zimmerman's call come in to the Sanford police non-emergency number?

The article says "approximately 7:09 PM", the audio file has the notation "7:09:34 PM".

The Orlando Sentinelon May 21 put the time of the call as 1911:12, citing the Sanford Police as a source. They note, however, that "The Seminole County Sheriff's Office, which handled the call, reported it came in at 1909:34."

When did the call come in? 19:09:34, or 19:11:12? It's a matter of extreme importance when trying to construct a timeline based on the call from Zimmerman and those from witnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.118.63 (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It all depends on how they synced their clocks, I would think. Sounds like 7:09 is probably a reasonable time, but you are talking about two different agencies there. I would suspect the Communications Center time at the Sheriff's office would be a slightly more reliable time, since they were the ones recording the call, and are more likely to be synced with official time. -- Avanu (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I figured it out. The call came in at 19:09:34, but was not logged until 19:11:12. The Orlando Sentinel article had it wrong. The article here is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.118.63 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
That would be a nice explanation, but I must ask how you know that "The call came in at 19:09:34, but was not logged until 19:11:12." ? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Event Report # 20120571656 on page 46 of this 47 page document of Zimmerman's calls includes the following:
Connection: 02/26/2012 19:09:34 Created: 02/26/2012 19:11:12
19:11:59 REM: SUBJ NOW RUNNING TOWARDS BACK ENTRANCE OF COMPLEX
19:13:12 REM COMPL WILL 1056 AT MAILBOXES OF COMPLEX
These times correspond to events on the 911 call given a starting time of 19:09:34, not 19:11:12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.118.63 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your explanation. As you pointed out, the Orlando Sentinel article said, ""The Seminole County Sheriff's Office, which handled the call, reported it came in at 19:09:34." What the Sentinel article didn't mention was that the same Sheriff's Office report showed the first log entry at 19:11:12 in addition to the connection time as 19:09:34. According to the Sentinel article, the source of the 19:11:12 starting time for the call was the investigator Chris Serino, who apparently was mistaken. It looks like most if not all of the reliable sources other than the Sentinel give the correct starting time as about 7:09 PM (19:09), not 7:11 (19:11). --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Stand Your Ground Law

