Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


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

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

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

Can an attacker claim self defense in Florida?

George Zimmerman attacked Trayvon Martin and when Trayvon Martin fought back George Zimmerman is allowed to claim self defense after he kills him.Beancrisp (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC) The statement of George Zimmerman attacking Trayvon Martin is not substantiated and it is nothing but pure speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So now a concerned member of the neighborhood watch becomes an attacker? Whatever happened to the policy of NPOV? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is what happened but it keeps getting taken out. In the 911 calls Zimmerman was told not follow Martin but he did anyway. Zimmerman followed the boy and created the confrontation. Since Zimmerman was the initial aggressor his claim of self-defense will not hold up, but the case hasn't gotten that far yet so it is only speculation at this point.

The statement about Zimmerman being the initial aggressor is speculation.

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

There are sources to the contrary. Zimmerman had no criminal record, a clean slate, an education, and he had never been in any incidents before. Also worth mentioning: he's Hispanic (and yes, there are sources for that). (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, he did not have a clean slate--he told police at at the scene that he had never been arrested, but it turned out he was lying. He had an arrest record for battery on a law enforcement officer in 2005. Not sure what relevance his being Hispanic has. QuizzicalBee (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The sentence prior to citation 47 states that, "Since the passage of the [castle doctrine] law, deaths due to claims of self-defense have nearly tripled, with all but one of those killed having been unarmed." Yet the article linked makes no statement of any kind with regard to those killed being armed or not. The emboldened clause should be removed as without factual basis. Also, I am unsure as to how a claim of self-defense could kill anyone. An objective reading might be, "Since the passage of the castle doctrine law, fatal shootings in which the survivor was able to avoid prosecution due to a claim of self-defense have tripled." Frankly, the entire sentence is prejudicial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Potential racial motivation in the lead: more general summary?

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

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

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

support a good compromise. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good.QuizzicalBee (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I sensed a POV myself, as such I rewrote the lead. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 04:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Atrocious grammar

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

This article is getting flooded with shoddy edits. I'm trying to clean up the bare urls and tie the article together, but it's like swimming upstream against a deluge. Is there an editor familiar with the semi-protect procedure who can at least get this article semi-protected to allow for clean up? Right now it's all over the place because of the controversy of the story.Luminum (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The OP is welcome to edit the page. I too agree the writing quality needs work, but describing grammar as "trailer park" doesn't really help. Disparaging people by race or class does not sit well with me, nor with our policy of assuming good faith in the volunteers who come here to contribute. (From our article: "Trailer parks, especially in American culture, are stereotypically viewed as lower income housing whose occupants live at or below the poverty line, have low social status and lead a desultory and deleterious lifestyle.") BrainyBabe (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Protect this page

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

I have already requested semiprotection. Im not sure about full protection (although I do think the speed of edits should be slowed down). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I hope my many and various edits are not those objected to by Mpdude8. Anyway, for reasons related to real life, I'll have to leave the article now, but I would like to think it is substantially better than a couple of hours ago. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Concerning speed (my concern) Its partially due to you - but certainly not just you. I agree the article is steadily improving, but the rate of change is really high, and it makes it difficult for people to see what is going on, and to decide what parts need work. Especially since there seems to be some micro-edit wars going on about wording, information, sections, etc I think some additional discussion would serve everyone - unless something is egregious, there is no reason it has to be changed "right now". Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
No, BrainyBabe, your edits have greatly improved the state of the page over the past few hours. I first read this article this morning and it was in need of a lot of work. I just think that due to the attention this story has been getting, users (anonymous and otherwise) are making edits all over the place, and, as Gaijin42 said, it's tough to keep track of. There have also been instances, intentionally or otherwise, adding remarks without reference and adding statements (factual or otherwise) that are far from neutral, which is extremely important in an article like this. Thanks for all your work. Mpdude8 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess if I want to continue to contribute, I'll have to register then. Hope I wasn't too much a nuisance though. I'm a current events buff and things like this is what keeps me up and clicking all night long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darter9000 (talkcontribs) 21:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for those words, Mpdude8. I did the best I could with the time available, but when I woke up, saw that the article had deteriorated again, in the sense of being less encyclopedic and less readable. Darter9000, you imply you were making multiple anonymous edits. I have no way of knowing which of them may or may not have been a nuisance, as you put it. Some anon edits over the past couple of days have been a real pain to deal with, and that is even though I am sure the contributors thought they were helping (WP:AGF). A named account is a step towards fruitful collaboration, so thank you for doing that. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"facts" section

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

I removed it once, and folded the few sourced facts into the body, but it has been reinstated. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance... BrainyBabe (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Have you addressed the issue with the anon user yet? She or he continues to add the section in despite the efforts of other editors (including myself) to integrate those facts into the article. If the user persists in adding it after several warnings, we may wish to pursue an IP ban.Luminum (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I tend not to put my energy into anon IPs (which may be dynamic anyway). Go ahead if you wish. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

File:George Zimmerman Mugshot.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion


An image used in this article, File:George Zimmerman Mugshot.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:George Zimmerman Mugshot.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for update

Please update. Thanks. This article says's petition has almost "half a million" signatures. It currently has almost 1 million signatures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeNeedPEVs (talkcontribs) 23:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)  Done Not by me. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Police arrival section

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

You're correct - the part about the police response not in that article. Suggest adding this reference, which includes the police response to the witness:,0,559932.story -- (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I did this last night before I saw this request. I used a different citation. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

zimmerman picture

There is a widely circulated mug shot of zimmerman that may be useful in the article, but it is problematic and informative at the same time. The image can be found here

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


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

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

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

Zimmerman Background

In addition to having been arrested for the altercation with a police officer, the judicial system has had contact with Zimmerman regarding incident(s) of domestic violence according to the Miami Herald. I'm not confident to add anything to this page, but perhaps someone more skilled could consider doing it.ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

To be more specific it should read that Zimmerman was arrested by State alcohol agents. [1] (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC) AndyB

Edit Request: Police Report released

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

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

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

Zimmerman's race

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

I wondered about the term 'hispanic' used in the article. While George Zimmerman is technically Hispanic, I'm not sure it really matters in this article and the term hispanic is used very, very awkwardly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Because there are racial issues concerning the crime, everyone's race involved has the potential to be relevant, even if further examination shows it to not be relevant. So it's worthwhile mentioning it. however, it is shoehorned in there ungrammatically. So I fixed the grammar.QuizzicalBee (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of trying to find a way to add it into the article while trying not to draw attention to it, why not create a separate profile for George Zimmerman similar to the one made for Trayvon Martin? After all, he is one of the major actors in this sad state of affairs. This is something I definitely have no idea how to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
A separate article would be inappropriate per WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP Gaijin42 (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Martin being black is apparantly relevant, then Zimmerman being Hispanic has relevance too. (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean another article, but another 'box' like the one for Trayvon Martin on the right side of the upper part of the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure Zimmerman's race is relevant - you cannot mention the ethnicity of the alleged victim and then not mention the ethnicity of the alleged perpetrator. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, however, I still have apprehensions about putting it in the lead. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 00:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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

"Young black men who appear to be outsiders"

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

Interestingly, the article references a news source for this claim, and it actually says, "Zimmerman went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men who appeared to be outsiders, and warned that some were caught lurking, neighbors said." Door to door. This needs to be addressed. Alexo Andros (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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


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

The observation this this is not a totally isolated incident is made by one of the sources (the Huffington Post article). That does not necessarily mean it should be included in this article, but it does show that the connection is not pure original research. VQuakr (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The information in that section (which I wrote) is included in many of the articles describing the incident, and is relevant to explaining the degree of the controversy surrounding the death. I think there should also be mention of the recently passed "Stand your ground" legislation, too, as that is necessary to explain the police's situation and the level of evidence they would need to charge him. If you compare this article to another in which someone shot others and alleged self-defense, such as the Bernhard Goetz shooting, you can see that there, too, background leading up to the situation is included, such as the crime rate prior to the shooting. QuizzicalBee (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems the Sanford Florida Police Department has (as they say) a 'troubled' history. I suppose the thing to do is to develop a page on them. The department has a good web site here. It is a large department as so seems notable. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
New page, Sanford Florida Police Department, please take a look.Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a 62 word section about the department in general, then a 336 word section about the "controversies." See the essay WP:COATRACK. Edison (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions about the details of the crime

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

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

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

That's as may be, but we shouldn't speculate. We should also be careful as to how we phrase such facts in the article; I'm sure Arizona Iced Tea people would be thrilled to learn that their can design got someone killed. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you misinterpreted that editors comment. He was saying Arizona is so big, that it could not be reasonably confused for a gun.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, you're right - my bad. But I think the point stands, we can't speculate. That's what the reliable sources are for. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit request on 21 March 2012

George Zimmerman (Jewish, Hispanic) American (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We have him as hispanic. Do you have a source on jewish? Gaijin42 (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unless the Zimmerman family comes out and says they and/or he is Jewish, there's no point in saying he's Jewish. What was said was that he is Hispanic. Which, does beg the question, where did the 'white' designation come from? I've seen some early confusion about hispanic and/or white. Darter9000 (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The white part is coming from the police report and description, where he was described as white. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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

911 calls

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, in that same call, Zimmerman does mention, twice, that Martin was running — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Placing the entire transcript of the 911 call from Zimmerman in the page would avoid (even) the appearance POV. Suggest we do that here.ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Errant material is being post here at an alarming frequency. Zimmerman used the police's non-emergency number to call the police. Simply Google "Zimmerman non-emergency" in the Google News section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read the results of that search, and I think the text is somewhat confusing but clear. The non emergency calls that are being referred to are not the call he made in relation to this incident, but other previous calls (for example, the "daily beast" article mentions 6 non emergency calls released - clearly zimmerman did not call the police 6 times over this single incident. So anyway - we could qualify the statements about previous calls to say a mix of 911 and non emergency calls, but I believe the description of this incident as 911 is accurate, especially considering thats what the police report indicates. -- On second reading some of the 6 may be talking about other peoples calls regarding this same incident. Do you have a specific source saying zimmerman's call was not 911? Gaijin42 (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Listen to how Zimmerman's call was answered, "Sanford Police Department, line is being recorded, [mumbled 'Dispatcher'] Schantz." That is how calls to a direct police line are answered. Listen to all six of the 9-1-1 calls, each answered with, "Nine-one-one, do you need police, fire or medical?" I won't discuss first question disagreements (my department's is, "Where is the emergency?") but virtually all PSAPs (public safety answering points) answer in similar manners. Zimmerman's call was NOT to 9-1-1. The pertinent calls are available at in .wav format and in .mpg format. When I can, I'll convert the .wav to .ogg and upload. (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Doctree (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide verifiable references stating that this was a direct call to the police, not to 911? It should definitely be edited, if such references are available. (Even if it's just the audio + references that calls in *that area* are answered differently.) I'd think the calls themselves would be more encyclopedic, though, as far as uploading and including them in the article, so please feel free to do that as well! – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
No. Even original source at Sanford, FL web site puts the call under a heading of "911 calls." .ogg files of calls below. Doctree (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
News sources say Zimmerman, who served as a unofficial volunteer neighborhood watchman, made 46 of the 400+ calls made from that neighborhood to police on various incidents or events in the immediate past. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Time of police call by Zimmerman was 19:11:12 [2] Note: Link takes a bit to load as it lists all 911 calls Zimmerman has made. (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)AndyB

About 2:10 into the 911 tape I hear Operator(O): "Are you following him?", Zimmerman(Z): "Ya.", O: "O.k. we don't need you to do that.", Z: "O.k.". About 4 seconds later the wind in the microphone was silenced. Presumably Zimmerman stopped following. In my opinion not including this in the section "Zimmerman police call" unfairly prejudices the probable defendant in a murder trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Add audio files below to this article (adding second [ at the front for proper display).

  1. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call1.ogg|thumb|Zimmerman call to police]]
  2. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call2.ogg|thumb|9-1-1 call reports yelling 'Help']]
  3. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call3.ogg|thumb|9-1-1 call; hear 'Help' and gunshot in background]]
  4. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call4.ogg|thumb|9-1-1 call reports screaming and gun shot]]
  5. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call5.ogg|thumb|9-1-1 call reports screaming 'Help' and gunshot]]
  6. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call6.ogg|thumb|9-1-1 call reports gun shot]]
  7. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call7.ogg|thumb|9-1-1 call; distraught caller]]
  8. [File:Trayvon Martin Shooting Call8.ogg|thumb|9-1-1 call]]

REASON: The calls are important elements of the event. The original releases can be and eventually will be removed from the City of Sanford web site. Copies of the calls in proprietary formats on commercial web sites may include advertising or garble the audio when distributed in Macromedia Flash format.

