Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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, [5] which the same news report is shown in this [6]. 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)

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)

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)

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. [7] 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)

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)

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: [1][2] [3] — 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)

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)

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)

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: [4] — 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:

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?

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. [8] "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[9], and has been referred to by NAACP[10], 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,[11]

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)

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. [12] 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)

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. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

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

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."[[23]]

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. [24] ("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.[25]"
--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 [5] [6] 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)

"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 [26] and I removed it at 22:27, 23 July 2013‎ [27] 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.[28]

  • 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.[29] 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 ---->[30]. 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)

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)

Not done: The information is already in the article. I don't see any bias. RudolfRed (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Zimmerman's height and weight

Looking at the way Zimmerman's height and weight are presented, it seems like it needs some work. There's an an outright error that says his height on the police report the night of the shooting was 5'8", though the report actually says 5'7". Reports of his weight have been varying a lot since the 200 given by the police report on the night of the shooting. Seems like the issue of his height and weight had more attention around the beginning of the case when various articles were trying give impressions about the relative size of Zimmerman and Martin. Now that the trial is over it doesn't seem as important. I think we can simply go with what the sources say. In that regard, I think we should give in the info box the size and weight from the police report for that night (5'7" 200) and mention in the info box that it is "on the night of the shooting". We can also move the paragraph on Zimmerman's size that is currently in the main text, to a note in the info box. This is more consistent with the way Martin's size was treated. Comments? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

what his girlfriend original said before changing her story

CNN reports at [31]

West also noted that, while Jeantel testified that the voice crying for help in the 911 call was Martin's, she previously said in a deposition that she was not certain if it was."

She stating originally she wasn't certain who was crying for help, should be in the article. She stated she didn't realize her interview with Crump was being recorded, she changing her story later on for the trial. Dream Focus 01:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I remember this moment from the trial very clearly. The transcript of the deposition indeed said "I couldn't hear Trayvon". However, Jeantel insisted that the transcript was incorrect, and she said "I could hear Trayvon". They played several sections of tape of her testimony, where she was using the words "could" and "couldn't", and her pronunciation was inconsistent. However, in context "could" makes much more sense than "couldn't" the question asked to her was "Could you hear who anyone" and she said "I could/couldn't hear trayvon". In any case, saying as a fact that she said one thing,and then changed her story is not supported by the sources. If this is included, we need to fully state the facts from the trial. Regarding other changes in her testimony, they can be listed out, but I think only to the same degree Zimmerman's inconsistencies are pointed out - Either details changing from one interview to another are noteworthy, or they are not. We shouldn't have two standards. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian
  4. ^ http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/22/conservative-media-distort-2004-illinois-bill-t/195002
  5. ^ http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/14/sorry-the-zimmerman-case-still-has-nothi
  6. ^ http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin/Archive_16&oldid=1136876395"