the stand your ground law, as i understand it, allows one to protect one's self. zimmerman may have been neighborhood watch and even on the phone with police. trayvon had no way to know who zimmerman was or that he was considered "a good guy" in that community. It would seem to me that tryvon was exercising "his" stand your ground rights because zimmerman was stocking him. this young man was doing nothing wrong yet zimmerman followed him. The kid no doubt felt he was going to be attacked and decided to take action before it happened. how can zimmerman be considered standing his ground when he was the aggressor until tryvon attempted to stop him. Marian Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.125.186 (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Stand your ground means that you do not have to run away, but can defend yourself. However, it is not an excuse to avoid a defensive posture in your conduct. Everyone in a conflict has a duty to de-escalate it rather than promote it. Your point that Trayvon may have considered George an agressor is a valid one, but it doesn't mean that you automatically get to shoot him. The same is true of George feeling as if Trayvon was a threat. If we are to believe George's story, he only shot when he felt that he had no other options left to him, i.e. after calling for help repeatedly and being attacked physically. I don't know how anyone will come to any solid conclusion here about the facts, but honestly Stand Your Ground doesn't mean 'fight', it means you have a defense against being convicted of a crime if you acted in clear self-defense. -- Avanu (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
You are correct that IF Zimmerman was the aggressor, Trayvon would have the right to protect himself in accord with the "Stand Your Ground" law. But following someone, by itself, cannot be considered an act of aggression. No one knows for sure who threw the first punch, as the prosecution readily admits. It it was Trayvon who threw the first punch, then Zimmerman had the right to defend himself--Trayvon was not entitled to take pre-emptive action, "before it happened" as you put it. Apostle12 (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that if you were walking home from the store at night and suddenly found yourself being chased by an angry (and, as it turned out, armed) man, you might well feel that you were in imminent danger of bodily harm. Which is all that it takes to justify homicide under Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law. It's one of the ironies of the law that if Martin were armed and had fatally shot Zimmerman, he'd have an equally strong legal defense. Whether an African-American shooter would have been taken at his word and cleared by the police after a cursory, superficial investigation is an interesting thought exercise. MastCell Talk 05:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought you said this wasn't a forum? (Note your previous deletion of my comments.)  :) "Chased" is a loaded word here - Zimmerman may have been following Martin at a distance; he certainly wasn't "chasing" Martin. Also how could Martin perceive that Zimmerman was "angry"? Your comments betray your prejudice. Apostle12 (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to remove my comment, you'd be justified under WP:NOTAFORUM. I'll leave that to your discretion. As to Zimmerman being angry, he was muttering on the phone while pursuing Martin that "these assholes always get away", "fucking punks", etc etc. I don't think it's "prejudiced" to interpret those comments as reflecting anger. MastCell Talk 05:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps. Or maybe just impatience, given the history of crime in the neighborhood and the responsibility Zimmerman felt to his neighbors. In any case, Martin couldn't hear his muttering and had no way to detect either impatience or anger--under "Stand Your Ground" a pre-emptive attack on Zimmerman could not be justified. Plus, as the timeline readily reveals, Martin had plenty of time to reach his father's fiancee's home before there was any possibility of meeting up with Zimmerman. "Stand Your Ground" does indeed cut both ways; just depends on who threw the first punch. Please feel free to remove this entire section under WP:NOTAFORUM, including the original comment.Apostle12 (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
As both of you have said, this is OT, but it's worth remembering we don't really know what either participant saw or heard. In Zimmerman's case, he can tell his side of the story, how people choose to take it is up to them, there are obviously plenty of things he can't know as I presume even he admits. Martin can't do anything for obvious reasons. I don't believe there's any reason to believe Martin heard the phone conversation, whether he heard or saw anything else to give him an impression of Zimmerman we don't know, so its a flawed to suggest he couldn't have thought Zimmeman was angry, or impatient or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course, you are correct. Doubtless Martin noticed that Zimmerman was watching him, and he may have perceived the attention as negative (suspicion, impatience, anger?). Only saying that negative vibes do not justify a physical attack. I have a schoolteacher friend who was recently attacked, and seriously injured, by a very large 14-year-old student who insisted the attack was justified because the teacher "disrespected" him--not physically, not by insulting gesture, not even verbally, but by looking at him the wrong way. I do not know, and do not pretend to know, if any of this applies, since we do not know whether Zimmerman's story about Martin attacking him is the truth. Only saying: Bad vibes don't activate "Stand Your Ground." Apostle12 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Except, of course, that they do. The mere belief that one may suffer "great bodily harm" is enough to justify homicide under Florida's law. If you're getting "bad vibes" from someone - as in, you think they might harm you - you're legally OK to shoot and kill them. That's why some people view the law as somewhere between medieval and completely insane. MastCell Talk 22:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Your distortion of what the law says and how it is applied is a common mistake. Best just to read the law: http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter0776/All.
A good recent example is 71-year-old Gainesville, Florida resident Samuel Williams, who last Friday used his concealed .38 to fend off two young thugs wielding a gun and a baseball bat - fortunately all caught on video, so he gets a clear pass under "Stand Your Ground." http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120716/ARTICLES/120719707/1109/sports?Title=Video-shows-patron-shooting-robbers-at-Palms-Internet-Cafe Nothing "medieval" about it - 'cept, of course, the thugs' violent attack. Subjective belief has to be backed by objective reality. For example (still speaking hypothetically), a guy on top of you, reaching for your gun holster, saying "You're going to die tonight motherfucker!" Under "Stand Your Ground" bad vibes alone justify nothing. Apostle12 (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I did read the Florida law, which is how I was able to quote it. As for its effects, it's probably useful to look at data rather than anecdotes or hypotheticals. In Florida, the law has not appreciably decreased crime, but has resulted in a tripling of "justifiable" homicides ([11]). The most comprehensive study of such laws, by researchers at Texas A&M, concluded:

We find no evidence of deterrence; burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault are unaffected by the laws. On the other hand, we find that homicides are increased by around 8 percent, and that these homicides are largely classified by police as murder. This suggests that a primary consequence of strengthened self-defense law is a net increase in homicide. ([12])

