Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin

statutes

I have added several of the relevant self defense statutes from florida. I have filtered the list to setions which I personally believe are relevant, and could be plausivly used by the state to decline prosecution, or used by the defense, or place limits on the defense. If someone thinks a particular statute or sub-statute is also relevant, I would not object.

I am also considering bolding parts that I think are particularly relevant, but that may cause possible POV, so I will take that under advisement. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I removed it per WP:OR. This is an encyclopedia article about an event, not a forum for speculating about any possible outcomes of a court case. Maybe adding an internal link to Right of self-defense would provide a reader with a link to similar information without the neutrality issues? As for the bolding; sort of moot since the section is gone but I have never seen that done in an article before. Remember this is in main space; adding a bunch of intermittent bold phrases really killed readability. VQuakr (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

911 calls

I am not very familiar with using wikipedia, but I would like to bring up that the city of Sanford has released 911 recordings from the shooter as well as a few residents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I added a link to the article. VQuakr (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite the link I was thinking of, but I gave it a go and added a mention of the City of Sanford's official release of the 911 recordings and added a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should have a link to the city as well. I moved the reference to earlier in the paragraph, since the two sentences basically were duplicates. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with using Wikipedia as well, but aren't the claims that Zimmerman tried to apprehend Martin and that 2 shots were fired completely false? According to the witnesses in the recorded calls there is only 1 shot (listen to the call in the cited article - only 1 shot and the witness says 1 shot). Also, the article which is cited for Zimmerman apprehending Martin makes no mention of the fact. There is no evidence on how the confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman happened, but Zimmerman certainly has a history of pursuing suspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.164.135 (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In another call, Zimmerman claims to be pursuing Martin. 67.86.183.40 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, in that same call, Zimmerman does mention, twice, that Martin was running — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Relevance

Exactly how relevant and needed is the newly added "Background to Racial Tension in Area"-section? Feels like this is steering the article in a certain (non-neutral) direction. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The observation this this is not a totally isolated incident is made by one of the sources (the Huffington Post article). That does not necessarily mean it should be included in this article, but it does show that the connection is not pure original research. VQuakr (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The information in that section (which I wrote) is included in many of the articles describing the incident, and is relevant to explaining the degree of the controversy surrounding the death. I think there should also be mention of the recently passed "Stand your ground" legislation, too, as that is necessary to explain the police's situation and the level of evidence they would need to charge him. If you compare this article to another in which someone shot others and alleged self-defense, such as the Bernhard Goetz shooting, you can see that there, too, background leading up to the situation is included, such as the crime rate prior to the shooting. QuizzicalBee (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems the Sanford Florida Police Department has (as they say) a 'troubled' history. I suppose the thing to do is to develop a page on them. The department has a good web site here. It is a large department as so seems notable. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

New page, Sanford Florida Police Department, please take a look.Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a 62 word section about the department in general, then a 336 word section about the "controversies." See the essay WP:COATRACK. Edison (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Can an attacker claim self defense in Florida?

George Zimmerman attacked Trayvon Martin and when Trayvon Martin fought back George Zimmerman is allowed to claim self defense after he kills him.Beancrisp (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

So now a concerned member of the neighborhood watch becomes an attacker? Whatever happened to the policy of NPOV? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what happened but it keeps getting taken out. In the 911 calls Zimmerman was told not follow Martin but he did anyway. Zimmerman followed the boy and created the confrontation. Since Zimmerman was the initial aggressor his claim of self-defense will not hold up, but the case hasn't gotten that far yet so it is only speculation at this point.

What isn't speculation is the fact Zimmerman has a history of repeatedly calling 911 and the recordings for this case have him saying things like, "[they] always get away." Describing this man as a "concerned member of the neighborhood watch" is quite a stretch. 68.116.80.52 (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There are sources to the contrary. Zimmerman had no criminal record, a clean slate, an education, and he had never been in any incidents before. Also worth mentioning: he's Hispanic (and yes, there are sources for that). 80.187.201.33 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he did not have a clean slate--he told police at at the scene that he had never been arrested, but it turned out he was lying. He had an arrest record for battery on a law enforcement officer in 2005. Not sure what relevance his being Hispanic has. QuizzicalBee (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

From a legal standpoint, florida actually has a specific exemption to the self defense statute that does not allow that defense for the initiator of an attack, so this is very relevant to the case, but I don't think we can include it until some RS starts talking about it. In an earlier edit of mine on the main article, I included all the statutes but they were subsequently removed, bu tyou can look back at that revision if you want to see the applicable text. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Potential racial motivation in the lead: more general summary?

