Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Killing of Trayvon Martin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

American

In the section Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimmerman there is "the son of American Robert Zimmerman Sr, a former magistrate,[33] and Peruvian Gladys Zimmerman." AFAIK, all the people connected with the case are Americans. Any suggestions about what to do with this sentence? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Done yes, redundant. will correct. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 20:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll change Peruvian to Hispanic American since the source said Hispanic. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's an improvement, however, Robert Zimmerman is described by his occupation, and Gladys Zimmerman by her country of origin/ethnicity? Shouldn't she be described by her occupation as well, or just as her name? If editors think it's useful to include information about her Peruvian 'roots', then shouldn't we find a better source for that? [4]relevant quotes: "His mother is Latina." and "Why are they calling him white, wondered Paul Ebert, the Prince William County commonwealth’s attorney who knew Zimmerman’s mother, Gladys, from her days as an interpreter at the county courthouse. Zimmerman’s mother, Ebert knew, was Peruvian, and he thought of her as Hispanic." That is a bit thin for sourcing; that someone from who knows how long ago remembers her as Peruvian. Does it matter? George Zimmerman defines himself as Hispanic on his voter reg. Isn't that enough? [34] quotes on ethnicity are only about George. Sorry, long winded. ArishiaNishi (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it was long winded, I thought it was useful wind. While we were discussing it, someone changed it to "Peruvian-born Gladys Zimmerman". That seems OK. At the beginning of the article, Zimmerman is called Hispanic American, so maybe that's enough as far as Hispanic is concerned. Peruvian-born implies where his hispanic background came from. I'm satisfied with what is in there now, or more precisely, what was in there the last time I looked. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hispanic?

The reference[[1]] given does not say Zimmerman is Hispanic. <-- In fact, it's a dead link. (Fixed link) --> The title appears to imply that his race or nationality is not clear cut. The police report lists him as white, while other documents report him a Hispanic.

I suggest writing "Zimmerman, described by different sources as either Hispanic, White, or of mixed race ... " along with links to the appropriate sources.

Better yet why not exclude his race entirely? It is irrelevant to the controversy. If Zimmerman did racially profile Martin (which is at the core of the controversy), it doesn't make it better if he is Hispanic or worse if he is White. It's what you do, not what color you are, which is precisely what racial profilers forget.

In any case, any description referring to Zimmerman exclusively as White or Hispanic is WP:POV as it does not document all the significant views on the subject. --soulscanner (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to invoke Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY rule here. Just as Code Pink activist Midge Potts self-identifies as a woman, and thus that's how the article is written, Zimmerman has self-identified as Hispanic (e.g. that's the box he's checked on official forms), so that's how he should be described in this or any other article. 67.233.246.107 (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman is Hispanic, he idenitified himself as Hispanic and so does his father. If we are going to exclude Zimmerman's ethnicity, in all fairness, we should exclude Martin's ethnicity too. But as I see it (and I am not alone in that) race does in fact play a large part in this case. Martin being black was the main reason people said the shooting was racially motivated, then when it turned out the shooter was not, in fact, a "white man", but in fact Hispanic, things became more complicated, apparantly. There are sufficient sources to claim Zimmerman as Hispanic, though. It should not be left out. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY doesn't refer to issues of self-identity, so it's a moot point here. WP:POV is the point. It states that significant points of view must be accounted for and presented in a neutral manner. The legitimate source [2] used to back-up that Zimmerman is exclusively Hispanic does no such thing. It cites that the police report indicates that Zimmerman is white, that it is possible to be both white and Hispanic, and that it is not a cut and dry issue. Hence omitting that some could legitimately see him as white would indicate that the police officer who arrested Zimmerman, for one, is marginal. But the police view here is pivotal, as there are accusations that the police treated Zimmerman differently than they would have if he were black, and that Zimmerman benefited from it by being released.

The article also fairly considers the view of right-wing commentators who want to present Zimmerman is Hispanic. Right-wing commentators have been clear: '“I’m actually happy that George Zimmerman is Hispanic so the usual white people are all guilty by virtue of their skin color stuff won’t work,” said a March 22 tweet by John Hawkins, who described himself as a professional blogger at Right Wing News.' Hence saying that Zimmerman is exclusively Hispanic could be seen as POV-Pushing to make blacks shut up.

The article further goes on to say that you can be both white and Hispanic: "Hispanic people can be black, white, Asian or mixed. Some 18 million Latinos checked the “some other race” category on their 2010 Census forms — which admonished in bold letters that Hispanic is not a race. So many Hispanics identified themselves as white, the overall number of white people in the United States increased."

So to conclude, firstly the Wikipedia article as it stands ignores important points of view in the intro while including others, failing NPOV standards. It is also factually innaccurate WP:AD because the given citation actually does not support what is in the article (or more importantly, what is excluded). --soulscanner (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The Uniform Crime Report classifies most Hispanics into the "white" or "white Hispanic" category, see this DEA website or this, or FBI website. Official statistics and police reports are misleading. For example, if someone attacks a Hispanic for racial reasons, he becomes a Hispanic victim of a hate crime. However, if the same Hispanic commits a hate crime against a black, he is classified as a white perpetrator. Tobby72 (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

We already have the father's source, saying: "My son (George Zimmerman) is Hispanic and grew up in a multiracial household". Whether or not the police has at some point described Mr. Zimmerman as white is not relevant, as both Zimmerman and other members of the Zimmerman family describe him as Hispanic, his mother is Peruvian and he votes as "Hispanic". That's enough ground to call him Hispanic, although he could also be (perhaps more neutral) described as simple "of mixed descent" or "multiracial" (without further specifying his exact ethnicity). Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"MOS:IDENTITY doesn't refer to issues of self-identity, so it's a moot point here." Uh..... Better check it again: "When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself." 67.233.243.137 (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is uncontroversial that GZ is Hispanic. He self-identifies as such and is identified by multiple RS as such. Whether he is "white" or "white Hispanic"or Peruvian-American or Peruvian(white)-Scottish or Mestizo is somethng that may require further elucidation and sourcing... but tha is a discussion for the body of the article, where his "race", actual and misidentified, is a crucial part of the story. But here is NO controversy that he is in fact Hispanic. RS say so, no RS denies it, and the police report is a RS for the fact that the report writer thought of him as white, but not for what he is, as the writer made no investigation into the question. Andyvphil (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How can someone be a "white Hispanic" when his mother is Peruvian and his father described the family as "multiracial"? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Peru is a country, not a race.--88.13.102.5 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right. But if your father is described as white and he describes the family as "multiracial", it is safe to assume that one of the parents is not, in fact, white. Other sources (included in the article) have described George Zimmerman as biracial. Since his father is described as a white American man, the non-white blood comes from his Peruvian mother. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wendy Dorival's Comments

I see the following paragraph as reflecting a non-neutral WP:POV and think it should be removed:

"Sanford Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival told The Miami Herald she met Zimmerman in September 2011 at a community neighborhood watch presentation. Dorival stated she gave a warning in regard to vigilante behavior at that meeting: "I said, 'If it's someone you don't recognize, call us. We'll figure it out. Observe from a safe location.' There's even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don't know how many more times I can repeat it."[44]Emeraldflames (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It should stay. Zimmmerman is repeatedly refereed to as the community watch captain. If he was acting in that capacity at that time, then those instructions should be well known to him and are certainly relevant. If he was acting as a private citizen, then those instructions are again directed to him as a community member, and he would have been aware of them (as indicated by his presence at that meeting). Neutral POV does not mean we remove any information which could be disparaging to a person, it means we shouldn't be pushing a pov. This particular fact does not look good for Zimmerman, it is not bias to report it. In the instance of this fact (not necessarily the overall incident or case) "Reality has a well known liberal bias". Gaijin42 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with anything but "There's even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don't know how many more times I can repeat it." Basically, the implication is that Zimmerman was being a vigilante- or that is what Wendy's statements imply. I don't think the last two statements would ever be in an encyclopedia- just a newspaper. I think it can be weeded down to just the facts and not Wendy's 'exasperated' undertone, reflected in the last two statements. Second, we don't know whether he was being a vigilante or not. That is very much in question. That begs the question. She is not in a place to know what happened that night- or whether Zimmerman was being a vigilante. So why include her comments on it? It would be like citing the faculty member that suspended Martin saying "I told Trayvon over and over to not [act suspicious]." Emeraldflames (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We are expected to believe she remembers what she said 6 months ago? Most people can't remember what they had for lunch the previous day. Another spin she is giving is that she met Zimmerman. When you give a talk to a group, you don't normally say you met the members of the group.173.22.111.112 (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

1) he is the watch captain/coordinator. She likely had much more significant and direct communication with him relative to the others. Therefore easier to remember 2) She has convenient mnemonic devices in the presentation, and perhaps even an established script/spiel that she uses regularly for such presentations. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone that has been in a leadership position of a Neighborhood Watch group or a Community Policing group is aware that they were "On Duty" at all times. The minute they stepped out of the house, for any reason, they were watching and/or policing. Whenever they looked out the window, they were looking for something unusual. Most neighborhood policing groups come into being because of a criminal problem or situation: robberies, lottering, gang presence, sexual assaults, purse snatchings and the like. There may be specific times and locations for a co-ordinated group patrol but the designated chief of the concerned citizenry is always doing his "job" as Street Master. Always. Not just at certain times. Regarding Ms Dorival and the community watch presentation, it would be normal for Mr Zimmerman, as a leader in the effort to protect his neighborhood, to approach the speaker and introduce himself. As Gaijin remarks...Her presentation may be formal in which case it would be similar for each presentation and easy to remember. Furthermore there may have been only a few people at the meeting, which is not uncommon, and Zimmerman's presence was easily brought to mind. As to whether he was acting as a vigilante: once he ignored the directions of the 9-1-1 call taker, he placed himself "outside the law' and acted to suppress crime. He became a vigilante by definition. Ms. Dorivals warnings against "taking the law into your own hands" seem to fit the situation that happened that night. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This leads up to my point. The point that you take as fact, is actually in dispute. We don't know whether he continued to follow Martin after he was advised it wasn't necessary. And neither does Wendy. Emeraldflames (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wendy's statement has nothing to do with instructions from the police on the phone. It is the general policy of the police (per dorival's presentation) that the watch is not supposed to follow suspects, or take action on their own under any scenario. The police dispatcher repeating that instruction only reinforces that. Indeed we do not know what zimmerman did after that point, but we do know that he admitted to following to start with. That initial following, prior to the police instruction, is already in contradiction to the instruction from Dorival. That said, those policies do not carry any legal weight, and he did not break a law by following Martin (although he might possibly have weakened his self defense claim) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You made a nice point until your ~~wild~~ assertion that Zimmerman placed himself outside the law.--Isaidnoway (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I have no objection to this word being struck, I would have preferred that I had been allowed to do it myself.--Isaidnoway (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Its not a wild assertion. Zimmerman continued to follow Martin in spite of being told not to. He acted beyond the scope of what an officer of the law had told him to do. A neighborhood watch person is not a peace officer. Somewhere I remember reading that a Sanford police official (it may have been Ms. Dorival) came to the Retreat to explain the guidelines of community "eyes and ears". One of those guidelines was, most assuredly, "Do NOT arm yourself". For these two reasons, I think he was outside the law and he shifted from being watchdog to being a vigilante. But thats just my pov. I dont support including, or even hinting it, in the article. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Being that it is your POV is what makes it an assertion. We'll just have to agree to disagree about what the law allowed Zimmerman to do. The prosecutor and defense attorney can present their theories of what happened to a court of law.--Isaidnoway (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

So you won't mind striking "wild"? ```Buster Seven Talk 16:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the last two sentences "supports" and strongly "hints" that Wendy believed Zimmerman acted as a vigilante- a fact that is in dispute. She was not there that night, and so her implied opinion/speculation is not relevant. Emeraldflames (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman has no legal obligation to follow a 911 dispatchers orders. It does not carry the rule of law. This was cited in the article and that fact should still be reflected, the comment occurred during the time frame before information came out about Martin's attack on Zimmerman, something which even we do not know. According to Zimmerman's actions, 911 call and consider that Zimmerman made no intention to follow Martin when the call had ended. Given this information while he may have followed initially, by the end of the call he had forsaken 'pursuit' or 'following' and would leave it up to the police who were soon to arrive. It was during this period in which the event occurred, but as Zimmerman did not continue to pursue he did in fact comply with the 911 dispatcher and made comments about it. The quote is used out of context and without information to assume vigilantism despite evidence to the contrary, such a strong statement should be neutral as information has changed and appearances are deceiving. This was done after Tracy Martin's previous two accounts of the incident were dis-proven and updated with the current version of events... which still changes when asked about it. There is no proof that Zimmerman acted as a vigilante, its hearsay and speculation from early on with little evidence to back up the claim from the facts and statements given. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The fact that a person is dead gives credence to calling Zimmerman a vigalante: credence to Ms Dorival and any editor here that wishes to consider him as such. If she, in fact, presented guidance and instruction to the Stanford citizens (who then chose Zimmerman as the co-ordinator) it is certainly relevant that he did not abide by those instructions. It could be argued that by facilitating his neighborhood watch group Zimmerman gave up his right to bear his registered weapon since he would be placing himself and fellow citizens in harms way. Do you really think Zimmerman stopped looking for Martin after Martin ran and Zimmerman lost sight of him.? Zimmerman was going to return to his truck and be on his merry way?``Buster Seven Talk 17:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You and other editors are certainly free to consider him a vigilante if you so choose. The way I understood her instructions, it was pertaining to when a person was acting as a community watchperson. It is stated in the article that Zimmerman was on a personal errand, going to the store. He was under no obligation to follow Ms. Dorival's instructions while he was on a personal errand and he was within his legal right to carry his weapon while going to the store.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutley he had the right to be armed, and was on a personal issue. That said, when he began following them, he starts being "bound" by the expectations of every citicizen in regards to the proper behavior when dealing with a suspect, as instructed by the police previously. Zimmermans capacity as the watch captain strengthens this issue, bucause he was doubly aware of what the expectations were. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@Chris : You are correct he was not under any legal obligation, and did not break the law. But he was acting outside the bounds of expected and specifically instructed behavior for the watch, and as the watch captain he should particularly aware of those standards and instructions. Part of the defense around zimmerman was people saying he was doing his job as a member of the watch to report martin, and he was protecting the community by following him, and then eventually protecting himself at the time of the shot. If he was acting outside the bounds of his role, then some of the "moral protection" from his actions of following Martin he gets by acting "in the line of duty" goes away. That of course does not imply a murder or that the actual shot wasn't self defense. But if we list him as a watch captain (which we do) which implies his actions were at some level taken as "in the line of duty" (which it does), then the information about what those expectations and instructions are is absolutely relevant.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

To avoid WP:OR issues, here are several RS making either the "in the line of duty" arguments, and other sources bringing up the issues I raised above.

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the important part though, was he following Martin when he was allegedly attacked? People can make mistakes of judgement and Zimmerman did follow Martin as referred to on the tape. After being told not to follow he does stop and loses sight of Martin, but by the time the call ends he has no idea where Martin is and will go to meet up with the police. Unless he decides to follow Martin (who he can't see) the attack diagrams show Zimmerman was going back towards his vehicle. While he may have followed at one point, if Martin was the aggressor after Zimmerman broke off it does not change the ultimate question of self-defense. The last source is obviously not a Reliable Source as it is clearly an opinion. He was not under any circumstances patrolling. This is the differences between the fact and fiction of this case. Just like the armed neo-nazi's patrolling Sanford, this is largely fabricated from a misunderstanding. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have any actual evidence as to Zimmerman turning around and going the other way (other than some people giving hearsay repeating zimmerman). There are no known locations further towards the martin home that can be specifically identified as Zimmerman having gotten that far, and then turning around to return to the location of the eventual altercation. If you think there are such sources, I would def. be interested in seeing them. You are absolutely correct following or not does not impact self defense. (The completely unknown "who started it" does though). However, this event is not just about the shooting. A good portion of the criticism against zimmerman has been the "profiling" aspect. Had Zimmerman been acting entirely within the bounds as a watch captain, then some decent portion of that criticism might be able to be deflected. Him acting outside of those bounds puts him back into "random civilian" mode, undeserving of the protection of his role as watch captain (and possibly even more culpable, just like we treat cops who break the rules). I have made this argument before, that there are several loosely related "justifications" in play. Being suspicious, calling the cops, following, interacting, and ultimately shooting. there are different criteria for evaluating the correctness (or not) of his actions at each decision (which were obviously all quick and not discreet actions at the time likely) Things are mingled a lot, but I think we must be clear that some things could condemn Zimmerman as far as profiling is concerned (making him possibly a jerk, but probably not a criminal), without impacting at all his justification (or not) for self defense. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about a lot of interesting things, but few of them are directly relevant to whether the *last two* sentences (not the first few) of Wendy's quote should be included. The first few I agree are relevant- the last two are essentially Wendy's implication that Zimmerman acted as a vigilante. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman was instructed on two occasions (presentation, phone call) not to follow. If he followed anyway (which we know he did after the first warning, may have done after the second warning) then that indicates a level of poor judgement in regards to acceptable behavior that could directly reflect on his decision about if it was appropriate to shoot. A accusation/allegation of vigilantism (in the eyes of an official, who was specifically providing training on avoiding vigilantism, given directly to Zimmerman) is certainly relevant towards that. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't reflect the facts of the case. There is nothing stating he cannot follow Martin by law. His statement to police has not changed, he said he was attacked. We have screaming for 45 seconds on tape which several witnesses including Zimmerman's own testimony and police reports that show Zimmerman was on the ground as Martin attacked him. DeeDee even made a statement to police that Trayvon Martin confronted Zimmerman, not the other way around. While Zimmerman did not display textbook behavior there is more then mere conduct from a civilian and duty, Zimmerman is not a officer and is unable to function in that capacity, the fact he is on tape asserting he cannot find Martin and is going to meet up with the police is counter to the assumption he was following Martin. How can he follow what he cannot see? Testimony from a/the 'girlfriend' point to Martin starting it and Martin did confront Zimmerman. Then it the matter falls on Martin whether or not he started the fight, if Martin did then Zimmerman's conduct is moot because Martin not Zimmerman engaged in a physical struggle and the testimony from DeeDee matches Zimmerman's statement. If anything those facts are more important then the opinion of Dorival who has reason to save face and take a hardline stance independent of the facts which came out after the statement was made. Its like Tracey Martin's statement that Zimmerman shot Martin on the porch of the house. Or the one in which Jesse Jackson said Martin was shot in the back of the head. While it may have been said, putting disproven fact or opinion before official records is not neutral. Keep the first sentences, leave out condemning personal opinion pointing towards vigilantism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether she is an official or not, she was not there that night (and presumably not a part of the investigating team). So, why include her speculation that he was acting as a vigilante? She can talk about what she told him, but her speculation/opinion should not be included. Emeraldflames (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Losing track of Martin is very different from going in the other direction. It is just as likely he continued to move in the direction of last known motion as it is that he turned around. We have no evidence either way, but we do know that he started by following. I don't believe the girldfriend's testimony gives any evidence towards martin starting it - please provide a source for that if you think it does, because it would certainly be relevant. You are right that Zimmerman was not an official, he was a citizen. The citizens were specifically instructed not to follow, and to let the police handle it. (Again that does not impact the self defense claim). Who is screaming on the phone is up for debate, and imo we will never get a satisfactory answer as to who it was, its use as an argument by either side is highly suspect. You are explicitly making the assumption that martin started it, and the only evidence we have towards that is Zimmermans testimony, which as the accused is obviously to be taken with a grain of salt. The incorrect statements by others are non-sequeitor in this discussion. Dorival's statements are backed up by the published presentation given to the watch, and were made at a time prior to the arrest (when for the most part the public position of the police was that it was self defense, so she had no reason to be spinning her statements in a way that contradicts the position of the force). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Her first few statements are backed up by the published presentation given to the watch, and were made at a time prior to the arrest. The last two statements- essentially "Zimmerman is a vigilante!" are NOT backed up by anything. They are simply her opinion- probably based on media accounts. Second, whether or not she had a *reason* to spin her statements, the fact remains she spun her statements- about circumstances she has no expertise or any special knowledge of. Her expertise and value ends when she finishes explaining what was taught at the presentation. The "there is even a.." and the "I don't know how many times I.." stuff implies things that exceed her authority/expertise. The *only* reason to include the last two sentences is simply to demonstrate her 'exasperation' at her belief that Zimmerman acted as a vigilante. Emeraldflames (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Request edit 4/19/12

This statement in the first portion of the article is incorrect: "The state attorney's office was responsible for the initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman, over the objection of the lead homicide investigator who wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter"

Quote: Some news agencies have reported that Sanford's lead investigator, Chris Serino, wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter that night but Wolfinger's office put a stop to it. The city of Sanford issued a statement saying that is not true.

