Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin

Edit request

George Zimmerman was never appointed to the neighborhood watch in the appartment complex. http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization/

Please change the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.172.2 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done This has been addressed multiple times. There was an official watch program, administered by the local police department. That watch was not recognized by any national organization, true, but there is no requirement that watches do so - participation in the national programs is voluntary. Per your source "But registration with the USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch Program — which would have provided this training — is not a requirement for forming a group. We’ve got approximately 25,000 neighborhood watches registered now, and the neighborhood watches out there far exceed that number" Zimmerman was appointed/elected by the local watch group, and there are numerous sources to support this in the article already. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

After Zimmerman ended his call with police, a violent encounter took place between Martin and Zimmerman, which ended when Zimmerman fatally shot Martin 70 yards (64 m) from the rear door of the townhouse where Martin was staying.[96][Note 5] This sentence is poorly constructed. It makes it sound like Zimmerman shot from 70 yards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericav68 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please edit the "Court proceedings and verdict" section where it reads that Zimmerman's bond was revoked after trial. When a bond is revoked you go back to jail and the state keeps the funds, Zimmerman's bond was released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.247.57 (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

please edit the cnn reporting of the phone call section that CNN host nancy grace has continued to state that zimmerman called martin a "fucking coon" as of july 13th 2013, a year after cnn retracted that statment and issued an on air apology about said statment. source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RzpjXHAjgg

please change the police call transcript to reflect the actual call. Zimmerman did not say hes walking around and I think hes black. He said hes walking about looking at stuff etc and when when prompted by the police he said I think he is black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.199.47 (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

 Already done, long ago. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

jury instructions

The 40 potential jurors were today read the jury instructions on reasonable doubt, and self defense. Omara wanted to read some, State objected, Judge read whole thing. Are these suitable for inclusion under a jury instructions subsection? (unreliable convenience links to what was read below)

• http://twitdoc.com/view.asp?id=99278&sid=24LQ&ext=RTF&lcl=p1c3s3-6-f.rtf&usr=JeffWeinerOS&doc=148995965&key=key-63khgc3urc67nvlpq0e
• http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rku5be

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't think the whole text of the instructions is necessary, is it. Just a brief mention that the judge read them and that a self-defense instruction was included.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I would think that, on a more general point, a link to the jury instructions be provided, if only so that readers of this article are aware of what the law is that the jury will have to apply. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml

I suggest that something like the following should be added in the Court proceedings and verdict section, following "... was presented to the jury for deliberations on July 12."

Judge Nelson presented the jury with 27 pages of detailed instructions, reminding them that it is important that they follow the law spelled out in those instructions in deciding their verdict and that those laws must be applied even if the jurors do not like them.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf|title=Instructions read to jury by The Honorable Debra S. Nelson, Circuit Judge|publisher=State of Florida, 18th Judicial Circuit Courts}}</ref>

The assertions there about the instructions are supported by the source cited. Details are in the cited & linked source and in the article for that section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

--The Historian (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. An external link to the instructions would be a good idea.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added this to the article though it has had only brief exposure here. I'll be traveling today/tomorrow and don't know how much internetting I'll be doing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerman is NOT Hispanic - Please change

Why is Zimmerman identified as Hispanic and not white? As far as I know he speaks English and he definitely does not have a Spanish surname. So why Hispanic? This seems racist to me: if you're white mixed with X, you're categorized as X. Why? This should be taken out. It's just incendiary and racist. Sorry if I didn't present this request properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.209.20 (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2013‎ (UTC)

1. Reliable sources identify him as Hispanic.
2. His mother was Peruvian, i.e. Hispanic.
3. "Hispanic" is not a race. Hence the use of the phrase "multi-racial Hispanic American" to describe Zimmerman in the lead.

Fat&Happy (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's endlessly amusing to observe some people's utter confusion about "Hispanics". The issue really only comes up in this instance because of Zimmerman's appearance. He looks like many people who are Latinos/Hispanics. Why? Because he's of mixed race, as most people are who are labeled "Hispanic" in the US. His mother is Peruvian, and based on her appearance, clearly a person with considerable indigenous ancestry, consistent with the demographics of Peru which is, like Mexico, a majority mestizo country with a large indigenous population as well, with very few "whites". All of this is of course irrelevant as to any charge as to whether Zimmerman acted with a racist motive or not. But the ramblings of many on the point of his "race" is a hilarious example of ignorance about Latinos.Tmangray (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Not clear whether you want to keep or remove the characterization of Zimmerman as Hispanic. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep, but modify to "part Hispanic", or even better, "half Peruvian". The "multiracial" label is confusing, even though it may be somewhat true based on his mother's mixture.Tmangray (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Since we are keeping this I will head right over to the Presidents page and make sure that he is in no way identified as a black person, seeing as he has a white mother and what he "identifies" as is irrelevant. 205.204.248.67 (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

what source are you using where Zimmerman identifies himself as white, non-hispanic? Because on his voter registration forms, he said he was hispanic... Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? How do we know this? Is a copy of his voter registration online? Most such forms treat "Hispanic" separately from "race", so it's possible he might indicate both. And in the "race" part one can signify more than one. Is this where the "multiracial" label came from?Tmangray (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's in the two sources for the statement in the George Zimmerman section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Because he is not white but rather a mestizo. Simple as that. I don't see why he should be considered white if he is not. --190.19.75.223 (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If reliable sources say he is not white, then he is not white. The sources that we have show that he is multi-racial. Why is this becoming an issue? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

One error worthy of pointing out is that not all Peruvians are Hispanics. In fact, some demographic statistics argue that the majority of Peruvians are not Hispanic, but rather Amerindian. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling him half-White, half-Latino would clearly be the most accurate, but biased people who want to diminish the fact that he is half-White will not want that added to the article. Saint91 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Latino" is a stereotype that assumes Latin Americans are somehow homogeneous, which is completely absurd; if anything, it's a geographic identifier used inappropriately by people.

If you want to describe him racially, the best option would be to go with mestizo (but that term is not common in English).

In ethnic or cultural terms, the best available option is apparently "Hispanic", but that term excludes the father's culture.

My suggestion would be for the article to avoid using the encyclopedia's voice to define Zimmerman's race/ethnicity.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

He self-identifies as "Hispanic". I suspect it would be violating WP:BLP to have it be something other than that. htom (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

He has the exact same amount of white blood as Obama (one parent). If you're going to call Zimmerman white so must you call Obama white. 108.172.115.8 (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully this will clear up the confusion as to why some have asked for a correction of the term Hispanic for George Zimmerman and why it should be changed. First thing is to understand what Peruvian is and where it is located. Peruvian people are a culmination of races. They are located in Peru in South America. Spain was a huge influence as it was to most of South America. Second, the term Hispanic historically defines a persons ethnicity to be in relationship or linked to Spain or ancient Hispania (Spain/Portugal). So we now understand the relation to using the term Hispanic for Zimmerman. Half of his ethnic background comes from Peru which is in South America and there is a relationship to Spain. Here's the problem. Spain ancestry is located in Europe and are called European. Europeans are in fact synonymous with being categorized as "white" or "white people/race". Please see the article "White People" in Wikipedia And since Spain (or Portugal/ancient Hispania) is that of European location and decent, it would be silly to categorize him Hispanic since it is essentially calling him white. You just happen to choose the cultural terminology rather than the racial. In conclusion we know being Peruvian makes you Hispanic. We also know Hispanic is a term showing some cultural relationship with Spain. Spain is in Europe. Europe is synonymous with the phrase "White People". Therefore to call Zimmerman Hispanic is to call him White, so why not just call him White? Just because people speak Spanish doesn't make them separate from being White. Racially he is considered white, by definition. When you classify him as Hispanic (which is true) you are pointing out his culture. So, you have to determine if you want to identify Zimmerman culturally (Hispanic), racially (white), geographical identity (American) or use an assortment of the three. And to others who talk about Obama, he is in fact Multi-Racial. He is not Black. End of discussion. I used Wikipedia for my sources: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.17.216.85 (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Hispanic or Latino Origin Used in the 2010 Census

'Hispanic or Latino' refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. <http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf>

Fat&Happy (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Trayvon Martin

What is the source that Trayvon Martin's ethnicity is "African-American"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.84.89 (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Duh, what race do you think he looks like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.6.168 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Trayvon Martin clearly looks Chinese to me. (Disclaimer: Sarcastic comment. Please do not respond seriously.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A tanned Chinese. But seriously though, I did read somewhere that ethnicity has to be cited. Has ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a billion or so sources describing him as either black or african american, so I really don't think that will be an issue. Zimmerman's ethnicity is debatable/controversial. I don't think anyone has even hinted at any such debate regarding martin. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Transcript Add

In the transcript portion of: Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing? Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring...

The unintelligible portion can be clearly heard as "He's here now" leading into "he's just staring..."

Captain Lorna Doone the Pirate (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

An IP mentioned the same thing yesterday. I think the transcript is taken right from MoJo, and I'd err on leaving it. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The Mother Jones transcript of Zimmerman's call to the police is of poor quality, with numerous errors (though it's not as bad as CNN's).

E.g., it has Zimmerman saying, "Alright, where you going to meet with them at?" Actually, Zimmerman said, "Yeah," and the dispatcher replied, "Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?"

That's just one of many inaccuracies.

There's an accurate transcript here: http://www.burtonsys.com/zimmerman911transcript.html

NCdave (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Media circus"

Page currently contains the following text:

However, six weeks later, amidst a media circus involving misleading accusations of racism, Zimmerman was charged with murder by a new prosecutor

I'm pretty sure the focus here is not neutral. Describing anything as a "media circus" doesn't sound like something Wikipedia should ever be doing directly, and isn't obviously quoted in the sources given. Indeed, the footnote for the sentence doesn't seem relevant at all. --benmachine (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• In what way is this particular story not a "media circus"? -- It's the only reason anyone here has even heard of it. The Media circus article lists this article as an example. The "misleading" and "racism" links were to other places in the articles were those very things are summarized.--Froglich (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• It is accurate. See media circus. Over a thousand Google news results for "Trayvor Martin" "media circus". [1] Dream Focus 10:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually I agree with Benmachine here. "Media circus" is a term with negative connotations that, according to the article Dream Focus linked, specifically implies that the amount of coverage is "out of proportion" to the importance of the event being covered. Something like how much coverage an event deserves to have is a judgement call that we, as Wikipedia editors, cannot make. (Some arbitrary number from a google test is not really a strong argument for anything, not to mention most of those results appear to be blogs or opinion pieces; see WP:GOOGLETEST.) All we can say is that there was a lot of coverage, and if there are sources that call it a "media circus" we can cite them. But either way I think debate over whether or not it was a "media circus" doesn't belong in the lede.
    As for "misleading accusations of racism", this is also a bit non-neutral. I see how this sentence is referring to the misleading editing of tapes which may have made Zimmerman appear more racist than he does in the original tapes, but the way it's worded now (and the way the more detailed information is much further down, not linked to directly, and can only be found after further digging by the reader) could come across to a reader as saying "The media said Zimmerman was racist, but he's actually not". Of course, as Wikipedia editors, we can't see inside anyone's mind and say s/he is racist or not. What would be more appropriate would be to say that the media coverage included some misleading portrayals of Zimmerman's phone call or something, but again, I think that is more detail than is necessary in the lede, where it doesn't belong and can't be adequately summarized anyway. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone's gone ahead and changed the wording, cf. [2]. I'm happier with it now. --benmachine (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Although still a little unhappy with the placement of that footnote. Doesn't seem like that source is relevant, to me. --benmachine (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The very difinition on Wikipedia of media circus demonstrates that it is a weasel word: story which the media has blown out of proportion. It is not this article duty to assess what is proportionate or not and I am sure that a part of America feels it did not receive enough attention - hence, it is a contentious issue that Wiki should not take a side.131.137.247.6 (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite correct. We should not be determining if it is a media circus. We should also not be determining that it is NOT a media circus. We rely on reliable sources. MANY reliable sources have used the term "media circus" in relation to this trial, and interestingly, this is coming from both "sides". I am not adamant that the term be included in our article, but there is certainly no policy restricting that we cannot use it- it is beyond well sourced. [3] [4] Gaijin42 (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I think any reasonable person realizes it got excess media coverage. Similar incidents around the same time as the 24-7 coverage of this case were almost entirely ignored by the media, such as the Adkins killing in texas. Additionally, the entire narrative of this story not talked about needs to somehow be incorporated into this wiki article more significantly at some point, the opinion of many that this case was no more than Duke rape case part two, that the case was little more than a modern day lynching. Whatzinaname (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The term "media circus" is a loaded term that screams out POV. The implication is that Wikipedia believes the case received more media attention than it deserved. This usage is clearly unencyclopedic and not appropriate in the context of a highly controversial case that many believe deserved the large amount of media coverage that it received. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Jury racial makeup

I do not believe we have sufficient sourcing to say as a matter of fact that " by a jury of six women, all but one of whom was white". The jury members themselves have not spoken about their race. The judicial system has not released any information about their race (although they have it). Some reporters who were in the room who are not in any way experts in racial identification described them. If we are going to include this information, we need to attribute the racial identification to the observers who are making that assertion. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have read a number of articles that concur with the wording here. It is relevant information that readers will be looking for. If we don't accept the journalists as reliable on "race", we can change the wording to "reportedly white" or "according to reporters". On the other hand, if we take out the "race" completely, then we should take out the gender too, if it hasn't been reported by the judicial system. I mean, the "women" might self-identify as "men". - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the gender makeup is statistically much more interesting than the racial makeup. Gender is approximately 50/50. So a 6 woman jury has a 0.015 chance of occurring randomly. Seminole County is 10% black, so even on a 12 person jury, one would only expect 1 black juror, and 0 would not be statistically unlikely. On a 6 person jury having 0 black jurors is even more probable. Of course, the impact of the race may have been important to how open the jurors may have been to different arguments - but now you are getting into what the jurors were thinking, which is complete speculation.

Gender is much easier to tell - at a minimum we can tell what gender the jurists were presenting. Race is significantly more subjective, especially if racial mixing was multiple generations past. I personally am pure European (as far back as anyone can trace anyway), but due to Mediterranean background am several shades darker than several of my self identified black (bi-racial) friends who could easily pass for white-only if they were so inclined.

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I concur on your points, but as this is a racially charged case, any referenced information regarding race will be valid and relevant. What is the wording of the news articles? I mean, the difficulty with race is of course context, history, and definitions. North Africans, Arabs, and Indians (Asian) have actually been considered Caucasian, but not necessarily white, which is mostly associated with European Americans, but also includes a large proportion of Hispanics, which can be white, but are also an ethnic minority. I think as long as the source is explained in the text, it is both acceptable and important to include what is known. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that this is a racially charged case, which is why we should be extra cautious - claiming that the jury was all white or all white plus a hispanic could be throwing more fuel onto the fire. There was already at least one significant racial misidentification issue, heavily reported by the media (incorrectly or in multiple somewhat contradictory ways)- Zimmerman is white? Hispanic? white-hispanic? etc.