While a lot of the public backlash is about perceived racial elements underpinning the shooting itself and the subsequent investigation by the Sanford police, it would seem that the facts can be, and ought to be, kept distinct from the motivation. My proposal would be to change the lead paragraph to something a little more narrative (though with proper attribution and facts, which I am omitting for sake of brevity in my point), along the lines of:

On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin, a teenager from (hometown),[cite] was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a member of the local neighborhood watch, while visiting family in Sanford, Florida. Members of Martin's family have alleged the incident was racially motivated,[cite] while Zimmerman has asserted that he shot Martin in self defense.[cite]

There might be a more neutral way to write it, but I think that by bifurcating the issue into the act and the response will help prevent the article itself from moving forward with the presupposition that racial motivations are the primary causal agent in this story. I think this will also help with organizing the entry moving forward as the story develops (e.g., actions taken by the family, statements issued by Zimmerman and his supporters, any outside activity by law enforcement or public figures that might be deemed newsworthy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxrepublica (talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

support a good compromise. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good.QuizzicalBee (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I sensed a POV myself, as such I rewrote the lead. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 04:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's race

Is his race really relevant? CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 05:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I wondered about the term 'hispanic' used in the article. While George Zimmerman is technically Hispanic, I'm not sure it really matters in this article and the term hispanic is used very, very awkwardly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Because there are racial issues concerning the crime, everyone's race involved has the potential to be relevant, even if further examination shows it to not be relevant. So it's worthwhile mentioning it. however, it is shoehorned in there ungrammatically. So I fixed the grammar.QuizzicalBee (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of trying to find a way to add it into the article while trying not to draw attention to it, why not create a separate profile for George Zimmerman similar to the one made for Trayvon Martin? After all, he is one of the major actors in this sad state of affairs. This is something I definitely have no idea how to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A separate article would be inappropriate per WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP Gaijin42 (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin being black is apparantly relevant, then Zimmerman being Hispanic has relevance too. 80.187.201.33 (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean another article, but another 'box' like the one for Trayvon Martin on the right side of the upper part of the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure Zimmerman's race is relevant - you cannot mention the ethnicity of the alleged victim and then not mention the ethnicity of the alleged perpetrator. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, however, I still have apprehensions about putting it in the lead. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 00:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The article describes Zimmerman as a "multiracial Hispanic", which is true. Apparently his father is white and mother is Hispanic. But the Sanford Police Department identified George Zimmerman as a "white male". The perception of the Sanford Police Department should be included in the article, in my opinion. The Sanford Police clearly cared more about the "white" in Zimmerman's "white Hispanic" identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkrazee (talk • contribs) 11:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Shooting of Trayvon Martin → Trayvon Martin – This article was recently boldly moved [1] to Trayvon Martin. I undid this move, but would like to see a broader consensus established either way. This is a procedural nomination to encourage the discussion. VQuakr (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose move - This is an article about a notable event, not a biography about the victim of a shooting. The naming convention on events suggests naming an article with "what" and "where," but the "where" is this case does not seem applicable to any article title that would be uncumbersome. VQuakr (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to oppose the move as well because I thought Shooting of Trayvon Martin was consistent with naming conventions of people famous for one incident. But then I did a bit of looking on WP and saw that it's rather haphazard. Nicole duFresne, significant only for her murder, gets an entry with just a name. Amadou Diallo gets Amadou Diallo Shooting. Abner Louima gets his name entry; Sean Bell shooting incident] vs. Emmett Till. Rodney King vs. Death of Vincent Chin. Jessica McClure and Yoshihiro Hattori are name only.QuizzicalBee (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point of such a move, if someone wants to make a wikipedia article about Trayvon Martin, the let them do so. Otherwise, I believe this is an event that impacts more than just Trayvon Martin and should be its own article. (Just like the Super Bowl events are its own articles separate from the articles of the individual teams playing in it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:ONEEVENT; Had Trayvon Martin not been killed in this incident, would he be notable enough to have an article? I suspect the answer would be no. In such cases, we (should) write an article about that 1 Event rather than the victim. What sources exist that discuss Trayvon Martin and don't reference the shooting? None, near as I can tell. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• oppose per above. I originally created this article under just Trayvon Martin, and it was moved by someone else, and I think that was the right thing to do. This article will likely eventually expand to actually be more about zimmerman (if he goes to trial) than the victim. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Page was moved against the currently forming consensus. I reverted and warned the user. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Kindof wish I hadn't commented - now I can't move-protect the article. If it keeps getting moved and reverted, that's what I would recommend - if only until this discussion here is resolved one way or the other. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind - Reaper Eternal has now move protected the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions about the details of the crime