Police did that night prepare an incident report that lists "manslaughter" as the possible crime being investigated, but in every case in which an officer prepares an incident report, he or she fills in that spot with some crime and statute number to allow the agency to properly report crime statistics to the FBI.

Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account – that he had acted in self-defense.

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-federal-review-justice-letter-20120402_1_chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency#^[1]

Press release: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/press_releases/Release22.pdf 68.3.103.157 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)AndyB

Interesting article, good find. I hadn't read that before. Could be used to counter that point of other news agencies reporting that he filed an affidavit. I would like to see some other editor's input on this before removing it though. I think it should be included as a rebutal to that statement, The Orlando Sentinel and this reporter, Rene Stutzman has reported on this case extensively.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We have had issues with this statement before. Some of the sources are ultimately sourcing that to the letter from Martin's mother. Some sources however do claim to have that straight from Serino or the special prosecutors. I think there is enough doubt around it that we should at least qualify the statement by saying "Reportedly" or something to that effect, and perhaps adding a counter statement such as the quote above. This is however too much detail for the lead, and so perhaps the claim should be removed from the lead and only discussed in detail below. After all, the fact is he was not arrested at that time. The particular justifications, machinations, etc are not relevant to understanding the case at the level included in the lead), without all of the additional details that cannot go into the lead. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Added interview with Orlando Sentinel and Corey's statement to Miami Herald, but didn't change anything in the lead. Maybe someone else could take a look at the lead, it is sourced.--Isaidnoway (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Legal criticism of indictment

This article summarizes legal criticism of the indictment by six legal analysts including Jeralyn Merritt and Alan Dershowitz. Could source material such as Merritt's blog posts be the basis for a section on criticism of the indictment? Cygdrive (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Criticism of the indictment should be mentioned. Intrepid (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Criticism of the news is what pundits do. Blog discussions about early-stage documents in the trial do not belong in this, a summary article. Maybe a mention in the 'Public response' section.--DeknMike (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree. Criticism of the indictment does not require a seperate section. Or any mention at all. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A reminder for myself and anyone interested

This talk page begins with:

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman at the Reference desk. This talk page is not the place to be detective, prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, or jury—this is not a blog and it is not our job to evaluate evidence or try a case.

```Buster Seven Talk 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering that 99% of the discussion here is on target and in keeping with that, I don't see a need to have you post it again. -- Avanu (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

99% is a bit high. I posted it because I estimate about 72.5%. And because I would bet that 99% of the editors here have not seen it since late February. Its just a reminder. But, if you don't see a need and don't sense the drift into adversarial lawyerly positioning, No problem. Maybe other editors do. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between acting like a lawyer and discussion on matters of material, neutrality and balance. Some of us here have articles in the newspapers about our previous actions to keep Wikipedia running well and keep things in order. Others of us are treated as experts. I do not expect this is a Phoenix Wright kind of matter where we shout, 'OBJECTION!' every time something comes up. We should discuss every aspect of this article and how it relates to the policy, even if it does seem to be a bit closer to a legal aspect. Like choosing which quotes to use, someone of great legal background and experience versus a tv personality. Which one shapes opinion more? Which one knows more? These are two very different matters and every sentence in this article should be subject to scrutiny. It will if we try to get this up to GA status. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I just sensed a drift of editors from collaborators into adversaries. Thats all. No lecture intended...no specific editor in mind. Just doing what I can to keep us focussed on our prime responsibility...our reader. This article and talk is much visited (and discussed elsewhere). I'm sure we've all heard the meme..."Don't trust what you read on Wikipedia." I know its a crap comment but I hear it often. We all spend alot of time here..and probably will spend even more when the trial starts. Let's all work to use this article as a vehicle to improve the trust level of the general public. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's 911 Call Doctored by NBC Producer

Sources:

http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2012/04/fired-nbc-producer-who-made-fake.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nbc-fires-producer-who-doctored-tape-of-zimmerman-911-call/

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120407/george-zimmerman-911-call-nbc-fires-producer-ove

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/324402/20120405/nbc-apology-911-call-trayvon-martin-zimmerman.htm

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/nbc-fires-producer-responsible-for-edited-911-call.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.245.233.158 (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Was Trayvon out with the Girlfriend's son?

Not a forum

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

At the Hearing one Prosecution witness testified that he saw 2 people running towards the Girlfriend's house. Was the 2nd person the Girlfriend's 14 year old son? It's possible because a 14 year old would not stay at home if the 17 year old was going somewhere.True Observer (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Get a reliable source and we can then consider putting what is in the reliable source into the article. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

About George Zimmerman

I know this will probably be rejected as "irrelevant", but I'd like to point out that Zimmerman was charged for "domestic violence" and "resisting officer" in 2005 and 2006.
link : http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/27/10894561-zimmerman-accused-of-domestic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer
http://globalgrind.com/news/george-zimmerman-and-his-history-violence-sanford-florida-details
http://current.com/community/93716665_george-zimmerman-had-felony-assault-on-police-officer-charge-in-05-2-domestic-assaults.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.2.245.114 (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Under WP:BLPCRIME no conviction, no inclusion as it is not directly relevant or notable itself to Wikipedia. Same is true for Martin's pot connection. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

SUPPORT- It's absolutely relevant and should be included. The bios of Zimmerman and Martin should be complete and accurate bios of their lives. If it is well sourced biographical information, it should be added. We need to put an end to wiki censorship. MiamiManny (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead section had been edited down too severely, with the result that it was slanted toward a recounting of Zimmerman's claims about what happened, and not giving a balanced presentation of the story as has been widely reported. Removing widely reported details such as where Martin was going, and the widely reported and confirmed fact (one of the few confirmed facts, from the 911 call) that Zimmerman was following Martin is POV and not acceptable for the lead section which is supposed to be able to pretty much stand alone as a summary of the article. We give more than enough voice to Zimmerman's account of what happened, several places in the article, including in the lead, but we are not going to tell only his recounting of what he claims happened. The sources don't, and we don't. And just undoing an edit that was explained - without giving any explanation - is not the way we do things here. The facts that I reinstated have long been in the lead, are cited by dozens if not hundreds of sources, and removing them has, as I said in my edit summary, slanted the lead. Our job is to accurately reflect what sources say, not to replace their journalistic and editorial judgments with ones that we like better. Tvoz/talk 08:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Zimmerman's account can't be balanced with Martin's is the unfortunate consequence of Martin's being unable to give his account, since he is dead. We shouldn't just include speculation in the name of balance. There are many other citable FACTS (not speculation by media) that can be included, such as Martin's recent ciminal behavior (stealing from lockers at school, drug possession, assault of the bus driver) that has more merit and place in the lead, since it is verifiable, than mere speculation.ProfJustice (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We are not doing that, we are including well-sourced material. And see below about being in violation of 1RR. Tvoz/talk 08:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin's Intentions

Unfortunately, Martin is not here to tell us where he was going. Maybe he was going to his father's house. Maybe he was scoping out houses in the neighborhood to rob. Maybe he was patroling the neighborhood for suspicious individuals. The point is that it is not possible for anyone except him to know where he was going when he was shot. Any statement on this is purely speculation and therefore doesn't belong in the article, and certainly not in the lead. An article this contentious should avoid such speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfJustice (talk • contribs)

Collapsing this into the section immediately above which is where the discussion about your edit was started. The material you reverted twice is well-sourced and has long been in the lead in one way or another - please address the points made there regarding how we decide what to include. Zimmerman's statements are not facts, they are merely his claims. Where Martin was going is widely reported and not considered to be in contention, and we go with sources. Also, you're in violation of the 1 revert rule that is clearly stated on the top of the edit screen - you were supposed to come here and discuss, not come here and discuss while reverting back to the text you want. Please undo your last revert and the content can be discussed here, as my edit summary advised. Tvoz/talk 08:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Last revert undone awaiting discussion. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Zimmerman's statements are just that. We should not assume his statements are factually correct, only that it's a fact he said it (which we hear him state e.g. in the 911 call). I understand you can cite RS for where Martin was going, that isn't my point, and it isn't the ONLY criterion for inclusion. My point is that it is obviously speculation, perhaps likely correct, but speculation nonetheless and therefore doesn't belong in the lead. Is it really even relevant? So what where he was going. So what if he was out for a stroll. It really doesn't have a bearing on the events. Visiting his girlfriend, going to his mother's, looking for frogs in the rain, I don't see why it should matter, so why should such speculation be included. Stay focused now, that was direct question. Discussion should be dialectic so try not to just repeat what you already stated, I addressed that point already. And on the reverts, you are guilty of violating the 1 revert rule there also, so please stop with the Gotcha. Let's discuss the issues. I'm here to do that, not get into a revert war. And on a side note, and I know this is off-topic with regard to the article, we all know some would like to use this incident to stir up racial violence and the media has a financial interest in creating and sustaining controversies. But an issue like this is too important to use as a proxy battle for something else. Yes, Martin wasn't perfect and yes, it's possible Zimmerman was overzealous. But a young man is dead and another man's fate hangs in the balance. I think the vast majority of Americans feel the way you and I do Tvoz. If Zimmerman was the aggressor and wasn't acting in self-defense, then he deserves to pay for his crimes. I hope it is possible to discover the objective facts in the case so justice can be served - whatever that outcome may entail. ProfJustice (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

if you were to describe this situation to a completely uninformed listener, as concisely and as neutrally as possible : Martin was walking. Zimmerman saw him. Zimmerman thought he was suspicious. Called the cops. Followed him. They fought/interacted/dont know details. Some witnesses, but inconclusive and conflicting (detail does not belong in lead). Zimmerman shot. Later claimed it was self defense. He was initially not arrested. Outrage. Racial tensions. He has been arrested and charged.

Those are all objective facts. (Zimmerman's claim is a fact, not necessarily that it actually was SD). That is pretty much what our lead should be. It describes the case without passing any judgements and provides the basic understanding needed to read the detailed stuff that comes below. To put more in the lead opens up the door to a lot of pov (which particular witness or opinion or facts you include in the lead past that are going to be pushing one side or the other) Gaijin42 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree exactly. Let's keep it as concise and factual as possible. Controversial statements, even from RS, should be excluded from the lead (at this point anyway). To wit, I suggest again removing the irrelevant (and controversial) claim he was walking to the father's girlfriend's/fiance's condo/house, here or there - who house he was staying at - it's all irrelevant. People should not get shot for no reason regardless of where they are walking, that's a peripheral issue (i.e. whether he "belonged" there or not) and doesn't merit inclusion in the lead. No to mention how cumbersome the sentence structure is atm. I had simplified it with much better and more concise wording, for those who might care see my version a couple of edits ago before Tvoz's edit. This isn't about telling one side or the other aor both sides, it's about stating the basic, known facts as simply as possible. ProfJustice (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your point re: his belonging there. But, I think his reason for being there is mentioned in order to counter the fact that it was/is a "gated community" implying restricted controlled entry (when in fact it has many not-so-secret un-restricted entry points). ```Buster Seven Talk 14:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. But it's a point of contention and doesn't belong in the lead. Again, the purpose is not to "tell both sides", we don't need to justify his being there - we need to state the most critical facts of the case as clearly and concisely as possible. ProfJustice (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

According to your logic, the whole lead would have to be gutted, because it is filled with controversial statements from RS. Was Zimmerman hispanic or white? Was Martin walking to a house he was staying at or just walking around? Was Martin's appearance and behavior suspicious or not? Did Martin attack him or not? Was it self-defense or not? Was Zimmerman bleeding from wounds or not? Was there evidence to contradict his assertion of self-defense or not? In lieu of all the other controversies surrounding this shooting, I see no relevant reason not to include where he was walking to.--Isaidnoway (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it would not. Zimmerman's race whatever it may be is a verifiable fact. We don't know where Martin was going, because he never got there, maybe he didn't even know. No one is saying his behavior was suspicious, we are only say that's what Zimmerman stated to the 911 operator (a verifiable fact). We don't know who attacked who, so that doesn't belong in the lead either. We don't know if it was SD, either, so that should not be stated in the lead (Zimmerman's CLAIM it was SD should however, again - that is a verifiable fact). I think I just covered all the points you raised. ProfJustice (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We can mention that he was staying at his father's fiancee's home in the gated community, which serves the same purpose as far as saying he had the right to be there, inside the gated community. I am in agreement that his destination, and where he was traveling from, are not relevant to the lead, as it really did not affect Zimmerman's perception. Later in the body, I believe that the common story (backed up by some evidence) that he was walking from 7-11 to his home is very relevant as it can be used to evaluate Zimmerman's perception that he was up to no good. Some of the other facts (races involved) I think are 1) easy/short to include 2) facts, not really controversial (excepting zimmerman being hispanic vs multiracial vs white hispanic), 3) directly relevant to the controversy as its obviously a racially tinged issueGaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a good suggestion. It is much less speculative/controversial as a point of fact and will serve the purpose stated in favor of inclusion. Let's keep it short in the lead though, since it is not really that important vis-a-vis the basic facts of the case. Can someone else do the edit? I already tried it a couple of times, only to be reverted. ProfJustice (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing that any of it should be excluded, including his race. I don't see where Martin was walking to as that big of a controversial statement. The whole circumstances surrounding the shooting are controversial, and where he was walking to is just one little slice of it. The case is not going to pivot on where he was walking to.--Isaidnoway (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Which is one of the reasons it doesn't need to be in the lead.ProfJustice (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where Martin was intending on going. He had been to the 7-11 and he was at his dad's housing complex about 1 block from his house. Giant huge enormous... DUH... he was going home. Maybe he didn't want to head straight home, wanting to talk to his girlfriend, who knows... but more than obvious, he was heading back to his dad's apartment. Sure you can't know his every thought and maybe he stopped because he thought he saw a striking and rare crucifix ground beetle, but unless he decided at that very moment to run away to the circus or join a car theft ring, he was just in the process of heading home. Have you ever been 17 years old and acted in a way that might be considered goofy or suspicious by an older person? I don't care if this is in the lead or not, but overanalyzing it to the point of absurdity is frankly... absurd. -- Avanu (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Too much of it is going on here, but a couple of things matter. The 7-11 and NBA halftime statement was wrong and yet it still exists despite half of it being disproven, no evidence of the 7-11 has been 'public', but there is some assumption to believe 'DeeDee's statements are a liability for the prosecution in that regard. Especially since DeeDee made a statement about Martin not going to run and going to confront Zimmerman and the fact he was with 70 (ft or m I forget which) from the house. Martin's intent should not be dissected in the lead, but we have evidence that clearly points to his intent and actually confronting Zimmerman and not the other way around. A big matter in court, but should be done delicately here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

1. How long is a person a fiancee? The relationship is variously described as girlfriend and fiancee. After 4 years, she cannot be called fiancee unless there is a scheduled date.

2. The first report of Trayvon's phone call referred yo his talking to a girlfriend. All of a sudden, she becomes the girlfriend. Strange that she does not appear on his Facebook Page or Twitter account.

3. Trayvon was not staying at his father's fiancee's home. He was visiting there. In fact this was his first night. There is a big difference between staying and visiting. Staying implies that he had been among his neighbors. Visiting implies that you are a stranger. Trayvon was a stranger to the neighborhood.True Observer (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he was going straight to his father's girlfriend's/fiancee's whatever, the point is that it's an assumption. Maybe he was scoping out houses to bulgarize. I don't know and neither did GZ and neither does anyone else. Maybe he was a "stranger" to the neighborhood, maybe he was there a dozen times and knew half the residents. We don't need this type of speculation in the article at this point, and definitely not in the lead - no of it is particularly relevant to getting shot!ProfJustice (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@True Observer. Asking someone..."Where do you stay?" is the same as asking, "Where do you live?" ```Buster Seven Talk 17:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that is the point he was making. ProfJustice (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@TrueObserver : 1) we have no idea when the engagement happened. He could have proposed last month, and have no date set. This is complete speculation, and further completely irrelevant. Trying to poke holes in a part of the story that is not relevant is really pointless. 2) Not everyone lists relationships on facebook, or makes such information public. or they could have been not exclusive. In any case, again it serves no purpose. If it was just a friend that happens to be female, or whatever their relationship is, it does not impact her statements. 3) this point is slightly true, in that he was unknown. however being unknown is not cause for suspicion. I doubt zimmerman is "on sight" familiar with every resident of the entire community, especially considering they lived on opposite sides. I certainly dont know all of the poeple that live in my own building, let alone my own complex/community. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

← Reliable sources - hundreds of them - say that he was walking to his father's fiancee's house. He was 70 feet from it - as Avanu says, this is not rocket science: it is a reasonable conclusion - drawn not by us, who have no business drawing conclusions which is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - but drawn by the many, many, many journalists who have written and spoken about this.

Are there legitimate reliable sources that claim otherwise? This is not a controversial point in a neutral presentation - he was staying at her house and walking home. We no longer say in the lead that he had gone to the 7-11, or anything about the NBA, or about the well-reported iced tea and Skittles - but I am not aware of any reliable sourcing that says anything other than that he was obviously walking home, whether he was "looking around" or not. Leaving that point out gives more credence to Zimmerman's unsubstantiated claims than to the basic facts of the case that are not in contention other than by Zimmerman's supporters. And the lead is supposed to summarize the article, and stand alone as a brief statement of what it says. A short description of the event, as described across the board of reliable sources, needs to include that he was walking to that townhouse.

A similar argument can be made about including that Zimmerman was following Martin - by his own recorded comments to the police operator - Zimmerman does not deny now that he was following Martin when he made the call - it's in the call transcript and reported all over the place by hundreds of reliable sources. His dispute is whether he continued to follow him, and I had not added that to the lead. He was following Martin while he made the call. Fact, and relevant fact, since he had been instructed, on tape and reported everywhere, "We don't need you to do that", which somehow has also disappeared from the lead.

Martin was going to that townhouse, Zimmerman spotted him, thought he was suspicious, called the police while he was following him. Subsequently (without our saying exactly what happened next because the other eyewitness is dead) there was a confrontation, and Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. That is what my edit said, and that is what is supported by so many sources that it is ridiculously POV to take it out. Tvoz/talk 20:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems we have a concensus, with Tvoz as a holdout, on removing the controversial and irrelevant material, such as where Martin MAY have been heading. Most editors who have weighted in on the matter agree this is not verifiable or important. It is clear an editor or two is devoted to "tell Martin's side" of the story here, but that is not what this article is about. A number of reasoned remarks have explained why this is the case. Although a vocal and emphatic minority adamantly disagrees, there have been no new arguements made in favor of inclusion. We have the RS argument, but there is considerable controversial information that meets that standard. Every other argument in favor seems to be based on a pro Martin POV. I think Gaijin42's point-by-point summary above is the most concise, accurate and supportable. No one has voiced a problem with any of the points he made, so I think we need to stop allowing one or two editors to dominate that content, especially after they have admitted the primary reason for inclusion is to support one side (TM) and discount the other (GZ) - it isn't about sides here, it's about facts. ProfJustice (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No, this discussion is still going on, as is obvious to anyone who has been working here for more than one day. Tvoz/talk 05:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur that no consensus has been achieved. Stratifying editors into majority vs minority positions, Trayvon vs George, responders vs watchers, is troubling. This article has had a life since the sad incident happened. Editors have come and gone, watched from the sidelines and participated. Some editors have taken upon themselves a lead position in discussions, in article editing, protecting the article and Wikipedias guidelines and rules, etc. They are to be commended. While differences existed and editors "beefed" at each other a sense of collaboration was present. Much eloquence has come forth and veteran editors, pro-Z and pro-M, have shown what it takes to achieve respect. But I sense that a shift into a more aggresive "in your face" editing style is on the horizon. Speaking for myself, my lack of involvement in a thread should not be interpreted as lack of interest or an unwillingness to voice a problem or used to sway a consensus one way or the other. I respect the abilities of some editors to stay on topic and express themselves in a clear logical way (much better than I can). Conversely, I disrespect the abilities of some ediotrs to lead us off thread topic and into the cornfield. To be clear, I am not taling about the Professor. The fact that I dont interject a "That's Right!" or "That's B.S." doesnt mean I dont agree (or dis-agree). My silence should not be construed as disinterest or support. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Everything in life is based on a calculation of probabilities based on one's personal experience:

1. Odds of someone not carrying ID as a 17 year old: 5% 2. Odds of someone not mentioning their girlfriend on Facebook: 1% 3. Odds on a 17 year old interested in basketball not being at home for the NBA All Star game which had famous local players and was being televised from Tampa for the first time in 20 years: 5%. 4. Odds on the same teenager out and about being up to no good: ?%. 5. Odds on Zimmerman, who is waiting for the police to arrive, to commit a crime: 1%

It seems that everything to do with Trayvon Martin and his activities is abnormal.True Observer (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a blog - please take your personal opinions about this somewhere else. Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not a place to air our own analyses of who is normal or abnormal in this matter, and distractions like this are disruptive. Tvoz/talk 22:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I find TO's remarks a bit odd, and don't agree with his conclusion (and I'm sure you are feeling frustration defending an untenable position) I don't think personal attacks are warranted. Take a deep breath, his remarks will carry the weight they deserve based on their merit, no need to run people off. I'm sure he didn't mean for his "distractions" to "disrupt" you. ProfJustice (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am in accord with TVOZ on this. You are doing ridiculous speculation. Since you can't get a drivers license in Florida until 18, #1 seems quite reasonable. I know many people who dont list their girlfriend on facebook. The game hadn't started yet so it is entirely valid that he was out and about. #4 nobody knows. #5 I dont think anyone is suggesting Zimmerman went out to intentionally commit a crime. Nonetheless he may have done so if he was not justified in self defense at the time of the shot, which is what the trial will decide. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the discussions here would be more efficient and productive if excerpts from reliable sources were used in the comments. For example, the following excerpt from source 10 at the end of the relevant paragraph can be used to support the statement that Martin was returning to his father's fiancee's home. The excerpt first gives what the article says is a misconception and then what it says is the correct version.

"Trayvon had no business walking through the gated community where he was shot and should not have been out at 3 a.m.

Trayvon was where he was supposed to be. He and his father were visiting his father's fiancée, who lives in the gated community. Trayvon had walked to a 7-Eleven and was returning to her townhouse shortly after 7:15 p.m. when he was shot. He was not out at 3 a.m."

If there is another reliable source that contradicts this, or suggests it is uncertain what Martin was doing at the time, then give the excerpt here and consider putting that info into the article too for NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your citation would be good except for the simple fact that the author doesn't tell us where he got the information. The author also salts it with the 3:00 A.M. comment when he knows that everyone knows he died around 7:30 P.M. By now it is universally accepted that this information was made up by the family when the story started to gain traction. The media picked it up and it became sourced because the media published the made up story. They might have gotten away with it, except for the NBA game part which could be verified. Because the NBA game timing was questioned, then everything else started to fall apart. They had to admit that the father wasn't even home when he left.True Observer (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is accurate, but it certainly sound controversial. In fact, it sounds controverted. The reality is we don't and can't know why/where Martin was going (except for Tvoz, she KNOWS - for a FACT he was headed to that condo, as she said above, LOL - forgive me Tvoz, I'm not trying to disrupt you ;). But we've been over this ground and now we are both repeating ourselves. RS isn't the ONLY standard for inclusion in the lead (we can't include all the speculation in the lead no matter how many RS restate it), and exonerating Martin (or Zimmerman) CERTAINLY isn't. What other reasons have been given? ProfJustice (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop personalizing this to me. I didn't say that I KNOW the truth of what happened. I said that I have not seen any reliable sources that dispute the idea that he was headed home, and that our job is to give a cogent presentation of what reliable sources report on the story, and to give an overview of what the article is about - and that is not to give undue weight to one side of the story. I've asked for examples of reliable sources that dispute where most - or all - sources say Martin was going. And actually reliable sources are foundational for all parts of all articles, not just the lead. Tvoz/talk 05:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Martin was going to that townhouse" - see above. ProfJustice (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

see WP:NPA - "when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack." ProfJustice (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"(except for Tvoz, she KNOWS - for a FACT he was headed to that condo, as she said above, LOL - forgive me Tvoz, I'm not trying to disrupt you ;)" - that bears little resemblance to the exception in WP:NPA that you quoted (nor did I use the word "attack", by the way). There are more than one editor disagreeing with you on this, so please stop personalizing this to me. It's not a pissing match. Tvoz/talk 06:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