If we are going to have this informatino in, we must state that "The jury was reported by the media to be..." or some such

Even CNN is very careful about how they are attributing this info "The prosecuting and defense attorneys referred to the jury members as five white women and one black or Hispanic woman. CNN does not have access to the juror questionnaires and cannot confirm the ethnicities of the jurors." Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Black or Hispanic"? Really? I hadn't heard even that degree of specificity. All I've read says either "minority" or "non-white". Note that there are "black Hispanics", especially prominent among Dominican people, but also among other groups. If all we know is minority/non-white, that leaves open possibilities of people descended of various Asian, African, Native American, Austranesian, etc. etc. groups. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

HLN (that I had never heard of before this case? where did they come from?) Also has a "black and hispanic" juror. Also goes into the demographic statistical likelyhood http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/06/21/george-zimmerman-trial-female-jurors-trayvon-martin.

Another "black or hispanic" description http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/07/who-are-the-members-of-the-zimmerman-jury-2680094.html

Another "black or hispanic" ultimately sourced to "described by a prosecutor as" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2364213/Zimmerman-juror-signs-deal-write-tell-book-murder-trial.html

In light of the mixed sourcing, I am removing the racial commentary in the article until we can develop a consensus on accurate wording. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus shouldn't be too difficult. I would suggest wording "minority", non-white, or I can even support "black and/or Hispanic", with references. Oh, I first heard of HLN at the end of the Casey Anthony trial. Seems that media source really specializes in the big trial genre of TV journalism. - Boneyard90 (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently they are a rebranding of "CNN Headline News". Beyond B-29 (Black/hispanic), I think use stating as a matter of fact that the other 5 are white may be a violation of WP:BLP, and insufficiently sourced, when we are dealing with 3rd or 4th hand reports. (How many of the authors of these articles actually physically saw the jurors?) At a minimum we need to say "were described in media reports as" or something to that effect. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, if we are going to put more detail into the racial makeup, I think we need to do this in the context of the jury selection process. To my knowledge, only 1 black juror (g81) was specifically challenged/dismissed, and it was the state that did so - So there was ample opportunity for more minorityy (and male) representation in the jury. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the race of the sixth juror as "black or Hispanic"? I don't know what discussion resulted in its removal, but with Gaijin42's suggestion of adding "were described in media reports as", maybe it could be restored. Without that info, the reader can only wonder what her race might be.[5] --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your image link is broken to me, but in the context, I assume it is a picture of that juror? If so, I think that may be a WP:BLP privacy violation, especially in light that the jury identity is under seal currently. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with all latest comments & recommendations by Gaijin42. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, Reuters, and the Associated Press are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, we have sufficient sourcing to say " by a jury of six women, all but one of whom was white". Here are some quotes from these sources:

New York Times: "After hearing three weeks of testimony inside the Seminole County courthouse, the jury of six women — five white and one Hispanic — began deliberations at 2:29 p.m. They adjourned at 6 p.m. and were to resume their work at 9 a.m. on Saturday. " http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/us/zimmerman-trial.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Washington Post: "A jury of six women, five of them white, was picked Thursday for the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla., who says he fatally shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, in self-defense." http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-20/politics/40094953_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-jurors

CNN: "The six jurors -- all of them women -- deliberated for 16½ hours. Five of the women are white; one is a minority." http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial/

Reuters:"Here is a glimpse of the women - five of whom are white and one of whom is Hispanic of mixed race - who must come to a unanimous verdict in the racially fraught case:" http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/12/us-usa-florida-shooting-jurors-factbox-idUSBRE96B0WK20130712

Let's add this information to the article and make it better. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still curious to the factual relevance of the race (or sex, for that matter) of any of the jurors.Whatzinaname (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Photos

Selection of the photos used seems a little biased. The photo of Martin shows him smiling, yet the photo of Zimmerman is a mug shot where he's staring straight ahead with an expressionless look, as mug shots tend to be. The mug shot photo makes Zimmerman look like a criminal, because it's a mug shot, and because he was not exactly happy when the photo was taken. Is this the only available photo for Zimmerman? Or are we intentionally trying to make Zimmerman look like the criminal? There are plenty of photo's of Zimmerman floating around. Whose decision was it to use the mug shot??

Another-- remove All photos of Martin until you can uncover one as close to the age he died as possible. Many are all over the web. Grilles, Tatoos. You have photos of Zim the same year the event occurred. If you do not, no one can trust this page or Wikipedia

We are restricted in our use of photos by copyright. Zimmerman is a living person, and therefore photos of him have additional protection. We are using the photos that can either be used freely as they are not copyrighted, or ones that can be justified under fair use. Martin, as a dead person, has less protection/greater justification for fair use photographs (because no new photographs may ever be taken of him). Get the Zimmerman family to release a photo without copyright restriction, and we can use it. The selection of photos was EXTENSIVELY debated for weeks, and you may find all of the relevant details in the archives. Baiscally, we are using the mugshot, because it is the only photo we legally can use. The many photos floating around of Zimmerman, are all copyrighted by the various news agencies that took those photographs, and who could sue wikipedia for using them.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Aren't we talking about the wrong thing here? Who cares if the photo of Martin wearing a hood is touched up? Both photos look the same basically. What is the difference aside from the tone? The bigger and far more important issue is the choice of photos used at the top of the article for Martin (smiling youth) and Zimmerman (a mug shot, with "criminal status" in the caption). This is a completely slanted presentation, regardless of the article text. Why is nothing being done about this? There are other photos of Zimmerman. Why do they continue to be ignored? 74.100.213.169 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What photo of zimmerman are you aware of, that is not encumbered by copyright? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I left a comment about this issue above, and I totally agree about the copyright issues. But, I think I agree that using a mugshot is slanted/bias, in light of the fact he has been acquitted. If we have to remove his picture until we can find a more suitable one, then so be it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand completely what you are saying about copyrighted material, as I have on several ocassions, tried to upload photos of Zimmerman and O'Mara, only to run into a snag. But, having said that, I still think Zimmerman's mugshot photo shows a bias, especially now that he has been acquitted. We really need to explore this issue further and get a NPOV photo of Zimmerman.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Isaidnoway One could probably make an argument that some of the photos from the trial could be copyright free, even though we are getting them from media, as they were ultimately taken by government cameras and redistributed to all the media. However, that raises the issue that Zimmerman's appearance now, is quite different than it was at the time of the event (weight gain), which could lead to neutrality issues that we were trying to change the balance of size between them at the event. What photo do you think would be both able to squeak past NFCC and POV? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I found this one of Zimmerman leaving court on Wikimedia, but it is the only new addition that I could find. It's a side shot of him smiling with a lawyer/intern? and his father in the background. It's not ideal, but it's not a mugshot either. I don't know if we'll ever be able to find one of him at around the time of the incident showing his actual weight at the time. We may just have to rely on a text description of his weight at the time of the incident. The info about this recent pic says it is from Voice of America, from their Chinese site. I searched their archives (USA site) for any additional pics and only came up with this one of him with O'Mara and West at the trial, maybe a possibility of getting O'Mara and West into the trial article? I have seen several the media have used that would be acceptable, but like you said, we'd have to make an argument for "fair use".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin image photoshopped yes or no?

200px Has this image been photo-manipulated or not?

I hate to have to resort to asking Wikipedia this, but I cannot get a straight answer. I've read reports that another image was simply a photograph taken of a protest sign, which explains why there are two versions of the same photograph circling around. Moving beyond that though, this image does actually look doctored, but is there any actual proof of this?

Are there any media references where someone who is in a position to know has gone on record to state whether this image has been altered prior to publication? I even checked the talk archives of this article, but was unable to walk away with any conclusive answer either way.

Thank you for considering my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YawAworhT9000 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The "doctored" version is a photograph of a protest sign, which was then cropped, and re-printed in a newspaper and then subsequently re-scanned, so it is 4th generation. Certainly there may be some cleanup/manipulation that was done across those generations, but I personally do not believe that to be for the purpose of changing Martin's appearance, but to cleanup artifacts caused by that many copies. This was discussed extensively in the early days of the case here, and sources discussing the provenance of that photo are in the archives somewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but my question still remains: Is there any conclusive proof that this photograph of Trayvon Martin, which is in wide circulation, has been altered in any substantial way? I have already scanned the talk page archives here and could not come up with a conclusive answer. I would rather not speculate and am not asking anyone else to speculate either, rather, I am asking if anyone has knowledge of a reliable third party publication approaching this issue.

I believe that the photo you linked is the original (or more original). The "darker" version is from the Miami Herald, which is from a protest photo. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708960/trayvon-martin-a-typical-teen.html

There is some evidence that the lighter version was not photoshopped (or if it was, it was done overall, and not focusing on Martin's face), since the Error Level Analysis does not show and obvious editing. (The only bright spots are at natural edges) http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=6c02267af2d8b3d868f9ac610ef8aaece0e03aed.17345

However, there are No reliable sources that I am aware of saying that one version or the other is the original, or photoshopped (other than the Miami article, specifically saying that the dark version was taken from a protest sign) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

irrelevant misleading opinion of medical examiner

• 26oo added a bit which was reverted by Gaijin42. [6] He then reverts the revert, and puts it back in. I then revert him. Zedshort reverts me and adds it back in again. So, lets discuss it here instead of edit warring back and forth. Two want it in there, and two want it gone. Medical Examiner Valerie Rao said she reviewed Zimmerman's medical records and 36 pictures of his injuries taken at the police station after the fight and concluded they were not life-threatening and very insignificant. Why does it matter if the current injuries weren't life threatening? Does that have anything to do with shooting someone who is currently beating your head against the ground? Should he have waited for the wounds to become more significant before responding to the attack? Dream Focus 18:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. It matters because she's the Chief Medical Examiner of the 4th District of Florida, who was brought in as a state witness for her expertise. Secondly, Mr. Zimmerman refused further medical attention at a hospital not once but three times, which itself shows that his injuries were not significant. This quote from an expert on the matter backs up why he didn't want further medical attention. The quote is very relevant and not misleading, that is your opinion. 26oo (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe I am at 3rr, and 2600 is definitely in violation at this point. Dr Bao's testimony is not fact. It is his opinion. There were other opinions as well, which disagreed with Bao's It is not neutral to quote just Bao, and not the others, and it is too long to quote everyone in that context. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

At least 5 different people testified about Zimmerman's injuries, several of them doctors or EMTs. Why is Bao's the only one you quote? No injuries are required for self defense, and the fact that he was ruled not guilty, where the only valid defense to the proven killing was in fact self defense, indicates that the jury found that argument compelling. This is a section saying what his injuries were at that night. Opinions and testimony about the importance of those injuries is covered, in detail in the trial article, where it belongs. He has injuries. That is the only fact. Everything else is an opinion as to the importance of those injuries. Bao has no special authority to factually declare them insignificant, it is just his opinion. We cannot repeat everyone's opinion in this context, so we should quote no-ones. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, you are welcome to add any other medical testimonies. I added a paragraph and violated no rules, if you want it removed there's an obligation for consensus. Blanking the paragraph or editing it in a way which doesn't match the source is not allowed. I've already explained that Mr Zimmerman refused medical attention 3 times and the quote illustrates why that was. 26oo (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a classic case of WP:UNDUE to me. By inserting only her opinion, when there were multiple opinions given at the trial, seems to imply that her testimony is more credible than the other testimony given. And you really can't assert that this particular quote illustrates why Zimmerman didn't seek medical attention, that's clearly WP:OR on your part, as she couldn't possibly know the reason behind Zimmerman's decision to not seek medical attention.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

That insertion is problematic several times over. wp:undue selection of one (prejudicial) statement from thousands, selection from primary sources, and all of the reasons cited above. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Gaijin42's point that no injuries are necessary for the plea of self defense, so it doesn't matter how bad they were. The injuries only proved he was the one on the ground getting his head beat down and yelling for help, while Trayvon was the one on top of him beating him. Dream Focus 22:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Isaidnoway, it does carries undue weight, I shall add some "weight" to it, and give a countering version of his injuries so to not have the input removed. It seems to me that people are intent on removing the text all together than fixing it so it is in line with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. 26oo (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

To avoid any further edit warring, it would probably be a good idea if you could draft a proposal of further additions you'd like to make and present it here on the talk page for consensus discussion. I think one of the main concerns surrounding the current content we are discussing here, is that you have indicated that you inserted this statement from ME Rao in an effort to illustrate a point - your POV. Obviously, that would violate WP:NPOV and you'd also have to be prepared to discuss how it's not a WP:OR issue and WP:SYNTH issue as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

26oo wants consensus and I think it is pretty obvious from those that removed that highly subjective opinion that consensus is against 26oo. Arzel (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed: 26oo does not have consensus regarding this particular prosecution witness' spoon-fed reply regarding "life-threatening injuries" red-herring fallacies. As to whether the article is biased towards the Zimmerman defense, I need only point out that such is to be expected in a case where the defendant is found not guilty on all charges after only a day's deliberation in what seems a rather clear-cut case of Martin assaulting Zimmerman and trying to beat the hell out of him in front of witnesses. The entire case itself is essentially a non-story, as stuff like this happens almost every day of the year all over the country. The bigger story by far is the incestuous alliance between the race-riot-baiting press and hucksters such as Al Sharpton as they attempt to repeat the ratings-orgies of the O.J. Simpson and Rodney King cases. The Zimmerman case has received about fifty times the coverage of the murder of a US ambassador.--Froglich (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and bon appétit!--Froglich (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame that article has nothing to do with the case, one could also argue and make a case out of the fact that Trayvon Martin's background regarding his situation at school has nothing to do with the shooting and had no impact nor possibly influenced Zimmerman's profiling of him that night, and thus shouldn't even be in the article. 26oo (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

How could Martin's background possibly have influenced Zimmerman when, prior to the moment Martin tried to beat the crap out of him, they'd never met? In contrast, if anyone thinks the riot-baiting media circus had nothing to do with the decision to prosecute, I have a bridge to sell them.--Froglich (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Reports are already used in this article, removing one in favour of none, especially when it is balanced is not allowed. Secondly, read what I wrote again, I said Martin's situation at school has nothing to do with the shooting and I shall press on that later. However, Zimmerman's educational background is very relevant given that it's related to self-defense. 26oo (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've inserted a balanced input from a source already used in this Wiki article describing Zimmerman's injuries. Secondly, it was removed without any Wikipedia:Consensus. 26oo (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You did not. You inserted the same content you edit warred on before, with additional negative information about zimmerman. There is consensus that that information SHOULD NOT be included, certainly not in "Zimmermans account", and definitely without the other opinions of medical witnesses who described head getting hit against concrete as life threatening. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Negative? I inserted a report from Zimmerman's own physician, unless you want to discuss the authenticity and bias of ABC News, I am afraid you are in the wrong. The issue here was undue weight, I believe that is fixed now. Your previous removal was without consensus, you must understand that consensus is not a vote, this is not a democracy. 26oo (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A physician called by the prosecution, to present information that argues against his defense. That is not balance. Consensus is not a vote, but you have 0 argument backed by policy. All of this testimony is already included in the case article, where the testimony is directly applicable. You are attempting to add this information in a highly partisan WP:UNDUE and WP:POV manner, in the section that is supposed to be Zimmerman's version! At a minimum put it in the states version!!! Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The new "balanced" version was nothing of the sort. 26oo, present what you want here first and discuss before reverting again. Arzel (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed balanced and now undue weight has been fixed which was the problem in the first place, I see no problem now unless you want to create another issue. I want to point out that the source I've cited was used in the article before I used it but was deemed no problem. So the issues of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight and Wikipedia:POV have been resolved. I do not have to come here each time I make an edit to the article after I fixed the original issue. 26oo (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You did not balance and fix it. I reverted you again. Stop edit warring that back in. Everyone else is against you having it there. It doesn't matter if someone said his injuries were not life threatening, there no possible reason to mention that at all, as others already pointed out to you. Dream Focus 17:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion, a senior medical professional's opinion regarding his injuries is very relevant to whether or not his life was in danger for him to take the course of action that he did. 26oo (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As others have pointed out already, you don't have to have to have life threatening injuries for a case of self defense. When someone is beating your head into the ground, you are allowed to shoot them. Dream Focus 17:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

in order for this to not violate WP:NPOV you would have to list the other medical expert who said the injuries were life threatening as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Also, is there any reason to mention what medications Zimmerman was on? That was also added in. [7] That seems to be leading the reader to believe Zimmerman was the aggressor do to medication, as evident by him having the symptoms mentioned. Dream Focus 17:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"Does anyone but 26oo think that bit should be in there? He also added a bit in I just removed [8] about Zimmerman getting a good grade in a class that taught self defense, which of course is irrelevant, since Martin outmatched him, thus the reason Zimmerman was on the ground getting his head pounded. He certainly couldn't defend himself against his opponent by other means than his gun. Dream Focus 17:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The class bit has nothing to do with being outclassed or not in the fight, its in reference to knowing what self defense laws were, which is used to imply he tailored his statements to police because he knew how to get away with it. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

misleading accusations of racism ??