Was there any details on the location of Zimmerman's vehicle and the location of the struggle and shooting? Is it common procedure not to divulge that during an investigation or is it like the 911 tapes where it should be released but is being withheld for some reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's early yet, but I'm sure that will come out at some point soon. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that the can of iced tea that Trayvon Martin was said to be carrying was listed as Arizona Iced Tea. Was that confirmed? Knowing the size of those cans, that would have looked like one preposterously large caliber gun in anyone's eyes, it would have definitely hampered Trayvons ability to run, and I have yet to hear that Trayvon was carrying a specific brand of iced tea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That's as may be, but we shouldn't speculate. We should also be careful as to how we phrase such facts in the article; I'm sure Arizona Iced Tea people would be thrilled to learn that their can design got someone killed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted that editors comment. He was saying Arizona is so big, that it could not be reasonably confused for a gun.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you're right - my bad. But I think the point stands, we can't speculate. That's what the reliable sources are for. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone been able to find a source for the time of day for any of the 911 calls or when police arrived on scene? This should be well documented by the City yet none of the stories on the shooting seem to report this (so much for the five W's of journalism). The attention drawn to this story and the number of articles written about it have made any sort of online search for these details all but impossible. Diraphe (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"National outrage"?

Isn't calling the reactions to the incident a "national outrage" way over the top? I mean sure, it's a controversial case but it's not "the new Emmett Till" or anything even quite as big. Just an unfortunate incident in which a man of colour killed another man of colour in an act of (alleged) self-defense. 80.187.201.33 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say it's national (or even international, the guardian.uk coverage and all) attention while the outrage seems to be from social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.186.73 (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion, in line with the suggestion above, would be to change the term from "national outrage" (which can imply that the outrage is held in common by the nation) to "national prominence" or thereabouts (which merely suggests that this is now a story that is getting national coverage).Voxrepublica (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Or it could just be mentioned that the case gained some attention in the national media resulted in (some) controversy. That will suffice. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed the phrase to "received international attention". BrainyBabe (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Received international attention? Not that I'm aware of... the article only excists on the English wikipedia and in my country, it was not given a single mention. For what it's worth, I say you need some major foreign sources before you mention "international attention". What's wrong with just "national attention"? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not an extensive list, but BBC and the Guardian (both UK media) have been covering this event as well. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/20/trayvon-martin-death-story-so-far?newsfeed=true and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17452878 as well as a couple Australian and Canadian press have put out articles as well as the federal government started to get involved. (although I'm loathe to post these gaudy and long links and start to overload this) Darter9000 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Atrocious grammar

Someone please edit the page...it's filled with trailer park-quality grammar. 70.88.141.161 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is getting flooded with shoddy edits. I'm trying to clean up the bare urls and tie the article together, but it's like swimming upstream against a deluge. Is there an editor familiar with the semi-protect procedure who can at least get this article semi-protected to allow for clean up? Right now it's all over the place because of the controversy of the story.Luminum (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The OP is welcome to edit the page. I too agree the writing quality needs work, but describing grammar as "trailer park" doesn't really help. Disparaging people by race or class does not sit well with me, nor with our policy of assuming good faith in the volunteers who come here to contribute. (From our article: "Trailer parks, especially in American culture, are stereotypically viewed as lower income housing whose occupants live at or below the poverty line, have low social status and lead a desultory and deleterious lifestyle.") BrainyBabe (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"facts" section

Could someone else remove that? I am at WP:3RR I do not object to any of the facts in general, but they should be put into the article proper, and not shoved in a separate section like that (Although it may be worthwhile to have a section on zimmerman's past interactions with the police/watch/etc)