These are the .wav files posted on the web site converted to .ogg and uploaded to Commons. Add the second initial bracket for correct display in the Article (My first attempt to post this list put 'Play' buttons here in Talk). I see no reason to modify existing text after audio files are added. Let readers listen and make their own judgments. Doctree (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note the 'help' on the calls were confirmed to be Zimmerman, and the witness who made the call confirmed he was being beaten by a man in a hoodie.--DeknMike (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The "Some have suggested the disputed words were "fucking coons", an ethnic slur used against black people, while others suggest it was "clueless", "course", or "punks" is nothing but unproven speculation and should be removed. Since when is Mother Jones a reliable and unbiased source? (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC) AndyB

number of calls/dates

According to the Orlando Sentinel "Slaying in Florida: Was Trayvon Martin's killer a vigilante or conscientious neighbor?" Zimmerman called police 46 times during EIGHT years of time not one year as noted in the Wikipedia. There is a possibility this may even be a longer period as is reporting the 46 calls being since 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The various reports are not mutually exclusive. Technically he made at least 46 calls since 1985 (the day he was born). Unless we get a RS saying that within one year is explicitly wrong, or a breakdown of the dates of calls I am not sure what we can put other than what has been reported. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The calls have been since 8/12/2004... [3] Slow to load as the pdf has all of Zimmerman's 911/PD calls68.3.103.157 (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)AndyB

According to the Atlantic, 46 calls had come in since 2001. The 2011 year number was a typo. [4] This correction is seen in a number of news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Clear consensus to have the article remain here. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

  • Oppose move - This is an article about a notable event, not a biography about the victim of a shooting. The naming convention on events suggests naming an article with "what" and "where," but the "where" is this case does not seem applicable to any article title that would be uncumbersome. VQuakr (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I was going to oppose the move as well because I thought Shooting of Trayvon Martin was consistent with naming conventions of people famous for one incident. But then I did a bit of looking on WP and saw that it's rather haphazard. Nicole duFresne, significant only for her murder, gets an entry with just a name. Amadou Diallo gets Amadou Diallo Shooting. Abner Louima gets his name entry; Sean Bell shooting incident] vs. Emmett Till. Rodney King vs. Death of Vincent Chin. Jessica McClure and Yoshihiro Hattori are name only.QuizzicalBee (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the point of such a move, if someone wants to make a wikipedia article about Trayvon Martin, the let them do so. Otherwise, I believe this is an event that impacts more than just Trayvon Martin and should be its own article. (Just like the Super Bowl events are its own articles separate from the articles of the individual teams playing in it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ONEEVENT; Had Trayvon Martin not been killed in this incident, would he be notable enough to have an article? I suspect the answer would be no. In such cases, we (should) write an article about that 1 Event rather than the victim. What sources exist that discuss Trayvon Martin and don't reference the shooting? None, near as I can tell. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose per above. I originally created this article under just Trayvon Martin, and it was moved by someone else, and I think that was the right thing to do. This article will likely eventually expand to actually be more about zimmerman (if he goes to trial) than the victim. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Kindof wish I hadn't commented - now I can't move-protect the article. If it keeps getting moved and reverted, that's what I would recommend - if only until this discussion here is resolved one way or the other. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind - Reaper Eternal has now move protected the article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move To create more simpler view on the page and create a page for George Zimmerman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nultiaaliyah1 (talkcontribs)
Creating seperate pages for martin and zimmerman would violate both WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:ONEEVENT, which states "... the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and is all that that person is associated with in source coverage." Since the person in question is deceased and was not notable prior to his demise, his notability today and in the future is all byproduct of this single non-repeatable event. At some point in the future the alleged shooter may or may not qualify for a separate page depending on the degree his future notability is independent of this event, but certainly not today. (Example: Maybe he becomes the first Latino to reach some notable benchmark.) AS of today, only the shooting and its consequences are notable. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons as Meishern. No point restating it. ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per all of the above. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose also per WP:1EDoctree (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, again per WP:1E - Drlight11 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as provided in WP:ONEEVENT / WP:1E. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 21:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"National outrage"?

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

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say it's national (or even international, the coverage and all) attention while the outrage seems to be from social media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion, in line with the suggestion above, would be to change the term from "national outrage" (which can imply that the outrage is held in common by the nation) to "national prominence" or thereabouts (which merely suggests that this is now a story that is getting national coverage).Voxrepublica (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Or it could just be mentioned that the case gained some attention in the national media resulted in (some) controversy. That will suffice. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I changed the phrase to "received international attention". BrainyBabe (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Received international attention? Not that I'm aware of... the article only excists on the English wikipedia and in my country, it was not given a single mention. For what it's worth, I say you need some major foreign sources before you mention "international attention". What's wrong with just "national attention"? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not an extensive list, but BBC and the Guardian (both UK media) have been covering this event as well. and as well as a couple Australian and Canadian press have put out articles as well as the federal government started to get involved. (although I'm loathe to post these gaudy and long links and start to overload this) Darter9000 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I think this is international attention:,1518,822746,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
More evidence of International Attention: Folha de São Paulo, one of Brazil's leading newspapers: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Definitely international (UK perspective) Kittybrewster 17:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont think anyone is doubting international attention at this point. The question is how to qualify it. outrage etc can be POV. I think attention is sufficient for now. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

National Outrage Fueled by Media Speculation is more appropriate. Quite a few of the news "stories" are inconsistent with the "facts" they are providing. (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC) AndyB

While possibly true, definite WP:OR unless a WP:RS reports it, and that type of meta reporting is fairly unusual unless this case takes a sudden turn for the unexpected (zimmerman completely vindicated somehow?) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Section on Police Department

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

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

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

Exactly. Multiple reliable sources references the history of alleged racism of the police department in connection with the shooting. Whether the wider complaints about an institution merit inclusion in the article about a specific incident is probably a case-by-case determination based on what comes up in the coverage of the source materials. But besides that I think the NYPD analogy doesn't fit for a couple other reasons. The Sanford PD is a much smaller institution than the NYPD. Furthermore, a specific officer involved in a past incident was supposedly involved in the investigation of this incident. Furthermore, the investigation of a shooting definitely belongs in an article about the shooting. To view the investigation as disconnecting with the shooting article would be extremely, extremely inconsistent with how other deaths investigated by authorities are treated in Wikipedia articles. --JamesAM (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Story has changed from Zimmerman getting out of his truck and being attacked to walking back to his truck after chasing Trayvon and then getting attacked. Recent quote is attributable to the police chief and is an (AP) story. "The police chief said Zimmerman claimed he was attacked by Martin after he had given up his chase and was returning to his truck." [5][6] (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)AndyB

The whole section of Allegations of Racism looks 100% better. Good job.Isaidnoway (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"myfoxorlando" source?

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

Because this witness told a different story to the police and the account does not match up with other people's accounts. This would indicicate the witness is unreliable, and the fact that there is only one (reliable?) source isn't very promising either. I say we better leave it out. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
If the source is reporting it and the source is reliable, then it should be included. And it looks like it is. It's not our place to determine the reliability of a witness, just the reliability of the news source.Luminum (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Then also mention how she told an entirely different story to the police, one that matches Zimmerman's description of the events. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The citation says:
"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

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

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
"Man shot and killed in neighborhood altercation". 14 March 2012. Retrieved 20 March 2012. 
Another source mentions Zimmerman's red jacket. This could be a case of OR. This article and this witness is not saying who is who. What wording should the article say? Suggestions? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman bleeding from his face(nose) and back of head along grass on the back of his jacket has been reported by The Orlando Sentinel numerous times. (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Andy B

How is that source reliable? It provides an account that is mentioned nowhere else, it attributes a quote from Tracy Martin that is mentioned nowhere else, it says Zimmerman is 25 when he's 28, and it claims he's in the Neighborhood Watch when he isn't. The article has two errors and two unsourced uncorroborated points - which is impressive given that the article only has four points. -- (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not seen this account by this witness reported by a reliable source anywhere else either. However, Timothy Smith, the first officer on the scene to come in contact with Zimmerman stated in his report that he observed that Zimmerman's back was wet and covered with grass as if he had lying on the ground and that his nose and the back of his head was bleeding. He also stated in his report that he overheard Zimmerman say that I was yelling for help, but nobody would help me. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report" Naaman Brown (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the witness mentioned in the Myfox news article is their person "secret witness", so please mention that an unnamed secret witness said so, dont put him/her in line with witnesses that have been officially confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Is there a published guideline or policy which says so? I am fine with an "event" infobox, but think there can also be infoboxes for the principle actors involved. I read through the infobox manual of style, and it says nothing about multiple infoboxes being not allowed. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Just saw that you had changed the infoboxes again - didn't mean to revert without discussing - it was an edit conflict and I missed that. Sorry. I don't know offhand what the policies are, if any, but I have worked on or looked at numerous articles about similar events, and have not found precedent for multiple infoboxes like that. Actually it's more than one article - I mentioned two above, but will look into it further, and see what others think. I did add a biography section about Trayvon which I think is helpful and makes sense in terms of the subsequent flow of the text. Let's see what others think and meanwhile I will look around and see what I find. I do recall objections to a double infobox on the Caylee Anthony article, but I'll see what else is out there. I doubt it's hard policy, but I do think we want to be careful about changing the focus of this article from the crime to the individuals. Tvoz/talk 02:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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

I agree that it is unusual, and if a case develops then the event may take priority. However, for now a lot of the interest in the article is coming from the two actors, their respective races, etc. While this information certainly does belong in the article prose, I think having some shortcut infobox is not undue. I would certainly not object to a hybrid event infobox that had sub-sections for victim and suspect details, but I do not know if such a thing is possible. (just did a search and found Template_talk:Infobox/Archive_2#Nested_Infobox will work on something along this vein. @Silver Have a policy/guideline to that? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
But are any nested infoboxes in use? I haven't seen any and I'm not sure this makes sense here as Silver said. It's the event and its aftermath that warrants the article - I think that has to remain our focus. Tvoz/talk 06:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Neighborhood Watch Manual

It's stated throughout this article and in various news items that Zimmerman went against guidelines from some kind of neighborhood watch manual. However, its claimed earlier in the article that he wasn't a registered member of any such watch. It seems the manual in question is from the National Neighborhood Watch Program, but I'm not sure how him violating the rules of some organization he's not even part of is relevant to this event. The terms quoted from this manual are pretty strong (e.g. to suggest he categorically shouldn't have done x, y, z) so it seems like unnecessary POV, especially if there's no concrete link to this case. The source link supporting this in the article is dead anyway, so I'm going to go ahead and remove it for now. 8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

With respect, since Zimmerman was acting as a self-styled one-person Neighbourhood Watch, he did indeed have an obligation to follow the rules of such groups. That he may not have formally associated himself with the national organization does not detract from his duty to follow the rules. As the saying goes, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Because Mr. Zimmerman's entire justification for cruising around his neighbourhood in an SUV tank as a vigilante and for regularly reporting black people for walking on public sidewalks is his alleged participation in Neighbourhood Watch, the formal policies of that group are not at all POV but are highly relevant.
When a police officer shoots anyone on duty, he or she is immediately suspended from street patrol and placed on desk duty or on mandatory leave. I find it amazing that Mr. Zimmerman, as the acknowledged aggressor and shooter, was not himself detained by the local Florida police nor tested for alcohol and drugs in his system, as his speech on the 911 call was apparently quite slurred. I heard that the innocent victim, Trayvon Martin, was in fact so tested posthumously. I'm not sure why User:8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 was unable to check out the source link mentioned. It worked fine when I tested it just now, so I'm restoring the deleted info. I hope you now better understand the need for this section.
Objectivesea (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
My objection (perhaps due to ignorance of the status of neighbourhood watch in the United States, so feel free to correct my assumptions if so) is that I imagine individual neighbourhood watch groups are free not to associate of the National Neighborhood Watch Program, and are free to create their own rules and guidelines by which they operate. Surely an individual may found an independent neighbourhood watch organisation whose guidelines recommend patrolling armed to the teeth, if they so desire. Really what I'm questioning is the authority of the National Neighborhood Watch Program in this case. Are their guidelines enshrined by law? If not I still don't see why their advice on the matter is relevant. 8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
the organizations standards are not enshrined by law, and the town was not under a legal obligation to follow the organizations standards or join the organization. However, a significant amount of the defense of zimmerman revolves around his role as the neighborhood watch "doing his job", and the vast majority (OR) of such orgs in the US _ARE_ members of the org, so it is important to qualify that zimmerman was not acting under the criteria/rules/authorization/relationships that many people would automatically assume they were by saying "neighborhood watch". Gaijin42 (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it might be fair to include an opinion like that in the article, but the current phrasing seems to imply that he's committed an inherent sin by not abiding. It could be done in a more neutral way.
Quoting guidelines abstractly without making clear that they are 'just' guidelines (however popular) would seem to introduce an inherent bias (assumption of authority or officialdom) in the mind of a reader who is unaware of the nature of the organization. Perhaps we might say something like:
"Zimmerman has been criticised for not following widely supported guidelines for neighbourhood watch patrols set by the National Neighborhood Watch Organization, which advises that participants not patrol armed or intervene in suspected criminal activity [cite manual/news sources]."
8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to take it further and remove the whole paragraph. Unless Zimmerman's involvement in a neighborhood watch program becomes relevant from a legal perspective and is discussed in reliable sources, we just have a quote from a primary source are are synthesizing the suggestions that 1. He was in violation of some guideline and 2. The violation was relevant to the shooting. As written, a reader not familiar with U.S. neighborhood watch organizations might think that this was some sort of professional organization with authority and/or legal regulation.
Incidentally, I just removed the first sentence from that paragraph, which was not supported by the citation given. VQuakr (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed! The Neighborhood Watch manual has no bearing on the case, and is just fluff trying to show Zimmerman violated some make-believe rule book created by one organization, a rule with absolutely zero legal standing. If you want the rule book in, find evidence Zimmerman received a copy of the rule book. Otherwise, it's trying formulate a make-believe connection. According to an official release by the city of Sanford, which was sourced by CNN, Zimmerman did no violate any laws by being armed. Remove the entire section. Zenmastervex (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
About a decade ago a guy at a party tried to impress his friends by setting himself on fire. He died. His friends described him as an amateur stuntman, and some news sources ran with that, and described the incident as a stunt gone wrong. Other, better, sources briefly explained that he was not in any sense a stuntman, by profession or training, but merely a guy who liked to pull dumb stunts. They went on to explain the rules that real stuntmen follow when performing flame stunts in order to avoid unnecessary risks of harm to themselves and others, and how this guy did almost everything wrong.
I bring this up because the better news sources you folks are second guessing have included discussion of the official Neighborhood Watch guidelines for an important reason. When Zimmerman's defenders describe him as a 'neighborhood watch member', if the press does not then point out that he was not a member of Neighborhood Watch but merely a guy took it on himself to watch his neighborhood, they run the risk of misleading the public into believing that he was better trained than he was, that he was working under the supervision of and in closer cooperation with the police than he was, and also run the risk of allowing his actions to tarnish the reputation of NW. They also run the risk of misleading the public into believing that chasing down and tackling people is the policy of the nationally respected NW. For these reasons this information should remain where it is. To remove it is to lie through omission. (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It's made clear that he isn't affiliated with any organisation, I'm not sure how there could be any confusion over the matter for a reader. I'm still of the opinion that the NNWO guidelines don't belong here any more than any other 'suggested best practices' publication does that may or may not agree with his actions. I don't think it's a big deal for neutrality if the opinion in question is included in the article if properly supported/cited... so long as it is made clear that it is an opinion and not any kind of official stance. 8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is an RS discussing these issues in detail. I think we can use this source to get rid of the OR, and manage to include both sides of this particular issue fairly. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Ridiculously biased article The City of Sandford released an official statement stating that Zimmerman was not acting as part of Neighborhood Watch when the shooting occurred. However, the neighborhood watch manual which states that volunteers are not permitted to be armed remains in this biased article. I see an obvious attempt to show Zimmerman as the bad guy here, first by showing that he wasn't supposed to be armed, even though he had a legally issued CCW license, and then by showing he acted outside of his bounds. Regardless of if the Neighborhood Watch Program has regular patrols or not, they also do NOT have the power to determine when a person is allowed to be legally armed or not. PICK A SIDE: Either he was legally armed, which makes the neighborhood watch section irrelevant, or we need to add some reference to the neighborhood watch section that says even though they're not "permitted" (laughable) to be armed by the neighborhood watch program, Zimmerman was not acting within the program when he called in Martin as a suspicious person.
Furthermore, the article at the top states Zimmerman was not questioned by the police. THIS IS FALSE. If you read the police report as referenced on the article, look on the bottom of page 3. The report states Zimmerman was transported to the police department, placed in an interview room, and then interviewed about the incident.
Has there been a source that claims the neighborhood watch had organized patrols? I agree that quoting a nonbinding, nonapplicable neighborhood watch manual is unnecessary in this article and can give a false impression of relevance. VQuakr (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The entire neighborhood watch manual needs removed. Zimmerman may have self styled himself as a member of the neighborhood watch, but there is no evidence to suggest he ever received a copy of the manual quoted in the article. There are no laws in place to organize a neighborhood watch, nor are there laws against any member of the neighborhood watch being armed. However, by quoting this manual, the implication is the rules applied to Zimmerman. They did not, and he was well within his legal bounds to be armed. Zenmastervex (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Note I've fixed some reply fragmentation/indentation issues in this section. Somehow it was out of whack and made little sense so I've tried to set the originally intended indentation again. 8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he was allowed to be armed or not. The issue is that Zimmerman claimed to be the leader of the local Neighborhood Watch - which the term can merely be descriptive of a role, it is also more notable as the actual name of an official program that is linked to law enforcement agencies. When he claims to be affiliated, he is borrowing its credibility. Thus we have to note that he is in fact unaffiliated with the program, and that his behavior is notably different from those in the program. To do otherwise would be a disservice to those actually in the program. -- (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