Mediation is badly needed in this article. For example the term accusations of racism would be much more appropriate and neutral. The accusations were made but it is not up to wiki editors to qualify them as misleading or inaccurate. Perhaps a mediator should be called upon. Michaelgossett (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Just passing by and noticed this contention. The accusations are misleading in the sense that they are unsubstantiated, though I do agree with you to the degree in which I acknowledge that 'misleading' is a word that requires more qualification than 'unsubstantiated'. Maybe 'unsubstantiated accusations of racism' would be a better replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.68.128 (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

NBC clearly edited the dispatch tapes before airing them (does anyone actually still dispute this?), and they are the overwhelming #1 thing which made the case a national story in the first place.--Froglich (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right, Froglich, I take it back. The NBC edit is without doubt misleading. In my original reply I was thinking only about the accusations of racism on social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.68.128 (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The NBC edit of the 911 tape was misleading, but that does not mean all allegations of racist motivations in the behavior of Zimmerman should be labeled as misleading. The misleading edit by NBC, allegations of racism, and outrage that a person can track someone down, instigate an argument, shoot and kill that person and then use the "stand your ground" defense to avoid prosecution are separate issues that should not be conflated. (Though the fact that at least three black Floridians have been convicted and sent to prison for standing their ground does indicate that their may be some interaction between these separate issues.) PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It gets much darker and weirder than mere tape-editing, which is just the tip of the iceberg as it now appears the whole damned *case* was an orchestrated stunt. --Guess who was involved in this turd-bomb of a race-riot-stoking farce of a prosecution? Eric mutha effin "Fast & Furious" Holder. That's who. Read that linked piece, and delve deep into the brain-melting mendacity and insanity going on behind the scenes. Don't skip a word. This "Shooting" article barely glints at the real story behind the case.--Froglich (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who was involved. However one thing I noticed was the Stand Your Ground argument. The lawyers for George Zimmerman did not hold a trial on the argument of Stand Your Ground but rather on self-defense however but for some reason people are lumping it in with the result of the trial. Originally when this case started, the police used "Stand Your Ground" for George Zimmerman when they interviewed him for the homicide. The woman that was charged to 20 years in prison was charged because she retreated and brought back with her her gun to use against her husband with her children presented near him when she fired the warning shot. ViriiK (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that Zimmerman was flat on his back while his face was getting beat in during Martin's assault, I'm not clear on exactly where he'd be able to retreat to anyway.--Froglich (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I understand your point anyways. You must have missed my point. The police labeled the issue as "Stand Your Ground" back in 2012. Zimmerman's lawyers did not and went with self-defense. Hence why people get the two mixed up currently. However, can we get back to issues with this article? ViriiK (talk) 07:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"The police labeled the issue as "Stand Your Ground" back in 2012. Zimmerman's lawyers did not and went with self-defense." ...Huh? You're right: I am missing your point. I tend to focus on bigger-picture questions such as... "Why was Zimmerman even charged in the first place over a slam-dunk-obvious self-defense case?", "Why was Eric Holder ignoring the FBI's 'No story here, Boss' conclusion to instead pillage Janet Reno's corrupt Florida DoJ to dredge up a prosecutor actually incompetent enough to take the job?", and: "While the media was calling Zimmerman "white", how did the New Black Panthers manage to issue, without being arrested, a $10,000 fatwa reward on Zimmerman's head for allegedly being a *Jew* murderer?" (By now, Zimmerman has been labeled everything except an Irish lesbian.)--Froglich (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the word "misleading" should only apply to the NBC tape edits since that is not disputed by anyone. That the over-arching allegations of racism were misleading are clearly in dispute and should not be labeled as such. Seems cut and dry. I also think the section on allegations of racism needs to be expanded. Right now, there are a bunch of sources, but only the one sentence referring to the allegations, followed by 2 sentences on the NBC tapes which are again discussed later. - Maximusveritas (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The NBC doctoring of tapes to manufacture a perception of racism that did not exist is NOT misleading, it is FALSE, and should be labeled as such. Other accusations that I am aware of have also false, but aren't as cleasrly, unequivocally false as that one. I would only use the word "controversy" if there are really two equivalent "sides" to an allegation, in this case, and there really aren't. Certainly many individuals have accused Zimmerman of racism, but you wouldn't label their opinions as misleading unless they were based on something - and it is the BASIS that needs to be looked at, not the allegation. We should really say that Zimmerman was subjected to many accusations of racism, many which proved later to be manufactured and false.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Re 'We should really say that Zimmerman was subjected to many accusations of racism, many which proved later to be manufactured and false' There is much merit in this if reliable sources can be found Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The article already possesses enough references that the tapes were doctored. Anonymous209.6 is right on the money here.--Froglich (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Calling the accusations false is misleading since it was just this 1 video from NBC that was misleading, but the accusations occurred before the video ever aired and after it was shown to be misleading. The video may have led some people to make the accusation, but that doesn't make the accusation itself false.- Maximusveritas (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Every time Al Sharpton opens his mouth, falsehood spews out.--Froglich (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Sharpton's general character needs to be invoked here. As I said, someone's general opinion is just that; you can't label it as false or misleading, though, if it isn't based on anything, it is fair to note that. It is the allegations that are alleged to be based on something which can be called misleading, or false. For instance, NBC didn't doctor ONE tape, they also remastered a tape to sound like Zimemrman called Martin a "f____ing c__n", when the FBI tape analysis clearly showed he was complaining about the weather; "it's f____ing cold", which it was (for Florida, at least). Anyway, you can't say ALL allegations were false, and we didn't; just that some proved false, which is what is being said.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sharpton was employed by MSNBC.--Froglich (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Froglich, I'm really trying to assume good faith with you, but when you make edits that undo what I feel was a good attempt at a compromise and fail to even provide an edit summary, you are making it difficult. What's wrong with the version I wrote? It made clear that there was misleading reporting and linked it to section on the media coverage. The only difference is that it removes the possibility of the reader taking away that the allegations of racism against Zimmerman were proven misleading/false. - Maximusveritas (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Too long

This article is too long to be read comfortably, and should be split in sub-articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrincodi (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It is long, but I disagree that it need to be split apart in any significant way (though there may be some redundancies and tangents that could be trimmed away). I don't know of any other broad and deep synthesis of the components of these events, held to encyclopedic (i.e. not journalistic, not for profit, not for ratings, not political) standards. Seems like one of the more beneficial adaptations of historical encyclopedic values to the newer medium. (I haven't been watching this talk page closely, so imagine I've missed this conversation happening at least twice so far, but I was very impressed by the article so thought I'd jump in). --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Cool compromise

The word controversial is much better than the the the word misleading. My understanding is that George Zimmerman ignored the advice of a police dispatcher and continued to follow Trayvon Martin. You have loosely mentioned that later on in the article, but that is the key reason behind all the uproar and should be in the opening statement. The stuff about controversial charges of racism do not necessarily belong in the opening. I may try and fix the opening later but if I do I will not revert the part about controversial accusations of racism. Michaelgossett (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(This false meme just refuses to die.) Zimmerman was walking back to his car when attacked by Martin. The "key reason for the uproar" was the media dishonestly portraying the shooting as a racial assault.--Froglich (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A more direct answer to the question; the police dispatcher did NOT give Zimmerman direction, for legal reasons they (same distortion comes up in the neighborhood watch liason's gun advice) cannot be seen as giving direct instructions, since the department would then be civilly liable if anything happened. If the dispatcher gives information or asks a question that they believe is interpreted as an instruction (which the dispatcher did), or if the watch person asks for instructions, the dispatcher is obligated to give the disclaimer.

I generally agree, but there is a somewhat valid point on the Z detractors on this issue. I think we could say something "against the advice of the dispatcher" or something along those lines. However, even beyond that, I think there is significant factual ambiguity as to what happened after that advice/instruction. Zimmerman states he was returning to his car. If true, then he followed the advice. Certainly people (the prosecution notably) dispute that version, but I don't believe there is any definitive proof on that point. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I like Gaijin42's suggestion that words such as "against the advice of the dispatcher" be added to the opening. Personally I think the charges should have been involuntary manslaughter. It is also my understanding that Neighborhood Watch does not allow its people to carry firearms on duty. If that is true it seems to place further suspicion upon Zimmerman. Michaelgossett (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not Zimmerman followed Martin after the dispatcher said words to the effect "we don't need you to do that", is a contentious issue which wasn't settled in the court case, as far as I know. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, not established as fact, as I stated in my previous comment. Depending on where the info is going, something along the lines of "Prosecutors allege that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin, against the advice from the police dispatcher that "we don't need you to do that", but Zimmerman said he was returning to his car... ". But the appropriateness of the wording will be highly dependent on location and context. We would also need to address later comments from the dispatcher such as "which way did he go" etc, that were brought up as possibly being additional instructions to see where Martin went. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The dispatcher (Sean Noffke) testified in court that a dispatcher cannot give a lawful order. He further said that they merely give suggestions, if that. It is job of the dispatcher to assist the officer and the person, but not force a person into a harmful situation by giving an order that may end up harming the person. Law enforcement officers, however, can give direction and orders to people, like moving aside or stopping traffic, that could potentially cause harm to an individual, and they are given 'qualified immunity' by the law. ( Read Qualified Immunity - How It Protects Law Enforcement Officers )

So the result is that a dispatcher can say anything they like, and you are free to choose to make a different decision without worrying that the dispatcher will arrest you. Sean Noffke testified that he intentionally used weak phrasing, "we don't need you to do that", because he does not have 'qualified immunity', and could become liable if his instructions led you into danger. ( Read N.J. appeals court rules 911 operators can be sued for mistakes ) -- Avanu (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Ya, definitely not an order, or instruction, at most advice. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Per NPOV, we wouldn't want to just say, "Prosecutors allege that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin..." without saying that the defense said that there is no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin, if I recall correctly. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you Bob K31416. I think that what the defence said is important too. I am not one of the principle editors of this article and cannot edit the article myself. If there is a consensus to add both sides of that particular argument into the opening allow me to suggest that words like contentious or contentiously might help keep it succinct. Michaelgossett (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting information on Zimmerman's age

The first section of the article states that Zimmerman is 28, but his year of birth is given as 1983 which makes the age of 28 inaccurate. 74.120.190.9 (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Time passes. He was 28 when the incident occurred. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: Time Zimmerman's phone call ended

There's a factual contradiction on the time Zimmerman's phone call ended. The audio says 7:09:34 PM (backed up by note 4) and the call lasts 4 minutes 11 seconds. Which means the phone call should have ended at 7:13:45. However, the text states that the call ended at 7:15. It has several sources. Given that the first 911 call is at 7:16:11, this is a rather major piece of information as it is the difference between a 1 minute gap and a 2.5 minute gap in the timeline. I don't know which is right, so I'll leave it up to you guys to fix. Son of lucas (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

this has been brought up before, and i don't recall if anyone ever figured it out exactly what the deal was with the discrepancyWhatzinaname (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Is the difference controversial? Note 4 directly states the sources that gave us 6:11 as the time the call started are wrong. Figured it would be easy to come to a consensus rather than leave two mutually exclusive facts within the article. Son of lucas (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Article on Media Bias regarding Martin-Zimmerman

If we decided to create an article on the media bias regarding this case, what is the standard for a "reliable source" if our typical standard generally allows for well-known media outlets to 'get a pass' on standards of reliability? -- Avanu (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Essentially we have to accept the reliable sources as sources about themselves - though academic research etc that is not self-reflective would be a better choice if available.

Key will be that we can't point to an article, and show that it was wrong by what was later known (trial or other articles). Someone else will have to have written specifically about the first article being wrong and biased. (Otherwise its WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Gaijin42 (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's synth or OR if it's a purely factual difference. For instance, if they said Zimmerman was 7 feet tall, you don't need a source to say "the media claimed he was X amount taller than his actual height", but you would probably need a source to say " The media tried to make Zimmerman look much more imposing than he actual is by exaggerating his height".Whatzinaname (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the rules are generally interpreted strictly, especially on a controversial topic such as this one. You can write something like that, but if someone challenges the information, it will be removed unless a source directly stating that can be found. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem we have here is that the media outlets that make up most of where our so-called "reliable sources" come from have EXTENSIVELY BIASED the facts surrounding what happened between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman has been torn down to be a murderous monster, while Trayvon Martin has been built up as if he were a pure and innocent saint, with many placing this event on par with Emmett Till's murder. A group of men brutally beating a 14-year old beyond recognition, and hiding the body, has almost nothing in common with this case. Trayvon Martin didn't have a scratch on him. George Zimmerman was taking a beating. Somehow our "reliable sources" have not represented this. What we have here is a big problem with Wikipedia, if we're unable to create an article that talks about this bias because our sources won't admit to it. -- Avanu (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to find reliable sources that discuss media bias and cannot merely write about what you perceive to be media bias, per WP:NOR If accusations of media bias have only been made by fringe sources then you must treat accusations of media bias as a fringe view, per WP:FRINGE. While media outlets are the only sources we currently have, in time we can use academic writing which is more reliable. TFD (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"wp:reliable source" is the bare minimum standard for satisfying the wp:verifiability requirement for inclusion, and does not indicate actual reliability. When sources ignore the basic realities (that the shooting occurred while Zimmerman was getting beat up (race aside), and the verdict probably related to that, that "stand your ground" law was not not really a factor, editors should perhaps attribute media implications otherwise as assertions. North8000 (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there are different types of writers for the media. One type writes the day to day news, and another type writes with a longer term perspective. The latter type may be sufficiently removed from the former type to write a credible report about possible media bias in the day to day news reports. If there's a story there, I think it will come out. Just a matter of patience. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Firearms and Neighborhood Watch

I heard on the media that Neighborhood Watchers were not allowed to carry firearms. If this is true the question becomes why was Zimmerman carrying one in the first place ? I have not noticed any mention of that in the article. Michaelgossett (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This "Although neighborhood watch volunteers are not encouraged to carry weapons, Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee acknowledged that Zimmerman had a legal right to carry his firearm on the night of the shooting.[46]" is already in the article. Arzel (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The source says "Police Chief Bill Lee said that although police do not encourage watch program volunteers to carry weapons, he recognizes a citizen’s constitutional right to do so." The way its worded in the article sounds like the police told them they weren't encouraged to carry weapons, when in fact they probably said nothing at all. Dream Focus 22:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Arzel (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I believe that all individuals have the right to walk in any Neighborhood without being asked to justify their presence to anyone other than a Police officer. That too seems to be key to the belief that Travon was being profiled. Michaelgossett (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum Whatzinaname (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Except Zimmerman had black friends and family members. Anyone in the community, regardless of race, acting suspicious like the drug using thief Martin, would be questioned. Crime kept happening, so anyone walking about instead of driving, would be questioned. How long did it take Martin to get from the store to where the confrontation happened at? How long would it have taken him to walk straight home? Dream Focus 22:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Revise needed for information of that of Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman.