We do not have objective facts that Martin was going from 7-11 to home. We do have evidence that he was at 7-11, and it is an entirely reasonable conclusion to say he was going home since he was directly on that path. However, for completion we could qualify the statement by saying "reportedly" or some such. Those that are objecting strongly to this information are trying to twist this into being an issue when it is not. IF he was or wasnt coming from 7-11, and was or was not going hoe, it has no effect on the case, but is the extremely widely reported, and entirely logical background of the case and there is no reason not to include it. (That said I dont object to it not being in the lead, but only occuring in the shooting detail, just due to having the lead be as consise as possible. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Concise is fine as a general goal, but it's not the most important consideration, and I only added a short phrase, which did not seriously affect the conciseness of the section. The lead needs to accurately reflect the article content, and taking this out gives undue weight to Zimmerman's claims and sort shrift to what the sources overwhelmingly agree on. We're not supposed to be the ones making the determination of whether. their sources are accurate. BobK asked above, as I did earlier, are there reliable sources that say he was not going back to that townhouse? Is there any such evidence reported? Is it not the case that this is the story that the preponderance of reliable sources tell? Please bring forward contradictory sources to examine, or we should go with what we have. Not our opinions. Tvoz/talk 05:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. The most critical analysis I've found so far of Martin and Zimmerman's movements is the Wagist map that's already been cited here. Here are a couple of relevant quotes, 1) "Martin is initially reported as hanging out near the clubhouse, looking at houses and acting suspiciously." 2) "After a few minutes, Trayvon seems to have walked north, back up the sidewalk to confront Zimmerman" and 3) "their altercation took place, when Martin apparently doubled back to confront Zimmerman."

According to this account, the altercation took place was Martin was heading north, away from where Martin's father was staying. ProfJustice (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"entirely reasonable conclusion", I agree. And we're all comfortable accepting that as the standard now for inclusion - as opposed to verifiable facts. Because we have RSes all over the place on these "reasonable conclusions" and I would like to know what our standard is going to be here, so when I start to include reasonable conclusions (according to whom, btw?) I'm clear I'm meeting the standard. I'd consider that carefully before promulgating that + an RS as the standard for inclusion in the lead. ProfJustice (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not our entirely reasonable conclusion, the entirely reasonable conclusion made by the journalists who reported on it in multiple reliable sources. Tvoz/talk 07:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for his being at the 7-11? If he was at the 7-11, he would be on tape and the store would have made a mint by now. That tape would be priceless.True Observer (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a completely RS, but http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/the_story_unravels_new_questions_about_trayvon_martins_final_hour.html#ixzz1rXQBFYTQ "But a video does exist. The public relations director of 7-Eleven told me that, according to the company's manager of security, a store camera captured an African-American male (she wouldn't commit to "young") purchasing a bag of Skittles and a can of tea (she wouldn't say that it was "Arizona" tea). The hard disk with the video was removed after the story broke, and it has been subpoenaed by investigators for the state and/or county. The company has not made it available to the media. The public relations director could not specify the exact time of the purchase but said it was between 6:00 and 6:30." Presumably this will come out during the trial. That does leave a nice lag of time between the time of the purchase and the time of the incident, but there is 0 evidence that he was doing anything wrong in between. (Perhaps Zimmerman will elaborate on "suspicious behavior" if he takes the stand.) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Gets aggravating having to search and dig again for answers that have already been given in the Talk page before, but here is another source of that from WESH TV in Orlando http://www.wesh.com/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/30841174/detail.html

A corporate spokeswoman for 7-Eleven said on Thursday they have a video secured at corporate headquarters showing Martin the night he was killed.

An executive with 7-Eleven viewed the tape and can confirm: "he observed an African American male in a hoodie purchase Skittles and an iced tea between 6 and 6:30 that evening."

So there's a hopefully reliable source. The article doesn't have a byline, but the reporting sounds reasonable. -- Avanu (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This story is starting to take the Duke Lacrosse route. As more information comes in, Zimmerman is being viewed in an ever more favorable light. The deference being shown to his side in the court proceedings is just another reflection. Wiki editors and others who took a knee jerk position are now fighting a rear guard action to try to save face. It has gotten so bad, Google is no longer referencing Wiki for this story.173.22.111.112 (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't make the news. If the sources are generally favorable to Martin, our article should be favorable to Martin. If they're favorable to Zimmerman, likewise. And if they are divided, then we should provide a clear picture of all the different points of view. Where the newspapers go, we follow - even if that sometimes leads in circles. Wnt (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin's Intentions — break 1

Here's an excerpt from page 2 of a NY Times article regarding the reason for Martin to be returning home.

"That night, for example, while his father and Ms. Green were out having dinner in Orlando, Trayvon asked Chad, Ms. Green’s son, if he wanted anything from the store.

Skittles, the younger boy said.

A Wary Community

The teenager with candy entered the Retreat at Twin Lakes, either passing the front gate or taking a not-so-secret shortcut."

Here's another excerpt from page 6 of the same NY Times article which gives another reason for Martin to be heading home: to watch the NBA All-Star game, which was about to begin.

"Less than half an hour after Trayvon Martin died face down in gated grass, a privileged crowd of 17,000 rose to their feet at the N.B.A. All-Star game in Orlando, 20 miles to the south, to sing the national anthem."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now tell us: Why did the family originally put out that he left during half-time? Why are they being wishy-washy about the store he went to. Do you know the age of the girlfriend's son? No one else does either. Only he would know if the conversation took place. When do you suppose the family asked him? NYT did a good job weaving the story around the facts afterhand.True Observer (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunday, Feb. 26, 2012 — "• 2012 NBA All-Star Game presented by Kia Motors, 7:30 p.m. (7:37 p.m. tip) | TNT"[3] --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

They were mistaken. They were not there and did not know for sure. The boy is 14. There are multiple photos and interviews with him available on the net. Why does this matter? There is not even a shred of evidence, or an accusation that anything illegal happened involving Martin. Even if hypothetically Martin was on a rape and murder spree instead of 7-11, at the time zimmmerman saw him, he was just walking. Hypothetically in some suspicious manner or something (that only Zimmerman would be able to say specifically, which he has not done so far) - but again, this is in no way impacted by the 711, by the NBA game, etc. You seem to be under a mistaken impression that to vindicate Zimmerman you must crucify Martin, and by casting doubt on small details you can unravel a great conspiracy. That is not true. Zimmerman might be acquitted - while at the same time Martin was not behaving badly in any way prior to their interaction. Theoretically Zimmerman could even be acquitted if fully started the interaction and Martin just reacted poorly to being confronted (which would be an entirely reasonable thing to do if you were just walking home and someone starts hassling you) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

They weren't mistaken. They made it up because, as you say, they weren't there. Which leads to the next logical question, what else is made up? Another point is that the media ran with their story and none of them have retracted any of it. They have started to fudge, like referring to Convenience Store instead of 7-Eleven. You cannot go through life without using logic. What possible reason is there for the 7-11 not to identify Martin if he was there. This would not exactly be a state secret. Apparently they said African American but wouldn't say whether it was a younger one. Trayvon Martin did not have ID on him. That is why he was a John Doe at the morgue. The obvious question is why? Next question is, what kind of person does not carry ID? The answer to that is obvious. Someone who doesn't want to be ID'd easily.True Observer (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of things made up. "My son never followed Trayvon" - information which could only be gotten from Zimmerman. Because that information is wrong, should we assume he (and therefore Zimmerman) are lying and not include any of their statements? YOU CANNOT GET A DRIVERS LICENSE IN FLORIDA UNTIL 18. SOMEONE WHO IS NOT 18 IS THE KIND OF PERSON THAT DOESN'T CARRY ID. Saying convenience store instead of 7-11 is not fudging, its not repeating the same detail in the 500000 stories that have been written. Several links quoting 7-11 management have been linked here recently attesting to the security video existing. But again, if it was some other store, how does that affect the case? Stop trolling. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

@Editor:TO...a simplier less judgmental reason is that he ~~doesnt~~ didnt drive or have a state Id, he didnt have any crerdit cards or bank debit cards, he didnt have or need a wallet. He was a kid. He probably had his house key on a chain around his neck. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you BobK and Gaijin. You've captured it well. And again, where are the sources disputing this? Tvoz/talk 06:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

They are in the archive now. Though this clear POV blog sums up a LOT of the points. [4] "Which takes us to the interview with Craig Rivera and Brandy Green. We discover during that interview where the “skittle story” came from. Well, maybe. According to the 14-year-old son of Ms. Green he asked Trayvon to get him the candy when Trayvon said he was going to the store. We discover that Brandy Green and Tracy Martin (Girlfriend and Dad) were in downtown Orlando at a restaurant and the boys were home alone. Other ones point to the 'DeeDee' not calling the cops herself after the phone alleged goes dead after Martin confronts Zimmerman. Some POV against Zimmerman from ABC, but with DeeDee on the phone saying Martin spoke to Zimmerman first. Video [5] and text. [6]Wagist combines the info to show evidence that Martin doubled back and could have easily made it home from the time he noticed Zimmerman. [7] Comments like this though are false yet they are the 'story' still, "Zimmerman killed Martin as Martin walked back to his father's fiance's home after stepping out to buy snacks during the NBA All-Star Game." Records show that Martin not Zimmerman started the confrontation and those records and analysis may not be entirely true, but it should still be reflected in the article. As both stories have conflicting accounts of what happened. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Why should we include records and analysis that may not be true"? This circular drive to make the victim responsible for his own death is obvious. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Rush,Mark Levin and Sean Hannity have had the most insightful comments on this case and I think their analysis needs to be included. Since they reach a larger daily audience than ABC/NBC/CNN/NYTimes COMBINED, I think it is important to include these RS as some of the primary sources of information, especially in the lead... take a breath Tvoz, I'm kidding. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. We need to be conservative and include mostly undisputed facts here, especially since this is a dynamic situation and much more information is bound to come out. This is the best way to avoid WP:BLP and credibility issues from the start, not throw up everything I agree with that I can RS and see what sticks. Again, RS is a criterion for inclusion, not the ONLY consideration/justification that needs to be be evaluated - not all RSes are all the reliable and we should have higher standards here, not lower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfJustice (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that Wagist article is jumping to conclusions with no evidence really. From C to F (on their map) is "towards the back entrance". There is no evidence either Martin or Zimmerman actually went to E. Doubling back is pure conjecture. Its just as possible he hid because he was scared somewhere in the vicinity of F. The only evidence they have towards a doubling back is the length of time between the end of the call, and the alteraction. but they have no actual knowledge of zimmerman's specific location at the end of the call. The conjecture about Martin which is backed up by some level of evidence, there is evidence for the security video at 7-11, trayvon did have skittles and tea. This conjecture about martin is not really a pivot for the case. it just provides some background and lead in. IF that conjecture is completely wrong, it really does not affect anything in the case. The type of conjecture you are discussing DOES directly impact the case, and there is no evidence showing that any particular conjecture is more accurate. There are a lot of unknowns about what happened in those missing minutes (although by some timelines it is a very short amount of time - which is why we should be careful with the timelines ). There is 0 evidence as to what happened in those missing minutes, except for Zimmermans testimony (which is covered in Zimmerman's account). What happened in those crucial minutes will pretty much drive the outcome of the case, and we should only be including highly verifiable information in that section. For all editors here, anywhere something is not completely backed up and is conjecture (either on our part or the part of the media) I think if we are objecting to the information (particularly if it is media conjecture) we need to answer the question "what is the impact if this information is wrong". If that impact is minor, and that is the best information we have, there is very little harm in including it. If the impact is major, we need to be extremely careful about including it, particularly when it is conjecture not based on any hard evidence. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that this discussion on "Martin walking to the home where he was staying" was still ongoing and a consensus had not been reached as to whether to include it or not. I disagree with the lead being changed (apparently it was, I reverted it) until a consensus has been reached by allowing editors to voice their support or opposition. It is simply not that controversial and no RS have been produced to dispute that he indeed was "walking back to the home where he was staying". I support this information being included in the lead.--Isaidnoway (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

BusterSeven, it should be included. Also WP:Truth points to this. Under WP:V, "n. Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement." This is a major opposing viewpoint which has gotten more air time on a considerable section of the minority... i.e. conservatives. They cite this Wagist as their counter to the mainstream (often tagging it as 'liberal') media and using their own facts with a different interpretation. Quite frankly they make a good point, and we have DeeDee on record confirming that Martin was the one who initated conversation and that Martin was not going to run away, even when he was so close to the house. This 'Martin doubled back' may not be exactly what happened, but the other version here is no more 'truth' then this one. Frankly, the comments from DeeDee are absent because they destroy the perception of Martin being hunted down. Its on tape, its on records, Martin after being told to run home refused to and yet Zimmerman who is argued to have followed to keep Martin in eyesight had just confirmed he was going to go wait for the police and was returning to his vehicle. Martin doubled back as Zimmerman was heading back and there the incident occurred. That is what the view is and it is supported, it would be wrong to avoid Martin's intention to not run away as we clearly have testimony to. Martin would not run away. He did not listen to DeeDee and that is all we can truly say about Martin's intent. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, here is the proposed change -

"While on a private errand Zimmerman saw Martin walking inside the gated community. Martin was returning to his father's fiancée's townhouse where he had been staying. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department"

vs

"While on a private errand Zimmerman saw Martin walking inside the gated community. Martin was in the community visiting his father. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department"

The second is more concise and avoids a couple of the issues (girlfriend vs fiancee, where he was going, "staying" - which some might take as living vs visiting), while still illustrating WHY Martin was in the community. This is a compromise position I am proposing to resolve this dispute, not my preferred version. ProfJustice (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The second one is worse.

"Visiting his father" sounds like he hadn't been in the townhouse that day and was going by himself to visit his father that night.
Stay is the proper word. See definition at [8]: "2. To remain or sojourn as a guest or lodger"

Except that *1. To continue to be in a place or condition: stay home; stay calm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfJustice (talk • contribs) 17:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's consistent with the situation too.

"return" is correct according to RS's — If you dispute this, give links to sources and relevant excerpts that support your position.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I support the first version as there is nothing controversial about it. Common sense, logic and RS indicate that Martin was returning to the townhouse where he was staying, and had left earlier to go to the store.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I also support the first version. Martin was not visiting his father, he was with his father (as an additional houseguest you might say). While I still feel Zimmerman was on duty 24/7, I won't belabor the point (re:on a personal errand). ```Buster Seven Talk 19:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We cannot use 'stay' as it brings up sense of that it was his home, it was not his home. 'He was visiting his father at-' should be the term. If the father lives at his fiancee's house then the father lives at that townhouse. No need to make it more confusing. Staying implies a level of familiarity when used with 'house or home' versus 'staying at a motel' which implies it is not your own home, but using it solely for lodging purposes. While we 'stay at a hotel' we don't 'stay at your father's fiancee's town house'. Visiting is a temporary matter where as staying implies a since of permanence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Using the word stay does not imply a sense of permanent residency, Q: "Where you going this weekend?" A: I'm staying at my dad's girlfriend's house." Q: "Are you living there?" A: "No, I'm just staying for a couple of weeks." People use the word "live" or "reside" when talking about a permanent residence. You can "stay" anywhere; motel, friends house, grandparents house, campground, etc. This word is being over analyzed and it really isn't that controversial, Martin was staying with his father at the fiancee's townhouse.--Isaidnoway (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I support the first version - staying at his father's house means exactly the opposite of permanent residence - that would be living. Nor does it suggest it was his home, or have anything to do with familiarity at all. Do you "stay" at your home Chris? There is nothing whatsoever controversial or unsourced about the first version - he was returning to the fiancees house where he was staying - he wasn't just arriving for the first time, which "visiting" might imply. This is unnecessary parsing. Tvoz/talk 22:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Many people say, e.g. "I stay on bond street" to mean that is their permanent residence. It doesn't mean the opposite of live. And visit doesn't mean you aren't there yet. "I'm visiting my aunt" doesn't mean you haven't made it to her house yet, it means a temporary stay. ProfJustice (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have heard stay used as slang for living here too. I have also heard sick used as slang for cool or awesome. Generally though, we don't use the slang definition of a word for an encycopedic reference. I find it interesting that you equate visiting to a "temporary stay", but yet you are opposed to using the word "stay" when Martin was doing just that, he was temporarily "staying" with his dad at this townhouse.--Isaidnoway (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it is normally preceeded by a modifier (temporary) proves the point. Otherwise, it would be redundant. ProfJustice (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Street people would say so, but people who can afford to live in a building don't (if they use brobber [sic] English).TMCk (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue with stay is whether or not the modifier of its status is used in the sentence to clarify the ambiguity of it, since we do not have the modifier we should use 'visiting' which carrys no duality. Should not have ambiguous statements in the lead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

New Pics

ABC News released a photo taken by of the first witnesses to arrive, and was the first to talk to Mr Zimmerman after the shooting. Although he heard but didn't see the scuffle, his picture is the earliest in the time sequence released. (Here's the picture with blood on his head.)--DeknMike (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Doubt we can use this in the article though. I recommend citing it as further proof Zimmerman was hurt and to counter the 'no apparent injuries' with clear proof of the contrary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

With this proof of injuries, why would you keep a reference to no apparent injuries?True Observer (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to the RS that had a link to the picture.[9] Here's the excerpt.

"His surprising testimony came the same day that ABC News exclusively obtained a photograph showing the bloodied back of Zimmerman's head, which was apparently taken three minutes after he shot and killed Martin. The photo could give credence to Zimmerman's claim that Martin had bashed his head against the concrete as Zimmerman fought for his life.

Click here to view the image. Warning: graphic content."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You could keep it as 'reports of "no apparent injuries".--DeknMike (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's becoming clear that "no apparent injuries" is simply false and shouldn't be in the article, except possibly in the section Media coverage, as an example of incorrect information that has been reported. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bob, we knew that eventually this was going to happen when the media was first reporting on things as "apparent" "reportedely" etc. We should remove it. The media coverage section for this type of incorrect information is a good suggestion.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite partial to a foot note section specifically showing this major point was false and has been countered by ABC (after Newsbusters got it no less) and this proof is the best evidence to witness his injuries. While we knew it was going to happen the lash back on this page is was just out of line, even though we had piles of evidence proving Zimmerman's injuries. Pushback on police reports and other official statements. Now I know I'll be accused of 'bias' again, but I was right about this weeks ago. Same with 'goons' and other matters. The media wants Zimmerman to rot for this, but the story keeps going further and further on self-defense in accordance with the law. 'Martin's actions that lead to his own death' may not be highly reported, but typically when you won't run from someone who is following you and you seek a confrontation and have several eyewitnesses claiming Martin (Mary Cutcher and #4 have lack of sight as reported on AC360 in their own interviews) was attacking Zimmerman. The police, 'John', Zimmerman all give the same account and the injuries back up the story. Burden has always been verifiability not truth, it changes and clarifies a little more each week, but the trend points to the situation being vastly different then how it was reported. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with most of the points you raised, it is totally unfair to say that Martin's actions lead to his death. There were two people involved in this incident and either one of them could have chosen a different course of action that would have resulted in one being alive and one being not charged with murder.--Isaidnoway (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one saying that myself so I put it in quotes to show the emphasis that it was the MEDIA's standpoint, not mine. Rivera made comments about the hoodie being a contributing factor. Others have pointed out that he did not run away and that contributed to his own death. Still others have pointed out that because he did not identify himself when he was a stranger in the area that he further led to his own death. A good portion of the narrative is that both are responsible for what happened, even Serino mentioned it. This is a tragedy, but not all the blame falls on Zimmerman. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

True. We can safely assume that Martin did not identify himself. But, we can also safely assume that Zimmerman did not identify himself. Had either one initiated a normal conversation about each others normal activities Martin would not be dead. Is Stanford (or just the Retreat) so safety conscious that ALL strangers are questioned? Or is it just the strangers that, for some unspoken reason, look suspicious? ```Buster Seven Talk 17:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that's a bit loaded, but yes Zimmerman hasn't announced himself as an officer and had no obligation to. Either way he did pull the trigger in the end. I only wanted to clarify that I do not believe Martin was solely responsible for his own death, some media people will say anything just to get the attention. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a picture of the Neighborhood Watch sign at the entrance to the gated community which may indicate the attitude there.[10] Unfortunately, I can't remember how to get back to the webpage where it appeared. Any help finding it would be appreciated. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Source needed - Zimmerman cell phone call - transcript

"Other reviewers of the call have offered alternate interpretations of what was said, but the transcript of the call states that the word in question is "unintelligible".[94][95]" Neither of those sources/articles mention a transcript of the call. The word 'transcript' isn't used in either article, unless I missed something. If I'm right, we need to add a link to the 'transcript' source. (yeah, I'm starting to doubt my reading comprehension, sorry. Plz check my work ^^) ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Done Added reference for transcript.--Isaidnoway (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Witness account vs. On scene pictures

We have this information included in witness accounts and now apparently in a new section describing the same thing. Do we really new a new section devoted to this? This person was a witness who was one of the first to arrive at the scene and it is reported adequately there.--Isaidnoway (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

That new section does not have any punctuation marks and it seems like an argument tried to be made. The publishing of the picture can be mentioned in the media coverage but the second sentence is completely wrong. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hoodie Photo