I removed it once, and folded the few sourced facts into the body, but it has been reinstated. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance... BrainyBabe (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you addressed the issue with the anon user yet? She or he continues to add the section in despite the efforts of other editors (including myself) to integrate those facts into the article. If the user persists in adding it after several warnings, we may wish to pursue an IP ban.Luminum (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I tend not to put my energy into anon IPs (which may be dynamic anyway). Go ahead if you wish. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Section on Police Department

Can we get rid of the entire section on alleged racism in the police department? It's quite irrelevant to the shooting itself, and certainly walks a fine line of neutrality. If the police were involved in the shooting, this would be incredibly relevant, but in terms of the investigation, what exactly do other isolated incidents involving other officers in this police unit have to do with this controversy? Let's keep this article about the facts of the shooting & facts about the two people involved, and move the allegations of racism in the police department to their own page.

We don't bring up every instance of alleged racism in the NYPD when there's an alleged racial incident in NYC, and this case is no different. Mpdude8 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The alleged racism is a significant part of this stories notability, both in the "walking while black" aspect, and perceptions of the police's not pursuing this case as aggressively as might some want. These perceptions may or may not be reasonable, or justified, but they are real, and very notable. The section should stay. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Protect this page

Also, what does everyone think about protecting this page for a while? Every time I reload, a new set of edits are made, and a majority are either grammatically heinous or completely against Wikipedia policy in terms of neutrality. People checking this page for facts about the case need to be presented with the actual facts sans speculation and subtle commentary on the victim and shooter. Mpdude8 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already requested semiprotection. Im not sure about full protection (although I do think the speed of edits should be slowed down). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope my many and various edits are not those objected to by Mpdude8. Anyway, for reasons related to real life, I'll have to leave the article now, but I would like to think it is substantially better than a couple of hours ago. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerning speed (my concern) Its partially due to you - but certainly not just you. I agree the article is steadily improving, but the rate of change is really high, and it makes it difficult for people to see what is going on, and to decide what parts need work. Especially since there seems to be some micro-edit wars going on about wording, information, sections, etc I think some additional discussion would serve everyone - unless something is egregious, there is no reason it has to be changed "right now". Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, BrainyBabe, your edits have greatly improved the state of the page over the past few hours. I first read this article this morning and it was in need of a lot of work. I just think that due to the attention this story has been getting, users (anonymous and otherwise) are making edits all over the place, and, as Gaijin42 said, it's tough to keep track of. There have also been instances, intentionally or otherwise, adding remarks without reference and adding statements (factual or otherwise) that are far from neutral, which is extremely important in an article like this. Thanks for all your work. Mpdude8 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess if I want to continue to contribute, I'll have to register then. Hope I wasn't too much a nuisance though. I'm a current events buff and things like this is what keeps me up and clicking all night long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darter9000 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for those words, Mpdude8. I did the best I could with the time available, but when I woke up, saw that the article had deteriorated again, in the sense of being less encyclopedic and less readable. Darter9000, you imply you were making multiple anonymous edits. I have no way of knowing which of them may or may not have been a nuisance, as you put it. Some anon edits over the past couple of days have been a real pain to deal with, and that is even though I am sure the contributors thought they were helping (WP:AGF). A named account is a step towards fruitful collaboration, so thank you for doing that. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"myfoxorlando" source?

Is there any reason why the account of the witness who said Trayvon was beating Zimmerman and Zimmerman was crying for help has not been more widely reported? The only source for this story comes from MyFoxOrlando, from February 27. I would think that this would be a rather important mitigating factor in this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.81 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Because this witness told a different story to the police and the account does not match up with other people's accounts. This would indicicate the witness is unreliable, and the fact that there is only one (reliable?) source isn't very promising either. I say we better leave it out. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If the source is reporting it and the source is reliable, then it should be included. And it looks like it is. It's not our place to determine the reliability of a witness, just the reliability of the news source.Luminum (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Then also mention how she told an entirely different story to the police, one that matches Zimmerman's description of the events. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• The citation says:

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

"Man shot and killed in neighborhood altercation". MyFoxOrlando.com. 14 March 2012. Retrieved 20 March 2012.