Given your stated interest in objective reality, I'm sure you'll appreciate these data, which indicate that the law does not deter crime but does appear to lead to more homicides. MastCell Talk 00:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Pulling up a phrase like "great bodily harm" hardly represents a good-faith attempt to quote the law.
We really are far afield here, and we can both indulge in confirmation bias to summon competing studies with diametrically opposed views of objective reality. My favorite would be the peer-reviewed academic studies in John Lott's latest (2010) edition of More Guns, Less Crime, which conclude that “Stand Your Ground" laws reduce violent crime by 11%, murder rates in particular by 9%. Just thankful for people like Samuel Williams.
We should probably stop now, don't you think?! Can't imagine a less appropriate place to have this debate. Apostle12 (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid entering the fray here (my one and only post on this subject), but MastCell is right about Florida's stand your ground law. The mere belief of bodily harm does justify homicide in that state. Here are two questionable incidents out of hundreds that I have researched. A man came home one night and found his daughter's boyfriend walking up his driveway, swinging his fists, angry and mad about something. The man took out his gun and shot and killed him because he was convinced the boyfriend was going to start a fight with him. The man was not charged per stand your ground. A guy was doing cartwheels in the parking lot of an apartment complex and pounding on cars, setting off their alarms. A resident felt threatened by his behavior and shot and killed him. He was not charged per stand your ground. These are just two examples, there are hundreds more that are questionable as well. In Florida, over 70% of those who invoke stand your ground defense, are either not charged, acquitted, or charges dismissed at the hearing. That, my friend, is an alarming statistic. If it wasn't for the fact that this turned into a high profile case, I guarantee you Zimmerman would not have been charged.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge that "Stand Your Ground" (SYG) is a complex and controversial subject. Also acknowledge that when "preponderance of the evidence" is the applicable standard at SYG judicial hearings, as it is in Florida, some who should be charged are not. Somewhat familiar with the two cases you mentioned - hard to offer an opinion without a thorough review of all the facts as to whether charging would, or would not, have been appropriate. In any case, I do not believe MastCell is correct that SYG laws empower a person to use deadly force based solely on "bad vibes" - that is not how the law is written. Personally, I am not alarmed by the fact that 70% of those who invoke SYG go free; despite exceptions, I am of the opinion that this represents justice more often than not. Good, though somewhat biased, story appears here: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece Apostle12 (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Other than the immunity clause (which is moot in the Zimmerman case, unless he is aquited and then sues), SYG is not in play in this case at all. Zimmerman claims he was on the ground, being beat, with Martin on top of him. Under that scenario retreat is not possible, and SYG is providing no additional protection other than standard self defense. You either find Zimmerman cerdible or not, and find his belief reasonable or not. SYG is not in play (again, except as possible immunity/liability issues) However, SYG is being used as a political football by both sides of the political/gun spectrum which is why it gets brought up constantly in this case. Some may bring up Zimmerman being the instigator - which is possible, but under zimmerman's scenario, at the moment of the shot, retreat was not possible and so the "instigation negates protection" clause is not in play. -

SYG (and even normal self defense in the absence of SYG) requires reasonable belief. If reasonable is being misapplied, that is a problem for the prosecutor or courts, not the law itself. Zimmerman on the ground being beat can be taken as reasonable (if you find him credible). "bad vibes" is a lot more iffy. I would additionally say that the examples above of cartwheels etc should not apply. IMO these "bad cases" probably go back to the creation of liability against police and the state for arrest/prosecution in case of self defense. I would definately support some "tests" of when this immunity is in play, and to allow for arrest/prosecution in the gray area cases without liability. The way it is now, they will probably only arrest/prosecute the sure things out of the massive financial impact.

Someone above is incorrect that SYG requires de-escelation - That is the primary purpose of SYG, vs standard self defense. On homicide vs deterence, deterence was not used as a justification for passing the law. Prior to SYG, even if you were in legitimate, unquestioned fear of your life (bad guy with gun in your home for example), you were required to retreat and de-escelate. That puts the homeowner in danger, as during the time you are attempting to retreat, the bad guy gets to shoot you.