Should be included since that is what Martin was wearing and it has become a touchstone. It has become a major issue related to this case, it was released by his parents, widely published. It is being seen on T-shirts and posters and has become the iconic image for this case. It should be included.ProfJustice (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The "hoodie image" is a symbol for the movement that came out of the incident but not representative as a bio image. If there where images of Zimmerman carrying a gun we wouldn't use it that way either. Although we could use a pic of a demonstration where they hold up signs with the image in question (I mean more visible than in the one we have now).TMCk (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it would fine, in fact, preferred to use a photo of Zimmerman from the night of the incident - it is elucidating. And that photo of Martin we are use now sucks! The crop is bad, he has a strange look on his face and you can see his "grill" (which some may find, well, thuggish for lack of a better word). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfJustice (talk • contribs) 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, was the hoodie foto retouched before it was used on protest placards? I thought I saw another one on this talk page, or a link to it, that wasn't retouched. Would anyone be able to produce a link to the unretouched foto? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually the other picture was taken of one of the signs at a rally and was therefore of poor quality. As for the one in question here, it seems to be one that was released by the family to the public just like the one we are using for some time now.TMCk (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Clean Keeper that while it is a symbolic photo, it is not appropriate to place as a biography photo next to Zimmerman. We need better pictures of Trayvon Martin that just look normal instead of the little kid or the gangsta thug type ones. -- Avanu (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Avanu and TMCK. While the picture was 'iconic' it changes the perception of reality just like the young red hollister t-shirt photo. The doe-like stare of Trayvon Martin was part of the campaign in the media, much like the 'million-hoodie march' didn't actually have a million people, but was campaigning for 200k more votes on the Change.org petition. It is not neutral to put pictures that unfairly portray the individual. Positive or negative spin. Its from the same people that called Trayvon Martin similiar to Jesus Christ. That kind of association is not exactly... neutral. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The argument that the hoodie photo is iconic seems to dismiss the iconic nature of all of the photos, including the photo that is being used currently. The photos of Trayvon Martin with grills have been widely used by hate organizations to create a profile of Martin that attempts to suggest deviance or criminality. I've never looked at the boy in the hoodie and seen a Jesus Christ image; I've only seen a boy in a hoodie. (Actually, because of the blank expression, the hoodie picture has done a better job of pushing me to think about what the nature of fear and suspiciousness is in a situation like that. The other photos make me more conscious of which side is presenting the image and what I think their intentions are. That's a different conversation, though.) Unfortunately, there are very few photos of Trayvon Martin to choose from; he can't take anymore and, for that reason, all of his photos will be iconic in some way. As most of the photos have invoked polarizing responses from mainstream audiences--innocent youth or scary Black male--it seems that the hoodie photo is the least polarizing and, thus, the most fair depiction of the boy. Considering what we know about Martin's dress the day he was killed, the hoodie photo appears to be the most accurate representation of what he looked like that day. Simply put, the hoodie photo is the best choice. The image should be changed immediately.--Jacqham (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

I agree. Someone took out the hoodie photo right after I moved it to the appropriate section - maybe we should just have the edit war and see where things land. (sticking to 1RR a person, that is) Wnt (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've made an edit restoring it. [11] Any discussion? Wnt (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Do not endorse an edit war. The picture size is too big for one, if it scaled down to normal size I'd be okay with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you must reduce the image size, I won't revert; but the 220px standard width generally seems good for articles. From WP:Image use policy, "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". This particular image is a bit tall, sure, (I think we had a wider crop in File:Trayvon Martin.jpg, which thus would have been less tall, but that got deleted for not being used for 7 days) but it's not like the right margin is crowded up like in Easter egg. If you make it smaller we'll have a more ragged margin, and for what reason? Wnt (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - Change.org signatures

The first sentence of the "Public response" section reads:

"Over 2.2 million people demanded Zimmerman's arrest via a Change.org petition by Martin's mother."

It cannot be guaranteed or determined that every one of these signatures is from a unique person. Online (and offline, given what is happening in Wisconsin) petitions are notorious for having oodles of fake names added to them. The sentence should be changed to something like the following:

"Over 2.2 million signatures were collected on a Change.org petition created by Martin's mother calling for Zimmerman's arrest."

Of course, one could make the argument, too, against the notability of such a petition and including mention of it in the article, but we'll just start with this. 67.233.247.121 (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Andyvphil (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Affidavit of probable cause

We already had this information in the Pre-Trial section, is it really necessary to create a new section for the same information that was already included in another section. Wouldn't it make more sense, if you had new information that pertained to this topic, to include it where it already was. The affidavit of probable cause is not part of an ongoing investigation, so why would anyone put it there in that section. The affidavit was already ruled on by a judge and he found cause to have Zimmerman formally charged.--Isaidnoway (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Have another look, the section you're referring to doesn't mention this relevant information: "The affidavit also states that Zimmerman assumed that Martin was a criminal." It's also an important document that deserves its own sub-section. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The document's importance so far is that it was part of the bail hearing. I think it will be a small part of the prosecution's version of what happened. I expect we'll see the rest of the prosecution's version at further hearings or the trial, if it occurs. Seems like a POV fork within an article, which may be novel! In any case, it can be mentioned in the Pre-trial section where the bail hearing is mentioned. I've deleted the subject section. Consensus will be required before putting this new addition into the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What you think in terms of how important it will be to the prosecution is irrelevant. It's an important document, the importance of which you've now deleted by removing the section. You also unjustifiably deleted this content from the article, "The affidavit also states that Zimmerman assumed that Martin was a criminal." Hopefully another editor will re-add this information to the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain why it is so important that it merits a section devoted entirely to the affidavit or present a RS saying how relevant it is to it being important and we can discuss it here on the talk page. It's just an affidavit that was presented to the court in order for Zimmerman to be formally charged. It is just part of the court proceedings. You can always add information from the affidavit to the pre-trial section and see if it merits inclusion there. There will be a lot of documents filed in this case and if we give each and every one it's own section, the article will start to look cluttered.--Isaidnoway (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, Re your comment "You also unjustifiably deleted this content from the article, 'The affidavit also states that Zimmerman assumed that Martin was a criminal.' "— If you think it's worthwhile, put it in the Pre-trial section and we'll see what it looks like. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy to explain why it's important. This isn't just a murder trial. It's an attempted legal lynching. The importance of the Affadavit lies in the fact that it was such a tissue of lies (see my comment down three sections) and irrelevancies that, even with the lies, did not provide the elements of the charge (see Dershowitz). And a States Attorney had two minions write and swear to those lies, and a judge (not a "good" one, see Dersh again) signed off on it, when the least he should have done is demand a rewrite. Andyvphil (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of your interpretation of the "legal lynching' as you so outrageously call it. Any such dissonant comments may be removed or refactored per WP:TPG. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly which TPG bans "dissonant" views? "Dissonant" with what choir? Andyvphil (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You may be right in regards as to your assessment, but I'm thinking that will probably never make it into this article, (unless of course you can find some RS to back up your claims).--Isaidnoway (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

We should cover extreme points of view in enough detail so that people understand them, and provide proper refutations as well when we find them. Discussing these things freely and neutrally is the best way to defuse the "dissonance". Wnt (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

remove for now

This article should not be posted and should be removed until the case is decided. How many encyclopedias put in a murder case before a verdict is reached. This is not a cold case. It is dangerous, Wikipedia is not a news site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.107.152 (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

How is Wikipedia any more problematic in that regard than the ubiquitous news? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It is notable and it is being written carefully and with an encyclopedic and neutral tone. This article isn't specifically about a murder case, and we aren't presenting George Zimmerman as a murderer in this article. He freely admitting shooting Trayvon Martin; this story has become known world wide, and so short answer... no... this article will not be removed. -- Avanu (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about a shooting and the aftermath of that shooting. When the actual trial begins I'm sure a seperate article will be created. As to being a news site rather than an encyclopedia, point me in the direction of another internet site where dozens of normal people have gathered information that is verifiable and unbiased about this incident. Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia. This article exemplifies what Wikipedia Encyclopedia does best. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, Yeah, we are. I'd definitely argue the lead presents him as a cold-blooded killer. Some editors are repeated removing sourced exculpatory evidence, including eyewitness testimony, photographs and his own account of events. Even MSNBC and ABC "news" have included that information in their leads when it became available. It's pretty clear Z is guilty until proven innocent as far as the way this article is being written. If I were Z, I've have civil suits (against NBC for example) all over the place by now. ProfJustice (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is missing from the lead that should be there? George Zimmerman freely admits that he intentionally shot Trayvon Martin, so that bit of the story is not in question. The lead doesn't say anything like "Zimmerman stalked Martin" or similar. So what precisely could be added and be in line with a neutral presentation that would make it more balanced? -- Avanu (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia must not avoid covering things because they are "dangerous". Wikipedia has the opportunity, if we allow ourselves to use it, to provide a good guided tour through all the sources presently available. Do your job right here, and you can actually make the world a safer place, by giving people who only hear highly biased, perhaps racially charged versions of the story a way to read the full facts as people perceive them from various points of view. They won't change their opinion, but if they understand why other people hold different opinions, it can defuse hatred, even violence, that might otherwise occur for the most inexcusable reasons. Wnt (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Photo of the silver jewelry?

At the moment it appears that unwarranted deletionism has the upper hand and the silver jewelry isn't even mentioned. Nonetheless, I think it's a relevant detail in understanding the case and surrounding public reaction. The AP article [12] says that "The report said the jewelry was confiscated and a photo of it was sent to Miami-Dade Police burglary detectives. ... Miami-Dade Police confirmed that it had been asked by school police to help identify the property taken from Martin's backpack. It notified school police that the jewelry did not match any that had been reported stolen." Now it's hard for me to know how accurate the description by the school really was, i.e. if they call a screwdriver a "burglary tool", I wonder whether there were really plural silver "wedding bands", which is a very strange detail to explain by any means. (I mean, how would even a burglar end up with two silver wedding bands?)

But the photograph is out there! Has anybody published it? It would really help us sort out truth from fiction about this detail. Wnt (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does this material need to be in the article? Do we have a reliable source showing that it is related to the events of the shooting? I call your attention to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. We're not here to demonize either party. Unless there is a clear and established connection, it needs to stay out. -- Avanu (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking to demonize either party - in fact, running through all the scenarios in my mind, the only one that makes sense is one that would completely exculpate Trayvon Martin. Namely, that the "wedding bands" were just plain silver rings, probably cheap, that the "diamonds" were not really valuable gems, and that the assemblage of jewelry he was carrying was a keepsake from some past relationship with a girl who gave the stuff back to him. (True, a rather cruel curiosity does affect me, as if you have the picture of the jewelry, and you assume the girl went to the school, you can figure out who she is and drag her into an unwanted limelight...) But note that I'm still neutral - I have no idea what that jewelry is really until I actually see that picture - I just want all the surrounding facts of the case to be included. To put it simply, if Martin were a burglar, he might well have done things that were genuinely "suspicious", i.e. showing excessive interest toward specific routes into houses, which would mean Zimmerman might have challenged him for reasons other than race. This is of course quite a stretch, but the media sources find it relevant because their legs are limber enough to cover the distance, so ours should be also. Wnt (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Certain things are best left out of the article. Let's not drag the girl into the limelight, the identity of certain individuals are trying to be protected because they are minors and their is an expressed danger from the parents in this matter. A great many of the records have been purposefully scrubbed because their leaking pose a very real threat to the individuals. This is no different from Spike Lee retweeting the wrong address. It was suggested that we insert the location of Zimmerman's house. We cannot post it! Some people have found out more then what is typically 'circulating' about DeeDee. We cannot post it! This page is special enough. Per WP:PRIVACY, we must not include such information. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is Zero danger to any of the Martin witnesses and supporters. The only ones fearful for their lives are the Zimmerman family, witnesses and supporters. Zimmerman has to wear a bullet proof vest inside the courtroom. Dee Dee did not come out with her story about the phone call until March 20, 2012. At that time her statement said that she had consulted with attorneys. The media followed up on it and Crump was forced to admit that he was the attorney who had prepped Dee Dee. [13]. It is not clear whether the records are being scrubbed to not trip up the Martin narrative or to protect the Martin witnesses and supporters. The only thing known about the phone call is what Dee Dee has stated. We do not know her reasons for avoiding media. But it isn't fear for her safety. The more interesting question is, why are the records being scrubbed in the first place? The usual reasons for scrubbing are to minimize file retention costs or to hide information.True Observer (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually WP:PRIVACY is about editors, not articles. Actually the offending policy is WP:AVOIDVICTIM, but even that unfortunately worded description allows for material which is sourced and on-topic. And what I actually asked if anyone had seen is the photo, which is not itself private information. Oh, and I did post his address, just not on Wikipedia. Though I think it is within the range of the WELLKNOWN information we should include - we could have spared the victim of Spike Lee's retweet if we had done our job and posted that address the moment we had it! Wnt (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. WP:BLPPRIVACY specifically. WP:BLPPRIMARY "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." This falls well under those concerns. Someone whose identity and address are being concealed should not be outed because you want to drag the girl into the spotlight. I could care less about the 'photo', because you made mention about information which trying to be protected. We cannot include every piece of information just because it is out there. Policy comes first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere we've gotten sidetracked. What I actually proposed is for the stuff in the newspaper articles about the jewelry to be in, and asked if the photo has been published. Neither of these touch on the rest of that stuff. Nonetheless, note that we link directly to a New York Times map that shows the location of Zimmerman's house right at the top of the article; I think this policy is about random BLPs, not people whose home address is a major part of the story - but as I say, it's not really the issue now. Wnt (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the police and school officials have not identified any owner of the jewelery, and there is no reason to think the person(s) it may have stolen from would consider it a violation of privacy, and inclusion of any personal information about them is not being suggested, why was that even brought up? More tortured logic for whitewashing Martin is one explanation. That does not a good article make. The relation to the shooting is obvious - Martin accused of breaking into lockers and stealing in the week(s) prior. Martin allegedly exhibiting suspicious behavior in a neighborhood with known breakins. Oh wait, you're right, I don't see the connection. ProfJustice (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Perception. ProfJustice, do you know exactly what actions made George Zimmerman think Trayvon Martin was acting suspicious? It wasn't that he was stealing jewelry most likely. And just like with George Zimmerman's supposedly bad acts, we won't include Trayvon Martin's actions previously unless a CLEAR connection is proven. There is no "tortured logic", just a simple editorial rule that we have a neutral tone and we don't include gossipy crap in articles. Unlike many in the mainstream media, we do take that duty seriously here. It isn't about false impressions of people, it is about professionalism. -- Avanu (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

According to Zimmerman's testimony and the audio calls, he observed a single individual with a hood obscuring his face, walking slowly at night in the rain looking at houses, in the weeks following a series of break-ins. He called it in and attempted to ascertain who the individual was and their business in the complex, but the individual ran away, an action taken as 'fleeing'. After following a few seconds and on the advice of the police, Zimmerman returned to his truck, and when asked, made a rough approximation on the height and race of the individual. The actions of Mr Martin were suspicious to one trained as a neighborhood watchman. (I get to know the people who walk through my neighborhood regularly, and notice when someone new comes by - and ours has virtually zero crime.) Had Mr Martin said he was looking for his dad's girlfriend's house, I expect Zimmerman would have helped him find the address and made friends with him.--DeknMike (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources say that Zimmerman was trained as a neighborhood watchman. Trayvon Martin had no duty to speak to Zimmerman. Not sure what the point of your comments above were, but there you go. -- Avanu (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, you must think Neighborhood Watchman is like a security guard. Rather it is a person or persons from the neighborhood who volunteer to watch over their neighbors. Zimmerman had taken the police orientation class, which is as much training as is generally provided. And my point, since you asked, was to remind you what sources say his intent was when he approached Martin. You are right that the prior jewelry suspicions had nothing to do with being stopped, although the facts of that case may come out in trial. Z was doing what he had done dozens of times prior to that night - watching over his neighbors' houses.--DeknMike (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The trajectory of public perception of the individuals involved is central to the significance of this event. And the discovery that TM had had a collection of women's jewelery and a "burglery tool" (yes, we should definitely make clear that it was just a screwdriver!) is a sgnificant waypoint in that trajectory.Andyvphil (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually haven't made up my mind. Sure, maybe Trayvon had gotten into some bad company and as he's visiting this development he's casing out the houses, maybe as part of a plan, maybe as a daydream. On the other hand, maybe he's trying to get back to the house he's visiting in a building where every single frickin' building looks exactly the same, unless you're the guy from Psych or something, and looking lost. Or maybe Zimmerman assumes any strange black kid is suspicious. But all that's irrelevant - my opinion is irrelevant. What matters is that we should accurately convey the data that the reliable sources think is important about an incident to the reader, without picking and choosing what we think are the good arguments based on our POV and limited imagination. Wnt (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, we don't pick and choose EXCEPT to keep the article without bias, in a neutral tone, and not defamatory, as well as other Wikipedia-related concerns. -- Avanu (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

re: Zimmerman Continued to follow Martin despite being told not to

"Zimmerman Continued to follow Martin despite being told not to" is oft repeated in the media, but I believe it has no basis in established fact.

Listening to the tape of Zimmerman's call to police, you can clearly hear Zimmerman's walking noises in the background after he gets out of the truck. These sounds continue until about two seconds after the dispatcher says "We don't need you to do that", and Zimmerman replies "OK". About two seconds later, those sounds stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.61.199 (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Bloody head photo — gps and time stamp data

FYI — The bloody head photo was taken with an Iphone. GPS and other data embedded into the photo shows it was taken at the scene of the shooting, 3 minutes after the shooting. See 1:30 into the video at ABC SHOWS ALLEGED BLOODIED IMAGE OF ZIMMERMAN’S HEAD ON NIGHT OF MARTIN SHOOTING. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this. I have no great feelings one way or the other as to Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, but wouldn't it be fairly easy to manipulate things like that, given the right software and some minimal experience with coding metadata? I don't know; just sayin'. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 06:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Our reliance on the GPS data would probably be WP:OR based on a WP:PRIMARY source. However, WP:RS reporting that same information would be fine. Yes many things could be manipulated, but unless there is evidence to actually show it was, we do not question this type of thing in general. You could equally as well allege editing of the police reports, 911 recordings (by the police, not the NBC thing), surveillance video, witness statements, etc, which would make the article nonsensical. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Absent info.

While reading through a lengthy post this information was what I remember reading, but lost along the way. According to police, Tracy Martin could not identify Trayvon's voice on the 911 call. He said it was not his son's voice. [14] Also this section details a lot of information we do not have. Like Crump's previous actions. [15] "Crump and law partner Daryl Parks had previously gained renown representing the family of a black teenager who died in a boot-camp-style youth detention center in 2006, winning the boy’s family $7.2 million in damages from the state of Florida and Bay County." Why is this absent? For reasons of privacy and matter, I am not going to go into certain other details... but I think we have a lot of information known that is not being included. Though the article is improving. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Tracy Martin's observation was ever mentioned in the article, but I did include the information about the boot camp at one time under Martin family attorneys. It was promptly removed as not being relevant to the shooting. There is still one sentence remaining there though that says he sued to have the video released in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, in the 2006 case, Crump contacted Sharpton then to gain national exposure just like he did with this case. Here's the statement from Sharpton saying he worked with Crump before in Florida, [16], this statement is also the one where he claims that racial language was used when Zimmerman called the police. This was before the calls were even released, which we now know was completely false.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Its very relevant though, it shows that Crump is not some no-name legal attorney picked at random, but has been successful. I think it helps portray Crumps legal experience in a better light, he is widely known for that case. To not mention it seems silly.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was relevant too, but another editor thought it wasn't. I think it shows how media savvy he really is and how he uses the media to his advantage in this case. He has been manipulating the information the media receives from day one.--Isaidnoway (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A tad blunt, but yes he has shown to be a master at spin with Sharpton and Jesse Jackson consulting him on the matter. Sharpton plays a big role because of his own show which he uses to broadcast the message on. Should be a section for his role as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

→comment removed in accordance with WP:BLP←

This is not a forum for general discussion of Trayvon Martins or George Zimmermans legal teams or the suspected scheming manner in which they were chosen. Any such comments may be removed or refactored per WP:TPG. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is wise to remove such comments; they are clearly directed toward improving the article. Managing media is a basic role of any attorney in a high profile case; there's no sense to pretend otherwise. "True Observer" probably wouldn't have posted what he just did unless he has a source sitting in his browser history waiting for him to find it and post it here, and there's a fair chance it will be reliable enough, or based on a reliable enough source, that we could cite it in the article. Wnt (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I am removing that comment under WP:BLP because Benjamin Crump is entitled to the same BLP protections as anyone else, including on Talk pages. I believe that material is contentious, unsourced, and quite possibly actionable - if there are reliable sources to back it up, then post them. Further, that comment was not addressing improving the article. Tvoz/talk 06:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I never quite understood that comment anyway. It referenced the phone call by Martin to his girlfriend. [17] I don't know if Crump will be involved in the civil case, but indeed, whoever handles that case is likely to make some money. Wnt (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry - and attempted answer for the purpose of editorial understanding only

Zimmerman & his lawyers claims he had the right to do what defend himself under the “Stand Your Ground” law.

Just have questions about what happened and about the "Stand Your Ground" law.

1. Was Zimmerman standing his ground when he pursued Martin even when Martin was running away?

2. Who was the first to threaten whom? And who continued with this "threat"? Is pursuit a threat?

3. Witnesses claim Martin was on top of Zimmerman while they were on the ground. This may be true. But who approached who first? Does the law say that pursuing someone can be considered “standing one’s ground”? Does the law imply that the person standing his ground is not moving forward while being approached by the person threatening him?

4. Martin noticed that he was being followed by someone when he was not breaking any laws or threatening, abusing or anoying anyone. When Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin, despite the 911 operator telling him not to do so, did Martin have the right to protect himself under the "Stand Your Ground” law?

5. If someone (person A) is attacked and fights back aggressively, does the attacker (person B) then have the right to “protect himself” under the “Stand Your Ground” law by killing Person A? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.27.21 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved your query to its own section, since it was off-topic where it was. Since you asked, and in the hope that the following gives the framework for you (or others similarly interested) to make some contribution to this article, I'll attempt an answer...

I suggest you examine Florida Statute 776.041(2))[18]. (1) doesn't apply because caselaw requires that the forcible felony be independent. And charged. And in this case there was no such charge. (2)(b) doesn't apply because because Z was in no position to retreat at the point he shot. So,

(1) SYG n/a at that point. In this case the only known pursuit (and Z's running) apparently (from the sounds) ended shortly after Z said "ok", and occurred when TM was out of sight. In any case the mere existance of 'some' "threat" doesn't trigger the right to deadly self defense. Only a "reasonab[e] belie[f] that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" can do so. And GZ merely following TM, followed by the inquiry "What are you doing here?", wouldn't seem to trigger such a reasonable belief. If that's what happened.