After continually Reading this Wikipedia page of; Shooting of Trayvon Martin,I believe a revision is in order. I feel that this Page of information is intended to give the readers a bias opinion of the circumstance at hand. The information here was to give the audience a Readers insight of what happened the night of February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida which in the most part the Page succeeds. However while giving information of the individuals involved in the fatal shooting(Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman), I feel the information switches from informative to bias. I feel The writer gives infomation on Trayvon martin that is not necessary weather it be not true or true I believe it is not need. I believe the writer was intending to make a antagonist and a protagonist in which Trayvon martin has taken the place as the antagonist in this story. The informative Page list numeral times Trayvon martin has been involved in a bad situation however the page fails to give information of George Zimmerman’s Mistakes during his adolescent years. I also find no accomplishments listed for Trayvon Martin however George Zimmerman's accomplishments as well as goals I seem to find . My point is simple, if the writer was going to give bad negative situations that happened to one individual in there short lives why not show the negative that happened to both? or give information both good and bad to individuals. My advice is to read the informative information on both Trayvon martin and George Zimmerman and then tell me if the page left you with the impression that there was a antagonist and the protagonist described on this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh.R63 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Uhhhh, George Zimmerman was 28 years old at the time of the shooting which is at least a decade away from his "adolescent years". Trayvon Martin was 17 years old and had just been suspended from school / suspected of robbery (break-in tools/jewelry in backpack mentioned in school resource officer report) / staying at his dad's house because his mother put him there (text message logs). So I'm trying to understand what is the relevance of the adolescent years of George Zimmerman to the circumstances of the shooting then, a decade later. The misdemeanor assault on a police officer was actually dropped when he attended AA and he was drunk at the time thinking his friend was being attacked and that was when GZ was in his late teens / early 20's. As for accomplishments, that's something that we will never know because "he's a good boy" is not an accomplishment except by personal family standards. If we wanted to know his accomplishment, we should know the facts such as high school grades, class attendance, etc rather than hearsay. ViriiK (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

One of his teachers said Martin is an A or B student and I believe that's mentioned in this article. However, he was also suspended for truancy, not to mention vandalism. As for Zimmerman's assault on a police officer, the officer was undercover and wasn't known to be a police officer to Zimmerman. But anyway, I'm not sure what would necessarily be wrong with Martin being the "antagonist", if you want to call it that, given that he was the perpetrator of the attack that led to the self-defense. Aelius28 (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said otherwise. I can say Trayvon was an F student and no one could dispute me on that either until records proves me wrong which we won't know until his parents discloses those information. His truancy I believe was 53 days (almost 1/3 a school year, I missed 2 days when I was in high school all of my 4 years there). As for the jewlery, [9] which the same news report is shown in this [10]. However with the latest statement by Jeantel in the media, she suggested that Trayvon was the one who likely instigated the attack. ViriiK (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I’m so glad that you asked “what is the relevance of the adolescent years of George Zimmerman to the circumstances of the shooting” now I would like to address a question to you, that should also answer your question as well. What does Trayvon Martins previous mistakes in high school (as a adolescent mind you), Have anything to do with his violent murder? Maybe, after all the bad he has done this murder served as some sort of justice. or I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe George Zimmerman was aware of these previous errors Martin had made as a student in High school, maybe he was tipped off by some wanted sign that fit the description of Trayvon Martin. Which I then would be subject to agree that this gives Mr. Zimmerman absolute reason to stereotype Mr. Martin as a “Trouble Maker”. My point is this, Trayvon Martin was not a adult as George Zimmerman is. Meaning he was currently still in his adolescent years, let me ask you another question, during your years as a adolescent were there some past moments you now as a adult regret, or see now as very immature behavior? If your going to compare a Childs recent history tracks(because the last time I checked that’s what a seven teen year old is, a child, not a adult) lets make the playing ground fair, lets compare George Zimmerman from his high school years, up till the murder also and see if the score is just about even. To me neither parties past good or bad has anything to do with this murder. Because any person whether they have a good or bad track record, can become a murder in a instant. What matters is what happened the night and question of the murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.123.159 (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure George Zimmerman was the trouble-maker in this case. No laws against being a douche, though. Trayvon beat his ass and the gun came out -- self-defense. It ends there. Hundreds of Trayvons are killed due to gun violence every year in my city (Chi-town). Unfortunately, when it's not a black guy pulling the trigger, the Hispanics don't have white sounding names like "Zimmerman." This reality just isn't sexy to MSM, apparently. †TE†Talk 03:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerman said he did not know the race of Martin when he called police.

Why don't you mention under Zimmerman's account of events, that he said to the police dispatcher he could not tell the race of the suspicious person. He did not know if Martin was black or white. Martin had his hoodie up and his hand was in his waste belt, Zimmerman could not see the color of his skin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.185.29 (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Because that is not true. Read the non-emergency police call that Zimmerman made. The first thing the police dispatcher asks him is the race of the suspect. Zimmerman immediately responds, "He looks black." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelius28 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

an A and B student, a very nice Boy?

but dont at school! ... a very fine to do and Martin catch the Nose before George Zimmerman take the gun, or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.159.61.119 (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin Case - President Obama Weighs In: 'If I Had a Son, He'd Look Like Trayvon' http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=efZNgSEpB1k#t=92s

Look Like ... a suspected burglar and dealer?

Or "better" such good guys? http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xeevgj_abendlicher-spaziergang-durch-eine_news --193.159.61.119 (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

downplaying the jewelry it by saying "several" instead of a "dozen", and not mentioning how valuable it was, is misleading

Opinions please. Isn't it downplaying it by saying "several" instead of a "dozen", and not mentioning how valuable it was? We're talking about silver and diamonds here, not just some cheap crap found at the dollar store. [11] If something is going to be mentioned in the article, it should be accurate. Can "several" ever mean a "dozen?" Dream Focus 19:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that the trial is over, and Zimmerman was found not guilty, as he should have been. None of Martin's three suspensions (or this jewelery) were introduced as evidence into the trial. None of Zimmerman's prior bad acts were introduced as evidence into the trial. If anything, we should be summarizing both of their prior bad conduct, not expanding it with useless details. -- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

We're mentioning why he was suspended. This shows his character at the time. And perhaps he didn't walk straight home, but as Zimmerman said, was looking around at houses, sizing up the potential to burglarize. What Zimmerman did over a decade before, isn't relevant to his character now, it explained in a discussion on this talk page, he apparently drunk once and hitting an undercover officer he didn't know was a police officer thinking he was attacking a friend of his, and no charges filed, and it not an issue. Dream Focus 21:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't be focused on trying to illustrate a particular pov about someone's character traits, good or bad. Isn't this the same discussion we had above about an editor who was trying to insert a particular witnesses testimony to illustrate Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant. Your argument seems to indicate that you want this content, and the useless details, in order to "show his character at the time." Reliable sources aren't discussing this issue anymore, and neither should we, it's alright to maintain a summary of their prior bad conduct, as it provides a historical perspective about the incident at the time. But now we should be focused on removing and summarizing content rather than trying to illustrate a particular pov.

Agree with Isaidnoway. Even if Martin had done something even worse the facts would not indicate that Zimmerman would have known prior to the incident anyway. Arzel (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• What about accuracy? Should we say "few" when it was a "dozen? Should we not mention what sort of jewelry it was? What about the mention of the watch? Dream Focus 07:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

edit for grammar

"In September 2012, Orlando TV station WFTV released a memo from the interim police chief Richard Myers blaming the police department spokesman, Sgt. David Morgenstern, for mishandling the Travyon Martin case and removed him from his spokesperson position.[48]"

"Removed" should be "removing." I had to check the source to see what this sentence was supposed to mean. "Removed" seems to indicate that the TV station fired Morgenstern, whereas the purpose of the memo was to fire him. I think it would be even better if it read: "...released a memo from the interim police chief Richard Myers removing police spokesman Sgt. David Morgenstern from his position and blaming Morgenstern for mishandling the Travyon Martin case." KSdash2727 (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Stand Your Ground Section

I don't understand why this has its own section. This case had nothing to do with stand your ground, but simple self defense. I would like to see this section deleted because it suggest this case was based on stand your ground when it wasnt. I don't mind mention in the aftermath section explaining possible misconceptions about the case or people used this case to further an agenda, but let's not let this get in the way of the actual facts in the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob3gd (talk • contribs) 20:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. It has nothing to do with this case /event. North8000 (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should present the facts, not echo the public's misconceptions. Stand Your Ground laws do not relate to this case. Aelius28 (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Stand Your Ground is yet another effort to conflate this trial, to establish a non-causal connection of this case to the 2nd Amendment. Please keep those individual issues separate, and remove this section. 10stone5 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, that section is too large. A sentence explaining the state law would be enough. People could click a link to another article if they want to know more. Dream Focus 21:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason it was given it's own section, is because at the time of the incident, that was what the reliable sources were reporting on. In August of 2012, O'Mara announced that he would defend Zimmerman using Florida's now much-debated "stand your ground" law. It wasn't until just before the trial, that O'Mara decided not to seek a hearing based on stand your ground. Additionally, much of the conversation now after the trial, is focused on "racial issues" and the "stand your ground" laws. Holder and Obama both made comments about this law, and the reason for their remarks came about because of this case. If it needs to be summarized accordingly, that's fine, but just wholesale deleting it seems like we are ignoring the fact it was and still is an issue that's been heavily reported on.-- Isaidnoway (talk)

Already removed before you posted. Five are for removing the section entirely, one wants it to remain. Consensus is clear. It doesn't belong in the article. Dream Focus 22:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because there is a consensus to remove reliably sourced content that is on topic and relevant to this article, doesn't mean it was the right decision. The jury was instructed that as long as Zimmerman was not involved in any illegal activity and had a right to be where he was when the shooting occurred, "he had no duty to retreat and the right to stand his ground." Juror B37 told Anderson Cooper in her interview that the jury ultimately made it's not guilty verdict based on the evidence and because of the heat of the moment and the "stand your ground" law. So, I really don't get the argument that this had nothing to do with this case. Reliable sources reporting on this incident clearly indicate otherwise, Here and Here . It can always be reviewed later for inclusion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a formal request for comment would produce the result that Isaidnoway is looking for. The stand your ground section is obviously relevant. Right now the editing of this page has been limited to an elite group of editors; this too can be reversed. Michaelgossett (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

That "consensus" was determined awfully quickly – 73 minutes from initial proposal to deletion, mid-afternoon (EDT) on a weekend. What's the big rush? I agree with Isaidnoway; it may need trimming but should still remain in the article. Although the defense eventually decided not to pursue immunity under that law, it was a primary reason Zimmerman was not arrested initially, and it's become something of a battle cry for those opposed to the acquittal. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, I think the reason why the jury instructions (and reliable sources) talk about Stand Your Ground is because I'm pretty sure Florida self-defense laws combine both Stand Your Ground (SYG) and "ordinary self-defense"/"non-SYG" into one statute. In other words, there's no section of the law that applies to non-SYG self-defense ("ordinary self-defense laws") and another section of the law which only deals with SYG. There's just one overall law that basically says, "If you're attacked and you have a right to be where you are, you have no duty to retreat". You can see the relevant law here. In other words, it seems that all self-defense in Florida is technically SYG. The point is that if Florida got rid of the SYG part of the law and was simply left with classic, ordinary self-defense laws, the Zimmerman case would be the exact same because he didn't have the ability to retreat. SYG laws, as I understand them, are identical to classic/ordinary self-defense laws except that it does not include a requirement that the victim attempt to retreat first. And again, that clearly doesn't apply to this case. Aelius28 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Fat&Happy, do you have a source that indicates that the reason Zimmerman was not arrested was because of the SYG law? My understanding is that even with classic/ordinary self-defense laws, you cannot arrest the person who allegedly defended himself or herself unless there is probable cause to arrest. Aelius28 (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Stutzman, Rene (August 9, 2012). "Can Zimmerman win 'stand your ground' hearing?". Orlando Sentinel. The law, enacted in 2005, has been a subject of intense debate since Sanford police cited it as the reason they would not arrest Zimmerman. He was not jailed or charged until six weeks later, after a series of civil-rights rallies across the country that prompted Gov. Rick Scott to appoint a special prosecutor. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

But again, I'm pretty sure SYG is the only self-defense law in Florida, so of course that's what they'll cite. In other words, there isn't a "non-SYG" or "ordinary self-defense" law in Florida, so just because they cite SYG as the reason for not arresting Zimmerman does not mean that if SYG was removed they would have arrested Zimmerman. If it were not for SYG, how do we know that they would have arrested Zimmerman? It may be the case that ordinary non-SYG self-defense laws require the police to have probable cause before arresting someone who claims self-defense. Aelius28 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree that it has/had nothing to do with this event, but it was/is a topic of discussion (rightly or wrongly) and is deserving of at least some mention. Arzel (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

We can discuss the technical aspects of the law, or we can discuss what the reliable sources are reporting on, which is the only thing relevant to this discussion. There is an ongoing dialogue about this case and the stand your ground law, and it all came about as a direct result of this case, and there is widespread reporting about this case and how it thrust this law into the national spotlight. I would argue that when a sitting attorney general and a sitting president discuss this very topic in public forums, generating debates around the country about this topic, then it is certainly notable.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Then it would grist for a new article on media hype and political opportunism (or, just the SYG article). For the time being, good riddance, because SYG was always a red-herring fallacy in this case anyway (i.e., Zimmerman was walking to car when he was attacked).--Froglich (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

That "red-herring fallacy" was used by O'Mara to initially decide back in August, 2012 to use this "fallacy" to defend Zimmerman. The Sanford police cited this "fallacy" as to why they didn't initially arrest Zimmerman. This "fallacy" was included in the jury instructions and one of the jurors talked about this "fallacy" in her interview and specifically cited this "fallacy" as one of the reasons for their verdict of not guilty. If you have reliable sources to back up your assertion that this was always a "red-herring fallacy", I would like to see them. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm pretty sure SYG is the only self-defense law in Florida, which is why it is referenced by O'Mara, the police, the judge and the jury. There's no "non-SYG" law that can be applied to some cases and a "SYG" law that applies to others. The SYG law I think is embedded into the self-defense statute. The point is that even if you removed the SYG part of the law and just had an ordinary "non-SYG self-defense" law, nothing would have changed about this case. This is because the stuff that SYG adds to the ordinary self-defense law were not relevant to this case. Aelius28 (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You may very well be right and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But, when considering content for inclusion into a Wikipedia article, we go by what the reliable sources have reported on, and in this case, I think it is abundantly clear that it has been widely reported on. So, the question becomes, do we ignore what the reliable sources are reporting on because of your theory about why it was being referenced in the first place. Or do we present the reliably sourced content to our reader in a NPOV. Or, the third option, do we just stick our heads into the sand and yell really loud and pretend like reliable sources aren't reporting on this and hopefully it will all go away.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• The section read: "According to David Kopel, if Martin first attacked Zimmerman, the claim of self-defense by Zimmerman would be valid under the usual self-defense laws that didn't include the "Stand your ground" law." So it ended up having nothing to do with this case at all. Dream Focus 03:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Judge Debra S. Nelson, who presided over the trial of Zimmerman, included a provision of the "stand your ground" law in the jurors instructions, allowing them to consider it as a legitimate defense. JurorB37 told Anderson Cooper that they discussed Florida’s "stand Your ground" law before finding Zimmerman not guilty. I think I'll take the word of the judge who presided over this trial on whether or not it had anything to do with this case. What you guys don't understand is that Florida's law is unique in that Zimmerman qualified for both the "traditional" self-defense and the "stand your ground" provision, and if you use the "traditional" self-defense strategy at trial, you are still entitled to argue for, and receive from the judge a "stand your ground" jury instruction based on that provision as well. Judge Nelson knew that, O'Mara knew that, Rionda knew that, just like they all three knew that the lesser included offense of manslaughter was going to be included in the jury instructions. So what I don't understand is why anyone would argue and deny that this SYG law had anything to do with this case, when the judge specifically instructed the jurors they could consider it as a legitimate defense, and according to B37, they did consider it and talk about it.