He didn't claim to be affiliated with the NNWO or to be complying with their guidelines, as far as I know. He claimed to be a member of a neighbourhood watch, which is a generic term. 8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman as "Suspect"

Zimmerman hasn't been named as a suspect in a crime at this time, correct? The word "suspect" next to his photo should be changed or removed. -- (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Offically it's still self-defense and not murder, the case is under investigation as we speak so this could very well change soon. However, as of now, we should not a call Zimmerman as suspect for neutrality reasons. It's still just an incident, not a crime. Not yet. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Zimmerman description - "Shooter" should work nicely, since he admits to shooting Trayvon Martin. He told police that he shot Martin in self defense.ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Describing him as the shooter would be fine - there is no doubt that Zimmerman is the shooter after all, as he said so himself. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The Neighborhood Watch section that claims Zimmerman declared Zimmerman was known for being strict and that he went door to door asking them to be on the lookout for "young black men who appear to be outsiders" is unsubstantiated. The article cited says nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollinTA27 (talkcontribs) 04:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
There's a couple of articles that describe him as a "suspect." For example: --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Still, we cannot describe him as a suspect until he actually is declared a suspect by law enforcement. He's likely a "person of interest", but that's a vague term and nobody official has declared him as such yet. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, suspect is not accurate. There is no suspicion. He did it. The question is only if it was justified/self-defense or not. Eventually other words like assailant, perpetrator, defendant, etc may be appropriate but those will have to wait until/if something official happens. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.--Alice in Wonderland
Why wait for the grand jury to hear evidence when there can be a trial in the media court of public opinion? -- Naaman Brown (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Police chief Bill Lee

Is he caucasian? Kittybrewster 20:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. (my opinion of looking at a photo of him. It has not been formally stated in any source as far as I am aware). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Has he stepped down yet? Kittybrewster 21:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
no. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
He has stepped down for now, but temporarily. Added it to the article with a ref. It's also irrelevant what race he is, unless that's specifically brought up in the investigation or by the media for some reason. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
You might think it irrelevant. I couldn't possibly comment. Kittybrewster 23:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I certainly think it's irrelevant what race the police chief is, unless his race is brought up regarding this incident or any prior incidents... At that point, it would become relevant. (My *personal* feelings on this actually clash with my own edit, but that's irrelevant to trying to respect WP:NPOV; please speak up if you don't think I'm trying to be neutral with my edit.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I accuse you of nothing. I regard NPOV of wikipedia as sometimes a great mistake. I wonder if I could lift stuff from [2]. Kittybrewster 11:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2012 (1)

I am submitting this request to edit this article. Thank you. (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please let the community know what specific edits you want to make to the article; I cannot tell what you want edited when you don't mention anything! Additionally, you can create an account and edit articles like this yourself in the future. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I think there were asking for a general permission to edit the article themselves, not really understanding what semi-protected means. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2012 (2)

I would like to request that the infobox on the page be edited, replacing the childhood picture of Trayvon Martin with this more current picture of what he looked like: The justification for the change would be that since this is an article about an event rather than a biographical article, a current photo makes more sense than a childhood photo.

For reference, the article this photo was taken from is found here: Also, this picture is on facebook (search "Trayvon Martin") and just about everywhere on the web (google image search "Trayvon Martin"), so I don't believe it will violate any fair use standards.

If anyone can find a current picture of George Zimmerman, I think editing that would also be a good idea.

Fungusfun (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)fungusfun

There may be POV issues with showing an image of Trayvon Martin in a hoodie, unless it was a recent picture in context relating to the shooting. (The photo on the article linked is about a "million hoodie march", so I'm not so sure that's quite neutral...) I would also certainly like to see a picture of Zimmerman that's not an old mugshot, for neutrality. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to upload that picture and get it past the fair use filters (using dead-person rationale?), then I am ok with it. Zimmerman is more complicated. That is the only picture in wide circulation of him, and as a living person wikipedia is more restrictive of the pictures that are allowed. If someone can find a newer picture of him that passes fair-use or licencing issues, that would be great, but in the meantime that is what we have. The mugshot certainly has issues, but there is nothing else available that I am aware of. The hoodie thing is nicely coincidental, but I dont think it has a big POV issue personally.

There is additional discussion of the pictures in the archive section if you want to see how I found these two existing photsGaijin42 (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If the picture in the hoodie can be confirmed as fairly recent, then I'd say that's acceptable; however, if it's more than a year or two old (given his age), then we may have a POV issue vs using a more-generic childhood photo. I really WOULD like to have more-up-to-date photos of both Martin and Zimmerman, but obviously we can't just make those magically pop up online... :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the only NPOV to approach this would to use the most recent photo available for Martin, unless there is a huge discrepency in quality. There's a big difference between saying you were scared of a 13-year old and a 16-year old, regardless of the validity or believablity of such claims.LedRush (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

fungusfunI'm relatively new to wikipedia. What is involved with getting a picture "past the fair use filter"? I don't mind doing it if necessary, I just need to know the steps. And I agree with the post above that probably the only NPOV approach to this article is to use the most recent photo available (unless both photos are from the same year of his life or something). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems like this is being discussed, so I deactivated the template. If you need more help, please reactivate the template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a new picture of Zimmerman in an article on the Orlando Sentinel website. They say it is more recent than the mugshot.(Sorry if I was supposed to make a new section instead of editing or reactivating this one, I'm still learning how all this works.) It says "Orlando Sentinel Exclusive" in an overlay over the picture - does that mean it can't be used here? TyphoidHippo (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like it is their copyright and not likely usable here. Back to the hoodie picture, I think it is veering toward POV, especially since hoodies have entered the national dialogue on this case as suggestive of a threat - the motives to use this image may not be so pure on some people's parts. I think we should try to obtain another image, or go back to the previous, well-circulated one. Tvoz/talk 02:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: We can't use a copyrighted image on wikipedia for this purpose. If there is another image you'd like added to the page (ideally one already on commons, then feel free to propose it. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 06:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Another request

I am not wikipedia savy, but I've seen this info in several articles. here is one source:

"Aside from withholding the calls, the police department has also been accused of sending a narcotics investigator to the scene instead of a homicide detective, failing to administer a drug and alcohol test to Zimmerman that night, and not reaching out to Martin's girlfriend despite the fact that the pair were speaking on their cellphones minutes before the shooting."

There is no mention on this page of the type of detective originally sent. It's interesting and noteworthy in allegations against the police department... There are also several articles, quoting the girlfriend's lawyer, saying that the police did not originally ask her for a statement, even after they had the phone records. I am not providing one as I'm not sure how well developed that story is, and I don't follow it closely.

Apologies for my inability to edit :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Florida Police Chief temporarily steps down Police Chief Lee steps down temporarily, saying that his role has become a distraction.Darter9000 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I added this earlier. See (and please note if there's anything missing, or feel free to edit it!) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon leaving home during halftime of NBA All-Star Game - Impossible

In the "Incident" section, this is mentioned. I know this is what his father said, but it's impossible, because the NBA All Star Game didn't start until 7:30 pm, which is the same time Trayvon was pronounced dead at the scene. I know it's been reported, so maybe it doesn't have to be removed, but it should be preceded by something like "According to Trayvon's father..." rather than presented as fact. -- (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Per [3], the game "started" at 7 PM. Still, I agree this is confusing since many sporting events don't start until well after the announced time (or we're stuck with pre-game stuff, or whatever), so I edited it to "during a break in an NBA game..." (since I have no idea when the game actually started/ended.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The game started at 7:30 PM <> It has been established that the nearest 7-11 was .7 miles away. To travel to and back would be 1.4miles. The first phone call was around 7:00 PM. Trayvon left home long before the game even started. It is possible the father didn't even know he left. We do know he didn't ask about him until the next day. (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)True Observer

Google maps has the closest 7-11 to the location of the shooting as 1.7 miles[4], maybe a little less if he cut through shopping plaza parking lots. Interesting he didn't stop in at WalMart, which was 1.1Miles, and on the way. Are we sure it was a 7-11?--DeknMike (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

More details about who George Zimmerman seems to have emerged

George Zimmerman: White (father), Hispanic (mother: peruvian), Black (other relatives)

(I can't make changes to protected articles) Darter9000 (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've updated the infobox to include the sourced information. Thanks.
Objectivesea (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus about conflicting charges against Zimmerman.

According to an article published in the Orlando Sentinel on March 20, 2012, "Who Is Crime Watch Volunteer, George Zimmerman?", they list his offense as "resisting arrest without violence". However in the section about George Zimmerman, it is listed as "resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer" cited with the reference of "George Zimmerman, Neighborhood Watch Captain Who Shot Trayvon Martin, Charged With Violence Before", an article on the Huffington Post published on March 9, 2012. A search of the "Orange County Clerk of Courts" website shows both charges listed. While the charge listed in the George Zimmerman section is factually correct, it infers that Zimmerman is prone to violence and assaulting (battery) law-enforcement officers and could be construed as biased against Zimmerman. More than likely, the first charge "with violence" listed as a felony, was reduced to the charge "without violence" listed as a misdemeanor, so Zimmerman could enter the diversion program.Isaidnoway (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Caucasian Multiracial Hispanic?

Why is this person called a "multiracial Hispanic" ???? Why no just multiracial ? Where was he born ? he does not have a "Hispanic¨ first or last name ! Please be careful with this kinds of stereotipe labels ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone's name does not determine whether or not he or she identifies as Hispanic. Neither does place of birth. The refs we have indicate that he identifies as multiracial, as well as Hispanic. How is this stereotypical? If the refs are incorrect, please point that out. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC).
I suspect the article calls him Hispanic because his father does:
In an open letter, Zimmerman's father, Richard Zimmerman, defended his son against allegations that his actions were racially motivated, stating that Zimmerman was Hispanic, was raised in a multi-racial family, and "would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever," claiming that the portrayal of his son as a racist "could not be further from the truth."
Can you provide a reliable source to show that the father is mistaken? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
This actually brings up an interesting point, looking at the ref. He's described as Hispanic, growing up in a multiracial family. Previous edits noted adoptive Jewish parents, but I can't find reliable references to that for now, and I'm not sure that would even make him "multiracial." Perhaps we should just call him "Hispanic" instead of "multiracial Hispanic" for now, until we have a better reference? Again, this is a tricky distinction, especially when we're treading on WP:BLP grounds. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The situation is complicated. Zimmerman was adopted by a jewish family, seems to be racially latino and may self-identify as hispanic. He was identified as white by the police department. This is personally a pet peeve of mine, but it is what it is : the term hispanic in common usage in the US is not a race/ethnicity but more of a cultural identification (primarily based on language it seems), leading to people being white-hispanic, black-hispanic, latino-hispanic, multiracial-hispanic etc. Anyway, due to all of this, primarily being identified as hispanic by his father, and as white by the police, leads to a difficulty of identification in the article, so multiracial seemed like a good compromise. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Right; the Census Bureau considers "Hispanic" as a separate class that anyone can belong to, in addition to a primary race or identifying as multiracial. I suppose, short of an official declaration by Zimmerman or a source such as his parents, "multiracial Hispanic" might be the best definition. However, "Hispanic" may be better, since we don't really have a "primary race" or whatever, but then we get into POV issues and the like, so I'm certainly not comfortable making such a change. Any editors with more experience are free to chime in on what he race he should be described as, but I feel comfortable leaving it as "multiracial Hispanic" for now. It seems like the best description, barring any new information. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Can people please cite that he was adopted before claiming it? It taints the discussion. I've only seen rumors on the internet, until that is actually ever confirmed, it should not even be considered. Currently we know his mother is Peruvian/Latino/Hispanic and his father is Caucasian (likely of either German or Jewish decent, just judging by the last name). Diskotech (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Who is considered hispanic can differ from state to state or differ according to the requirements of the different organizations" from Wikipidea

Was he born in any Latin Country ? Did he grew up in any Latin Country ? Does he speak fluent Spanish ?