Another source mentions Zimmerman's red jacket. This could be a case of OR. This article and this witness is not saying who is who. What wording should the article say? Suggestions? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Young black men who appear to be outsiders"

The shooter allegedly included this phrase in emails, according to the article as it currently reads, that went out to homeowners in the community the shooting took place in. There's no citation of this statement anywhere - has anyone found a citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.72 (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article references a news source for this claim, and it actually says, "Zimmerman went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men who appeared to be outsiders, and warned that some were caught lurking, neighbors said." Door to door. This needs to be addressed. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/v-fullstory/2700249/shooter-of-trayvon-martin-a-habitual.html#storylink=cpy Alexo Andros (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I checked several articles and I've found it should be door to door, not emails. I changed the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

As confirmed above, this is an article about the event, not a biography of the victim - there is ample precedent for this approach, as in Death of Caylee Anthony, 2011 Tucson shootings and many others. Accordingly, it would follow that the appropriate infobox is not the biographical "person" infobox, but instead one for "news event". I do, however, think it is appropriate to add a section that tells readers more about Trayvon, which includes the sourced material that had been in the infobox. (And in any case, we don't have a second infobox on the shooter.) I'm changing it back to the "news event" infobox which would be expanded to reflect arrest and trial when that happens. Do other editors agree? Tvoz/talk 00:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a published guideline or policy which says so? I am fine with an "event" infobox, but think there can also be infoboxes for the principle actors involved. I read through the infobox manual of style, and it says nothing about multiple infoboxes being not allowed. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Just saw that you had changed the infoboxes again - didn't mean to revert without discussing - it was an edit conflict and I missed that. Sorry. I don't know offhand what the policies are, if any, but I have worked on or looked at numerous articles about similar events, and have not found precedent for multiple infoboxes like that. Actually it's more than one article - I mentioned two above, but will look into it further, and see what others think. I did add a biography section about Trayvon which I think is helpful and makes sense in terms of the subsequent flow of the text. Let's see what others think and meanwhile I will look around and see what I find. I do recall objections to a double infobox on the Caylee Anthony article, but I'll see what else is out there. I doubt it's hard policy, but I do think we want to be careful about changing the focus of this article from the crime to the individuals. Tvoz/talk 02:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Event infobox is the proper protocol for shootings and other such things. And we don't use more than one infobox in an article except in exceptional circumstances, so that idea is right out. Silverseren^C 02:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is unusual, and if a case develops then the event may take priority. However, for now a lot of the interest in the article is coming from the two actors, their respective races, etc. While this information certainly does belong in the article prose, I think having some shortcut infobox is not undue. I would certainly not object to a hybrid event infobox that had sub-sections for victim and suspect details, but I do not know if such a thing is possible. (just did a search and found Template_talk:Infobox/Archive_2#Nested_Infobox will work on something along this vein. @Silver Have a policy/guideline to that? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

But are any nested infoboxes in use? I haven't seen any and I'm not sure this makes sense here as Silver said. It's the event and its aftermath that warrants the article - I think that has to remain our focus. Tvoz/talk 06:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 March 2012

George Zimmerman (Jewish, Hispanic) American

198.228.194.222 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We have him as hispanic. Do you have a source on jewish? Gaijin42 (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless the Zimmerman family comes out and says they and/or he is Jewish, there's no point in saying he's Jewish. What was said was that he is Hispanic. Which, does beg the question, where did the 'white' designation come from? I've seen some early confusion about hispanic and/or white. Darter9000 (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Not "no point" - this is utter speculation that does not belong here at all. Tvoz/talk 06:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Police Report released

Add: Sanford Police partial report states that Officer Timothy Smith was responding to a suspicious persons call at the address of 1111 Retreat View Circle and responded to a gunshot report between 1231 Twin Trees Lane and 2821 Retreat View Circle. He found a white male, later to be identified as George Zimmerman, in a red jacket and blue jeans, at the scene and observed a black male, in a gray hooded sweatshirt, lying face down in the grass. While disarming Zimmerman, he observes that the back of Zimmerman's head and his nose was bloodied and his back was wet as well. Officer Ricardo Ayala arrives on the same call and attempts, unsuccessfully, to make contact with the black male as other Sanford officers begin to arrive. Officer Ayala did not find a pulse and along with another officer, proceeds to attempt resuscitation until Sanford Fire Rescue arrives and continued the resuscitation attempt. The paramedic declared the subject deceased at 1930 hours. Officers Mead and Wagner gathered statements from witnesses. Reference: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf Darter9000 (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope this is relevant, seems like this report was released recently so I made a brief synopses of it, but the semi-protection precluded me from making direct changes anymore. Darter9000 (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Neighborhood Watch Manual