I can certainly understand that the section probably needed some work and updating, but deleting an entire section based upon the premise that the SYG law had nothing to do with this case, when there is evidence that it did, just doesn't make sense to me.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then the section I quoted above is inaccurate. Can't you mention just the facts without needing a large section though? Dream Focus 07:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately, the point is that we should strive to avoid giving the reader the impression the trial's verdict was the way it was because of SYG laws as opposed to ordinary non-SYG self-defense laws. That is one of the primary misconceptions about this case. SYG laws were included in the jury instructions, etc. because I'm pretty sure SYG is the only self-defense law that Florida has; it combines ordinary self-defense with SYG and calls the whole thing "SYG". I don't think there is a separate non-SYG self-defense in Florida. Aelius28 (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The judge DID NOT include a provision of the Stand your ground law in the jurors' instructions!

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." - Jury Instruction

This is the Justifiable Use Of Deadly Force Law. The stand your ground law doesn't require a fear of death or injury. The jury may have discussed the stand your ground law but the judge did not in his instructions. Wayne (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You quote the exact provision that SYG provides and which was enacted in 2005 by the Florida Legislature and changed the language of the jury instructions, and then deny that it's the very same SYG provision that was passed by the Florida Legislature and given to the jury by the judge in Zimmerman's trial. Wow!! That's all I can say. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

It's absolutely unbelievable to me that when presented with indisputable evidence that the "stand your ground" law had something to do with this case and the jury was instructed by the judge in the jury instructions - that were crafted using the exact language the SYG provision provides - editor's will still deny that it had anything to do with this case.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You're confused, Isaidnoway. Florida calls its self-defense laws SYG, so even self-defense cases that don't involve the ability to retreat (such as in Zimmerman's case) are called SYG cases. In other words, I'm pretty sure all self-defense cases in Florida are technically SYG cases, even though some of them would still have the same outcome if SYG was repealed. Imagine a sort of Venn diagram where there's a small circle within a larger circle. The larger circle is "all self-defense cases" and the smaller circle is "SYG cases" (cases of self-defense where the defender could have retreated). The thing is, in Florida, they call the entire large circle "SYG", even including the parts of the large circle that are not part of the smaller circle. The incident with Zimmerman was not part of that smaller circle, but it's still called SYG because the large circle (all self-defense) is called SYG. You're hung up on the labels. Aelius28 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No, you are the one who is confused. Forgive me if I don't consider your argument of "I'm pretty sure" as a reliable source. I have provided multiple reliable sources in support of my argument that the "stand your ground" law did in fact have something to do with this case. Your argument seems to rely solely on "I'm pretty sure" - and that's really not working for me as a valid argument for deleting an entire section that was reliably sourced and on topic.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You keep citing those sources as if they're inconsistent with what I'm telling you... Aelius28 (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

And you keep citing your "beliefs" as though they were reliable sources or had some relevance to what actual reliable sources have said about the case. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources that I provided in support of my argument make it abundantly clear that the stand your ground law in the state of Florida has something to do with this case. The sources also make it abundantly clear that the judge in this case provided the jurors an instruction that included the provisions of stand your ground. This entire section that was reliably sourced and on topic was completely deleted based upon the premise that the SYG law had nothing to do with this case, but yet not one single editor from the consensus that decided to delete this entire section, has provided one single source whatsoever, in support of your assertion that the stand your ground law had nothing to do with this case. Like I said, l think I'll pass on your claim that you're pretty sure it didn't.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Get rid of it, Isaidnoway. The only thing this section is contributing to this specific article, is unwanted chatter -- chatter that is readily available on almost any blog type site, on whatever side of the issue you wish to debate. Why not try and keep this article as clean and as free from that sort of chatter as possible, now that the verdict is in? 10stone5 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Without the "chatter", this is a common run-of-the-mill shooting, one of thousands that occur in the U.S. every year. The "chatter" is what elevates it to the status of notable enough to have an article here at all. And the Stand Your Ground laws are a significant portion of that "chatter", and hence of it's notability. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the legal arguments of any Wikipedian, or the "consensus" of a few right-wing editors who are WP:OWNing this article, there are a huge number of reliable sources that discuss the importance of this case with respect to Stand Your Ground laws, and prosecutors, the police, and defense lawyers all considered the Florida SYG law to be relevant from the start. It is unfortunate that a handful of editors have taken upon themselves to WP:OWN this article and purge it of even the most basic objective facts. The Trayvon Martin killing has opened up a huge controversy and much discussion about SYG laws and racism (both explicit and implicit), and it is utterly ridiculous that a few editors are preventing any mention of these facts in this article. Here are some links to reliable sources discussing stand your ground laws and racism in the weeks between the killing of Trayvon Martin and the arrest of Zimmerman.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-stand-ground-laws-scrutiny-florida-shooting/story?id=15988474

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/original_intent_of_law_gets_perverted_w39Aa9wvzLJ1JF5TCYo43I?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=National

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-25/jackson-seeks-voter-drive-against-florida-shooting-law

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/22/149158157/race-cards-six-words-on-trayvon-martins-death

Isaidnoway has provided a large number of other reliable sources, and these barely scratch the surface of what has been written and discussed on this topic by every major and minor media outlet in the country. The suppression of this topic is obvious POV-pushing that frames the incident as a simple case of self-defense based on Zimmerman's unverifiable self-serving account of what happened. Let's get real here and improve this article with objective information that informs the reader of how reliable sources describe this case's impact on questions of racism and Stand Your Ground laws. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, how dare you accuse me of being a right-winger. Secondly, no one is denying that reliable sources are referring to this as a SYG case, and that's because all self-defense cases are referred to as SYG in Florida. What we object to is anything that would give the reader the false impression that it was because of SYG laws that Zimmerman was acquitted. You guys keep throwing sources at me left and right and for some reason you seem to think those sources are incompatible with what I am saying. Aelius28 (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Aelius28, for the misapplication of the "right-winger" label. I think the existing Stand Your Ground section is a good start that can be improved if necessary, but I don't see any justification for leaving out discussion of SYG when it is clearly a huge part of the discussion of the case. That is my main point (inappropriate emotional rants aside.PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't just delete an entire section based on your assumption that an editor may sometime in the future insert content into that section that you think could give the reader a false impression.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Aelius28, here is the relevant paragraph from an ABC News article explaining clearly and concisely how the Florida Stand Your Ground Law was part of the judge's instructions to the jury:

Zimmerman's lawyers decided not to pursue a pretrial immunity hearing allowed by Florida's stand-your-ground law. But jurors were told in final instructions by Circuit Judge Debra Nelson that they should acquit Zimmerman if they found "he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary." Before the stand-your-ground law was passed in 2005, the instruction would have read that Zimmerman "cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."[[22]]

PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm not sure how that is inconsistent with anything I have said. In fact, your quote kind of proves what I'm saying. SYG only removes the duty to retreat, which is irrelevant since Zimmerman had no ability to retreat and thus he was found not guilt on the basis of ordinary self-defense logic and not based on SYG. Aelius28 (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You have no idea what the jurors based their decision on. You don't know if they based their decision on SYG or not. The only juror to speak so far, said they did discuss SYG in their deliberations. The point is, the jurors were given the SYG provision in the jury instructions and were told they could consider it as a legitimate defense.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, b37 I believe mentioned SYG in her AC360 interview. But beyond that, The SYG law changes can affect the case in more than just duty to retreat. The same umbrella name of the law also covers immunity provisions, liability for prosecution, and as has been pointed out multiple times, changed the actual given instructions. SYG is more than just a specific "no duty to retreat" clause. It is an umbrella term for the entire batch of legislation (much like Obamacare discusses may provisions) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Kindly assume good faith and don't make ridiculous accusations against your fellow Wikipedia editors. I have removed two parts of that section, which has no reason to be there. [23] ("Stand your ground" laws: someone said something then later corrected themselves. Why does that need to be in this article?) (Reference to a blog called "The Volokh Conspiracy" and the opinions of one guy not involved in the case at all not relevant) Dream Focus 09:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's a no-brainer that the common meaning of "Stand your Ground" law is that you do not have to retreat when you are able to. To claim otherwise would be to say that people against stand-your-ground laws are saying that you shouldn't ever be able to act in self defense even when you have no ability to retreat. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to summarize the various arguments above, so we can try to develop some consensus

• Zimmerman did not get an SYG immunity hearing
• But there is evidence that the cops delayed arresting him, and perhaps modified their investigation, due to the arrest/prosecution liability in SYG
• Jury did receive SYG instruction
• But at time of shot retreat was not possible, so effect of instruction is likely minimal
• Many reliable sources discuss SYG in the context of this case (some accurately, some inaccurately, and some just talking out their ass)

I think we need to stop arguing about the effect SYG had/didn't have, as we are risking WP:FORUM and WP:OR. What specific changes are people proposing to the article regarding SYG? Gaijin42 (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Although I think having a section is OK, I think it needs trimming and updating. I think the section was mostly formed at a time when it was thought that the defense would use the Florida stand your ground law. I added the following summary sentence at the beginning of the section, which might help guide the trimming of parts of the rest of the section.

"The "stand your ground law" was not used by the Zimmerman defense team during the trial, although it was considered by them and it was mentioned in the jury instructions.[24]"

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the stand your ground section because it seems tilted. It doesn't clearly clarify that Zimmerman's defense team used simple self defense as their argument. It should be made clear in this section, as most legal analysis conclude, that without stand your ground law being.invoked, Zimmerman would've still been acquitted because he didn't have the ability to retreat and therefore, had the legal standing to use deadly force to prevent loss of life or great bodily harm. I think this article needs to be cleaned up a bit because stand your ground is mentioned quite often as a criticism, but there is no clarification that it wasn't used by the defense and even the juror who provided the interview said that she believed that Zimmerman was in fear of his life and as a result, he was acquitted. They didn't acquit the man based on stand your ground. I really dont see the point for an entire section. Rob3gd (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to say that the opinions of others in different sources shouldn't be permitted in this article. I don't care if you found it on ABC or CNN, if its not factual then its not factual. And to have an editor above call other editors "right wingers" shows ethat theyre not interested in the facts, but interested in instilling opinion in an Article that should be as factual as possible. The editor says that stand your ground was in the jury instructions, but fail to mention that the juror made it clear that she thought Zimmerman really feared for his life and great bodily harm. The jurors ultimately came to the conclusion that Zimmerman was the one screaming for help based on physical injuries and eyewitness testimony. Therefore he couldn't retreat and had legal ground to use deadly force. This IS NOT a stand your ground case, but SELF DEFENSE. If you want to talk about stand your ground, I would advise you to go to the "State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman" article where this section would be more appropriate. Rob3gd (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And why is there a stand your ground section but not a self defense section? Self defense was the focus in the trial and the reason for acquittal, but we have a stand your ground section instead that mislead the read and serves as a distraction in regards to the facts.Rob3gd (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

find it interesting that in an article that should be about fact, we are adding a section that played no role in his acquittal, self defense did and for people to ignore that fact and suggest stand your ground is disheartening. Why not have a section about self defense? I think this article is becoming agenda drivin from people who wish to bring their point of views and outside political debate into this article to confuse and paint a false narrative the has plagued the media. This is the same media that said Zimmerman was initially a white man and who edited his 9/11 calls to make it seemed he racially profiled martin. I do think that it can be discussed but giving it an entire section is not right. The fact is that Zimmerman was assaulted, he screamed for help for over 45 seconds, and wasn't able to physically retreat and as a result, had the right to use deadly force. That's self defense my friends, plain and simple but yet, we have people who insist otherwise on a case that was tried on self defense. Get rid of the section, though I do agree that it should have some mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob3gd (talk • contribs) 15:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, is one thing that you are proposing is to change the title of the section to something like "Florida self defense laws"? Appropriate other changes that you have in mind could then follow, if you propose specific edits. Or just be bold and make the edits yourself. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the following to this section with a source. I believe that by adding this piece, it makes the section more neutral and provides more clarity as to why the defense chose not to use stand your ground in the trial. "Some legal experts who followed the case were not suprised by the defense's decision to bypass the "stand your ground" hearing. They claimed that the defense didnt need to use "stand your ground" because Zimmerman, by being on the ground and assualted, didnt have the ability to retreat when he shot Martin and as a result, he could claim "self-defense." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob3gd (talk • contribs) 22:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Under Florida law, it doesn't make any difference whether you invoke SYG or not, you are still entitled to receive the SYG provision in the jury instructions, and jurors are told they can consider it a legitimate defense. "Some legal experts" opinion is real nice and all, but O'Mara knew that Zimmerman was going to receive the SYG jury instructions, no matter what kind of defense he presented.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Isaid, I disagree. It may have been included with the jury instructions, but it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't an argument in the trial and the only focus was "self defense." Second, you can't say that Zimmerman was acquitted based on "stand your ground" because no one knows that for a fact. You site juror B37's interview when she mentioned it, but remember that 4 of the jurors released a statement to the media distancing themselves from her statements and saying that her opinions are solely hers and doesn't represent their opinions. One other juror has not commented yet. Third, you say that O'Mara knew that the instructions would he included, but its not what he argued to the jury to find Zimmerman not guilty. You also say that its nice that "some legal experts" have an opinion, but your sources are also just opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.207.24.155 (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC) I think the section is pretty good like it is now. It makes clear that the Stand Your Ground was a major issue discussed as part of the Trayvon Martin shooting, but was not used in the trial in the end, other than the minor change in the instructions. The title is ok because Stand Your Ground was a major issue in relation to the shooting and its coverage in the media, not Self-Defense or whatever else may be more relevant to the trial. - Maximusveritas (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, while I understand this is a contentious issue/case, I am shocked at the level of bias I am reading in this discussion! Oh, well, maybe it's only human nature, and I am biased as well. I thought I could add some insight to the article by pointing out (FACT) that SYG is part of the STANDARD Jury Instructions in ALL Florida murder trials 3.6(f)), but my edit was *edited*. I think this is a very important fact in this issue, and leaving it out is a "lie of omission". Yes, the jury was read a section on SYG, ALL murder juries are read the same section. Yes, reliable sources are talking about it, so leave this section in, but please include some balanced reliable sources that say it had nothing to do with SYG. Balance! What a concept! SpeleoDan (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I previously removed the material you had added. I actually agree that it may be appropriate to mention in the article that the information that was read to the jury which includes stand your ground text is a part of standard jury instructions, and, in fact, I had been considering adding something along those lines myself. The problem is we need to document this from reliable sources before making the addition. The source you chose is not strong enough to meet that requirement. Further, the jury instructions vary from case to case. Some of the text is required in all cases, but other information is selected depending on the particular details of an individual case, and the prosecuting and defense attorneys wrangle to shape how the jury instructions are worded to best suit their individual points of view (see here for instance). The judge decides the final version. I'm not an expert on Florida law, so I don't have any special knowledge of what the instructions are for all murder cases in Florida. Citing, as you have, only the section on Justifiable Use of Deadly Force, relevant in particular to claims of self-defense, seems dubious when making a sweeping claim about all murder cases, especially when even the first line of the cited source reads, "Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence." Dezastru (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

President Obama said.....