AFAIK, multiracial hispanic is an oxymoron term that only has validity in a country like USA. How about calling him a Mulato Hispanic ?

You realize this happened in the USA? So this should be written with that in mind. There is a reason why there are White American and Hispanic and Latino Americans articles on Wikipedia Diskotech (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and there is also a White Hispanic and Latino American Page. Hispanic does not imply any race. Period. Hispanics can be pure white. As most South Floridian hispanics are (pure white). Most Cuban-Americans are overwhelmingly pure white. Again, you have repeated this "hispanic-implies-multiracial" thing at least 5 times, and its not true. Go to the Cuban-American page and click on demographics.

From Wikipedia "Mulatto denotes a person with one white parent and one black parent, or more broadly, a person of mixed black and white ancestry"

How about "Mestizo Hispanic ? From Wikipedia also "Mestizo is a term traditionally used in Latin America and Spain for people of mixed heritage or descent. In some countries it has come to mean a mixture of European and Amerindian, while in others, like Venezuela, mestizo still retains the original meaning of being mixed without specifying which admixture. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

He seems to have grown in a Jewish family. And he does not seem to have a lot of African or Amerindian. Why not "White Hispanic"

Note: AFAIK, Racial Profiling is WRONG ---- no matter how is justified ---- and is not Scientific either, is just a social contruct that has been the root of many unfotunate incidents like this one ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Post has an article, stating that neighbors identify his father as a white male. His surename is likely Jewish:

"Multi-racial hispanic" is NOT a proper way to describe someone. Being a hispanic by DEFAULT usually implies that you are multi-racial to begin with. This article is being biased. Diskotech (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Suggest you take yourself to the Cuban-American article and look at 'demographics.' 80% of Cuban-Americans are white, not multiracial. And they are still hispanic...

I suggest the racial profiling be dropped for both the victim and the victimizer .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line: Jewish-dominated Wikipedia editors don't want to let this guy be associated with Jewishness in any way, as though the racian identity of his biological parents has more to do with his behavior than the identity of parents who raised him from birth. Instead, we will fruitlessly fill up this talk page forever and a day while the article tries to states that this horrendous individual is white or caucasian and Hispanic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This is being contested and no one is discussing on here. I am being threatened to be banned, simply for stating the facts. yet people are not following wikipedia policy! Those editing "caucasian" please talk here. Diskotech (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here are my facts: you cannot call him a "multiracial Caucasian." I don't personally care if he's "multiracial" or if he's "Caucasian", whichever the facts supports. I do NOT support "W/M" from the incident report being used to determine "Caucasian", however. Seems to me he's multiracial... But hey, if you have the facts to call him Caucasian, cite them. The only citations we have are to Hispanic and multiracial backgrounds. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 08:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

he's been called both white and hispanic. He has a hispanic mother and a white father. his surename is jewish or german. Caucasian Hispanic would be the proper term . It'd be best to get rid of multiracial. This makes more sense as there black hispanics etc etc Diskotech (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you want to get down to logic with just those statements (aside from growing up in a multiracial family culturally, etc)...he'd have to be called a "White/Unknown Hispanic." We don't know what his mother's race is, other than being "Hispanic." Seems to me that "multiracial Hispanic" is the most logical description, absent any other, since that's all we really seem to have references for. I don't know what these "4 references" you keep referring to are, since I joined this edit war near the end of it. If they exist, put them back in with your edit. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 08:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Mother is from Peru. and i found an appropiate wikipedia article to link to: and my articles are cited right after the caucasian hispanic, again do not assume i did not add those. look up ALL my edit history before assuming things Diskotech (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

We can just describe Zimmerman as multiracial and drop the "Latino\Caucasian\Hispanic" part altogether. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see,0,1716605.story; his own father describes him as Hispanic, and having grown up in a multiracial family. Based on that, I'd say we have to describe him as Hispanic. Since Hispanic is considered a qualifier along with another race, and since he's of mixed ancestry, he is therefore a multiracial Hispanic. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Correct. I fully agree with you. But other people seem to be hellbent on describing Zimmerman as either Caucasian or Jewish, for reasons I do not quite understand. I believe the safest way to go is describing Zimmerman as just multiracial. People reading the article can click on the source and read it themselves. We could also add a note saying that Zimmerman has been described in various ways (Hispanic, Jewish, Latino, Caucasian, etc.,) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
because his father is white and his surname is jewish/german? police have identified him as white. many sources have claimed he is white. it is like you're living in a different world. Diskotech (talk) 09:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

multiracial hispanic is redundant. Hispanic is multiracial. Do you guys not understand that? This is why i stated it'd be best to link to the Caucasian Hispanic article i pointed out. Seeing as there are "Black Hispanics" as well etc etc Diskotech (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So I guess this page [White Hispanic and Latino Americans] needs to be deleted, and the demographics on this page [Cuban-Americans] must be wildly confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
If Hispanics are by definition multiracial, as you claim, then there cannot be black or white Hispanics, just darker and lighter Hispanics. This is original research, Diskotech, your own personal interpretations. Zimmerman has a Peruvian mother and a Caucasian father, and this makes him multiracial. Or, even more likely, just biracial. And while Zimmerman may sound Jewish, we have no sources saying he is, do we? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as being Jewish goes...well, we do have that statement from his Jewish adoptive father calling him "Hispanic," and since he's of multiracial origin, well...hmm, that might be a multiracial Hispanic! :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

is he really adopted? source? Diskotech (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, if he was a Black Hispanic, then we'd call him that. He's of mixed origin and Hispanic, thus again, he's a multiracial Hispanic. Please see "federal standards mandate that race and Hispanic origin (ethnicity) are separate and distinct concepts and that when collecting these data via self-identification, two different questions must be used." In other words, it's standard in US legal/governmental terminology to refer to someone as both Hispanic and multiracial, unless that person specifically identifies as a person of the Hispanic race (rather than ethnicity.) When neither are specified, we just assume "Hispanic"; we don't even have to assume the "multiracial" part yet, from the Census definition! But then, going on his parentage, he's multiracial, and therefore a multiracial Hispanic. (Since we CAN depend on the Census Bureau definition of Hispanic origin being a qualifier in addition to race.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I never claimed he was jewish (others have however), I just simply stated that it was a possibility. This is why I mentioned Jewish AND German. Zimmerman surname has German ancestries as well etc Census definition is in a constant state of flux, look up the rules decades ago. In fact, the term hispanic is disputed on wikipedia: It is stated as incomplete. The reason I mention white and black hispanics, is because originally Hispanic was used to identify those with Latin and Spanish ancestry. The Spanish are white. But then slaves were brought into the continent and suddenly you had black hispanics... it is very messy label, to say the least. This is not even including the Portuguese (Brazil) and Italian (Argentina) impact. Diskotech (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Constant state of flux?? It has been at least 50+ years that Hispanic was not recognized as a race on the censu. Seriously, thats considered a constant state of flux? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

We know his mother his Peruvian and that Zimmerman grew up in a multiracial family. How can you describe someone who is of at best only of 50% white ancestry as Caucasian? He's of mixed ethncity, not Caucasian, however you twist or turn it. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Hispanic is in flux, but his father has described him as Hispanic in his released statement. That is the most definitive statement we can have. Then, going by his origin, he's multiracial. Who cares about his surname? It is likely his adoptive parents' surname, but it's pointless to even speculate on that, as surname does not determine race/ethnicity. Thus, again, he is Hispanic (as described by his father) as well as multiracial (as derived from his mixed ancestry), which are mutually allowed by CURRENT Census Bureau guidelines. (Which are about the best set of guidelines you'll find consensus for using to encyclopedically define an "American", realistically.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, i ask you provide ACTUAL proof that he is adopted. People keep throwing that around without EVER citing that. Only rumours. The police described him as White? The police report is filed as "white", people have called him white. His father simply stated that he was Hispanic, to prove a point out he was multi-racial, and not just a certain race. Thus debunking the claim that there was racial tension (which is kinda silly, because regardless of race, it can be considered a hate crime). He never denied he was white either. So you would only be assuming, ultimately. Diskotech (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, simply his parents, then. (You do make a good point about throwing around adoptive, after a bit of Googling.) It doesn't matter if he's adopted or not though, and the surname is irrelevant. His father describes him as Hispanic, and makes no mention of whether or not he is white/multiracial/Jewish/"just Hispanic"/whatever. We do not have a more authoritative source than that. The rest of my points stand as well, irrelevant of whether he is adopted or not. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 09:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not as if the Sanford police has the world's best track record, and the fact that they call him\called him white does not make him white. I don't know whether or not Zimmerman was adopted, but we do know he has a Peruvian mother and, presumably, a white father. That would make him either biracial or multiracial. The fact that Zimmerman would be adopted or not doesn't suddenly mean his mother is no longer Peruvian and Zimmerman is no longer a man of mixed ancestry. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You can easily take an open letter out of context. Read it within the context that the fact that they are accusing his son of a racial hate crime, thus defending him by pointing out a background. Again, police described him as white, no one has ever denied that he was NOT white. The fact that you are assuming he is adopted goes to prove my point that you are inclined to "assume", in my opinion(you have yet to provide any solid proof that he is adopted. i have yet to hear any reliable news outlets report this, but yet plenty of rumors. there is a rumor going around that hispanics love to change their name to european acenstry surnames as well... will we be including that too? That's just silly. I mean come on, there is a standard here). Diskotech (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I never said Zimmerman was adopted at all, I said that whether or not he is adopted is irrelevant because it does not change his ethnicity. He is the son of a Peruvian mother and this of mixed descent. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
that specific reply in regards to adoption was not directed to you. i'm aware you didn't. 2001:db8:: and others have however Diskotech (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I noted that your point about adoption was correct (there's no evidence of adoption), but as Mythic Writelord points out again, it's completely irrelevant. Please stop using irrelevant points that others AGREE with as points of contention, as that gets us nowhere towards forming any sort of consensus. Please form a factual rebuttal to not using Census rules to define him as a "multiracial Hispanic", based on his racial origins and his father's statement that he is "Hispanic." 10:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:db8 (talkcontribs)

Stop using irrelevant points? What? You and others are the ones point out adoption! not me! I am pointing out that this DISTRACTS and TAINTS the discussion, as people begin to make ASSSUMPTIONS. I been sticking to the facts. And again, multiracial hispanic was never used. He used those words separately. Implying he was not just hispanic. They also pointed out that he had black relatives. Which anyone can take out of context. Does that make him black? etc etc Again, no one denied he was White and again, hispanic is multiracial. you also have to consider that people use hispanic via various definitions, as pointed out by the wikipedia article itself: Diskotech (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
"Hispanic is multircacial"... Wtf are you talking about? Hispanic means having roots in Latin America. It implies absolutely nothing about race. It is like saying is a "Southerner" (w.r.t southern USA). If I say "my friend Billy is a Southerner" it doesnt tell you anything, at all, about Billy's race. If I say "my friend Billy is a Hispanic", it doesnt tell you anything, at all, about Billy's race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing about adoption; I conceded multiple times that *you are correct* to not point out supposed adoption. (But it's irrelevant again, so YOU also need to stop bringing it up.) Yes, the word "Hispanic" was used by itself by his father. But again, his ancestry is obviously mixed. Again, the best reference we have here is the Census Bureau guidelines (the other other "guidelines" you give seem to just be assumptions.) Those guidelines state that Hispanic is a general ethnicity that can be applied with a race, such as "multiracial." But I give up on this editwar for tonight. You've reverted the page 7+ times, please read WP:3RR and consider taking a break if you feel you need to revert past that, while discussion is still taking place. 10:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
You said it yourself: Hispanic is multiracial. Those are your words, Diskotech. So then why describe him as Caucasian? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