It's stated throughout this article and in various news items that Zimmerman went against guidelines from some kind of neighborhood watch manual. However, its claimed earlier in the article that he wasn't a registered member of any such watch. It seems the manual in question is from the National Neighborhood Watch Program, but I'm not sure how him violating the rules of some organization he's not even part of is relevant to this event. The terms quoted from this manual are pretty strong (e.g. to suggest he categorically shouldn't have done x, y, z) so it seems like unnecessary POV, especially if there's no concrete link to this case. The source link supporting this in the article is dead anyway, so I'm going to go ahead and remove it for now.

8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

With respect, since Zimmerman was acting as a self-styled one-person Neighbourhood Watch, he did indeed have an obligation to follow the rules of such groups. That he may not have formally associated himself with the national organization does not detract from his duty to follow the rules. As the saying goes, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Because Mr. Zimmerman's entire justification for cruising around his neighbourhood in an SUV tank as a vigilante and for regularly reporting black people for walking on public sidewalks is his alleged participation in Neighbourhood Watch, the formal policies of that group are not at all POV but are highly relevant.

When a police officer shoots anyone on duty, he or she is immediately suspended from street patrol and placed on desk duty or on mandatory leave. I find it amazing that Mr. Zimmerman, as the acknowledged aggressor and shooter, was not himself detained by the local Florida police nor tested for alcohol and drugs in his system, as his speech on the 911 call was apparently quite slurred. I heard that the innocent victim, Trayvon Martin, was in fact so tested posthumously. I'm not sure why User:8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 was unable to check out the source link mentioned. It worked fine when I tested it just now, so I'm restoring the deleted info. I hope you now better understand the need for this section.
— Objectivesea (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

My objection (perhaps due to ignorance of the status of neighbourhood watch in the United States, so feel free to correct my assumptions if so) is that I imagine individual neighbourhood watch groups are free not to associate of the National Neighborhood Watch Program, and are free to create their own rules and guidelines by which they operate. Surely an individual may found an independent neighbourhood watch organisation whose guidelines recommend patrolling armed to the teeth, if they so desire. Really what I'm questioning is the authority of the National Neighborhood Watch Program in this case. Are their guidelines enshrined by law? If not I still don't see why their advice on the matter is relevant. 8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

the organizations standards are not enshrined by law, and the town was not under a legal obligation to follow the organizations standards or join the organization. However, a significant amount of the defense of zimmerman revolves around his role as the neighborhood watch "doing his job", and the vast majority (OR) of such orgs in the US _ARE_ members of the org, so it is important to qualify that zimmerman was not acting under the criteria/rules/authorization/relationships that many people would automatically assume they were by saying "neighborhood watch". Gaijin42 (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

zimmerman picture

There is a widely circulated mug shot of zimmerman that may be useful in the article, but it is problematic and informative at the same time. The image can be found here http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/3/20/1332269486593/George-Zimmerman-says-he--001.jpg

• copyright/public domain - As a mugshot, is free to use in the article, and finding an alternate picture may be difficult
• shows face/race - since zimmermans while/hispanic/multiracial/etc status has been important to the case, this may be valuable
• documents his prior arrest - important since zimmerman was described as "squeaky clean" before

but

• possibly prejudicial/pov by showing an unrelated mugshot while a subject to a potential criminal investigation on this issue.

Thoughts? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Uploading and adding it would be great. Finding a picture of Trayvon would be a good thing, too, if there is one available. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

File:George Zimmerman Mugshot.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:George Zimmerman Mugshot.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:George Zimmerman Mugshot.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Police arrival section

There's a statement in the second paragraph which reads "police say that that witness gave an official account to them that agreed with Zimmerman's story" with a Washington Post article given as a source, but I don't find this in the linked article. Can someone else read it and verify that I'm correct? ThatSaved (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)