The President spoke today about the relevance of the Stand your ground law to the Trayvon Martin case. I am sure there will be mention of this in print as soon as tomorrow morning. Michaelgossett (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

All I heard Obama saying was that federal charges ain't happening. I would admit the conflation of Stand your ground to this case of self-defense is pretty slick, though. Great way to get people confused. †TE†Talk 03:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you were not listening to all of what Obama had to say. You certainly did miss the part where he said this:

"When Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said this could've been my son. Another way of saying that is, Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago," Mr. Obama said in an unexpected appearance in the White House briefing room, where reporters were gathered to question White House spokesman Jay Carney. "When you think about why in the African-American community, at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, it's important to recognize the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and history that doesn't go away." Perhaps your confusion could be remedied by paying closer attention to what is being said. Michaelgossett (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't find that especially interesting. Obama wasn't a Trayvon Martin. He was a privileged white boy going to the top prep school in Hawaii. I was much more like Trayvon Martin. †TE†Talk 23:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. But you missed the point of my bringing it up in the first place. The stand your ground section was removed because a small group of editors claiming to have a consensus removed it on the grounds they found it to be irrelevant. I say reword it if necessary and put it back until a real consensus can be reached Michaelgossett (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Stand your ground should be addressed in some form. I'm unaware of what the section looked like or why it was removed. It is interesting that stand your ground was inherent per the jury instructions, but there's no retreat possible when a witness puts you on the ground, straddled and getting pounded. The case was weak and self-defense was easily achieved. †TE†Talk 00:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think the not guilty verdict was correct because the charges should have been unintentional manslaughter at the most. Removing that section without proper consensus was wrong. Michaelgossett (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Is transcript of Zimmerman's call to police accurate?

The entry discusses how NBC misleadingly edited the transcript of Zimmerman making the call to police to make it seem like Zimmerman specifically highlighted Martin's race, whereas in fact the police operator requested a description. The transcript posted on this page seems to reflect the NBC transcript and not the unedited transcript? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.137.203 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is the transcript posted? TFD (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The NBC audio was deceptively edited in order to portray racism. There's a reason why Zimmerman's attorney is suing them. NBC has already apologized for the deception and promptly fired the person who edited it. NBC's version was

"This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black".

The police audio transcript was actually this

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. …

Zimmerman: Hey We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Now if you compare the NBC edit to the actual transcript, they took out the Dispatcher's racial questions, they took out the drugs info, the raining, and his walking about statement.

Any other questions? ViriiK (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I found the original. [25] We do need to show the entire transcript. Dream Focus 07:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm an idiot. I misread the question posed here. Disregard what I said if you guys want. ViriiK (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• The article has the unedited transcript in it. The section Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Deceptive_audio_editing_by_NBC seems to show all this information, what they changed, etc. Dream Focus 07:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

CNN and "white hispanic" section

I do believe this is relevant but this should be expanded on. The title should be " misrepresentation of Zimmerman's racial identity" in my opinion. CNN isn't the only news station to do this, yahoo news, the associated press, and the Huffington post did it too. In fact, the Huffing ton post described Zimmerman as a "self-proclaimed Hispanic" just two days ago. A clear sign of media bias. I highly suggest that this is expanded on because if Zimmerman was identified as Hispanic in the beginning, this likely wouldn't of been a national story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob3gd (talk • contribs) 04:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Martin's jewelry

I would like to add to the section about the jewelry found on Treyvon Martin, the Miami Herald linked the jewelry to a break in near the school. You can see a summary of the story here:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/05/01/m-dspd-cover-up-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martins-backpack-with-stolen-jewelry-and-burglary-tool/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.88.108 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

That link was mentioned in a section above already. Does it count as a reliable source? Do other sources mention this also? Anyone search around yet? Dream Focus 15:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

ABC news reported the graffiti, jewelry and "burglary implement" in March last year. Martin's lawyers called the information irrelevant and a "conspiracy" intended to muddy Martin's name which may explain why it wasn't followed up by other media. Wayne (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The article in the linked blog is not acceptable because it does not meet the policy of reliable sources. What is it that you wish to add? Already half of the section on Martin is about his school suspensions, We need to be careful that we provide the same weight to his description as mainstream media. TFD (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a reliable source and the chief never responded to the inquiry to confirm the jewelry connection. If the chief responds to the inquiry and confirm the jewelry connection, then in my opinion its relevant. 107.207.24.155 (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting addition to Obama's comments regarding SYG

Starting to percolate in the conservative blogs, and seems legitimate per the primary source below. May bubble up into mainstream shortly.

In 2004, Obama co-sponsored (3/25/2004) SB2386, which was a SYG immunity bill for illinois. Senate passed 56-0. House passed with 2 Nay votes. Both houses Democrat controlled. Signed by Democratic governor. "Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that it is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another. Effective immediately."

"Provides that in no case shall any act involving the justified use of force in defense of one's self or another person or in defense of one's dwelling or other property give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting as an aggressor, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force. Effective immediately."

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2386&GAID=3&GA=93&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=8536&SessionID=3&SpecSess= Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I certainly can't speak for Obama, but I'm sure he already knew this and still made the remarks he did. I'm sure the bloggers are crying hypocrite, but it's not that unusual for a politician to change their position on an issue. He did a turnabout on gay marriage, and after Newtown, I think it's pretty clear he wants to address gun violence/control in his last term.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Illinois law referred to above is not the same as STYG laws but a change to the Castle Doctrine. The difference is summarized in the following:

"A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with her real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. 'Stand your ground' takes the concept of the castle doctrine and turns it into a traveling force field of sorts.

Here's Florida's language: A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.83.16 (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin protest in River Oaks, Houston

I found coverage on the Martin protest and counterprotest in River Oaks, Houston:

• Fraser, Jayme. "Dueling Trayvon Martin protests collide in River Oaks." Houston Chronicle. July 21, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

IMO, individual protests are not notable. All of them are going to receive local WP:ROUTINE coverage. For inclusion in this article, something out of the ordinary would have to happen, or they would need to bubble up to national exposure. Otherwise, they are just part of the fabric of the overall protests in this case, and the "big ones" either on location in Sanford, or massive ones like NYC are much more notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok! I'll be in the lookout to see if there are any nationally that mention it or use it as an example of something WhisperToMe (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23390975 has an article that claims that there are protests right across the U.S. Michaelgossett (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerman truck rescue

Story hitting the mainstream. Not relevant to case itself, but possibly for bio or aftermath sections?

• http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-truck-crash-rescue/story?id=19735432#.Ue1m38XSi9U.twitter
• http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/zimmerman_emerges_from_hiding_truck_2aQf7rRprSTy0y4dheRuZL
• http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/22/us/florida-zimmerman-vehicle/
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/zimmerman-helped-pull-family-from-overturned-suv-authorities-say/2013/07/22/f362bbbc-f2fa-11e2-8505-bf6f231e77b4_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
• http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/22/george-zimmerman-grabs-fire-extinguisher-pulls-family-from-overturned-suv/
• http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-truck-rescue-20130722,0,6349930.story

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a story that would otherwise not be notable becomes notable, in reliable sources, simply because George Zimmerman is involved, supports the idea that he is now sufficiently notable to warrant having a separate BIO article. --B2C 18:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think over the course of time, you may be correct.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the "course of time" caveat. It is too soon after the trial to be able to determine if he merits a separate article. I do not think this needs to be mentioned in this article; it does not foster a better understanding of the shooting. VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the policy WP:BLP1E and guideline WP:BIO1E, I don't understand why there isn't an article on George Zimmerman. Is it a matter of some policy/guideline or is it a matter of editorial judgement/preference? Could someone explain? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think mainly editorial judgement inertia from the early days of the case, when risk of BLP violations with everyone trying to fill Zimmerman and Martins bios up with negative info. Its still clearly 1E, but the "significant participant" exception probably applies. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's not even a 1E situation. The shooting (one event) has spawned many events involving Zimmerman: protests, arrest, hearings, trial, death threats, hiding, etc. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

IMO that is still all 1e, but that certainly is something that would be up to consensus to decide. But I can see the argument the other way too. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, would you agree that there is nothing in policy or guidelines that would prevent an article on Zimmerman? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing that would stop one from being created a priori, but I think it will be fertile ground for BLP violations, and WP:PSEUDO-biography that will need to be heavily policed. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If you mean that there could be a struggle there between those anti, pro, and NPOV re Zimmerman, so what else is new?  : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It could be part of the aftermath because he went into hiding after the trial but four days after the verdict he was located in Sanford, FL within a mile of the shooting, when he helped people who were in an auto accident. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

<Sanford Police Department Capt. Jim McAuliffe /> [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-rescues-victims-florida-car-crash-article-1.1405783 George Zimmerman grabs fire extinguisher rescues family of four from wrecked SUV] "After spotting the wreck and pulling over, the 29-year-old volunteer watchman grabbed a fire extinguisher from his car and checked for signs of a blaze before freeing the family", Sean Vincent, a spokesman for his legal team, told the Daily News. [26] "Last week George Zimmerman rescued an unidentified family trapped in an overturned vehicle on a Florida highway, police said Monday. Sanford Police Department Capt. Jim McAuliffe told Fox News that Zimmerman, 29, was identified by a crash victim as the man who pulled him from the mangled vehicle. “George Zimmerman pulled me out,” firefighters were told by the unidentified driver, according to McAuliffe. The Seminole County Sheriff's Office said the single-car accident occurred July 17 at approximately 5:45 pm. and involved a blue Ford Explorer SUV that had left the road and rolled over. The sheriff's office said there were four occupants inside -- two parents and two children". LoisLanne (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This definitely needs to go in the Aftermath section. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

This is the amendment that George Zimmerman may have violated when he decided to follow Trayvon Martin. I think that the Stand your ground section should be included in this article and that a fair minded consensus should be sought and adhered to. By fair minded I mean one that includes at least 3 days time to pass before it is decided upon and at least an 80% majority. That way the onus will be to avoid deleting and encourage participation. Michaelgossett (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? It was on a street, not private property. He didn't search or seize him. Dream Focus 03:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerman was not acting on behalf of the state or federal government, so the bill of rights would not apply to his actions. But more broadly, what changes to the article are you requesting be discussed? Please consider providing sources that discuss the material you have in mind, since discussion in independent sources is a prerequisite to inclusion. Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining_consensus does not mention an "80% majority." VQuakr (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire section on The Stand Your Ground law was removed without much time for others to respond. You must have missed or overlooked the discussion that took place after the deletion. I am fairly new at editing wikipedia so please forgive me while I learn. Michaelgossett (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw it, I just did not connect it with the section you started here. We are all still learning, so no forgiveness is needed. VQuakr (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You need a source that says the amendment may have been violated before it can be included. Incidentally, there are no judicial penalties in the Constitution so your source needs to provide the statute a prosecutor could use. TFD (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the stand your ground section because it seems tilted. It doesn't clearly clarify that Zimmerman's defense team used simple self defense as their argument. It should be made clear in this section, as most legal analysis conclude, that without stand your ground law being.invoked, Zimmerman would've still been acquitted because he didn't have the ability to retreat and therefore, had the legal standing to use deadly force to prevent loss of life or great bodily harm. I think this article needs to be cleaned up a bit because stand your ground is mentioned quite often as a criticism, but there is no clarification that it wasn't used by the defense and even the juror who provided the interview said that she believed that Zimmerman was in fear of his life and as a result, he was acquitted. They didn't acquit the man based on stand your ground. I really dont see the point for an entire section. Rob3gd (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The effect of the law on the case is debatable. The notable relationship to the case is not debatable, it is intricately linked in the publics mind and should be covered. "Most analysts" would need to be sourced (although I do not disagree). The bulk of your suggestion is WP:OR unless you can find reliable sources saying that, and we likely cannot state those opinions in wikipedia's voice, but must attribute them to the holders of those opinions. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the "Stand your ground" section could be written differently. It should say that the Zimmerman's lawyers considered using this defense and the trial has provoked discussion of these laws. The second paragraph, which begins, "Self-defense laws", could be removed. TFD (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerman's mugshot in bio section

File:George Zimmerman leaves court with his family.jpg

George Zimmerman leaves court with his family

While we have an active group of editors working on this article (thanks), I'd like to get some input about changing Zimmerman's picture (mugshot). WP:MUG seems to me to be pretty clear about this matter. Here's the pertinent language that I think applies to his mugshot currently being used in his bio section:

"Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)..."

I think using his mugshot is definetely showing Zimmerman in a false light. For one thing, he's a living person, see WP:BLP, and he's not under arrest, confined, or a suspect, he has "no further business with the court" as the judge said. I know there is a limited amount of pictures we can use at this point, but we shouldn't be using that as an excuse to keep on using his mugshot. Over at the WP copyright desk, they have previously told me that if you can't find a suitable picture, then you just have to rely on a text description of the person until you find a pic without copyright issues.

This one is from Wikimedia commons and I think it can be used here without issues, (can't it?), they gave me this wikilink for it anyway. I know it shows him smiling and he's gained weight, but so what, he should be smiling, he was just found not guilty. We have a text description of his weight at the time in his bio. Any ideas or suggestions? Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

While I agree to a certain extent, I don't see the mugshot as a big issue because it shows Zimmerman's physical state at the time so its more in context with the time of the shooting in my opinion and besides, the picture looks normal to borderline nice to me. I don't see it as a big deal. Rob3gd (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. He wasn't convicted and isn't being charged with anything else, so no possible reason to have a mug shot represent the person. Dream Focus 10:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

nicely written article. Not very objective! Just nicely written — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.116.152 (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed it, I dealt with the MUG issue over a year ago. A mugshot is not NPOV, it doesn't matter if it cut, cropped or "the best we got", I'm taking a firm stance on the policy and the presence of a free image that doesn't run afoul of MUG is the one we should use. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looks a lot better.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving on to the consequences

Now that the (first?) trial is over, we need to begin to set the events in context, describing consequences and how race and other discourses are being influenced. I'm starting with Beyoncé's allusion to Emmett Till, and have upgraded and expanded to a full section Verdict aftermath and implications. Onanoff (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Random comments from celebrities are not really consequences imo. We should filter the reactions/soundbytes to those who are very notable either in relation to this case, or could be taking some action because of it (politicians), or historians/legal analysts. Im not sure what value beyonce has to the lasting issues of the case.