George Zimmerman is described as Hispanic by his father. His father is described as Caucasian American, his mother as Latin American and he grew up in a multiracial household. (Some?) Police reports have described Zimmerman as Caucasian. What is wrong with the description of multiracial? We can drop the Hispanic part altogether. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Put in a reference to being adopted by Jewish parents. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is the race and ethnicity of Zimmerman's parents so important to stress? If Trayvon Martin was adopted and raised by white parents, there wouldn't be any less allegations that this murder was racially motivated. (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Jewish in this context can only refer to a religion. Jews come in all colors. And I agree with the IP. If Martin was raised by White Jews would it make a difference? PLUS. All those sources do not say what that sentence in the lead says. so it is a case of not in source. -- (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow - does anyone in this thread understand the concept of sourcing and not making assumptions based on names, faces and prejudice? Really hate to disappoint all of those clamoring to say he was adopted by Jewish parents - this is a total fantasy made up by people who have no facts. According to this Washington Post article, published on March 22 and added to this article as a reference on March 23, the facts are that he is Catholic, a former altar boy, and his parents - a Peruvian woman and a Caucasian father - are his birth parents, and Catholic. Oh well, you'll just have to come up with some other place to spew incorrect stereotypes and prejudices. Tvoz/talk 07:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sighs. Listen very carefully. I'm NOT gonna belabor this nonsense with you all. The fact is that Zimmerman is Caucasian, and officially considered so. You think that "white" has to be red-headed or blond haired people with freckles? FAIL. There are "dark whites" in the world. Also, for that matter, there's such a thing as "white Hispanics" too. (Andy Garcia, Ricky Martin, Cristina Aguilera, etc) My point is that his mother was not black looking. Again, Zimmerman is basically a white dude. You are whatever your father is anyway (sperm blood etc....though some people have that backwards...another debate.) But to say idiotically that "Zimmerman is not white" in your edit comment is POV madness and stupidity, and is just plain inaccurate. Even if his mother was sorta "darkish looking" it doesn't matter. Zimmerman is basically a white dude, and identifies himself as such, and is counted as such. Also, again, in general, NOT ALL "Hispanics" are "brown" (though lazy sloppy types like to many times stupidly think that, per their brain-washing and ignorance of history, or vision problems or whatever). Some are white (I mean LILY WHITE), and some are "brown", and some are even outright black. But you can't go around saying that Zimmerman was a "Hispanic" (in any full-fledged or basic sense) if A) his father was white, and (as sexist as this sounds it's just a biological fact) you are whatever your father is, and he has his father's last name, and his mother was NOT a black or dark brown Peruvian, but just a general olive type looking one maybe. The most you can say is that Zimmerman is PART "Hispanic" (whatever that word means anyway), and basically Caucasian. Zimmerman looks like a dark white dude. I know some Greeks and Croatians and Armenians who look just like Zimmerman. And many Jews who look like him. It's WHATEVER. He's white (basically). Get over it. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll go along with your argument if you (a) explain what your claim that "you are whatever your father is" means and (b) cite to an authority for the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charredbarn (talkcontribs) 03:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Twin Lakes security

Something not available in the public information seems to be, How did TM get back into Twin Lakes? Did a guard clear TM to re-enter the grounds, did TM call his father's girlfriend's house via a gate phone and get buzzed in, or was TM in possession of a card/key/remote control? I just want to put the questions out there, as I'm sure someone else can answer some. knoodelhed (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Disregard the above. The address quoted in Officer Smith's report is behind a gate located at South Oregon Avenue and Twin Trees Lane. In Google Street View, it can be seen that there is no guard post there and the gate is of a type operated by other means. knoodelhed (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Police Arrival

The police report (Twin Lakes Incident Report) also states that the officer overheard Zimmerman saying that "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me". Shouldn't all statements by the first police officers on the scene be included as well to portray a complete and accurate description of the events observed and overheard at the scene after police arrived? I think it is relevant because Zimmerman claimed self-defense and this statement by the officer would be admissable in a court of law if he should ever be charged.

In reference to the Anderson Cooper interview with the witness, the sentence that ends with "knees pinning Martin on the ground" is not factually correct. According to the cite referenced, she actually said "knees on top of a body" and when questioned by AC, further clarified it by stating "straddling him". Pinning Martin on the ground is quite different than straddling him. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

from Partial Report Sanford PD (Agency report number 201250001136) 2/26/2012

statement of officer Timothy Smith

Report Date: 2/27/2012 3:29 Reporter: S25894 Smith, Timothy Clearance: 0 Open Report Type: S
On 2/26/2012, at approximately 1917 hours, I responded to 1111 Retreat View Cir in reference to a report of a suspicious person. As I arrived on the scene, dispatch advised of a report of shots fired in the same subdivision.
I was advised by dispatch that the report of shots fired was possibly coming from 1231 Twin Trees Ln. I was then advised, after receiving multiple calls, that there was a subject laying in the grass in between the residences of 1231 Twin Trees Ln. and 2821 Retreat View Cir. I responded to 2821 Retreat View Cir and exited my marked Sanford police vehicle and began to canvas the area. As I walked in between the buildings I observed a white male, wearing a red jacket and blue jeans. I also observed a black male, wearing a gray hooded sweat shirt, laying face down in the grass.
I asked the subject in the red jacket, later identified as George Zimmerman (who was original caller for the suspicious person complaint), if he had seen the subject. Zimmerman stated he had shot the subject and he was still armed. Zimmerman complied with all of my verbal commands and was secured in handcuffs. Located on the inside of Zimmerman's waist band, I removed a black Kel Tek 9mm PF9 semi auto handgun and holster. While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.
Shortly after securing Zimmerman, Officer Ricardo Ayala arrived on the scene. I advised Officer Ayala that I had not made contact with the black male subject laying on the ground. I observed Officer Ayala make contact with the subject and attempt to get a response, but was met with negative results. Shortly after this, other officers began to arrive on scene along with SFD Rescue 38 who began to give aid to the subject laying on the ground.
Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD. While the SFD was attending Zimmerman, I over heard him state: "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me." At no point did I question Zimmerman about the incident that had taken place. Once Zimmerman was cleared by the SFD, he was transported to the Sanford Police Department.
Zimmerman was placed in an interview room at SPD, where he was interviewed by Investigator D. Singleton. Zimmerman was turned over to investigations and this was the extent of my involvement in this case.
The Kel Tek hand gun that I collected from Zimmerman was placed in to evidence under TS-1.
Smith, Timothy S25894

from "Twin Lakes Shooting Initial Report.pdf" at

details that don't show up in the nightly news:

  • Zimmerman was wounded about the head and received first aid at the scene.
  • The officer observed Zimmerman's back was wet and grassy consistent with him being on his back on the ground.
  • Zimmerman complied with officer's orders, was handcuffed, and disarmed.
  • Zimmerman freely made statements without questioning.
  • Zimmerman was taken to the police station for interrogation.

---Naaman Brown (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Seminole State College Enrollment Withdrawn

Consensus to add this? According to the Orlando Sentinel, Seminole State College withdrew Zimmerman's enrollment on March 22, 2012, and released this statement:

"Due to the highly charged and high-profile controversy involving this student, Seminole State has taken the unusual but necessary step this week to withdraw Mr. Zimmerman from enrollment," according to a statement from the college. "This decision is based solely on our responsibility to provide for the safety of our students on campus as well as for Mr. Zimmerman."ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It is part of this unfolding story, but shouldn't we preface it but stating that he was attending college and what classes he was taking? The statement alone would seem out of context if we didn't provide a preface. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. In fact, I question the accuracy of press reports that Zimmerman in fact 'took' criminal justice classes, and wonder if they stem from the statements of Martin's parents that they were told by police that he had. The parents also reported they were told that Zimmerman was squeeky clean, which we now know he wasn't. My understanding at the moment is that Zimmerman was working on an AA degree with an interest in taking criminal justice classes and becoming a police officer. I haven't encountered anything substantiated beyond that. I'll research further today. That said, even without a preface, his being kicked out of college due to the incident and it's sequela is an element of the aftermath of the killing.ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal Issues

I think the word 'instigator' in the sentence; "However, the instigator of a confrontation cannot claim self-defense", is prejudicial because it implies that it was a deliberate act to goad someone into a confrontation. It is up to a court and/or jury to decide if it was deliberate or not.

I think a more neutral statement that conveys the point would be:

"However, a person cannot claim self-defense if they created the environment in which the confrontation took place in". Isaidnoway (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The 2011 exception is not relevant to this specific case. There is no reliable source cited that says Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. The only way this exception would apply in this specific case, according to the statute quoted, is if Zimmerman stated to the police that he made physical contact with Martin and then indicated to Martin he desired to withdraw from the confrontation. The cited reference does not quote the Sanford PD as saying that Zimmerman initiated any physical contact with Martin.

This 2011 exception would be relevant in an article about Florida Gun laws or in an article about Stand Your Ground laws, but in this specific case, it is not relevant.

Including this 2011 exception in this specific case speculates that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor and physically attacked Martin and then as he was returing to his vehicle, Martin attacked him and Zimmerman shot him in self-defense.

Furthermore, the quote from the Miami police chief is not relevant to this specific case as well. It too would be relevant in an article about Florida Gun laws or in an article about SYG laws. Legal issues should only address issues that are solely relevant to this specific case. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Trayvon Wilson had the right to protect himself from the assailant, if George Zimmerman was the assailant, and by the Stand Your Ground Law, Trayvon Wilson had the right to hit Zimmerman and try to retrieve Zimmerman's gun. What do you mean there is no evidence Zimmerman attacked Trayvon. Trayvon's girlfriend heard their conversation, and Zimmerman admitted following Trayvon and was told not to follow Trayvon. There is only evidence that Zimmerman was the assailant and no evidence that Trayvon was the assailant. Daviddaniel37 (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2012

Considering that Zimmerman's attorney has said that SYG does not apply to this case, is any of the information about SYG relevant now? Take out paragraphs in Legal Issues and replace it with this.

After the shooting, media reports had indicated that Zimmerman most likely would use the controversial Stand Your Ground provison in Florida's self-defense law. However, Craig Sonner the attorney for George Zimmerman was interviewed by Anderson Cooper on March 23, 2012 and stated that the Stand Your Ground law was not applicable in this case. He went on to say that this is self-defense and that has been around forever. The attorney also said he believed that Zimmerman's nose was broken and he sustained an injury to the back of his head that probably should have had stitches. Sonner assumed that Trayvon Martin was responsible for the injuries. Zimmerman has been cooperating with the authorities and has talked to them without counsel being present. Police have seized the gun used in the shooting and are holding it for evidence.Isaidnoway (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I merged this text with the section in the article. Look it over, and feel free to re-enable the edit semi-protected template if you have additional concerns. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 16:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing not allowed

It's not allowed anywhere on the page. Why? With things changing in the event we need to be able to add/subtract text. leaving it this way means much more likelihood of inaccuracies staying up and staying up longer. (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)andet97.118.129.198 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You have to have a verified account. This helps prevent anonymous users from vandalizing this article, as it is a high-profile article that attracts all sorts, including people with bad intentions. This isn't to say you have bad intentions; it's to say that all anonymous users get caught when these pages get locked. CityOfSilver 22:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman Section

Consensus sought for removal of this sentence - "Zimmerman studied criminal justice for four years.[39]" This is not what the citation reports. Here is the relevant quote from the cited article: "In an interview with HuffPost on Thursday, Tracy Martin said that when he asked police why Zimmerman hadn't been charged, officers told him "they respected [Zimmerman's] background, that he studied criminal justice for four years and that he was squeaky clean." 'Tracy Martin said the SPD said' doesn't mean Zimmerman actually and factually took 4 years of college classes in Criminal Justice.ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for questioning that. However, the Tampa Bay Times (Florida) news report has stated, "Zimmerman, who was born in Virginia and studied criminal justice at Seminole State College, is the son of a retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate..." (see: So, other sources are likely to support the 4-year claim. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
"Zimmerman, who was born in Virginia and studied criminal justice at Seminole State College, is the son of a retired Virginia Supreme Court magistrate and his wife, a long time clerk of courts, according to his application to the citizen’s academy". The original article is located here. Zimmerman stated he was taking CJ classes. That works. The 4 year part though, doesn't. The page is changing so quickly that I'm not sure it matters anymore. Cheers :)) ArishiaNishi (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Diversion Program

Article should have the mention of Zimmermen's participation in the Diversion Program removed. The court has rights to such information & it can not be released to the public. Please remove — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This information is cited to a freely available reliable source, and additional sources stating the same thing are readily available online. VQuakr (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 March 2012

Your phrase "and followed Martin after witnessing alleged suspicious activity" falsely implies that Zimmerman's after-the-fact allegation is determinative that Zimmerman witnessed Martin engaging in suspicious activity. Your writer might not have been intending to imply that, but he did imply that, regardless whether because the writer was intending to say that, or merely because he's a sloppy writer. Better here would be "and followed Martin, allegedly because Martin was engaging in 'suspicious activity'." But better yet would be to avoid the entire issue of "suspicious activity" here, because that relates to the question of whether or not Zimmerman even had probable cause for accosting Martin -- and much of the evidence in the police tapes suggests that he didn't. So, on at least two levels, this phrase in your article is poor: It's atrociously written, and it brings in a subject that should either not be raised or else requires considerable amplification. (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I reworded the first sentence. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's still a bit awkward. How about this? "Martin, who was unarmed, had been walking to his father's fiance's home from a convenience store when Zimmerman called 911 and followed Martin, because Martin appeared suspicious to him.[10] Soon after, he fatally shot Martin during an altercation between the two." ArishiaNishi (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The text states: saying he witnessed what he described as "suspicious" behavior

If scare quotes are intended then that is unfair and biased.

If verbatim quotes are intended then it should properly read: saying he witnessed what he described as "suspicious behavior".

Please stick to facts and avoid needless emotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sanford Police Department (Florida)

There needs to be an in-text wikilink to the wikipage for this Sanford Police Department (Florida) , perhaps by hyperlinking one of the many occurences of the name of police chief Bill Lee. The wikilink needs also to be added at the bottom of the page under "See Also". Could someone with an account do this? Cheers. (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done partially. I wikilinked in the 911 section, but not in the see also, as I dont think it needs to be redundant. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for conflicting statements

Take out this paragraph:

The police took Trayvon Martin's body and stored it in a morgue, calling him "John Doe".[44] Martin's family accuses the police of not asking any of the neighbors if they recognized Martin.[45] According to David Horsey, they also did not check his cellphone to find someone he knew.[46]

Replace it with the following paragraph:

Immediately following the shooting, Trayvon Martin's body was transported to the morgue and was tagged as a John Doe. Trayvon's family criticized the police department for not identifying their son more quickly than they should have as his body remained in the morgue for three days labeled as a John Doe. The family has also stated that officers with the Sanford police department didn't ask neighbors if they recoginized Trayvon who had been staying with his father in the gated community.