(2) (a)Dunno. (b)Dunno. (c)Depends - does the pursuer have an axe? Etc.

(3) (a)Dunno. (b)No. But the "pursuer" is not necessarily barred from later acquiring SYG rights. (c) If there is a person threatening you with imminent bodily harm no state's laws require you to retreat if you cannot do so safely. If self defense is authorized by law there is no prohibition on a tactical advance. If GZ had pointed a gun at Martin and TM reasonably thought it would be used then TM would have been legally entitled to jump GZ and attempt to bash his brains out on the concrete to the extent that was reasonably necessary to end the threat.

(4) Asserts fact not in evidence. 911 operator(sic) didn't tell GZ any such thing. Anyway, even if TM had had the right to use deadly force against GZ that wouldn't mean that GZ didn't have the right to use deadly force against TM, if TM's belief was "reasonable" but wrong, and GZ could see that TM's "reasonable" self defense was an imminent danger to him.

(5) The law (776.041(2)(a)), seems to say yes, caselaw not so much, as I understand it. Judicial nullification in the interests of justice seems to take place. The legislative authors seem to have denied paternity or the plain meaning, as well.

To be clear, none of the above is authoratative, or material suitable for inclusion in the article. But some things need to be somewhat understood just so we can sort the BS in the (alleged) RS. Andyvphil (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggest new photo for Zimmerman

Now that Zimmerman has made bond, he will always appear in court in civilian attire. He has also chosen to go clean shaven. Since he will be associated with court proceedings into the forseeable future, suggested that one of the court photos replace the booking photo. One possibility [19]

This trial will last months, if not years. The public will not accept a photo that doesn't look like him when they will be seeing him over and over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Observer (talk • contribs) 00:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The mug shot photo is apparently PD, so we don't have to take it out at any point. Additional photos, of course, would be a good thing. Even a copyrighted photo from the court appearance might be justified under Fair Use if there is media coverage specifically about how he appears in it, e.g. the stupid American bias to favor defendents if they "choose" to go "clean shaven". Wnt (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Remember 50% of American's can't read. A photo is worth a thousand words. More photos are better. ProfJustice (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If they can't read, why would they come to this article for info? ```Buster Seven Talk 06:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious that editors using a mug shot for him while questioning Martin's grills have a slanted view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.26.173.58 (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In Shooting Section, change yards to feet.

In common usage in the US, the yard measurement is mostly used for sports and cloth. Why ABC chose to use yards cannot be determined. Perhaps, they wanted to make it appear closer to the house than it really was. At one point they say it happened outside his step-mother's house. Both of these allegations being false. She was not his step-mother and it didn't happen outside her house. Mentally, 210 feet feels and sounds a lot farthr than 70 yards. Suggest change to 210 feet.True Observer (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to feet, but Yards seems much more intuitive to me (perhaps because of sports). 70 yars it 7/10th of a football field. I can imagine that in my mind. 210 feet I have no idea how long that is, without trying to divide it into how many times I can lay down in that distance (210' divided by 6' = 35 Gaijin42 lengths?) I think you are misusing the word "allegation" in any case, if ABC mis-reported facts it is not really relevant, since we are not repeating those statements in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As Editor Gaijin points out measuring in yards provides a football field reference for the reader. Or, in ABC's case for the viewer. We could change to "half a block" but then block sizes are not uniform. Stick with yards. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

In the US, legal land measurements are almost never done in yards. Almost every plat map will refer to feet. Lot line measurements are given in feet. It is an aberration to use yards. In normal everyday life, no one uses yards to describe distance.True Observer (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not a legal land measurement? There are a gazzilion correct ways we could measure this distance. It is quite common to round up to a higher unit of distance to make large numbers easier to understand. This is not a big conspiracy to try and mislead people - Its to make it easier for them to understand!Gaijin42 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There is only one way to measure a correct distance. That is with use of surveyor tools which now have been improved with satellites helping with positioning. The commonly used method is a tape measure. The use of the yard in sports and cloth measurements is a carryover from the middle ages. Even cloth is now measured in feet. In every day living, no one but no one uses yards to describe distance. In your life, other than football or soccer, you have probably never had anyone tell you that something was "x" yards away. It is interesting that the newer sports, such as baseball and basketball, use feet to describe distance.True Observer (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

1) You are extremely incorrect about there only being one correct way to measure distance. Scientific and common measurements use a variety of units depending on the distance being measured. How long is my hair? 1/12 of a foot. How far is it to New York - oh, 5 million feet or so? In any case, your personal experience and opinion are irrelevant (as is mine). 1) What does the source say. 2) What does consensus agree on (so far you are the only one !voting feet is the only acceptable answer). If you are saying that as a standard , nobody uses yards anymore except archaic sports, and therefore feet is the only acceptable and mandated unit of measurement- you would need to source your assertion. The fact that the news chose Yards somewhat cuts against your argument. See this google search, showing almost a million articles refering to distances direclty in relation to this case - in yards yards search Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with BusterSeven and Gaijin42, yards is much easier to visualize in your mind than feet is when referring to something like this. I too compared it to a football field. Besides, there is a link at the end of that sentence that goes to an aerial view of the location where readers can see for themselves the distances.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Length - Measurement of something Distance - Measurement between two things or places. Your hair has length, not distance. Millions of news articles. There are multi-millions of articles still saying that he left during NBA half-time. Garbage in, garbage out. Everyday feel for distance comes from your surroundings and every day experiences not watching football on TV. In common usage, you say something is so many feet, blocks, quarter miles, half-mile or miles away. The usual convention is to switch to blocks after 500 feet. As to blocks, you switch to quarter mile after about 10 blocks. When you point out the oak tree, you say it is so many feet away. NO ONE says it is x yards away. When someone asks how far the 7-11 is, you say so many feet or blocks or quarter mile. You NEVER say so many yards. When you are in a plane, the pilot says you are so many feet above ground level, NOT yards.True Observer (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yards used in real estate, as well as sports/fabric: Another common use of yards is when decribing distances around real estate property access. For example: "Real Estate in Loreto, 50 yards from a sandy beach". It is fairly common to describe a distance within a gated community or housing subdivision as being "70 yards" from some part of the property. If the distance were in feet, then that might sound too nitpicking precise, or if given as "one-tenth mile" then that would sound too far to walk ("miles"). Because a yard is a similar scale to "metre" then it has a similar meaning, and to describe walking in "decimetres" would seem tedious. I suppose, as analogy to sports, walking across real estate is a type of athletic activity. I hope that explains why the walking distances are often expressed in yards, not feet. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one that finds these kinds of discussions on the talk page to be disruptive/annoying/trivial? Use what the RSs used. If you are really concerned that readers won't know what a yard is, put in a link to a page that explains what one is, or a distance measurement conversion table. ArishiaNishi (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

More importantly then converting is approximation. The difference between 70 yards and 210 feet is that yards can be rounded and will give a different value then feet. Significance is great, when saying 210 feet that is an approximation based on a value which is itself an estimate. Typically this is a plus or minus 5 which is to say 15 difference in either direction. Putting that 210 feet assumes it WAS 210 ft not by estimate, but by fact and the actual distance is not so exacting. Keep it 70 yards as per original estimated value. Do not convert and risk throwing in the wrong sig-fig. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Seventy yards, please, unless you tell us which corner of the house or door, and which part of the body, you're measuring between. It may be that the distance from the center of the closest door to the center of mass of Martin is 211'3.125" ... but I won't bet on that figure (which is 70 yards but not 210 feet.)htom (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Duh - give it as yards and include the conversion tool, as ArishiaNishi says. Most sources use yards, some use yards and parenthetically say feet, and no doubt some say only feet. So what? This conversation is seriously ridiculous, unless this is a sub rosa attempt to make the distance sound farther away than it was, in which case this is POV-pushing. And any measurement can be rounded - what gave anyone the idea that only yards are rounded? I totally agree with ArishiaNishi that this is disruptive, annoying, and a trivial waste of time. Tvoz/talk 06:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the only NPOV solution is to use rods. Fletcher (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Material in the lead

^ http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-federal-review-justice-letter-20120402_1_chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency#

The state attorney's office was responsible for the initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman, over the objection of the lead homicide investigator who wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.^[1]^[2]^[3]

^ "Trayvon Martin Investigator Wanted Manslaughter Charge". ABC News. Retrieved March 27, 2012.
^ Horwitz, Sari (April 2, 2012). "Martin family's attorney seeks Justice Dept. investigation into police actions after shooting". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 5, 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Trotta, Daniel (April 3, 2012). "Trayvon Martin: Before the World Heard the Cries". Reuters. Retrieved April 7, 2012.

I just re-added this to the lead. Discuss. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This is contradicted by a direct statement issued by the Sanford Police department, and should not be re-added, OR if re-added, should reflect that it was based on hearsay. -- Avanu (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Provide the source that contradicts it. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the copy of the press release from the Sanford Police Department. [20]

and here is an article from the Orlando Sentinel where Serino (the lead homicide investigator) gives an exclusive interview to them and says "The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."[21]

The first part of that statement is true that "the state attorney's office was responsible for the initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman," but that is common in cases where they want to investigate it further, like they did here. The second part of that statement seems to be disputed by Serino himself according to what he told the Sentinel. This is all covered in the "Police" section if you care to read it.--Isaidnoway (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the press release. Then let's remove the second part of the sentence. How about keeping the first half and then extending it, something like, "The state attorney's office was responsible for the initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman, (possible addition) which is standard procedure when...." I think something regarding this should remain in the lead because alot of the protesting had to do with him not being in custody. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

We could just re-word the whole sentence to reflect that it was the media who reported that about the lead investigator-- According to media reports, the lead homicide investigator recommended that Zimmerman be arrested, but the state attorney's office was responsible for the decision not to arrest and charge Zimmerman the night of the shooting.-- This way we are indicating that the media reported it that way from their sources, and the rest of the controversy is covered in the "Police" section.--Isaidnoway (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Who was yelling for help?

There may be a conflict of interest on the part of one of the "experts on forensic voice analysis." The "expert" who used software to find that there was only a 42% probability that the cries for help came from Zimmerman reportedly wrote that software himself and was vending it for $5000 per license. It is possible that this "expert" reasoned that he would get a greater amount of free advertising for his software if he gave the media a result that they seemed to prefer, instead of a result that contradicted their narrative up to that time. If that's actually true, then there would be a conflict of interest which could call his reliability as a witness into question.

Reference: WAGIST, "About Those Audio Forensic Experts," by Dan Linehan, April 3, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.165.40 (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to the editor's of WP to decide if there is a question of reliability or credibility if he is called as a witness, that would be in the court's discretion to decide that. We clearly stated in the paragraph that the "expert" was contracted by the Orlando Sentinel to provide analysis for them and we reported it as such. There are also two references cited that provide a disclaimer as to the reliability and the admissibility in court. The reliability, and ultimately the admissibility in court, of voiceprint analysis in this instance is disputed. So, I think we covered it in a NPOV by providing both sides of the story.--Isaidnoway (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Short people tend to have higher-pitched voices: A Peruvian guy who is 5 ft 8 in (1.73 m) tall is far more likely to have a light yell, than a tall guy who is 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m). Don't be deceived by the old photos of a 12-year-old child. Were there any other sources which analyzed the voice patterns? -Wikid77 11:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

For both reality/truth, and the purpose of this article, it is going to be virtually impossible to reliably identify the one yelling, unless some new witness who directly observed the yelling comes forward. In the article we can report that there was yelling, that both sides have claimed the yeller (Zimmerman's testimony, zimmerman's father's identification, Trayvon's mother's identification). Either both sides claims should be included, or neither, as it would be WP:OR for us to decide one was more reliable. Regarding the experts, It is certainly from a WP:RS so can be included, but I believe there are also significant WP:RS discussions talkiung about the unreliability of those tests within the context of this case, and those should also be included. Eventually, we may have a specific finding of fact during the trial, at which time we could include that finding as well. Howeve,r most likely there will be just an conviction or acquital without a point by point breakdown of which evidence/testimony was determined to be "true". Gaijin42 (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to an aritcle by the Daily Beast [22] that says a source told them that the FDLE re-enacted the scenario with Zimmerman lying on his back and yelling for help while they recorded it. They may have used it as an investigative tool, because how do you factor in the fear and adrenaline that would have been present during the yelling, regardless of whether it was Zimmerman or Martin.--Isaidnoway (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

After the phone call

An issue has arisen regarding the following sentences near the end of the second paragraph of the lead.

"After the phone call ended, there was a violent encounter. It is in dispute whether it was Martin, or Zimmmerman, who instigated the violence."

The issue was described in an edit summary of Isaidnoway at 14:37, 22 September 2012‎, "... no cites for who disputed who started altercation,article says prosecution doesn't know".

Here's a possible rewrite.

"After the phone call ended, there was a violent encounter between Martin and Zimmerman. It hasn't been established who instigated the violence."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a non-problem to me. Saying "It is in dispute whether it was Martin, or Zimmerman, who instigated the violence" seems to me like a thoroughly reasonable way to put it. Is there any question that it is "in dispute?" Your suggested "It has not been established who instigated the violence" (eliminating the contraction for stylistic reasons) is also accurate, though not quite as concise.

Today's edit by Isaidnoway seems particularly awkward. You reverted once, then Isaidnoway reinstated, then I reverted. Truly believe that the previous version, a collaborative effort among various editors to refine the wording, was superior. Apostle12 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but I'm not sure. Obviously Zimmerman says that Martin started the violence. But I'm not sure if anyone specifically said that Zimmerman started the violence. The closest I recall hearing was that the lawyer for Martin's family said that Zimmerman stalked and shot Martin, but didn't specifically say that Zimmerman started the violence (punching, wrestling, head banging, etc.) that led to the shooting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman said Martin attacked him and according to this article in Zimmerman's account of events, "During a bond hearing on April 20, 2012, Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified under oath that he did not know whether Zimmerman or Martin started the confrontation". He didn't testify that Zimmerman's claim was in dispute or disagree or argue or debate, but rather he did not know who started the fight. To maintain accuracy, please include a citation for the present wording.

At the time of my edit expanding and clarifying the paragraph, all editors in the previous discussion above were in agreement that this was on the right track.

If we clarify that portion of the event Isaidnoway

I think you are on the right track here Apostle12

I agree that this is on the right track. Emeraldflames

support I am fine with this wording Gaijin42

Editor's are certainly free to change their mind, but it is not fair to call my edit heavy-handed, when at the time I made the edit, all the editor's involved in the discussion thought it was on the right track to clarify this paragraph.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You are obviously quoting out of context and cherry picking phrases to imply agreement. I find this disingenuous. Apostle12 (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on whether the above rewrite, near the end of my first message, is acceptable to you? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My issue is that this sentence is in the lead and then in the body of the article there is no further mention of it. The very next paragraph in the lead gives Zimmerman's POV as to who started it anyway, and it is followed up in the body of the article with his detailed account. Additionally, in his account of events, it clearly states that the prosecution does not know who started it. Why put something in the lead without clarifying it in the body of the article. Why not just put Zimmerman's POV here (he claims) and he shot him in self-defense (he claims), and that the prosecution disputes that he acted in self-defense. It really doesn't make any difference who started it, even if we were to believe that Zimmerman started it, once the altercation started between the two and Zimmerman claims his life was in imminent danger so he had to shoot him in self-defense is the crux of this case. Zimmerman is not claiming self-defense over who started it, he's claiming that during the altercation his life was in danger. This sentence as it reads is just confusing and misleading.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In that paragraph, we're trying to present the facts as well as they are known. It simply says that there was a violent encounter, and it hasn't been established who instigated the violence. This is NPOV and accurate. Although you may disagree with both the present version and the possible rewrite, may I presume that the rewrite satisfies some of your criticism, for example your point regarding "the prosecution does not know who started it"? I think this point is addressed with the change from "it is in dispute" to "it has not been established". Also, more info on "it has not been established" appears later in the article, as you pointed out with the testimony of Officer Gilbreath. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not accurate to just say "it has not been established" without attributing that to a source. Who is saying "it has not been established"? All throughout this article it is presented numerous times that Zimmerman said Martin started the altercation and his statements are presented as his POV. If we're presenting this as a fact that "it has not been established", then please attribute it to a reliable source, (according to so and so), like we have done with Zimmerman's statements, otherwise it is confusing and mis-leading to present it as a fact without attribution.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you questioning the validity of the statement that "It has not been established who instigated the violence"? If so, that would seem inconsistent with your statements that the prosecution doesn't know who the instigator was. I suppose that the reliable source that you used to support your point that the prosecution didn't know who instigated the violence could be used. Otherwise, I don't think we can come to an agreement on this and we will need to seek other editors' opinions. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering that we have two POV's to work with, I question what is wrong with including both. Zimmerman stated Martin started it. Prosecution stated they don't know who started it. Seems like that would be the most logical thing to say, both POV's. I really don't understand the need for over complicating things. You present readers with both POV's and there is no need for confusing statements that are not attributed to anyone.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What I suggested is NPOV and it seems to be better than the present version as far as you are concerned, even though you're not admitting it. At this point, rather than continue what seems to be an endless discussion between us, as I suggested in my last message, I think it's time for me to wait to see what other editors think. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me, Isaidnoway, that it is you who are over complicating things--especially your demand for word-for-word sourcing of a phrase that obviously represents a sourced reality. Apostle12 (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I am not demanding anything, let's get that straight. I am merely offering my opinion as you are. Second, when I read a phrase that says "it has not been established who instigated the violence", I ask who said that and why don't we attribute that statement to who said it. Seems like a pretty straightforward request and a legitimate concern. Like I said, we have two POV's to use, why not just use them. Zimmerman said Martin started it. Prosecution said they don't know who started it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe what might satisfy everyone and allow us to move past this discussion is the following version.

"After the phone call ended, there was a violent encounter between Martin and Zimmerman. It ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin once in the chest at close range."

Previously I wanted the part "It has not been established... " because without it the only one mentioned as doing a violent act in this passage was Zimmerman (i.e. shooting), which may give the impression that Zimmerman instigated the violence. I think the phrase "between Martin and Zimmerman" may be enough to serve that purpose. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to rewrite several paragraphs of the lead

Although calling it an "altercation between the two" is significantly better than using the word 'fight', I still prefer the previous wording of "a violent encounter". That said, I can understand why Isaidnoway made the changes. (Gaijin42 indicated his support and suggested the rest might support it to. No one said anything after this and, over a week later, Isaidnoway made the changes.) I am still open to rewording those sentences though.

Proposed

"While still on the phone with the police dispatcher, Zimmerman left his vehicle. After the phone call ended, there was a violent encounter, which ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin once in the chest at close range. When police arrived on the scene, Zimmerman told them that Martin had attacked him and that he had shot Martin in self-defense. Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and from two vertical lacerations on the back of his head. EMTs treated Zimmerman at the scene, after which he was taken to the Sanford Police Department. Zimmerman was detained and questioned for approximately five hours. He was then released without being charged; at the time, police said they found no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

The circumstances of Martin's death, the initial decision not to charge Zimmerman, and questions about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law received national and international attention. Allegations of racist motivation for the shooting and police conduct contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest. A Special Prosecutor was appointed to take over the investigation, and on April 11 she filed a charge of murder in the second degree against Zimmerman. Zimmerman then turned himself in and was placed in custody. Zimmerman pleaded not guilty to the charge and is currently out on a $1 million bond while he awaits trial; he has requested a hearing under the "Stand your Ground" law provisions."

I don't think we should say in the first paragraph that "the prosecution" disagrees, because the reader hasn't been introduced to the fact he's been prosecuted. And the 2nd paragraph includes the fact that there is a prosecution who disputes that it was in self-defense. Emeraldflames (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that we don't know for sure what exactly the prosecution's theory is as to who instigated the violence- or really much more than the fact they have accused Zimmerman of 'murdering' him. I think the last paragraph makes it clear that prosecutors have disputed his claim of self-defense. Emeraldflames (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think the final paragraph should include mention inaccurate media reports (re: Zimmerman's lack of injuries, saying "coons", etc.) as well as public statements (from girl Trayvon was talking to, Mary Cutcher, etc.) also contributed to the public demands for Zimmerman's arrest. Emeraldflames (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the word struggle or altercation as that is what is used to describe it consistently throughout the article. But I am content with violent encounter for now as it will inevitably be changed in the future by another editor who is dissatisfied with that term. I can understand you wanting to try and keep the events in some sort of chronological order, but sometimes it is best to present the opposite POV where it really needs to be presented. We are relying heavily on Zimmerman's POV in the lead and should try to balance it out with some of the prosecution's POV (whether we agree with it or not). The prosecution's POV of the events in the lead basically amounts to a couple of sentences. I would not object to mentioning "inaccurate media reporting" in the last paragraph but would caution against going into any detailed descriptions, as there are way too many. The Reverend Al Sharpton springs to my mind as an early-on instigator of over the top rhetoric.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sticking just to the sentences under discussion, I could accept "After the phone call concluded, there was a violent encounter. It has not been established whether it was Martin, or Zimmmerman, who instigated the violence. The encounter ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin once in the chest at close range."

This seems more elegant to me than the current version. The use of "concluded" avoids the too-soon repetition of "ended," and the sentence clarifies exactly what ended (the encounter) when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin--a direct statement rather than a transitory one.

Not sure how to bring in the prosecution's point of view, primarily because it is so vague. Their point of view is implicit in the mention of second degree murder charges, however we don't know whether the prosecution believes that Martin attacked Zimmerman, with the initial encounter turning unnecessarily violent (Zimmerman's fault), or whether the prosecution believes that Zimmerman stalked and murdered Martin with no provocation whatever. Saying simply "It has not been established whether it was Martin, or Zimmerman, who instigated the violence" leaves all options open.