In any case, regardless of who is saying something, it isn't a consequence until something actually changes or is done because of it. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Folks, you seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. I added the highly relevant analogy with Emmett Till, which is currently the lead feature on the BBC website[27], and has been referred to by NAACP[28], Huffington Post and plenty others (try Googling the two names). I quoted Beyonce because the BBC did. If she is too lowbrow for you, perhaps it's better to focus on the actual issue.

I suggest that some considered contemplation of the case, after all the blow-by-blow news, is exactly what this article needs and where it is going.

Let's get Emmett Till back into this article asap. Onanoff (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

emmett till may be a valid "see also" link, but he is in no way a consequence of the verdict. Nor should a random entertainer's quote be longer than what we are saying the president, governor, defendant, or victim's families quotes are. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

For reference, here's basically the story of Emmett Till from the BBC article,[29]

In the summer of 1955, the 14-year-old Till was far from home when his life ended in a most violent way, apparently for whistling at a white woman.

Dragged from his bed at his uncle's home in a small Mississippi town, he was beaten so badly that his face was unrecognisable when the corpse was recovered from the river three days later. He had been shot in the head and his body tied to a 70lb (32kg) fan.

The two men known locally to have carried out the attack were acquitted of murder. The following year, they admitted responsibility in a magazine interview, but said they had done nothing wrong.

To compare Trayvon Martin to Emmet Till, and George Zimmerman to the two men that killed Till, seems like a violation of WP:BLP. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that WP:BLP prevents us from considering and contextualising the central issues of this case, as they are raised (notably) in public discourse: racial profiling, vigilantism, gun laws, the relevance of colour to the case, the reaction of those who perceive racist thuggery going unpunished? Whether this case does have important consequences for civil rights or anything else is not yet clear. But we should at least include that there is a significant view that it will. Onanoff (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Re "Are you suggesting that WP:BLP prevents us from considering and contextualising the central issues of this case" — No I'm not. Comparison to the Till case seems like a misleading characterization which is harmful to Zimmerman. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say it is relevant somehow to the overall discourse about this case, because some people are making extremely hyperbolic analogies in this case. I would agree with you that this case really has nothing in common with Emmett Till's case (and that people are degrading the memory of Till by such comparisons), but it goes back to the idea that we probably need a thoughtful article on media bias and race relations, which might be difficult given the mission of Wikipedia and the restrictions on sourcing. But personally I would say that it is irresponsible and myopic of Beyoncé and others to compare a young man whistling, getting tortured and killed and having his body hidden away, to a man who got his own butt beaten and his opponent had not one scratch except for the bullet wound itself, and rather than hiding, immediately asked for the police to come. -- Avanu (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, many people are hoping for change as a result of this incident. the general fabric of that hope is notable and can be included. The question is : is a particular quote, by an entertainer, who has no relationship with the case, notable and appropriate for inclusion. If multiple people are making associations with till, then we should make that statement generically, not attempt to quote-farm up everyone who says so. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And yes anyone who knows their history should know that the Till case has absolutely nothing to do with this case. This is like the OJ case being referenced, they are still completely different circumstances. Let's not push BLP violations into this article just because some notable person not tied to the case decided to parrot a claim made by pundits and bloggers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2013

This is "Stand Your Ground Laws" section 2.0. How on earth is this case remotely related to Emmit Till? Once again, we have opinions and rhetoric attempting to find its way in an article just because a 'famous' person said it or it was taken from a 'reliable source.' This case had nothing to do with race, only unfounded allegations. This is an attack on George Zimmerman's and the Jury's character and should be ommitted. Rob3gd (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And you should have followed the case better because this was not and never was about "Stand Your Ground". The defense asserted Zimmerman could not run away with Martin on top of Zimmerman, hence Stand Your Ground never applied because during the actual confrontation Zimmerman had no way to escape. Defense waived the option of a Stand Your Ground pre-trial hearing. Please try to be fully aware of the case next time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My point was, and remains, that the incident and case are clearly raising and feeding into public concerns about race, vigilantism etc, and inasmuch as these relate directly to the case, this article should reflect them. The analogy with Emmett Till is but one element of that, though it has been widely made. If that public discourse misrepresents the facts of the case, then that too should be included. Avanu, your suggested "thoughtful article on media bias and race relations" may well be needed, but does not contradict the need for coverage here of the substantial public reaction.

The article covers the process of the case well; now it needs to reflect the aftermath, which is already notable, whether or not it lasts. Onanoff (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Till analogy was made but it has no place in "Aftermath". It should be in the media coverage section, probably under "Media portrayal of Martin and Zimmerman" although a new subsection called media bias would be more appropriate considering there are no similarities between the Till and Martin incidents. Wayne (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Onanoff, Re your comment "If that public discourse misrepresents the facts of the case, then that too should be included." — What did you have in mind? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Bob, I meant that if some of the public reaction against Zimmerman is based on clearly false beliefs about his character or what happened, then that itself is of interest. Onanoff (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that false beliefs, such as Beyonce's allusion to Emmett Till, that harm a living person (Zimmerman) can only be included if there is substantial criticism of them included too. A false belief that is clearly false to one person may be believable to another who is less knowledgeable and less able to figure it out. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"However, no evidence ever surfaced that the jewelry was stolen." Seriously, why is this in there?

19:46, 23 July 2013 Harel added this in at [30] and I removed it at 22:27, 23 July 2013‎ [31] with the edit summary (see talk page. The school reported it as something else to lower the crime statistics making them look bad. Why would he have that on him if not stolen?). At 00:21, 24 July 2013‎ Isaidnoway added part of that back in.[32]

• Are we expected to believe that someone walks around with a backpack at school with 12 pieces of jewelry, including diamond earrings and silver wedding bands, plus the watch, and it wasn't stolen? He has also argued to eliminate description of what the jewelry was.[33] To just call it jewelry instead of mentioning the diamonds and silver to clarify this was something of value, gives the reader the wrong impression. Isaidnoway has no edits on Wikipedia outside this subject, and he has been editing this article since 16:30, 23 March 2012. I'd like to get some other opinions please. Should we include the pointless "However, no evidence ever surfaced that the jewelry was stolen." and is there any valid reason not to mention "the officer found a watch and twelve pieces of women's jewelry in his backpack, including silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds" in the article? Dream Focus 10:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed it myself on 22 July as well. The claim was made by Martin's lawyer who is hardly a reliable source for unsupported claims. Primary sources (affidavits in M-DSPD investigation) show that this was not a factual claim and that the jewelry was matched to a burglary near Martin's school. The only reason Martin was not charged was due to an agreement between the school and police. The article already says Martin was not charged with any crime related to these incidents at the end of the paragraph so there is no need (and it is misleading) to also specifically say that the jewelry was not stolen. Wayne (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Im mixed on the issue. At the time that statement was made, it was true. No evidence was found that it was actually stolen. The reason for that could likely be the school/police policies at the time but to state that as a fact is conjecture based on primary and unreliably secondary sources. Due to the research and work of those unreliable sources, evidence of the actual theft MAY be around, but it has certainly not been proven, and also not reported by reliable sources. Has the police responded to say yes there was an actual match, and that evidence was returned to the rightful owner? Not as far as I am aware. Regarding the specific contents of the backpack, has that been reported by reliable sources? If so, it can be included imo. However, regarding the overall incident, Martin is entitled to presumption of innocence, and as there will never be a trial proving otherwise, that is the ultimate situation which he will remain. Evidence to the contrary can certainly be included to let readers make up their own mind - but that evidence or analysis thereof must be verified by reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Was the jewelry and watch ever returned to Martin or his family? If so, that may suggest that the police are no longer considering the possibility that it is stolen property, or at least that there is no legal justification for keeping the property, pending determination of whether or not it is stolen. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The last information reported (that I have seen)(which is by an unreliable source) is that it is in the school evidence locker as "found jewelry" but again, that is an unreliable source, and inference we make about that is WP:OR. The reliable stories may be missing (or willfully ignoring) a story here, but that doesn't mean we can ignore wikipedia policy. He was not charged. The jewelry was not recorded as stolen. These are facts, which are reported in reliable sources. Both of those issues might be due to PR policies by the school/police - but we can't say so unless a reliable source has done so for us. I personally probably agree with you regarding the truth of this incident, that Martin was either involved, or at a minimum left holding the bag (literally) for someone. But wikipedia can't say so without a reliable source saying so, and Martin should be given the presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise (which as he is dead, will not ever happen) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: Is there some particular reason that you chose to single me out and make false claims about me? I really don't appreciate it.

And as per your comment left above in another thread; "Anyone in the community, regardless of race, acting suspicious like the drug using thief Martin, would be questioned." Along with the fact that this is the second thread you've started in relation to this jewelry incident, I'd say it's pretty clear what your POV about Martin is. So, should you really be editing this particular section at all, when you have clearly indicated that you have a biased POV about Martin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

[If discussion of the above personal issues is continued, I hope it is continued on a user talk page, instead of here where it would be disruptive. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)]

Per WP:BLP and WP:BDP we should be careful about negative implications until two years have passed after Martin's death. So I think this qualifying statement about "no evidence" should remain, but it should be dated properly. The phrase "no evidence ever surfaced" is only supported by the source as of the writing of the source. Suggest prefacing the statement with "As of March 2012, no evidence has surfaced...". --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer something along the lines of "During the investigation by the school police department" or something to that effect, but yes we can qualify it to indicate that it was a "moment in time" statement. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I like that better than what I suggested if the word "ever" were deleted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a link to the police report that says for certain the jewelry was stolen? We can then reference a statement that it was stolen jewelry. Also, was the nearby burglary done with a screwdriver like the one Martin had in his backpack with the jewelry? Dream Focus 15:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there was any mention that for certain the jewelry was stolen. The article that included the report of the burglary seemed to be waiting for the police to see if the burglary victim could identify the jewelry and watch, if I recall correctly. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Conservative treehouse claims that the burglary report matches the description of the jewelry, but did not provide a link to EITHER the burglary report, NOR the school police report that described the jewelry - so that claim is dubious unless those reports are provided. (What is the ultimate source to the "silver wedding bands and diamond earrings"?) There is also no evidence/documentation that the burglary involved a screwdriver. They reported their linkage to the police who said they would follow up, but no further updates have been provided as to if that was done or not. There is one semi-reliable source, who is reporting on the treehouse's report, but as they have not done any investigation themselves, I am doubtful that this would pass the reliability/BLP barrier, but for sake of completeness http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2013/jul/1/trayvon-martins-legal-troubles-reportedly-covered-/ Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The source in the article now states it the jewelry included silver wedding bands and diamond earrings. No doubt about that part. Dream Focus 16:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is another story sourcing the "no evidence" version : "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.", which might be a better way of phrasing it than what we currently have http://news.yahoo.com/police-investigated-trayvon-martin-over-jewelry-214702166.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that would need to be dated. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the 'moment in time' clarification, as that provides a specific time period in relation to this jewelry incident. If more info develops from RS about this specific jewelry incident, it can be considered as well. We should also keep in mind that this incident was semi-notable at the time, but as time has passed, it's really not that notable anymore.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This stuff is muchm ore current http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/05/01/m-dspd-cover-up-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martins-backpack-with-stolen-jewelry-and-burglary-tool/ http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/04/12/part-2-the-trayvon-martin-cover-up-hurley-blows-a-gasket/ and contradicts the March 2012 AP/ Yahoo story. I realize it's a source probably not fit for inclusion in the article, but it should still make us question including an old source that's being contested–––85.0.253.68 (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We have discussed that source at length, it is not suitable for inclusion, and being an unreliable source in no way impeaches the reliable source. It may be 100% true, but we have no way of knowing. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This article talks about the matter in a lot of detail ---->[34]. The matter should most certainly not be relegated to a small footnote since the information is of great importance since the defenses claim was that the reason Zimmerman took notice of Martin in the first place was because he was looking into the windows of houses which made him think he might be a burglar. According to the article, Martin's explanation for the jewelry was "Martin replied it’s not mine. A friend gave it to me he responded, according to the report. Trayvon declined to name the friend" which sure seems suspicious to me. Information regarding this should be included in the bulk of the article. Its also relevant to include the information regarding why this wasn't allowed in the trial.Chhe (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The info was recently relegated to a footnote with this bold edit by Dezastru. Since it was done without establishing that there was consensus, and there is an objection, perhaps it should be reverted until consensus for change is reached? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2013

You should add that Trayvon Martin's body was found 30 yards from Zimmerman's truck. 

69.209.59.219 (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why that matters much and where is that sourced? -- Avanu (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per Avanu. Signalizing (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

prosecutions claims didn't hold up in court. The jury has spoken.

Why do we need a section showing the disproved accusations of the prosecutors? If the jury ruled in their favor it'd make sense. Now its just misleading and slanderous. Listing the account of Zimmerman, who was there, and whose story the jury believed, makes sense of course. Opinions please? Dream Focus 14:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

We do not know which part of which stories they believe. All we know is that they think the prosecutions version was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt (or that Zimmermans claim of self defense was not disproven beyond a reasonable doubt). However, even if we knew absolutely - it would still violate neutrality to eliminate the entire POV of the prosecution. Zimmerman is not guilty - but the allegations were exceptionally notable and should remain documented. If you want to work on trimming BOTH versions down to the essential points, and leaving the details in the trial version, I think that could get consensus, but frankly, its much easier to read a cohesive account of each sides version, rather than try to piece together a story from 40 different witnesses. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The affidavit was only a charging document meant to support probable cause to charge Zimmerman. It provides their POV about why he was charged in the first place. Should we just totally ignore the fact that the APC was ruled legally sufifient to charge Zimmerman and that's the reason he had to defend himself against the allegations they made. It is not misleading or slandersous whatsoever to provide the reader with the prosections's POV about why they charged him. It's made quite clear in this article that the jury found him not guilty, but that still doesn't negate the fact that the affidvait was ruled legally sufficient to support probable cause to charge Zimmerman. The jury found him not guilty based on the evidence presented at trial, not an affidavit filed in support of probable cause.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In wonderful timing per the "all we know is that they didn't think it was proven beyond a reasonble doubt" comment above (the story, not the video) (lots of juicy soundbites for both sides): http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659

• George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it
• "I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end,
• However, on the second day of deliberations, after spending nine hours discussing the evidence, Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law.
• When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so.""I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Dream Focus, we do not remove cited text offering widely reported viewpoints, even if said viewpoints were unable to sway a jury. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I have no problem with the current version, as long as no one edit it to sound misleading. [35] Dream Focus 19:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

And most importantly in her statements, something that if confirmed (either just her, or rest of jurors) implies a major mistake "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty" - This is a really wrong understanding of manslaughter, which required an intentional act causing death, not an intentional killing. If they don't think it was actually self defense, but think that the state needed to prove intentional killing - then there was a major gap in their understanding of the law. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The jurors who initially voted guilty should really exercise extreme caution when giving media interviews about their reason for acquittal. Corey could be watching those interviews as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Although it isn't something we have facts for, we can't rule out the possibility of these jurors having a fear of retaliation at this point. Juror "Maddy" seemed to be saying 2 opposite things at once in her interview. Juror B37 seems to be the most willing to take a stand in favor of the verdict as it stands, but the 4 of rest of the jury said 'her opinions were her own' to distance themselves from B37.