I left out the last sentence pertaining to David Horsey and the cell phone. Police did not have the legal right to look at Trayvon's cell phone because he was initially thought to be the suspect, not the victim. So it is not relevant if David Horsey thought that in his opinion they should have looked at the cell phone. The police couldn't do it anyway. The paragraph to be inserted uses the same cited references, so they can remain the same. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The {{edit semiprotected}} template requires a request of the form 'please change X to Y'. I've deactivated the template since this is more of a question than an edit request. If you decide you want to change the text, detail how you would like the text to read, provide reliable sources for confirmation and reactivate the template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I merged your proposed text with the article. I did not remove the note by David Horsey, since it is supported by the source, and as editors, we cannot engage in OR by coming to conclusions about the legal basis for Horsey's criticism. If you have a source which disputes Horsey's criticism, we can add that. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 16:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

new sources

Im going to bed for the night, so wont be able to edit, but here are some additional sources that have some new information

Details on zimmerman employment, family, and a new pic (but we probably cant use pic due to copyright/fair use issues imo) although it might be worth trying to fight this through fair use review boards as a newer pic, and much less prejudicial than a mugshot, if someone wants to start that process it might be a good idea.

new special prosecutor assigned,0,790817.story

orlando sentinel "myths", based on talk with police dept

local news discussing previous story, with additonal analysis

blog (clearly not RS) but has some additional alleged trayvon facebook photos, possibly flashing gang signs clearly not pictuers of trayvon, but a different trayvon.

good luck night crew!

Gaijin42 (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a new picture of Zimmerman, a more recent one. Look it up, sign up as a wikipedia member and upload it to commons. Then I'll add it for you or you can add it yourself. :) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is we do not have rights to the new picture. The mugshot is public domain as a product of the government. The new pic would need to get justified under fair use rationale, which may or may not get through. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be great if someone would at least try, because the current picture of Zimmerman is outdated and to have a mugshot of him already, I dunno, doesn't feel right. Almost as if he has already been arrested for shooting Martin, which he hasn't. A more neutral image would be better. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama finally comments on the case.

The president of the United States has spoken in a press conference about the case, stating "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" and implying that everything will be done to make sure this is correctly resolved. That seems as though it is noteworthy to some degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And Newt Gingrich promptly gave him the PIMP SLAP he so richly deserved for speaking in racial code 'he looks like me' in order to further denigrate the INNOCENT Geo Zimmerman. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC).
Newt Gingrich commented on the case too? Is so: you got a source for that, because it would be significant. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Please cite your sources, we're not going to be persuaded by statements without some sort of mention of it anywhere in the media... or even Newt's own website for that matter. Darter9000 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Shut the God Damned Fuck up about Newt Gingrich. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2012‎ (UTC) Wow... if that statement a bout Newt Gingrich does not prove where Wikipedia lays it head at night, nothing else will! Admit that Wikipedia is a leftist, political blog! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's lawyer

Looks like George Zimmerman has gotten legal representation now (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Number of unarmed deaths in Florida

Legal Issues section, 1st paragraph, last sentence: in the quoted source, I cannot find any reference that "All but one of those killed was unarmed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


"Trayvon Benjamin Martin (February 5, 1995 – February 26, 2012) was an African American teenager who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a multiracial man (white father, Peruvian mother)[4][5][8][9][10][11] in Sanford, Florida."

Let me go out on a limb and guess that the original title of this article was "Trayvon Martin" because editors tend to think that articles should be about people even where the real subject is an event. Let's change this opening sentence to make it clear that this article is primarily about an event and not a person. How about "On [date], George Zimmerman, a multiracial man (white father, Peruvian mother)[4][5][8][9][10][11] shot and killed Trayvon Benjamin Martin, an African American teenager, in Sanford, Florida." (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BOLDTITLE. Tvoz/talk 08:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Cute, but you missed mine. See how I just edited it: the emphasis should be on the event - which is why upstream several days ago I was urging that we use an event infobox not the people infoboxes. Tvoz/talk 08:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Calls prior to shooting were non-emergency calls.

Press accounts shorten it to '911' calls. More accurate sources have said police non-emergency number. It's very obvious if you listen to the recording as 911 calls are answered with 'police, fire or medical emergency?' while the non-emergency police line is answered 'police department, this call is being recorded'. Unfortunately the press blurs the line but to be accurate, Ziummerman didn't call 911 to report Martin. Witness called 911 after the shooting, though. --DHeyward (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal Issues additional content

I suggest adding the following to the "legal issues" section: Florida's "stand your ground" statute provides a broader defense when a person is inside of their residence or vehicle. When outside of their residence or vehicle, the defense may only be used by 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."[7] If Zimmerman is found to have violated the federal "hate crimes" statute in the events leading up to the shooting, the "stand your ground" defense would likely be unavailable to him.[8] Garycal (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)garycal

Yes, and the stature also only protects those defending themselves against illegal use of force. That would mean that anyone who instigated a confrontation could not later claim "self defense" - which is rational. Note, too, that to use lethal force one must have a reasonable belief that his life is in imminent danger, the life of another is in imminent danger, or that there is an imminent danger of grievous bodily harm. Claiming the belief isn't adequate: "reasonable" means something. "Imminent" also means something. But I'm not going to do any edits of the body myself. (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is going to get interesting. Trayvon's girlfriend indicated that he expressed concern about a "strange man" following him, and claims to have heard Martin say "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding "What are you doing here?" In his capacity as neighborhood watch, Zimmerman was authorized to ask a non-resident why they were on the property, but it was Martin that initiated the conversation. Other evidence suggests Zimmerman broke off pursuit and was later jumped by Martin, leading to the struggle that ended with the gunshot.--DeknMike (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: Possible Eyewitness to Incident

This section is inaccurate. It says:

"On March 24th, 2012, FOX 35 in Orlando reported that an anonymous source had told police that Martin attacked Zimmerman on the night of the shooting.[64]"

This is not true. The anonymous source told them that he saw them fighting, with what appeared to be Martin on top, but the witness made no claim to see the events leading up to the fight. In any event, the witness being referred to is the same witness referred to in a story shortly after the incident. The referred to article appears simply to be a rehash/spin of old material.

Here is the witness referred to in an earlier article:

Note the exact same quotes from the witness. This section should reference this article instead, as it is more accurate and does not contain the non-factual claim that the witness told police that Martin attacked Zimmerman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtsanford (talkcontribs) 02:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2012: Martin's father confirms voice calling for help not his son's

The following should be appended to paragraph 2 of the "Aftermath" section

"Martin's father confirmed to the police that the voice heard calling for help on the 911 tape was NOT that of his son."

See WESH 2 report, which they say was confirmed by police sources, at:

Brownwn (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done An in-person interview of the mother and father that aired on the Anderson Cooper includes the mother Sybrina stating:

“I believe that's Trayvon Martin, that's my baby's voice. Every mother knows their child, and that's his voice. “
And the father Tracy is sitting next to her and agrees. This live interview happened after your claimed source. Therefore, that information should not be added.
Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 05:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


Edit request on 25 March 2012 cause of death: gunshot wound

in the table, replace "homicide" with "gunshot wound."

"Homicide is not a proximate cause of death, rather, it is a value judgement placed on the cause of that wound. It is too early to say, absent a judicial ruling, whether the gunshot wound is best described by murder, homicide, manslaughter, etc.

Application of the label "homicide" at this point is prejudicial. This is simply improper use of the language.

Brownwn (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done You are incorrect. Homicide means a person killing another person, and does not carry any value judgement. Justifiable homicide, etc. homicide is not equivalent to murder etc. this is ofteconfused because police have homicide departments, which investigate killings, but when they determine it was not justifiable, they charge them with manslaughter or murder, not homicide. When the police kill a criminal, that is also categorized as homicide. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I believe Gaijin is correct. A homicide is a non-accidental and non-natural cause of death. It doesn't speak to the legal status of the person responsible. Possible outcomes of a homicide finding cause of death include justifiable homicide or capital murder. --DHeyward (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
While technically that is completely correct, I think the problem is that colloquially in America "homicide" is used to mean murder (used interchangeably in the popular culture in fact) which is actually a subset of homicide. Since this is a rather charged word, I think at the moment we might be better off sticking with gunshot which has no implications attached. (I actually had made that change earlier tonight before seeing this exchange just now, but am of course open to discussion - wasn't edit warring.) Tvoz/talk 08:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Gaijin is correct, for the simple fact that homicide is defined as "a person killing another person". Zimmerman fired the bullet that killed Martin. That is unambiguously homicidal. Whether it is specifically MURDEROUS (or, more likely, an act of manslaughter) is an independent legal question. In any case, we should call it what it is - homicide. Let people who disagree with this labeling do their own research to understand why it is appropriate and still neutral. - Drlight11 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Like it or not... this situation is an intentional killing. The law and society see it as such. It is NOT unintentional or accidental per George Zimmerman's statement of self-defense. Homicide is a prohibited act in all societies. However, if Zimmerman can show it was a case of either his life or Martin's, then it could be 'excused' or 'justified'. Homicide as a term may seem prejudicial, but it is a very accurate description of what occured. -- Avanu (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a "manner of death" and then a "cause of death". The manner of death is one of 5 classifications; accidental, natural, suicide, homicide, undetermined. The cause of death depends on the classification such as suicide by hanging, overdose, etc. Homicide would include by gunshot, knife stabbing, etc. So, Trayvon's "manner of death" is homicide and his "cause of death" is by gunshot. As the table reads right now with gunshot, it is correct. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV / inflammatory wording.

There's a lot of unsourced claims that sound like a media beat up, such as him asking neighbours to be on the look out for 'young black men who appear to be outsiders', along with other various sentences within this article. As I know nothing about this matter, beyond the fact that a lot of this stuff is unsourced, or at best is sourced from a tabloidal style news site, I really feel that a bit of conservative editing should be employed for now as details clarify to retain neutrality of POV. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you not see the footnote at the end of the paragraph that you are quoting? These are words directly from the Miami Herald, a well-respected newspaper, not a "tabloidal news site" as you claim. Sourced and appropriate. Please check next time before accusing. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 08:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
There are three pillars for a "reliable source", and sadly people have to keep repeating this all the time because of people like yourself who see "BIG NAME NEWS" and think that's sufficient.
The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.
In addition, we also must worry about the Biographies of Living Persons standard for an article like this. So please don't sass another editor with an I know better attitude. Stick with policy here. -- Avanu (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Avanu, I'm quite familiar with both RS and BLP policy. The other editor accuses the article of being generally unsourced and specifies some wording, implying that it is unsourced, but which is directly sourced to The Miami Herald. Are you saying that this particular article in the Herald is not a reliable source? If so, I'd like to know why you and the other editor are drawing that conclusion. Tvoz/talk 17:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources - Comparison to Emmett Till

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it's been raised in the general media, it would be appropriate in the 'reactions' section.--DeknMike (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No doubt whatsoever that he said "fucking coons".

Watch. Repeated multiple times. Nowhere close to sounding anything like "clueless", "course", or "punks". Rimmer7 (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  • We have to rely on secondary sources. Wait till a news article comes out saying this. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a significant element in the mens rhea of the pursuit and killing of a black teen; waiting until a news article comes out saying it is merely putting off the obvious when in this case I doubt anyone would question the clarity of the comment. Further, Young Turks is as much as news source as a legacy media source. I would suggest including it, at present there is inflammatory unsourced stuff implying the shooter had a racial motive perhaps, or at least a prejudice. Those should be cleared up and replaced with something far more damning such as this. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

    • Actually, Zimmerman's alleged comment does not in any sense either indicate mens rea or suggest prejudice against a race of people; his comments do, however, seem to reflect frustration for his having been inconvenienced.
    • Whatever Zimmerman uttered, it is no more evidence of homicidal intent than is the frustrated husband who describes his wife as a "wicked bitch" (which also doesn't indicate he's a misogynist) or the exasperated wife who refers to her mate as a "whore-hopping dog" (which also neither indicates that she's a misandrist nor that either whores or her husband have engaged in bestiality).
    • Some people when injured through their own clumsiness or negligence are silent; others with various degrees of loudness utter "Ouch!" or some similar expression, but exclamations of "Fuck Me!" aren't as uncommon as mannerly people would like to believe. Nevertheless, no reasonable person believes the latter utterance is a genuine request: it's only purpose is to harmlessly vent and diffuse stress. (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • We have to wait until a news article comes out. WP:V says that verifiability, not truth, is the criterion for inclusion. If you want to ask if The Young Turks is an RS, please make an entry at Wikipedia:RS_noticeboard WhisperToMe (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
If it was "obvious" enough for WP, there would not be dissension. You could argue those who disagree with TYT have ulterior motives, and thus are not reliable, but that analysis would run afoul of WP:OR. WP does not exist to posit arguments, only to record verified facts. - Drlight11 (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you folks reading the article and looking at the sources, or are you just throwing comments here about what you think should or shouldn't be in the article without regard to what actually is in the article? We have this accurately and appropriately covered, with sourcing to Mother Jones which is a perfectly fine, reliable secondary source. Am I missing something here? Tvoz/talk 08:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
And PS - Young Turks is a cable news show which would certainly be considered a reliable source, but we don't need it here because we already have it covered from Mother JOnes. Tvoz/talk 08:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed with all of Tvoz's points. The blurb is appropriate as written. WP is not here to make conclusions, just to report the verified facts, and the only verified fact is that MOST analysis finds the quote to be "f***ing c**ns". The audio is available on the page, it is up to readers who want to fully rely on WP to listen to it and form their own conclusions. From my perspective, though, it is so apparent to me he said FC that I have to believe dissenters are either trying very hard to give Zimmerman a fair chance of defending himself, or are otherwise desperately biased. - Drlight11 (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  • By the way, how do you have a "reliable source" for something that we cannot clearly hear or identify? I have a personal example where I was retelling a story to a waitress and mentioned that 'the manager of a Walgreens was a hassle'. The waitress gave me a very strange look and myself and the person with me asked her what she thought she just heard because her face showed that she was somewhat in shock. The waitress THOUGHT I said that the manager was an asshole. We all laughed about it, and went on. For all we know, as George Zimmerman was running, he had to climb over some cones obstructing his path and muttered an annoyed expletive about it, or maybe he didn't even cuss at all, and we just think it sounds like the F word. The point is... the audio is unclear, and if a source DECLARATIVELY says it knows what was said, it is probably just lying. We need to strive for accuracy in cases like this. The key part of this interaction is obscured, we don't know exactly what happened at the exact moment of the shooting. I will agree that he shouldn't have pursued this boy, and that it is a terrible thing that happened, but there's enough controversy without us having to add to it by hearing things that we can't verify and that no one can. -- Avanu (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
There's a lot of speculation going on and I think the case is at a point where no new information may be forthcoming until court is convened. Even google's new headlines in regards to all this seem to struggle to reveal anything new and with lawyers and courts involved, there's gonna be a lot more things that can't or won't be said because of that.Darter9000 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a more fair and un-biased statement could just simply acknowledge the fact there is speculation about what he said, without using the inflammatory phrase "fucking coon".