Martin possibly had a self defense claim. We don't know. Maybe Zimerman chased Martin down. Maybe Martin came up from behind like Zimmerman claims. Maybe Zimmerman shoved Martin or tried to restrain him in some way, or maybe Martin knocked Zimmerman down, etc. There are an endless number of counterfactuals we could come up with to prove a valid self defense scenario for either one. Martin is dead, so we won't be getting his side of the story, which is tragic. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was not in a reasonable belief of death/bodily harm. I think that is likely an insurmountable bar in this case, as there is some physical evidence supporting his case, and no real evidence to disprove. (I am not saying he proved it was self defense - just that there are plausible scenarios, and that that is all reasonable doubt requires). Possibly Manslaughter would have been more provable, since that does not require malice etc, and the provable things Zimmerman did (leaving the car, starting to follow, etc) might be enough to create that level of culpability. But we are where we are. Everything will revolve around the credibility of Zimmerman. If you believe the last 30 sec of his story, the verdict is obvious. If you do not, then its up for grabs, but the prosecution still has to prove it. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is still OT but you appear to be mistaken about the house bit. Per this source [13], Florida had the Castle doctrine before SYG so there was no duty to retreat from your own home. Also I believ you're mistaken about how duty to retreat usually works. See our article. There's no duty to retreat if you have a good reason to believe you cannot do so safely. Of course some people may clain they felt they couldn't so so safely but a jury may not agree they had a reasonable belief. (And obviously if you just go around shooting anyone who you think may be a threat you're potentially at a slightly lower risk then someone who tries to retreat when they think they can do so safely since if you make a mistake in your judgement, you're primary risk is the law presuming you don't screw up and make things worse by failing to kill but also therefore convincing the other party to fight back.)
P.S. as I understand it, the primary difference that SYG or for that mattetr the castle doctrine makes is not so much in you needing to put yourself at risk by retreating although as I mentioned it may provide some protection when you felt you couldn't safely retreat but others disagree. But rather in if someone threats you or trys to steal or damage your property you can refuse to give in since if necessary you can defend yourself even though you could have also (and you believed you could) safely gotten our of the situation by retreating even if it meant your property was lost or damaged, or you left an area you were fully entitled to be in.
talk) 13:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I stumbled across this source looking for something else,it is an RS making an SYG analysis similar to some of the WP:FORUM above, which may be useful for the article.

based on finding that one, I did a quick search to see what else I could find that might be useful for sourcing SYG analysis

huge article

Hi,

The article is huge. Maybe split it up into articles like "Media coverage of the Shooting of Traybon Martin". Just an idea. Cheers. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A huge subject, with many ramifications that are critical to contemporary American life. Can't see anything we could eliminate and still tell the story. BTW, often see suggestions in the public discourse, made by people on both sides of the issue, encouraging others to read the Wikipedia article as the most comprehensive, unbiased source available. And I think it truly is. Apostle12 (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Altercation

Apostle12, Regarding your edit summary[14], " 'Altercation' is better here--began with exchange of words, then escalated; not a common 'fight'. We know beginning and end, not what happened in between." — How do you know that there was an exchange of words at the beginning any more than you know that there was a fight afterwards? There's the testimony of Zimmerman for the exchange of words and the fight, and additionally there are eye witnesses and physical evidence for the fight, i.e. Zimmerman's injuries. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited for that paragraph use the word fight, rather than altercation. It's probably best to stick with what the secondary sources say. I changed it back to fight as per sources.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's a small point. Altercation became an attack (Martin on Zimmerman, or Zimmerman on Martin--still unclear), which then turned into a fight, which led to the shooting. Both Zimmerman and Martin's girlfriend allude to the initial exchange of words (the altercation), and we know it became physical (hence Zimmerman's injuries), ending in Zimmerman shooting Martin. Perhaps there is no single word that adequately covers what took place. I guess for me "fight" just sounds too simple, though Isaidnoway is correct that sources favor this term. Apostle12 (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No evidence