I think it would be desirable to mention "inaccurate media reporting" in the last paragraph, as Isaidnoway suggests. The article does a good job explaining exactly what this consisted of; I see no need to elaborate in the lede. Apostle12 (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Another suggestion that includes both POV's: "After the phone call concluded, there was a violent encounter. Zimmerman claimed Martin instigated the encounter, while the prosecution said they don't know who started the violence. It ended with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin once in the chest at close range". The reader should be exposed to both POV's and then in the body of the article, we read Zimmerman's account of what happened and we also read that the investigator for the prosecution testified in court that they don't know who started the encounter.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Tricky stuff! Some readers probably think we're splitting hairs here, but obviously these details seem important enough to the involved editors to iron them out. Your suggested version of the second sentence distinguishes between "instigating the encounter" and "starting the violence" - interesting. The use of the word "while" suggests that the latter clause is a counterpoint to the first clause, which I'm not sure is appropriate because they are actually different things; the assembled sentence becomes kind of foggy as a result. Still a bit bothered by "It" in the third sentence, because the antecedent is not quite clear: Does "It" refer to the encounter or to the violence? Also find "with Zimmerman fatally shooting Martin once in the chest at close range" more muddy than "when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin once in the chest at close range." Apostle12 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Semantics is really what you mean. "Instigating the encounter" and "starting the violence", two different phrases to avoid repitition but the same meaning, kinda like fight/violent encounter, same meaning. This incident is a point/counterpoint. Zimmerman says self-defense, prosecution says murder, Zimmerman says Martin started it, prosecution says they don't know, Zimmerman told the SO he had never been in a pre-trial program, prosecution says he did, Zimmerman says he was yelling for help, prosecution says Martin was yelling for help, so I personally don't see anything wrong with presenting a point/counterpoint sentence there. Having said that, I would not object to changing "while" to "and" or even make two sentences, it still doesn't change the point/counterpoint view of Zimmerman/prosecution. The third sentence was taken from the article as it appears now. Seems rather obvious, (at least to me anyway) that "it" refers to the violent encounter. Regardless, once Zimmerman shot Martin, the violence ended. Once Zimmerman shot Martin, the encounter ended. Regardless of how it is worded the outcome still remains the same, once Zimmerman shot Martin, his young life ended.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside your comments about "semantics," and slightly revising what you wrote to employ the present tense, might you support:

"After the phone call concluded, there was a violent encounter. Zimmerman claims Martin instigated the encounter, and the prosecution says they don't know who started the violence. The encounter ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin once in the chest at close range".

Frankly I still favor the version suggested above:

"After the phone call concluded, there was a violent encounter. It has not been established whether it was Martin, or Zimmmerman, who instigated the violence. The encounter ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin once in the chest at close range."

Comments from other editors? Apostle12 (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's considerate of you to try to make a compromise. The use of the word "claims" is not recommended per WP:CLAIM. Re what the prosecution said, that may not be correct because it was just Gilbreath's testimony in an early hearing, and it appeared that he wasn't stating the prosecution's position nor did he have the authority to do that. As I recall, he was only stating what he thought, upon cross examination by the defense.

So of the two versions you mentioned, I would only support the second one. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I reviewed the prosecution's Affidavit of Probable Cause[23] and it contains the statement, "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued." I think we could add this quote to the end of the next paragraph as representing the prosecution's position so far. For example we could add, "According to the prosecution's Affidavit of Probable Cause, 'Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.'^[1]" --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your comments seem apropos, and I agree with them. I hadn't focused on "claims," however I believe you are correct that it shouldn't appear here. Apostle12 (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason I see an issue with "it has not been established" immediately following that sentence is because it implies that Zimmerman doesn't have a POV about the encounter. If anything, this statement is more in line with the prosecution's POV ("we don't know" and "it has not been established" pretty much mean the same thing) and implies that it is a fact that the prosecution is right. If you prefer to give the prosecution's POV here immediately following that sentence, I am fine with that. Having said all that, another suggestion is to just get rid of that sentence and say that "After the phone call concluded, there was a violent encounter. The encounter ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin once in the chest at close range." This eliminates any POV about who started it and is factually correct. In the following paragraphs, Zimmerman's POV is given anyway about who started it and the prosecution's POV can be stated as well. I agree that the word claim should not be used.

As far as Gilbreath's testimony, he is an investigator for the State Attorney's office who investigated this case and helped prepare the affidavit. So when he took the stand, he was representing the prosecution and had the authority to testify as to what he learned through his investigation. "He was only stating what he thought" is crucial because he investigated the case and if during the course of his investigation he determined that they can not say with absolute certainty that Zimmerman started it, then he is pretty much stuck with that statement of they don't know who started it. Unless the prosecution has uncovered new evidence since he testified, that would suggest that Zimmerman started the fight, he is bound by "stating what he thought". If a POV is given for the prosecution about the start of the fight, I prefer Gilbreath's statement over the affidavit, but then it also says in the lead that Zimmerman was charged with murder, which is ultimately their final POV about the whole incident.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have the impression that although you don't like the changes that Apostle12 and I agreed on, you wouldn't revert them if they were Implemented. Is that the situation? If so, I'd like to implement them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think what you are saying about Gilbreath's testimony being authoritative is true; the prosecution's official position is that they do not know whether it was Martin or Zimmerman who started the confrontation.

That being said, I don't think the sentence "It has not been established whether it was Martin, or Zimmmerman, who instigated the violence." bolsters the prosecution's position, nor does it imply that Zimmerman doesn't have a POV about the encounter. Seems to me it is simply an NPOV statement of the facts--Zimmerman has his own point of view, but the rest of us (including the prosecution, the Court, the public, and any future jury members) must keep our minds open to either possibility.

I think leaving this sentence out would be preferable to inclusion of an unclear version of Zimmerman's and the prosecution's point of view. However I agree with Bob K31416 that including the sentence is the best alternative, so I'd favor him implementing the suggested change. Apostle12 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I prefer leaving the sentence out as well, but I do not object to putting the Prosecution's POV there, because that is exactly their position, and if you want to insert the Prosecution's POV as a fact, I'm OK with that. It will work as a temporary solution.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the lede looks good, and I agree with Isaidnoway that Gilbreath's testimony should be mentioned. Thanks for putting the commas back; as far fetched as it sounds, without the commas the sentence could mean the possibility is open that neither Martin nor Zimmerman instigated the violence. Apostle12 (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I added a paragraph break to separate the events of that night from what happened later. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have the impression that you're not entirely comfortable with the comma. Would the following be OK?

"After the phone call ended, there was a violent encounter between Martin and Zimmerman. It has not been established who instigated the violence."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure the paragraph break is ideal. Actually thought it worked better before.

The commas aren't ideal. Your suggested fix might work, though perhaps use of a semicolon would be preferable:

"After the phone call ended, there was a violent encounter between Martin and Zimmerman; it has not been established who instigated the violence."Apostle12 (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The semicolon is OK. Why did you think the passage that is currently the fourth paragraph, worked better without the paragraph break? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that I reread the entire lead, I realize that the passage in question is misplaced. The lede shouldn't be discussing the affidavit of probable cause until after it introduces information about charging. Think I'll make that change as well as the one you suggest above. Apostle12 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Completed a couple of other minor changes, which I think work well. Please take a look and see what you think. Apostle12 (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

With your edits, the lead is now almost in chronological order. The only part that remains out of order is "it has not been established who instigated the violence" which is a summary of the present status. This is addressed with the present last paragraph of the lead. Also, note my message of 00:11, 24 September 2012 just before this Talk subsection. For these reasons the "it has not been established..." phrase should be removed. I also added the date for the special prosecutor's appointment and moved the associated reference to it, and fixed typo in cite. I moved what came three weeks after the announcement, down into the next paragraph and rewrote it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead looks pretty darn good now. Good job! I understand the desire for chronological order, but I don't think it is mandatory. After all, we are using Zimmerman's description of Martin's behavior from the Hannity interview, rather than what he told the dispatcher the night of February 26. I also like the phrase "it has not been established" gone from that paragraph.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is tricky stuff to get "just right," and I believe our combined efforts have accomplished that. Apostle12 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate media reporting, allegations of racist motivation on the part of Zimmerman and the police

Just went back and picked up the phrase "inaccurate media reporting," first suggested by Emeraldflames, then supported by Isaidnoway and Apostle12. This is one of the factors, amply discribed in the article, that contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest. I believe this completes the list of changes originally proposed in this section. Apostle12 (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I modified it to "media reporting of anti-Zimmerman inaccuracies" and added a citation. The inaccuracies would only lead to demands if they were anti-Zimmerman. But I think we have to be careful of NPOV here, since this might imply that of the reporting, only those that were inaccurate led to demands and not the reporting of accurate material. Thoughts? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope you will forgive me for changing it back. It just didn't look right--much too forced and not NPOV. It's true that the anti-Zimmerman inaccuracies are what contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest, however there were anti-Martin inaccuracies as well (right-wing websites, quite a bit of racist chatter). It is a given that, if inaccurate media reporting contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest, it must have been anti-Zimmerman--don't think it's necesary to state this. Readers will come to their own conclusions, as we have covered the media inaccuracies quite well in the body of the article. Apostle12 (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not "anti-Zimmerman" should be stated, we still need to consider whether or not "inaccurate media reporting" is NPOV, since it implies that the accurate part of the media's reporting didn't contribute to demands for Zimmerman's arrest. We would be more accurate and NPOV if we changed it to "intense media reporting, some of which was inaccurate", so I made the change. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good; big improvement. Apostle12 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"Allegations of police misconduct" needs to be changed back to "police conduct". "Police misconduct" implies that the police acted nefariously or acted with an intent to cover up this incident or otherwise improper behavior. Their "conduct" in investigating this case is what came under scrutiny. See [24] They were criticized for letting him go and not charging him, sloppy police work, etc.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me "allegations of police misconduct" is pretty accurate here. Sloppy police work (in particular, not securing Zimmerman's vehicle), letting Zimmerman go without sufficient questioning (only five hours), and even racial favoritism ("If Zimmerman had been black, they never would have let him go.") were among the many allegations made. Certainly Jackson/Sharpton and their supporters were not shy about saying that the police "acted with an intent to cover up this incident." Seems to me "allegations of police misconduct" pretty much covers it. Apostle12 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the original meaning of the sentence has gotten lost with my edit and others. Here is what it was before the recent edits.[25]

"Allegations of racist motivation for the shooting and police conduct contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest."

In other words, I think it had meant racist motivation for both the shooting and police conduct. It was the racist aspect that contributed to the demands for arrest, not sloppy police work. I think we should return that part of the sentence to how it was before, with maybe adding "both" to make it more clear, i.e.

"Allegations of racist motivation for both the shooting and police conduct, and intense media reporting, some of which was inaccurate, contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I support returning the sentence to the original meaning with the word "both" included if you prefer that. "Police misconduct" has an official and legal meaning and the SPD's conduct does not meet any of that criteria, and we shouldn't imply that it did. Police misconduct means the improper actions taken by police officers in relation with their official duties. Police misconduct includes deliberately obtaining false confessions; false arrest; creation and use of falsified evidence, including false testimony; false imprisonment; intimidation; police brutality; police corruption; political repression; racial profiling; sexual abuse; and surveillance abuse. I don't see any of their conduct falling into any of those categories. On a personal note, I don't find any of their conduct that egregious, after all they did recommend charging Zimmerman with manslaughter. The Martin's, understandably, got impatient and by hiring Benjamin Crump, et al. created the media frenzy over this incident.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Truly never understood that "racist motivation" could apply both to the shooting and police conduct--"both" clarifies that it does. Suggest a slight change in wording to:

"Allegations of racist motivation, both for the shooting and police conduct, as well as intense media reporting, some of which was inaccurate, contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest."

Thanks for clarification re: definition of "police misconduct," Isaidnoway.

Think I'll make the changes, hoping for approval. Apostle12 (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay made a few final changes, hoping to make this paragraph more concise and readable:

The circumstances of Martin's death, the initial decision not to charge Zimmerman, and questions about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law received national and international attention. Allegations of racist motivation, both for the shooting and police conduct, along with intense media reporting, some of it inaccurate, contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest. On March 22, 2012, a Special Prosecutor was appointed to take over the investigation.

Looks accurate and NPOV to me. Comments? Apostle12 (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A minor problem for me is that the sentence has a somewhat complex structure and the added comma etc. near the beginning adds to the complexity. I prefer the slightly less complex structure that I had without the added comma. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The parenthetical clause towards the beginning of the sentence is probably necessary; the comma you refer does not make the sentence structure complex, it merely sets the parenthetical clause apart. That said, we could eliminate the second parenthetical clause, which I agree is not very elegant. If we did that, the sentence would read:

Allegations of racist motivation, both for the shooting and police conduct, along with intense media reporting that was sometimes inaccurate, contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest.

This simplified sentence structure has advantages and disadvantages, yet it is perhaps preferable overall. Apostle12 (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It does seem a bit complex, but the comma actually helps, I think. Either version of the sentence is fine with me though. The whole paragraph looks alot better though overall. I especially like the inaccurate media reporting being inserted here, very important detail. Good job guys.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That was a good simplification of getting rid of the comma for the last half. Doing it for the first half as I originally had it would be a similar simplification.

"Allegations of racist motivation for both the shooting and police conduct, along with intense media reporting that was sometimes inaccurate, contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have a mistaken impression. Eliminating the first comma would not simplify the structure of the sentence; it would merely make the parenthetical clause less obvious and the sentence structure would become harder for the reader to discern. If we remove the parenthetical clause, the sentence reads "Allegations of racist motivation..., along with intense media reporting that was sometimes inaccurate, contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest."

The simplification I made earlier changed the second parenthetical clause ("some of it inaccurate") to an adjectival clause ("that was sometimes inaccurate"); this was a true structural change.

No matter how this sentence is structured, we are packing a lot of information into it, so its structure becomes complex. The usual cure for an overly complex sentence is to break it down into two sentences. Perhaps:

"Allegations of racist motivation, for both the shooting and police conduct, contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest. The public also demanded his arrest because of intense media reporting, some of it inaccurate."

We could split it up this way, though I'm not sure it would be an improvement. It would make for an easier read. Apostle12 (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems like we have different writing styles where you tend to prefer more commas than I do, so I'l leave it at that unless someone can come up with a link to some authoritative comma guidance.

I think that's a good point about the option of splitting up complex sentences. With the splitting you suggested, I would rearrange the sentences with a rewrite of the "intense" sentence. Here is what I mean in context with the first sentence of the paragraph.

"The circumstances of Martin's death, the initial decision not to charge Zimmerman, and questions about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law received national and international attention. There was intense media reporting, some of it inaccurate. Allegations of racist motivation, for both the shooting and police conduct, contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right that some of this is stylistic. I favor commas whenever they clarify the meaning of a sentence, usually by enhancing its actual structure. That said, you may have noticed that I often remove extraneous commas, especially single commas that some editors make a habit of inserting between subjects and predicates.

I believe the splitting option you suggest has a problem. Specifically the independent sentence, "There was intense media reporting, some of it inaccurate" stands too separate from "contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest." Readers have no way to connect "intense media reporting," especially "inaccurate" media reporting, with "public demands for Zimmerman's arrest." Apostle12 (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I was aware of that when I wrote it. Since this discussion is rather long, I'll simply stand by my suggestion and let consensus decide. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I suppose I'll need to oppose your suggested split, because it doesn't convey the meaning of the existing sentence. If we are going to split the existing sentence I would favor "Allegations of racist motivation, for both the shooting and police conduct, contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest. The public also demanded his arrest because of intense media reporting, some of it inaccurate." Or some variation thereof.... Apostle12 (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Just reconsidered BobK31416's suggestion "Allegations of racist motivation for both the shooting and police conduct, along with intense media reporting that was sometimes inaccurate, contributed to public demands for Zimmerman's arrest." With the use of "for both" instead of "both for" I now see that eliminating the first comma aids the flow of this sentence. Also reduces the need for splitting, which would be awkward. Perhaps this better resolves our discussion. Apostle12 (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Delete this article or heavily reduce it because...

This is not encyclopedic. All the references are news reports showing that this article is media driven not factual. Secondly the issue should be whether the case merits all the hoo har around it or not?? There have multiple fatal shootings in the United States since this occurred. Why should this article be created? And only this article?

If this was simply about producing an academic work the article would be more about the critique of the case and not plainly narrative and speculation. He did this, they did that etc. That should be up to the courts to decide. Am I the only one who just sees this as a case of positive discrimination? After all the media in America is overwhelmingly White run? There is nothing remotely different to this case and hundreds of others that happened in the intervening time. Can anyone jusdtify this article in these terms? Without problems with WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE and WP:OR because I can't.

I mean is there any clamour to create an article about the Texan cop who shot dead a double amputee in a wheelchair because he was waving a pen at the officer?? Of course not. Wikipedia editors only care about what the media tells them to care about. (See WP:RECENT). This article, you could argue, is actually being edited by the news teams in the various Press organisations in the United States. That's not legitimacy, just reactionary. So in that case why not just post links to news stories and let the readership decide? If agenda is not an issue!!86.173.141.212 (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your mention of WP:RECENT, note the following excerpt from the lead of it.

"Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer."

In this regard, Wikipedia is a unique and valuable resource for a collection of information, and the corresponding reliable sources, on this type of notable topic. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Trayvon Martin shooting has received nationwide and international attention, and Americans continue to be polarized along racial lines with respect to the competing claims. In addition, initial media misrepresentation of the facts demands a careful exposition of what actually occurred - to the extent we can know that. I believe deletion would be highly inappropriate. Apostle12 (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Interview with Mark O'Mara

The Orlando Sentinel did a very interesting interview with Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara. Among other things, he talks about the intitial media coverage of this case and how they got it all wrong. Here's the link to the story >>> [26] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Other attorneys

Should more attorneys for both sides be added to the section People involved in the case? The subsection State attorneys could be changed to Prosecuting attorneys and prosecutors in addition to Corey could be added, e.g. Bernardo de la Rionda. Defense attorneys could be added to O'Mara in the section Zimmerman's attorneys, e.g. Donald West. Also, the subsection title might be changed to Defense attorneys. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is a good idea, as Rionda is prosecuting the case and West seems to be helping out the defense quite a bit as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Prosecution point on Zimmerman not going to the hospital

The fact that Zimmerman declined to go to the hospital the night of the incident, and went to his personal physician the next day instead, only proves he was unemployed therefore probably lacked health insurance. I know from bitter experience the difference can be a ER bill of thousands versus a doctor bill of $100 to $200. But I am not a prosecutor. --Naaman Brown (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this your own opinion/analysis or does it appear in a reliable source? Please note the following notice at the top of this talk page.

"This is not a forum for general discussion of Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. This talk page is not the place to be detective, prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, or jury—this is not a blog and it is not our job to evaluate evidence or try a case. ..."

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

risking the forum rules but :

Zimmerman was not unemployed at the time of the shooting, he was an insurance underwriter, and was fired shortly after.
Interestingly insurance specifically has been brought up early in the case, and was covered by several RS. I cant find details other than "During the voice stress analysis, insurance was discussed". I may try and dig through the discovery stuff and see if I can find more specifically what was talked about, because if he does mention being uninsured, then this would be a good addition to the statements about him not going to the hospital. The stories below mention the discussion of insurance.
- http://fox2now.com/2012/06/21/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-threatened-my-life/
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Found it. Interesting points on the video, around 4:30 he mentions going to the doc/psych. at around 6:30 mentions not getting an MRI and why. Eventually conversation at around 7:30 talks about insurance, saying he did have insurance, but it was "bargain basement" with a really high deductible, so he didn't want to pay for the MRI etc out of pocket. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2cEqhj5dBY

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason the prosecution made an issue out of him not going to the hospital the night of the shooting is because they are suggesting his injuries were not near severe enough that his life was in danger when he shot Martin, therefore that is the reason he declined to go to the hospital that night,(prosecution's theory). His visit to the doctor the next day was to get a release so he could return to work, according to Zimmerman. I'm not sure that he was fired from his job though. Zimmerman being questioned about insurance though, does bolster his reasons for not going to the hospital that night, money is always a factor when considering a trip to the ER. And imo, his not going to the hospital doesn't negate the fact that he thought his life was in imminent danger during the fight with Martin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

And more, law is protection against death or significant bodily harm. You don't have to wait for the bodily harm/death to happen before you protect yourself from it, otherwise thats not much of a protection. . Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If George Zimmerman thought his life was in danger he WOULD NOT have worried about later paying insurance. He didn't know how severe his injuries were to make that assessment. That's like not taking an HIV test because you don't want to pay for any might need. Also remember Zimmerman has prescriptions for adderall and benzos. He could've been scared of a drug test.Plutocrackz (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