-- Echo this sentiment. There is disagreement on the facts. Some people claim they here it, others claim confirmation bias. This is a disputed fact and must be described as such in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A part of what Zimmerman said on the tape is unclear. Some have heard an ethnic slur while others dispute that contention. The alleged ethnic slur occurs at approximately 2:21 - 2:23, after he says back entrance, on the call.

At this point in the investigation there is no reliable source definitively stating that Zimmerman is a racist. In fact, there is more reliable sources stating that he is not a racist. His father stated he is not a racist. His neighbor Frank Taafe has said publicly that he is not a racist. A black friend, Joe Oliver stated publicly he is not a racist. His lawyer stated he is not a racist and had mentored a black youth before. On Zimmerman's initial call to the PD, he stated a "real suspicious guy" and then said "this guy" again before the dispatcher asked him specifically if he could identify the race of the guy, "white, black or hispanic". Including the inflamatory phrase "fucking coons" is bias against Zimmerman and gives the reader the impression he is a racist. The call to police is included in a link on the page and the reader should be allowed to make their own determination as to whether or not he made an ethnic slur.Isaidnoway (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What we have is an unintelligible remark that some have wanted to be a racial slur. In that he was heading back to his truck it just as easily could have been 'keys' or 'toes' or something unrelated. It is not the purview of Wikipedia to interpret what was said, but only to report and summarize the most accurate reliable source of what happened and was said. To say definitively what he said based on your own interpretation is OR.--DeknMike (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You have to be very careful about these things. When you have audio that is difficult to make out, if you've been primed by being told what you're about to hear, you are much more likely to hear it. And once you've heard it that's all you'll hear on repeat listens. I hear "coons", but I was told before I listened to it that that's what it said, so I cannot reliably attest to what the audio says.

I would also add that the Young Turks are not a reliable media source. They have included many false assertions in their material, including conspiracy theories such as Iran holding hostages until Reagan came into office to cause Carter to loose the 1980 election. They are more of an opinion/analysis outfit than a primary source for information. They don't even gather their information, so it makes no sense to reference them rather than the sources they reference. Mark Sanford (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Distance to nearby 7-11 stores

The closest 7-11 to the tract is on Rinehart north of the west lake, about 0.7 mi in a westerly direction. Other stores in the area are near First, over a mile to the north ( knoodelhed (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What's your point - please be specific. Tvoz/talk 08:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This might help someone not familiar with the area better understand how long TM might have been away from the tract. knoodelhed (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. This is a talk page, not a place to make random comments with no context or purpose. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

witness/eye witness and such

If any witnesses are talked about in any capacity, it should be made clear if these witnesses were actually EYEwitnesses -- people who saw something versus those who only heard things. Whatzinaname (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


I was going to edit the article, but apparently that is blocked for now. The opening sentences refer to Mr. Zimmerman as being of "mixed ethnicity," and parenthetically note that he is of "Latino and white." This implies that one cannot have a Spanish surname and be white, an obvious absurdity. Latino and white can be synonymous, so to say that one is a mixture of "Latino and white" is like saying one is a mixture of "Oregonian and white." Mr. Zimmerman does in fact not appear to be caucasian, and I understand his mother is Peruvian. If his race is important, then the article shoud state that he is of mixed ethnicity (Peruvian Indian and white). (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as the U.S. census goes, "white" is a race while "Hispanic" is an ethnicity. Being a white Hispanic person is neither multi-racial nor multi-ethnic. Currently the article says multi-ethnic, but I see no reason why should stay that way. Simply saying he is white and Hispanic presents the same information without forcing an incorrect adjective into the sentence. Chris3145 (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Changed Obama quote to focus on parental, not racial aspect.

The Obama quote, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" is not as good as "When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids, and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this." Out of context this could be used as a racial matter. Which was noted in a statement by Senior White House adviser David Plouffe. [5] Both quotes are valid, but for the purpose of context and trying to convey the correct sense of the tragedy as not a racial one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? This is all about Race. Nothing else. WTF does parenting have to do with any of this? You're just cherrypicking there. (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Saying that it's only about Race and nothing else would be speculative. While the parental aspect has been advocated by a statement from the White House, you'd need some sort of reference that would suggest that the White House meant something different. (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
However, the majority of the news outlets have used the 'he would look like Trayvon' quote, and for us to not use it is a disservice. It is permissible to link to the full speech, or to a newsworthy interpretation that the comment is not racially-motivated. It is not permissible for us to make that call.--DeknMike (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the problem here is in using either part of the full quote. Neither is what the president was trying to say. What he was trying to say, he did say, in the entirety of the quote. By paraphrasing it in either direction you are diluting it. Both sentences should be used with a link to the full speech. Requesting this change. (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Use the full quotation, no brainer. (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama quote in lead

I know it's about the tragedy, but is his quote really needed? I mean it just seems so random, the entire lead talks in general about the tragedy then, BAM! A quote by Obama. Wouldn't a quote by the boy's parents be more appropriate for the lead and move the Obama quote to like a "Reaction" section? CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 20:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. It fits perfectly in the paragraph where it is, describing the reaction and attention of the case, and doesn't disrupt anything. The only way I can see it being disturbing to a person is if the person can't stand seeing an Obama quote, which I'm sure is unreasonable for a person to feel. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 21:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I feel it's out of place, can't there be a quote from someone closer to the tragedy in the lead? Maybe Al Sharpton who's actually been there at rally's or the boy's mom or dad. Not Obama who's only heard details while he's busy running a country and a re-election campaign. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 21:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The President of the United States released a statement regarding the recent deployment of federal investigators from the Justice Department to this case. I disagree with your characterization because this story has become a highly emotional and centered story in the country, and the President, as Head of State, has a duty to ensure the well-being of and the order in the public. The quote is worth noting where it stands. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 21:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I get that he's head of state, I do. But that doesn't change that he himself personally wasn't connected to the tragedy. A quote from a person it affected would be better suited and move Obama's quote to a new "Reaction" section. I'm not saying get rid of it, just move it to where it can be grouped with other reactions. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 21:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it should taken out of the lead but I do agree that it should be added to a reactions section, probably the Official Statement section. I'll add it. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 22:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when I saw it there as well, it does seem out of place for a statement by the President. The President didn't address the nation about this shooting, he was asked a question by a reporter and he responded. His statement should definetely be included, but there has been alot of other high-profile people making statements as well. I think a new section under AFTERMATH could address some of these things. For instance the Miami Heat put out a picture of the team all wearing hoodies in support. Diddy, Frank Ocean, Nelly, Roland Martin of CNN, Jane Velez Mitchell of HLN, Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC have all wore hoodies on the air in support. The Million Hoodie March led by Al Sharpton could be moved here as well, instead of in the racial section. Other cities like Philadelphia, Portland and Atlanta have all had hoodie rallies as well. College students at Newark and other colleges have done the same. Even a group of congressional staffers appeared on Capitol Hill wearing hoodies in support. Geraldo Rivera has made controversial comments about the hoodie and sparked a debate about stereotyping people who wear them. In addition to the President's remarks, the current crop of GOP candidates all released statements as well. It's something to think about, isn't it? Oh, I forgot about the petition at calling for his arrest and the controversy with The New Black Panthers stating they were going to do a citizen's arrest.Isaidnoway (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Also agree it should be removed from the lead. AIRcorn (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I had removed it but since I did it was re-added. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 02:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Took it out of the lead, will see if it sticks. It might work in "Investigations and other official statements" where it can be given some context. AIRcorn (talk)

I utterly disagree - the intro summarizes the article and the reaction is a major part of the story; when the President comments on a story it is very significant and I believe it is appropriate for the lead. Tvoz/talk 03:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The reaction of the President along with anybody else's reaction should be included in the Aftermath part of this article. I agree it is significant and should definetely be included, but as you point out the intro is a summary of the article and the article is about the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, and the lead should only state the summary of the actual shooting.Isaidnoway (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It should not be in the lead. He is unrelated to the subject and made a comment on the shooting; for a lead paragraph which is summary of the article the entire quote should not be included. The current version is better, but not perfect. Looks like some over wikifying, but it could be fixed up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


"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)..." Charges were dropped and the incident wasn't related. Policy dictates that it should be removed. (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not obvious in the way the photo is presented that it is a "mug" shot. It is a photograph that is available, and has been widely used in media reports. It would be nice to have a better photo. If you like, we could photoshop the orange shirt to be a different color, but I don't see a particularly disparaging image. Maybe it should be renamed, rather than being "mugshot" and the caption might be removed. -- Avanu (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I did not even know it was a mugshot until it was reported in the media. I think the only reason they were using it is because it was the only one they could find at the time. I have only seen two others. One of him at a pary, and one at mediaite. A newer one would be nice though. (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious to anyone who has ever watched the news since at least the 1980s that this is a mugshot. It is also obvious from the filename. (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with the photos, however I do strongly question the inclusion of ht, wt, nickname, and parents. How is that justified, especially the height and weight? Gandydancer (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed the photo of Zimmerman per WP:MUG; I'm not sure why the other profile information is justified like weight or height. I'll leave it for now, but I think it should be deleted as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

See the section on size difference (above in this talk page) for more depth into why height / weight is relevant. In order to establish a self defense case one of the considerations is would a reasonable person feel similarly threatened. In this case, the shooter is over 100 pounds larger than the deceased whom is a minor. (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

He has not yet been charged with a crime and height and weight which are irrelevant to the matter of the shooting. It unencyclopedic or necessary information. Why not Lady Gaga's weight and height? I'd say the same thing about religious beliefs. Not once have I heard that his religious beliefs influenced the public outcry, but yet that is here too. Which is why I am against the inclusion of such material. But this is getting off topic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a less inflammatory picture of Zimmerman published by a Florida news outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Can somebody please put this picture of Zimmerman in where the other picture was? It is indeed a much better picture of him and less prejudicial than a mugshot.

As for people's comments about why the various bits of information in the infoboxes was necessary--those are actually standard fields within the infoboxes. It's not odd to include them at all, it's common. QuizzicalBee (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

QuizzicalBee - first, this edit summary by you is quite wrong - the infoboxes were not removed by a vandal, they were replaced by me with an event infobox which I think is more appropriate for an article about an event, and this is being discussed on this talk page, above and below this thread (presently #9 "infobox" and 59.1 "infoboxes" and perhaps in other threads). An "infobox person" of course could include data like height, religion, etc, but you are missing the point that the infobox-person is not appropriate for this article, and that form is causing all of these disputes. The infobox should be a snapshot of what the article is about - in this case, a shooting - not a history of the people who were shot or did the shooting. This is not a biography. And it is further complicated by the inherent problems in the photos that have been used with people seeing POV on both sides. Tvoz/talk 17:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal issues section is one sided

The stand your ground law also applies to Martin, not just to Zimmerman. If Zimmerman was following Martin and the law doesn't apply to him, it could still appy to Martin, allowing him to defend himself against Zimmerman intruding on his space. So, it seems to me that the stand your ground law will make it more difficult for Zimmerman to defend himself against a charge of unlawful killing. Count Iblis (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting speculation. Do you have any references for this? Also, any references on how the law would apply to Martin initiating the altercation? Reports and the Zimmerman call indicate he was following from a distance, that Martin approached him and spoke before running away, and that Zimmerman broke off pursuit after the dispatcher asked him to. Second set of calls do not mention who initiated the final altercation, though some reports say Martin jumped Zimmerman when Z exited his vehicle to check a street sign, and after taking a beating Z retrieved his weapon and fired at his attacker. Police report so far has justified this account.--DeknMike (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the whole SYG section should be revised to merely show that in the initial stages of when national media picked up the story, they were the ones who speculated that SYG may be used in this case and has since sparked a debate about those kind of laws, specifically in Florida. Zimmerman's attorney has gone on record stating that SYG is not applicable in this case and they will be relying on a self-defense strategy. My legal take on this is that the prosecutor will only have to show that lethal force was not justified in the shooting and since Zimmerman is the one who created the environment in which the confrontation took place, he cannot claim self-defense. I think the Sanford PD made a mistake in relying in part on the anonymous witness who said he saw Martin beating him up and Zimmerman was the one yelling for help. He didn't say he saw Martin using lethal force against Zimmerman, and it would seem that Zimmerman was in control of his weapon since he managed to get to it and shoot him.Isaidnoway (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


This goes for all of Wikipedia too, but why can't you do a code like this and have a video pop up?