NOTE : This somewhat schitzophrenic conversation with myself was originally in reponse to a "no evidence" line in the previous section which has now been edited away - I had mistakenly thought I was responding to someone else talking about this issue. I still stand by my logic below, but the conversation doesn't make as much sense now without the line I am responding to from the "suspicious" section above. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Just trying to clarify and sort things out as best as I could under the circumstances. I think we're OK now. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The "no evidence" line was added by me, and is actually a direct quote from serino's report (although I did not provide a ref to prove it). There is no way to know what Martin was or was not actually doing. There is no evidence he was commiting a crime. While this does lead to the possibility that we are implying he was commiting a crime and there was merely no evidence for it, it is the most accurate statement possible, and a direct quote from the police to boot. NOTE:I AM NOT TYRING TO IMPLY MARTIN WAS COMMITING A CRIME AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. I am merely acknowledging that interpreting the text that way is possible, and that us saying as a matter of fact that he was not commiting a crime is speculation (although a very likely accurate speculation). Gaijin42 (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I misquoted serino. The source I am using is http://www.local10.com/blob/view/-/15491178/data/1/-/14w3bvp/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf Approximately 40% through the doc is the FBI report about Serino (sorry, my PDF reader won't show me pages!) (Name abbreviations mine) Obviously the original report would be a better WP:PRIMARY but this is a direct quote from the original report. Investigator Serino review reviewd his police report dated 3/12/12 in which he wrote "The encounter between GZ and TM was ultimately avoidable by Z, if Z had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to M as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each parety's concern. There is no indication that TM was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter. Z by his statements made to the call taker and recorded for review and his statements made to investigators following the shooting death of M made it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to M's purpose for being in the neighborhood".

To avoid WP:PRIMARY here are several RS quoting the relevant section.

Based on these sources, I am going to replace the "no indications" line, as a direct quote, and source it to these refs unless there is a significant objection raised. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

[[WP:BOLD]ly added. WP:BRD if needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary,[15] "specific naming of the document the quote comes from, per the sources, and the text later in the article." — I didn't see where the source said or implied it was in the capias request.[16] The source did mention capias request, but went on to mention the "indication" comment only being in "new documents", not necessarily the capias request. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You cite seven sources in support of your edit, I can easily find seven sources that say he was not committing a crime. There is nothing speculative about saying Martin was not committing a crime. There is nothing controversial about saying Martin was not committing a crime. The reason the police use terms like "no evidence" and "no indication" is to discredit Zimmerman's perception of Martin. Even Zimmerman doesn't go so far as to say Martin was committing a crime, not once in his call to the police does he say there was a crime being committed, or in subsequent interviews with police does he say there was a crime being committed. So, by all accounts, the police and Zimmerman's, Martin was not committing a crime.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that such wording is used to contrast Zimmerman's perception - which is our intent in quoting it here. I note that it would contrast/discredit him even more to say formally that Martin was not commiting a crime as a fact, but that cannot be done as we (the everyone we), have no knowledge as to his actual actions/intentions. "No indication of criminal activity " is 100% accurate. "Not commiting a crime" is speculation. Zimmerman made a report of suspicious activity, while it is our duty to cast the appropriate skeptical shadow on that statement, and to provide evidence to the contrary, saying that he was objectively wrong in his opinion is not our place. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I would however, not object to the state's position that "he was not commiting a crime" as quoted from the affadavit, being put into the prosecutions account. The lede needs to maintain neutrality and objectivity of "facts". when we get into the various sides opinions, we can be more liberal about presenting their opinion directly, with less importance of if their opinion is correct or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
We go by what the RS are reporting, and there are just as many saying he was not committing a crime. According to multiple RS, "not committing a crime" is 100% accurate as well. "Our knowledge" as to his actual actions/intentions is irrelevant and speculative and does not belong in this article. We go by what the sources say and leave our own opinions out of the narrative. You found the sources to support your edit and to support a particular narrative, and that is fine, I'm not objecting to your edit. But, saying that "not committing a crime" is speculation is merely your own opinion, as there are RS stating it as 100% accurate. If the police say he was not committing a crime, and Zimmerman doesn't report Martin committing a crime, then the logical conclusion is that Martin was "not committing a crime" IMO.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
When I said "our knowledge", I was not refering to us as the wikipedia editors, but the general public, the police, "humanity" per se. The only remaining observer to Martin's actions at that time was Zimmerman, and obviously his version needs to be taken with a grain of salt, therefore almost everything is speculation to some degree. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ McCrummen, Stephanie; Horwitz, Sari (May 22, 2012). "Trayvon Martin case 911 call: Two experts reach two very different conclusions". The Washington Post.
  2. ^ Kovaleski, Serge F.; Robertson, Campbell (May 17, 2012). "New Details Are Released in Shooting of Trayvon Martin". The New York Times.
  3. ^ "Autopsy results show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles", WFTV Channel 9, May 15, 2012
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_14&oldid=1136876368"