not sure I follow your logic. It does not require severe injuries afterwards to have been in fear of your life beforehand (although they would certainly be definitive proof). Secondly, he does not need to have been in fear of his life. Fear of severe injury itself is justification. If severe injury looked likely, the shooting is legal. If he was actually justified or not, is of course up to the judge (in the SYG hearing, and then the jury in the trial). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like blaming a rape victim for not exhibiting severe enough injury to prove the sex wasn't consensual. I know I would refuse to pay out of pocket for an MRI, an ambulance ride, or an ER visit unless I thought I was in imminent danger of death at the moment of choice, which occurred after the encounter was over. Has nothing to do with whether Zimmerman felt he was in imminent danger of death during the encounter, purportedly with his head being pounded against the pavement. Apostle12 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of Martin's school history

The title of the article is "Shooting of..." anything not about the shooting, or bearing on the shooting, has no place in the article. That Martin was suspended from school at the time of the shooting is arguably relevant, as it explains why he was visiting his dad. However, how many times Martin was previously suspended is inappropriate in this article, which is about the shooting, not a biography of Martin, who is otherwise not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As the shooter knew nothing of the deceased's school history, adding it is inappropriate, as it has nothing to do with the subject of the article. We're not some cheap supermarket scandal sheet; we're an encyclopedia, and adding such inflammatory and victim blaming content is simply not appropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman has made several allegations about the actions, attitude, verbal interaction, etc of Martin during the incedent. Those actions/attitudes are directly relevant to if we consider Zimmerman the aggressor or not, and if we consider Zimmerman's claim of fear of death/injury credible or not. Zimmerman certainly did not know of Martin's history, so they are irrelevant to his understanding of the situation. But they are not relevant to OUR understanding of the situation. Martin's history and involvement with (or lack thereof) drugs, fights, criminal activity (or positive history with grades, teacher's opinions, volunteer work, etc) is very relevant to us in if we consider Zimmermans allegations credible/plausible. This is not the same thing as saying the allegations/narrative are true. But we can use them to judge which narrative (Zimmerman vs prosecution) we find more plausible/compelling. Similarly, I would argue that Zimmerman's history with his ex, with the police, with allegations of temper/violence in his workplace are equally relevant, because they add or detract to the plausibility of the prosecutions narrative of his actions. Certainly, each of us may come to a different answer as to if a particular piece of evidence or testimony is compelling or not - and those individual answers combine into an overall picture of what we each think happened (although to be sure we are not trying the case here). To say however, that NOBODY should find a particular peice of informatino relevant is really pushing the bounds - who are you to say if a piece of information is relevant to all readers or not? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

History of violence for either party is relevant, but in my considered opinion, how many times Martin was suspended is simply tarring and feathering the victim. Violent actions and attitudes by either party are relevant, but I am not yet convinced that the number of times Martin was suspended for non violent infractions has any bearing at all. He was not tattooed with said infractions or record of his suspensions, and as they were for non violent offenses than cannot illuminate for us or our readers how Martin may have appeared to Zimmerman. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with KC. The only way we can bring up the previous suspensions is if they affect the court decision. Definitely not as a passing fact of Martin's life. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that we are running dangerously close to victim blaming here; in the "prostitutes cannot be raped" order of thinking. While I concur that records of violence may have a bearing, the desire to tar and feather the deceased for non related events is the purview of yellow supermarket tabloids, not a serious encyclopedia. I agree with Binksternet that should such actually weigh in the end in a court decision, then we must revisit the issue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am citing WP:UNDUE here: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. - this is giving weight to something which is inconsequential to the subject of the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Completely disagree. The courts have just given Zimmerman's defense permission to see Trayvon's school records. Trayvon Martin's parents fought hard so that the records would be kept secret. That in itself is telling. There is evidence to show that Trayvon Martin was not a sweet little innocent child as portrayed in the media and this must not be censored. Who is to say that Trayvon was the victim here? Perhaps he really was the aggressor who attacked Zimmerman viciously. We must present all the facts of the case and that includes Martin's history of suspensions due to bad behaviour as this would be in line with Zimmerman's defense that Martin was the aggressor. YvelinesFrance (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"That in itself is telling" Unless you have reliable sources making such a claim and its affects on future events, your position is advocating WP:OR in addition to all of the other reasons against doing so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) By "victim" I meant "shooting victim" only and made no judgment about who was, or was not, the aggressor. This discussion is not about your personal views on how innocent Martin was or was not. That is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. As far as how innocent he was or was not, that is yet to be decided by the courts and thus Wikipedia must remain neutral on that subject.

Regarding the proposed content we are discussing: If Martin's suspensions were for violence, you might have a point. Have you a reliable source which states such? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's initial description of Martin, was that he was acting suspicious, and was on drugs or something. Therefore a history of drugs, or suspicious behavior is relevant to our opinion of Zimmerman's biases, judgement of character etc. If Zimmerman's initial suspicious is objectively unfounded, that increases the likelyhood that he was acting under some sort of bias (or just really bad judgement) - which can be applied to his actions later. If his opinion is plausible (which is not the same thing as saying it was reasonable/true/etc) - then we do not have evidence to apply that bias filter later. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

we are not here to present "evidence" for one side or the other. if the information becomes relevant and covered in the trial, then we can cover it. as of now, it is out of the scope of the subject of the article WP:COATRACK. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Equating Martin to a rape victim is POV that is assuming you know the outcome of the case, (and more explicitly, objectivly know what went on during the event). This is not tarring Martin. Zimmerman has made allegations. Our judgement of Zimmermans allegations can be adjusted by our knowledge of both Martin's and Zimmermans past actions. If Martin has been involved in drugs, suspicious activity, criminal activity - then that makes Zimmerman's allegations more plausible (not neccicaruily true). If on the other hand that history does not exist, then that makes Zimmerman's allegations less likely to be true. Simmilarly, our knowledge of Zimmerman's past actions with his ex, with police, with workplace temperment, with how he interacted with Minorities in the past, etc - tells us something about how credible we find his opinions, and what type of bias filters he may have had. We are not passing judgement here in either direction. The information is true. The information is verifiable. The information has been reported in MANY sources. Each person can decide for themselves what weight they apply to it. To say that the information is prohibited is without merit or policy. It is one sentence in a VERY long article. WP:UNDUE is really grasping at straws. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE is not "grasping at straws" it is a core policy of Wikipedia. You may wish to check that out. We do not let people decide for themselves; we are careful in what we add to an article, particularly for current events, which this is. Please re-read the bit I cited from the policy: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. This directly contradicts your assertions that UNDUE doesn't matter, and that if it is lots of sources we add it and let people decide. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying we rewrite the article for this. One sentence. The poilcy says do not give undue weight. You are deciding that one sentence is undue. That is the part that is grasping at straws. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Per KC, we do not line up facts to imply or create impressions. Thats WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to create an impression. The facts are relevant per the reliable sources. The facts are relevant per the court that just allowed access to those records. Saying the verified facts are not permitted is also creating an impression - why is that impression acceptable? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The only link to his suspensions is from March. [27] Has there been any new information about why he had "women’s rings and earrings and a screwdriver," for one suspension, as the school report said? And the fact his current suspension was for having a bag that had contained marijuana residue is relevant to the case. This isn't some honest law abiding sweet and innocent little boy who got killed, as some have tried to portray him. The media covers the suspensions, so it should be in the article, and you can then quote the mother claiming they were just trying to smear her son's image. That way its perfectly balanced. Dream Focus 17:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but have any of you actually read UNDUE? We don't report "all sides equally" as DreamFocus is suggesting. That is specifically against Wikipedia policy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

this is not even an attempt to make all sides equally. How many statements in this article imply that Zimmerman was racist. How many imply that he had no cause for his actions. Why do those statements not violate this policy? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

They may indeed violate policy. This section is not about them, and "other stuff exists" is an extremely poor argument for keeping something which violates policy. Feel free to open a separate discussion on any bits which you feel may violate said policy yourself. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Other stuff" is about completely other articles. Within a single article OSE has another name - POV. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words, No, you never bothered to read it. Had you actually done so, you would have found that even as early as the Nutshell "This page in a nutshell: That other similar entities exist is an argument to avoid in content disputes, deletion discussions, and other discussions." - it is for both content, which is actually the very first listed use, and for articles, which is why it is frequently cited in AFD discussions. Why don't you go read it now, so you are no longer confused about it? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As I was the one who originally changed it from "serving his third suspension" to "had been suspended" in the first place, I will weigh in on this as well. My objection was (and still is) to mentioning his suspensions in his bio. We don't mention any of Zimmerman's prior bad acts in his bio, so why single Martin out for his prior bad acts in his bio. This is not a biographical article about either one. Keep their bios short and simple and their prior bad acts out of their bios. If either parties prior bad acts are mentioned, it should be in relation to a court proceeding.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Because Trayvon's suspensions were all within a short period of time (less than one school year) before he was shot. There is also evidence that he did commit theft/burglary as one of his suspensions was due to finding jewelry and a screwdriver in his bag. Zimmerman's 'prior bad acts' were chronologically much more distant and in any case don't include a single conviction by any courts, but if you want to, you may add his academic and criminal history. It is all useful information. YvelinesFrance (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to consider their ages as well. Martin was only 17, whereas Zimmerman was 28 at the time of the shooting. Zimmerman's run in with the law was at a young age as well. Martin was not suspended due to finding jewelery and a screwdriver in his bag, please get your facts straight. His three suspensions were for (1) missing school and/or being late, (2) writing WTF (graffiti) on a hallway locker (this is when they looked through his backpack for the graffiti marker and found the jewelery) and (3) having a baggie that contained marijuana residue. There were no arrests or citations from the police in relation to any of his three suspensions. Martin did not have a single conviction by any court either and furthermore, a police report stated that at the time Zimmerman encountered Martin, "there is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've worked on this page in the past, and commented when this question came up several times before. It is an ever-changing situation, and now the court has agreed to character evidence and looking at past actions, which gives a lot more weight to including in the article more of the negative information that's known about both of them. I've always been for including mention of Martin being suspended, but to put all three suspensions in the article I think some of Zimmerman's past acts should be included, too. It's not clear what happened, and legally to look at the acts of one of them the court has to look at the other's, so there's no reason to favor one or the other in the article. Psalm84 (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree Psalm84. Now that the court has declared past actions admissable, the situation has changed and readers will need to know the past histories of both Zimmerman and Martin. Apostle12 (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It does seem like now the character questions are starting to be brought up, and different legal blogs have said they would. But maybe it's still getting ahead of the legal process to mention all 3 suspensions and Zimmerman's troubles. It would be nice to find some legal analysis of the recent decision in the news, but I didn't see that much. Here are a few quotes that seem of interest, though:

"Yet there’s a sound legal reason for the judge allowing the defense to go on the offense, says George Dekle, a law professor at the University of Florida. True, he says, the prosecution has stated that the basic facts of the case — a grown man profiles a boy as a criminal, instigates a confrontation, then shoots him dead when the boy defends himself — substantiate a second degree murder conviction...But under Florida law, the nuances of the confrontation, and the actions of the victim, are all admissible in a self-defense claim."

“The rules of evidence permit the defense to introduce evidence of a pertinent character trait in support of Zimmerman’s claim that Martin was the aggressor,” writes former defense attorney Frederick Leatherman on his popular law blog.

"George Zimmerman judge OKs question: Who was the real Trayvon Martin?"

"This is how you defend someone charged with second-degree murder, a charge that presumes ill will and hate," O'Mara said. "If that's the way they are charging it, we have to know as much as we can about everybody involved -- every state witness. We'll do everything we can to get that out there. It's not character assassination; it's investigation."

"Zimmerman defense looking for new clues on Trayvon"

"Though it sounds horrible to come before you and say, 'I really want to go after the victim's reputation,' that is simply what the Sixth Amendment tells us we have to do," O'Mara told the judge...Nelson authorized his request to subpoena Trayvon's Twitter and Facebook posts. In self-defense cases, she said, if there's evidence that a victim had a violent past, it could be relevant...The accounts were de-activated long ago, O'Mara said, but he believes they will reveal "videos out there that suggest he (Trayvon) involved himself in MMA fighting."

Although the judge ordered the release of the school records, she pointed out that they will not be released to the media — and unless O'Mara can convince her they're relevant, jurors will never see them.

"Judge: George Zimmerman entitled to Trayvon Martin's school records, social media posts"

Maybe trying to find out what some of other legal experts said, too, about this ruling would help to see how much should be included in the article now. Psalm84 (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

@Apostle12: The court did not declare past actions admissible. She merely ruled on a defense pre-trial subpoena that they could have access to his school records and social media accounts. She will make a ruling on whether any of it is relevant and therefore admissible at another hearing, after the defense looks through the records and accounts. The defense is allowed to try and introduce evidence about Martin's past, but the judge makes the final decision on whether it is relevant and admissible, not the defense. BTW, the defense's pre-trial subpoena and the judges ruling are already included in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of all that, Wikipedia is not a court of law. Whether something is admissible as evidence in a particular court case has no direct relationship with whether it should be included in a Wikipedia article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

WP may not be a court of law, but matters of law and court rulings pertaining to this article are discussed on the talk page and when the information being presented on this talk page is not entirely accurate, then correcting the inaccurate information is for informational purposes only.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Um. OK. But removing the information about Martin's prior suspensions from the article seems to introduce POV bias to the content of the article, and whether that information is admissible in a trial or not really has no bearing on whether it should be in this wikipedia article. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The article currently contains his last suspension, which is the reason he was in Sanford, and the only one that is relevant. If we were to follow your logic of "whether information is admissible in a trial or not really has no bearing on whether it should be in this wikipedia article", then Zimmerman's prior bad acts should be included as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there some reported "prior bad acts" of Zimmerman that have been left out of the article? Sorry, but I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree the bad acts of zimmerman should be included too. @BarrelProof : He had an assault incident against a cop in college, and a domestic violence accusation from his ex. There are also some allegations of work behavior, but those are less documented/reliable. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Move

Article was recently moved by a (thus far) uninvolved editor. I have reverted the change, as this has been discussed many times, and there is not currently conensus for a move. If someone wants to try and build consensus again, thats their game. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"Investigator's"

It's a shame that the article is locked, at one point it says, "Investigator's said that Martin attempted to run home", which is obviously a grammatical error. Kind of makes me wonder who wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.94.49 (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. Psalm84 (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

MMA fighting

"Judge: George Zimmerman entitled to Trayvon Martin's school records, social media posts". "The accounts were de-activated long ago, O'Mara said, but he believes they will reveal "videos out there that suggest he (Trayvon) involved himself in MMA fighting."

If Martin is proven to have had experience with MMA-style fighting this would have particular relevance. One witness said Zimmerman was being punched MMA-style, and such training carries with it special responsibility--legally a fighter's hands can be considered lethal weapons. Apostle12 (talk) 07:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Likely not. A fighter's hands must be registered to be lethal. Martin's hands were not registered; his supposed MMA experience was wishful thinking of an adolescent. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sure you are correct that his training was not extensive and his hands were not registered. Nevertheless, any proof that he trained in MMA techniques would underscore his destructive potential--however "adolescent." Apostle12 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The one witness who said Zimmerman was being punched MMA style, changed his story three weeks later, when he was interviewed by the FDLE about what he saw that night. He said he was no longer sure Martin was throwing punches. The teenager may have simply been keeping Zimmerman pinned to the ground, he said. The defense may find more, but from what I've seen of the videos, there is no "training" going on, just simply a bunch of adolescent kids fighting.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That witness did somewhat change his testimony, but in the same interview he also said something like that it had really looked to him that the one guy was punching the other. He is still saying that that's what he thought he saw. Psalm84 (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No, he changed his story from saying that on the night of the shooting, he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style," to saying now that "he is no longer sure Martin was throwing punches". He also said that he was no longer sure which one called for help. That is a significant change in his story.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

At this point it's probably not a relevant issue unless reliable sources write more about it, but in his testimony on the whole, while he says he's not sure on either point, he still says that the way he first described it is how it seemed to him. Basically he said with not having any idea of what was going on, it looked like Martin was hitting Zimmerman and Zimmerman was yelling for help. He also said he got that impression because the guy on the top seemed to be in control, and when he yelled for them to stop, he was surprised that the guy on top didn't stop the struggle and get off the guy. He also it seemed to him that the guy on the bottom kept trying to get up, and the cries seemed to come from him since they were clear and not "echo-y," and to him it seemed like they wouldn't be if they came from the guy on top, who had his back to him. What he said isn't conclusive, but it isn't as though he's saying now that he thinks he was mistaken and now believes that Martin wasn't hitting Zimmerman and Zimmerman wasn't the one yelling. At this point, though, it doesn't really matter in terms of the article. Psalm84 (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

He told the FDLE that he was no longer sure about Martin throwing punches, and that it was dark and he couldn't see who was yelling for help. In other words, he is no longer a credible witness.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That can't be said. For one thing, he still says Martin was the one on top. News reports on his testimony are also only the interpretations of the writers. How it will be interpreted in court is a different matter. His FDLE testimony is 45 minutes long and in detail. I just listened to some of it again, as well as Zimmerman's reenactment. Zimmerman says in that that he tried to sit up, which is what the witness says he saw too, so it seems he interpreted that right. And again, what the struggle looked like to him isn't meaningless. The investigators even asked him questions along those lines of what his impression was of what was going on. Psalm84 (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Who's talking about writers interpretations? I'm going by what the guy actually said, he said he was no longer sure that Martin was throwing punches and he never observed which individual was yelling for help. That contradicts his original statements. His credibility has been diminished.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of his credibility, which has to do with his honesty as a witness. The issue is that after learning more about the case he questioned what he thought he saw, but it still looked that way to him even if he can't say for sure what happened. The matter of writers' interpretations come in because they interpreted the witness's testimony in their news reports. They are not the attorneys, the judge or the jury involved in the case. What this witness's testimony means will be determined in court. Psalm84 (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. When you have this many witnesses with varying accounts of what they observed and/or heard that night, their credibility is a key factor. This is an acutal quote from a juror on a recent high-profile case covered by the media: "I think we were real focused on the facts and determining credibility".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

we are not trying the case. The credibility or not of a particular witness is irrelevant to wikipedia. If they are called and testify, then we include the information. however, personally, I think if there is evidence showing that Martin was involved in a fight club, or involved in some sort of martial arts, that it will be that much more difficult to overcome reasonable doubt. A lot of people are confused about what the standard of proof is for this case. Even ignoring the SYG hearing, which is somewhat weighted in Zimmerman's favor - the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not justified - thats a pretty low bar, and evidence of wrongdoing in Martins past - though not directly linked to the incident - is likely to put that doubt in the jury's mind. This is an entirely seperate question of if Zimmerman was ACTUALLY justified or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

All true, but this is a two way street, not a one way street. Evidence of wrongdoing in Zimmerman's past - not linked to the incident - could sway juror's interpretation of his credibility and his statement of self-defense.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely - which is pretty much the argument I made above in the suspension discussion, that both sets should be included - because unless the SYG hearing dismisses the charges, its almost a sure thing that both will be brought up. (possibly not admissible, but even the ruling that they are not admissible would be wiki-relevant imo) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding some of the stuff discussed near the top of this discussion, the concept of 'registering' your hands or some other body part as a lethal weapon is a myth [28] [29] [30]. Of course significant training you've undertaken or experience could come up in a court case, it only coming up when someone has 'registered' their hands goes against the reasons it's relevent. But until and unless it comes up in any court case, it's no point us speculation about the relevence to this court case. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Statute

My removal of the statute was restored: [31]. The volokh.com source above it says it isn't relevant to the case. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

volokh is not authoritative (although could be notable in his opinion regarding this). The statute however is DEFINATELY relevant to the case, as there is already an SYG hearing schedule under that law, that will specifically be addressing/answering if the law provides immunity to Zimmerman. Regardless of the answer to that question, the fact that the question is being asked makes the statute relevant. I will however say that it is likely a different portion of the SYG statute that is most relevant (the immunity portion), so we should either quote the entire statute, unles we can gain consensus on what part to quote. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Including the legal language of the entire statute is really not necessary, I think the relevant portions of the statute that pertain to Zimmerman and his self-defense claim would be what readers would like to see summarized in a clear and concise manner.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it may be more correct if I say that the part of the statute that was included in this article is not relevant according to the source, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Later in the volokh.com article, after the subject part of the statute was mentioned, is the following statement, "We have now covered the entire relevant sections of Florida’s self-defense statutes. Not one word of them provides the slightest legal protection to Zimmerman, if the M version of the events is true."[32]

In any case, the statute is relevant to the topic of the Wikipedia article "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" since the statute was directly related to the topic of the Wikipedia article by a reliable source, i.e. the volokh.com article. Also, to make that clear, the volokh.com article should be added as a ref for the excerpt of the statute that appears in the Wikipedia article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Update — I made some edits that should clarify Kopel's point in the volokh.com article without having to give the excerpt from the statute.[33] --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference NY Times APC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1] ttp://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-federal-review-justice-letter-20120402_1_chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency#

[2] "Trayvon Martin Investigator Wanted Manslaughter Charge". ABC News. Retrieved March 27, 2012.

[3] Horwitz, Sari (April 2, 2012). "Martin family's attorney seeks Justice Dept. investigation into police actions after shooting". The Washington Post. Retrieved April 5, 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[4] Trotta, Daniel (April 3, 2012). "Trayvon Martin: Before the World Heard the Cries". Reuters. Retrieved April 7, 2012.

[NY_Times_APC-5] Cite error: The named reference NY Times APC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]