If I was a juror worried about death threats and retaliation, I might also want to distance myself from the verdict a bit. At this point, this entire jury is probably as scared as that family that Zimmerman rescued from the SUV rollover. I wouldn't necessarily expect full and open discourse yet. -- Avanu (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding questions about the usefulness of the prosecution's account, there are different accounts of what happened that evening. Some are from witnesses, including Zimmerman. And some are from analyzing the witness statements and evidence, for example those derived accounts of the defense and prosecution.

We might consider reorganizing the story of that evening by breaking it up into chronological parts, each in its own subsection. Times would be given in each section. We should try to include all notable views of what happened for each part, along with any notable criticism or refutation of a view, according to reliable sources. I think that as it is now in the article, there is some repetition because different people's accounts have parts that are in agreement.

The first part could be Martin at the 7-11 store and walking towards The Retreat. The second part could be when Zimmerman leaves to go to Target, to just before Zimmerman gets out of his truck after spotting Martin. The third part could be when Zimmerman gets out of his truck to when he hangs up his phone. Although the last two parts are beginning and ending relative to Zimmerman's actions, which are mainly obtained from Zimmerman's recorded phone call, there would also be included the info from Rachel Jeantel. The fourth part would be ... etc. The time info from the phone company, via reliable sources, would be included in the various parts. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Misleading change

Concerning this change. [36]

On five of those calls, Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered the men's race without first being asked by the dispatcher.

On four of those calls, Zimmerman reported what he called suspicious-looking people in the area, all of whom, he told the dispatcher when asked,[64] were black males.[65][66]

• This could mislead people into thinking race mattered. Everyone arrested for criminal activity in that area were black males. So its not really relevant. Dream Focus 14:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The first version is better. Clarifies that he was specifically asked about race before describing it. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Race does matter (to the responding officers). That's why the dispatcher always asks for the person's race, so they can give an accurate description of the suspect to the responding officer. They also asked Zimmerman what he was wearing and how old would you say he looks. All standard questions they ask everybody who calls in a suspicious person report. It's not like the police only asked Zimmerman those questions, they ask everybody the same questions. So in Zimmerman's case, the call would have gone out describing the suspicious person as - a black male in his late teens, wearing a dark hoodie, jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes, last seen in the vicinity of Retreat view circle. A complete description provided by all the questions the dispatcher asked. By just highlighting that specific question the dispatcher asked, seems to imply that is the only relevant question. A more accurate and NPOV sentence would read; Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered a description of the men without first being asked by the dispatcher.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Because of the altered 911 call of NBC already detailed in the article, its important to note that he didn't he didn't mention race until it was asked. Dream Focus 17:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's also important to put the whole thing into the proper context, he didn't mention any sort of description until it was asked. The point being that Zimmerman responded to all the questions he was asked, and the dispatcher didn't ask just one specific question about the suspect's race, he asked additional questions for a more accurate description to give to the responding officers. Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong by answering those questions. If you're trying to offer a counter point to the NBC altered call, then this content would be better suited in that section, wouldn't it?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::It[37] doesn't look like a good edit and resulted in a confused version, awkwardly written, with some of the refs not supporting the text. I'd suggest reverting, and then Dezastru can propose the changes on this talk page to get agreement before restoring any of it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Bob K31416 says some of the refs do not support the text. I'm not sure what the discrepancy that is referred to is, so I can't respond to that without more details. Dezastru (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In your version[38] (see paragraph 4) the first sentence refers to 7 calls in the preceding 6 months, but in the second sentence ref[65] refers to 5 calls in the preceding months (no specific number of months) and ref[66] refers to dozens of calls in the preceding months (no specific number of months) and says that 6 of them were released by the Sheriff's office. However, your text of the second sentence retains the premise of the first sentence that there were 7 calls. Also, ref[64] says that there were 7 calls in the preceding 6 months with 5 (not 4 as in your text) about suspicious persons. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The version I posted reads:

During the six months leading up to the February 26 shooting, Zimmerman called the non-emergency police telephone line seven times.[63] On four of those calls, Zimmerman reported what he called suspicious-looking people in the area, all of whom, he told the dispatcher when asked,[64] were black males.[65][66]

The calls Zimmerman during the 6 months leading to the shooting were (ref(63)):

1. Aug 3, 2011 - black male unknown to Zimmerman (1st)

2. Aug 6, 2011 - black males unknown to Zimmerman (2nd)

3. Sep 23, 2011 - (someone's garage door open)

4. Oct 1, 2011 - black males unknown to Zimmerman (3rd)

5. Dec 10, 2011 - (a person with whom Zimmerman had had a business dealing)

6. Jan 29, 2012 - (children playing in the street)

7. Feb 2, 2012 - black male unknown to Zimmerman (4th)

The number of calls given in ref(64) – the Michael Isikoff (NBC News) report – is erroneous for the purposes of our article. In that report, Isikoff says: "An NBC review shows that since August, Zimmerman called police seven times, five times reporting his suspicions about young men in the area. But he never mentioned the men's race without first being asked." The "five times" reported by Isikoff is not relevant for our article because the kind of suspicious people we are discussing in the article is people whom Zimmerman said he did not know. That's the relevant category because Trayvon Martin was a person Zimmerman did not know. All of the calls Zimmerman made during the 6 months prior to the shooting to report suspicious people he did not know were for black males, as shown in the call logs (Aug 3, Aug 6, Oct 1, Feb 2). Zimmerman did also make a call about another male, on December 10, and perhaps Isikoff included that additional call in his count to get to five, but Zimmerman at least had some knowledge of that person, and even knew his name, so that call isn't relevant. The only reason the Isikoff article was kept in the version I posted was to source the point that Zimmerman had not mentioned the races of the people he was calling to report until he was asked. I would not object to removing it.

Ref(65) and ref(66) document that those four calls for suspicious persons that Zimmerman did not know were all for black males, as indicated in the version I posted.

Ref(65), published June 29, 2013, says, "Also Wednesday, jurors listened as prosecutors played recordings of five calls Zimmerman made to police dispatchers in the months before the shooting. In four he was reporting suspicious people — in each of those cases, the subject was black." Ref(66), published March 19, 2012, refers to "the months that led to the fatal shooting" without giving a specific number of months, then says, "in four of the recordings Zimmerman called police to report 'suspicious' persons -- all of whom were black -- in or near the Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood." Yes, these two articles say "in the months before the shooting" rather than giving a specific number of months. But remember that the Police Department had destroyed the audio recordings of calls made more than 6 months earlier; so, since ref(65) and ref(66) are about extant audio recordings, some of which were played for the jurors, we know that the period of time being discussed in those articles is no more than 6 months. And the call logs documented in ref(63) tell us what all of the calls were about for the whole 6 months. Dezastru (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the first version is that it makes no mention that ALL of the suspicious-persons calls Zimmerman made during that period were to report black males. The version proposed by Isaidnoway (Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered a description of the men without first being asked by the dispatcher) is not an improvement in that regard because it also leaves out this essential fact. That Zimmerman's calls were all for black males was noted by the Sanford Police Department in 2012 (a noteworthy point in itself, since the police should know better than any other source what were typical patterns in that community for calls made to report suspicious persons) and by the prosecutors during the trial, and it was widely reported in the news media. Yes, police dispatchers routinely ask the race of the person being reported for all suspicious persons calls. And Zimmerman would have known that since he had called the police many times over the years, so saying that he didn't mention the race or other details until asked doesn't necessarily mean very much, as he knew he would be asked those questions and could give the information then. For that matter, whether he mentioned race at all when speaking with the police is not really the point because if the police had arrived in time, as he hoped, they would have been able to tell the race of the individuals themselves. The relevant point is that Zimmerman wanted to alert the police to the presence of what he considered suspicious people. So the central issue is what was it about all of these people that made Zimmerman consider them suspicious. Beyond that, saying that Zimmerman did not mention the race of the suspects until asked without explaining why the race of the subjects who were reported in the calls was a matter of discussion assumes more than a Wikipedia reader who is not familiar with the details of the shooting can reasonably be expected to know. (If you've been contributing to this article for months and have followed the case closely, then it may seem to make perfect sense to say Zimmerman only reported the races of the suspicious people when asked, without saying anything else about race in the section. But if you're just now reading the article and don't have detailed knowledge of the case, the way you are proposing the section be written will make no sense without more background information.) Dezastru (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• All the recent crimes in that area were committed by black males. You can't go insinuating he is a racist because no one from any other ethnic group committed crimes in that area. Dream Focus 19:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

to go all legal here, you are assuming a fact not in evidence. All of the crimes reported by zimmerman were by black males. A few possibilities 1) All crimes actually committed by black males. 2) All crimes occurring while Zimmerman was around by black males. 3) All crimes noticed by zimmerman by black males. 4) all crimes zimmerman chose to report on were black males. I don't believe there is any evidence to guide us to any of those particular outcomes, One could personally argue for any or all of them, but such arguments are completely unsuited as an argument for inclusion in wikipedia. We can only state what reliable sources have reported. To avoid leading someone to 1-4 inappropriately, it is best to be as objective as possible. All of the calls were indeed reporting black males, but he did not comment about their race until asked. Everything past that is conjecture, and it is up to the reader to put whatever spin on it they choose. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

All crimes reported in the area were of black males. It lists the break-ins and whatnot that happened in various news sources, not just things he reported himself. Dream Focus 20:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

What source are you looking at? Im assuming its WP:PRIMARY (police log or something)? Any secondary (reliable secondary) sources stating that conclusion/analysis of the primary? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Re Dezastru's comment, "So the central issue is what was it about all of these people that made Zimmerman consider them suspicious." — He specified why they were suspicious in his calls and didn't say that they were suspicious because they were black. The fact that they were black is a false implication that he was racially profiling. One might ask, if he wasn't racially profiling, why were they all black? The answer may be that since the burglaries were previously committed by predominantly black men, these people who were suspicious for non-racial reasons, may have actually been burglars looking for victims. In any case, per WP:BLP we have to be careful not to make a false implication regarding racial profiling. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that Zimmerman called police to report suspicious people, he didn't call to report "black males." To put this in the proper context, it has to show that Zimmerman only called to report suspicious people and he responded to the questions he was asked. If the sources don't support that context, then the only answer is to stay as close to the sources that we do have and go from there.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We can agree that Zimmerman called the police to report people he considered suspicious, all of whom were black males. That's what the Police Department said. It's a point that the prosection noted during the trial. And it's what was widely reported in reliable sources. The version that I posted does not say or insinuate that Zimmerman was a racist, and it does not help our discussion to imply that it does. As far as that goes, it's doubtful that all of the readers of the article, or even all of the editors working on the article, would agree on what being a racist entails. That said, whether Zimmerman's actions amounted to racial profiling is a matter for readers to decide on their own, not for Wikipedia editors to decide. It is an objective fact that all of the people Zimmerman called the police about were black males, and suppressing that information is hardly neutral. It's presenting the information in a way that favors Zimmerman's account. Dezastru (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not racial profiling, that just ridiculous. He had black friends in the neighborhood, it 20% black, and didn't call the police every time he saw them around. You can't word things in a way that make it sound like that might be the case, trying to lead people to that assumption. Dream Focus 00:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

With what you want, there's still a false implication that Zimmerman was racially profiling, which isn't neutral material. Any suggestions? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

All the FACTS as video on Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF-Ax5E8EJc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.204.16 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Good find. Perhaps we should list information which proves the claim of racism to be unbelievably stupid in this case. He once partnered with a black friend to start a business. His wife and him mentored and tutored minotirty children for free. When young black men broke into the home of his black neighbor, he gave that black woman a key to his home saying she could come over if she ever needed to feel safe. The article already has the bit about him protesting the death of a black homeless guy. Dream Focus 16:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see anything useful for the article that hasn't already been considered and has a reliable source. There is a violation of WP:BLP WP:BDP since the video claims Martin was a drug dealer. So I'm going to delete this section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Update: I deleted this section shortly after my above message and Dream Focus restored it approximately when posting the next message below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It quotes things from Martin's Facebook page. He doesn't claim anything, just shows what was posted by Martin or others on Martin's page. Dream Focus 18:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Bob, but sources do not need to be NPOV or politically correct to be included. That being said, it only needs to be checked against RS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be objective, but this is a random self published podcast. It could be 100% correct , but it is not by any stretch of the imagination reliable (in wiki terms)(Along with the treehouse link from the previous section). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dream Focus, Please see this part of the video[39] where he claims that Martin is a possible drug dealer, hence violation of WP:BLP WP:BDP by linking to the video. As I said, I don't think there is anything useful for the article that is reliably sourced that hasn't been considered already. However, if you think there is, then present your suggested addition to the article here, along with a reliable source for the info. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No violation of the rules to say he was a "possible drug dealer" in this context. "A possible drug dealer, suspended from school for carrying arond a baggie with pot residue" Facebook message he got some someone saying "damn where u at a nigga need a plant", asking for dope obviously. "Martin tested positive for marijuana use after his death. He had pictures of himself using marijuana and growing marijuana plants." "...and he told friends that he was bringing marijuana to Sanford". I believe Stefan Molyneux is a reliable source. Dream Focus 19:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree since I don't see a reliable source. Are you suggesting that the article should say that Martin was a possible drug dealer and give the Stefan Molyneux video as a reliable source? If so, go ahead and propose it and we'll see if it gets consensus. Here's my response in advance: Oppose per WP:BLP, WP:BDP and WP:SPS which says, "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree entirely with bob. BLP applies to martin via BDP, but BLP also applies to Zimmerman, the police, the prosecutors, the jury, etc who are all subects of this information. Anything usable from this video is source able elsewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it will be okay in 7 months when BDP expires either. Just FYI. Anyone touting BLP related matters as objections to otherwise RSes could try to go out of it with the expiration of that coverage and this is to prevent a "re-visiting" in the future. After the last issue with MUG, its a fair chance we will be seeing this issue in the future so I want my response on record for this now and not later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Re "Anyone touting BLP related matters as objections to otherwise RSes could try to go out of it with the expiration of that coverage and this is to prevent a "re-visiting" in the future." — First, I presume you mistakenly used the word "touting". Next, although I understand how the the two-years-from-death limit on WP:BDP applies for Martin info, I didn't follow the rest of your sentence, so could you clarify? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2013; include information on Travyon's height and weight for completeness

The article's text has information on Zimmerman's height and weight but none on Travyon's. For completeness, both should be present. According to the coroner's report, "Trayvon Martin's autopsy showed the 5-foot-11 teen weighed 158 pounds" (http://www.tampabay.com/news/a-review-of-the-evidence-released-in-the-trayvon-martin-case/1230750)

Sorry, on doing a search I found Travyon's height and weight listen in a panel to the right. For whatever reason, Zimmerman's height and weight are listen in both the panel and the text, so it is possible to notice his but not notice Travyon's, which contributes to a bias. 173.13.153.50 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)