Just wondering, as that seems bizarre for me that such an advanced internet resource cannot even display videos. Be peaceful. Be a Dalai Lama. (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The wikipedia software (wikimedia) is capable of displaying videos. Wikipedia has disabled it by choice. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
We rarely link to YouTube videos. Most are either not reliable sources, or are copyright infringement. On the rare occasion a YT video has a legit place in an article, we treat it just like any other [[WP:CITE|citation[/url]. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

New details

I found this article about Trayvon that portrays him in a little different light that we have seen in the mainstream media. Not sure if the site itself is a reliable source, but the links in the article seem to point to reliable sources such as twitter, myspace, facebook and google cache.Isaidnoway (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wagist blog post

No, actually none of those are reliable sources - facebook, twitter, myspace and google - and Wagist, as a blog, is also not considered a reliable source, so this would not be an acceptable source. It's all speculation and what we would consider to be OR anyway - he had a tattoo of his mother's name is some kind of evidence of something? There is enough to contend with here from reliable sources. We also should be mindful of BLP policy - yes, recent deaths are covered by our policies, especially when there could be implications regarding living relatives and friends. So I'm collapsing this section. Tvoz/talk 05:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
That link also takes you to this which seems like it might fall in the Reliable Source category. Apparently the local news station spoke with a witness who claims to have clearly seen most of the actual altercation. -- Avanu (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Eye witness testimony which fits with official police point of view and so far the only eye witness testimony in the case. Backed by other claims from the police, the lawyer and sources that state Zimmerman suffered injuries during a fight before the shooting. A second eye witness hasn't had their police statement released, from reports. Considering we have reports that even Martin's father stated the voice on the 911 tape was not his son. Considering the medical attention Zimmerman recieved their clearly was a fight before the shooting, Zimmerman didn't just go out and execute Trayvon Martin after the 911 call. The previous blog post, is OR and is not verifiable, it must be fact-checked and reported by a reliable news source; BLP issues abound with that site. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
That link to the story "witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman" is just a rehash of a story done by FOX Orlando on Feb 27. If you listen/read carefully, you'll note that the witness never makes a claim to who initiated the fight, just that he saw a fight in progress, so the claim of "attacking" in the later story is highly questionable. Really makes me question FOX Tampa Bay in fact as a "reliable source", since all they did was take an old story and add the "attacked" spin to it. (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The infobox

Can we make up our minds what infobox we're gonna use? I'm tired of loading the page ever 20 minutes or so and finding a different infobox. I'm sure it's confusing the readers too. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 08:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The info box list his cause of death as homicide. That is not correct language. There is a "manner of death" and then a "cause of death". The manner of death is one of 5 classifications; accidental, natural, suicide, homicide or undetermined which can be found here, under the section titled Forensic autopsy which specifically states that "In United States law, deaths are placed in one of five manners". The cause of death depends on the classification such as suicide by hanging, overdose, etc. Homicide would include by gunshot, knife stabbing, etc. So, Trayvon's "manner of death" is homicide and his "cause of death" is by gunshot. Change cause of death to manner of death or change gunshot to homicide.Isaidnoway (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Considering the SYG law and the fact charges have not yet been released I'm opting for cause of death as gunshot, but manner of death not be homicide. Placing it as homicide when no official charges have been brought would accuse Zimmerman of a crime for which he has not been convicted of. Three days ago another instance of SYG law hit Florida where a man shot another man and while that is listed as 'death by gunshot' no charges have been filed in that case either. Homicide implies legal ramifications others will state it as 'justifiable homicide'. The manner of death is best left out for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
CG - the cause of death is definately "the killing of one human being by another", which is the verbatim definition of homicide. There is no question that Treyvon is dead, neither is their any question that Zimmerman killed him with a shot from a handgun. The only question is whether or not Z is liable under the law for the killing. Self-defense is what's called an "affirmative defense" which, if correct, absolves one of responsibility. Please do not confuse legal culpabilty (not yet determiend in this case) to the known and accepted fact that one human being killed another - homicide. (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I specifically mentioned that point in my own comment. The association of homicide to Zimmerman could be misinterpreted that Zimmerman has been charged with homicide when he has not been charged with any crime. While classification is logicial and proper, the term homicide is negatively associated with the crime of homicide. Even if you leave the manner of death out, the cause of death can be substituted without using the inflammatory term of homicide. Its like arguing the definition of piracy, the term depending on legal matters can both mean actual historical piracy or someone making a copy of CD. One carries the death penalty the other doesn't. Let's not go asserting material which begs for misinterpretation and jumping to conclusions about the case before charges are pressed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
CG - I strongly disagree with your reasoning. This is not a question of conflicting or misinterpreted facts, such as might be the case in a single-car collision with no witnesses - in other words, why did the car crash? What was the cause? The simple, undeniable truth here is that Treyvon died as a result of a homicide - he was killed by another person. And refusal to view that fact correctly, distorts the preceptions of the readers. If you are concerned that the term "homicide" might be misinterpreted, then the correct thing to do is to link to something which explains the word. Homicide is not a word which varies in meaning based on context for "cause of death"; it does and only means "the killing of one human being by another". It's improper to hide from the most correct usage, simply because you feel that some people might misunderstand it. I do not misunderstand the word "homicide" and I doubt that anyone interested enough to read this article will either. (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This is 100% homicide, without a single question, or shred of doubt. Not all homicides are criminal. It is absolutely not misleading to say trayvons killing was homicide. That says nothing about the guilt, culpability, etc of zimmerman. [[6]]. All self defense killings, war deaths, executions, police shootings, etc are homicides. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"Homicide" is a legal term, and carries legal connotations. Not everything you list is always a homicide. Manslaughter is the term used for unintentional killings. Equating every human-caused death with homicide is stretching the definition of the word. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
HTF - You are spreading disinformation. Homicide means "the killing of one human being by another". If you can't accept this simple fact as true, then you should recuse yourself from editing this article. Please stop fixating on legal culpability, that's not the issue. The issue is that that the word "Homicide" means "the killing of one human being by another". Read the link provided by Gaijin42. (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Which infobox format to use

There are two separate questions: one is which infobox template should we be using and the other is what details go into it. I have made the point repeatedly that this article is not a biography of two people, it is a news event - like Death of Caylee Anthony, 2011 Tucson shootings, and others. We are running into problems of POV regarding the photos and arguments about what details belong in the infobox, and much of this can be avoided by using the proper form, which I think is the news event template. No one has advanced an argument against that here - canwe please have a discussion? Perhaps we need to get some outside advice on this. Tvoz/talk 17:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Use neither - this is not a biography and the bio boxes are inappropriate, the homicide/death infobox has problems too. Use {{Infobox news event}} - although there is no real need for an infobox. They tend to cause unnecessary argument. --Errant (chat!) 00:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Use the event Infobox or no infobox. This is not a biography, it avoids issues with photos and two infoboxes quite frankly look ugly. Reading through some of the discussion above there has been no good argument put forward for the individual infoboxes. AIRcorn (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both - I'm fine with no infobox too, or the news event one. Anyone else? Tvoz/talk 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Concur with Aircorn and Tvoz. Nil Einne (talk)


The first paragraph in the section Aftermath should include "investigators from the Sanford police department" instead of just "investigators". It is still being investigated by other agencies and this generic term is confusing. Tracy Martin's claim of the police responding that Zimmerman had a "squeaky clean record" has been disputed by a statment on the City of Sanford's website, and should be included to provide balance to the claim of Tracy Martin . The Sanford PD stated they knew about Zimmerman's past record.Isaidnoway (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Extraneous Information

Does the sentence in the first section "Many people, from civil rights leaders to public officials – including Reverend Al Sharpton,[19] President Barack Obama[20] and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi[21] – have made public comments or released statements about the shooting." really need to be in the article? I am sure there are many other people that have spoken out on this topic. It just seems that a sentence like this begs for the neutrality question. Dolomite501 (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This sentence is 100% better than the previous one and is factually correct. I see no bias in the way the sentence is written.Isaidnoway (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You are correct that many other people have spoken out, but these people are either exceptionally notable, or will potentially have an impact on the direction the case takes, and so their statements are significantly notable. Also, in the lead, no content of their statement is included, so that is certainly not causing any neutrality issues. If you want to expand some pro-zimmerman quotes, which are well soured, and preferably from highly notable people, into the statements area, then feel free. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Joe Oliver would be a good source as a family friend. He commented on the matter of race specifically in regards to Zimmerman. Zimmerman may be painted as a cold-blooded racist killer in most media, but the facts of the case and eyewitness testimony, his attorney and the police reports all report another side of the story. For a man who cried for days after the shooting and who received medical attention for his wounds whose uttering of 'coon' has been heard as 'goon' and whose own community has had a rash of criminal activity, Zimmerman seems to be an overzealous defender who got into a situation he was incapable of handling and ultimately ended up killing Treyvon. Here are some links. [7], [8], [9] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Joe Oliver has been the only voice really defending Zimmerman in the press recently and gave a revealing Interview with George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America on Monday.Isaidnoway (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
A quote from oliver is already in the defense of zimmerman section. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Right - the point in the intro is about high profile public figures who have made statements about this and it has proper weight. Comments by family friends are properly handled in the article and should be added to as found, but they are not relevant to the sentence in the intro which is NPOV and clear. Tvoz/talk 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

They always make statements. It's a good platform. Not really relevant unless they say something that gets picked up as notable or controversial. In the lead it is just name dropping. --Errant (chat!) 00:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Info Box is Misleading: COD should be Justifiable Homicide

There are different types of homicide, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable and accidental homicide, among others.

Given that Zimmerman was released because the police could find no evidence to contradict his claim of self-defense, why shouldn't the COD be described as Justifiable Homicide?


In the interests of precision and avoiding giving the reader misleadning information, I propose the info box list Justifiable Homicide as the COD until there is a reason not to. Or, in the alternative, I propose the info box use language such as "disputed shooting," or something to that effect, in the COD field.

Even though there are different types of homicide, it common parlance the word Homicide connotes murder. (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We definitely can't state "justifiable" in the COD as it has yet to be proven. However, I understand the IP's concern. Technically, "homocide" covers criminal and justifiable and, on paper, may seem NPOV. But I think most people equate homocide with criminal homocide, not justifiable homocide. Seeing as this will not be resolved until either a trial is completed or there is a semi-final decision not to attempt a trial, I don't think waiting for the courts to define the term is a great option. Do we know how similar incidents were treated? "Shooting"? I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is that homocide is NPOV and accurate, so we shouldn't change our policies based on the ignorance of the readership, but I think it is a question worth exploring.LedRush (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The first step should be determining whether the word "homicide" is even technically accurate. People seem to be assuming (reasonably enough) that it is. But who, exactly, other than layperson wikipedia editors and journalists who are not legal, police, or criminal specialists have deemed the Martin shooting a homicide? What is the source this word applies? So far, no one has given any evidence that the word homicide should apply here. In most states, the local authorities put the "cause of death" on the death certificate, and the local authorities in Florida have not issued a death certificate for Trayvon Martin, or stated his official cause of death. Although your suggestion to look at similar incidents is a good one, I doubt the use of the word homicide in other articles will be helpful. Most encylopedia articles dealing with homicides document events that are resolved rather than ongoing. It's a real problem because the main reason this event is noteworthy is because the type of homicide is under dispute. (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This is why we should say the cause of death is "gunshot" and not get into the weeds about the meaning of "homicide". This is discussed elsewhere on this talk page - the definition of homicide (the killing of one person by another) is apt, but it is a loaded term as it is colloquially used interchangeably with "murder", and would need to be qualified. Since we must remain neutral on whether this was murder, justifiable, accidental, or any other form of homicide, we are better off using the neutral description of the cause of death in that field - gunshot - until this is adjudicated. Tvoz/talk 18:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

i am ok with gunshot or homicide, and homicide is 100% correct, but I do see gunshot as less problematic. Justifiable homicide is completely wrong until an official judgement has been made from someone (or until statue o f limitation expires without charges perhaps?) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The statute of limitations on murder in all but one state is indefinite (meaning, there is none). I think an "official" end to the investigation with some kind of statement that it was justifiable homicide should be enough. However, gunshot is best in the infobox regardless.LedRush (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
good point on statute of limitations. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree gunshot is a good choice. It's accurate and neutral. (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The cause of death in gunshot wound. Anything else is someone's spin. (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The cause of death is fatal gunshot. The manner of death is homicide. Read this article on WP under Forensic autopsy.Isaidnoway (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If a person is dead, fatal is redundant. Also, he died from gunshot wound. Gunshot could cover someone having a heart attack because of a gunshot and dying.True Observer75.21.147.150 (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Again as per previous discussion, my belief is that we make it neutral until the official report comes out. The term is inflammatory and does create perspective. Homicide as a dictionary definition and homicide in the court of public opinion and perspective is radially different. We have cause of death and that is the only thing that matters. I'm all for gunshot being cause of death and no mention to murder, homicide or anything which could misrepresent that Zimmerman has not yet been charged as such. Lets not confuse medical terms which carry legal ramifications; Zimmerman has not been charged with homicide and editors have been striving to keep the inclusion of such terms off this page until such a charge has been made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin42, my impression is that there is a consensus here that the term "gunshot" is the most appropriate term *at this time* for the COD field. You said yourself you are OK with either. Can I ask are you going to change it? (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: Nevermind; I see someone changed it. (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the one who put "homicide" in the infobox, and I am OK with changing it to "gunshot," although no one disputes that it was a homicide. I should point out that before I made that edit, it said "shot by George Zimmerman."Bellczar (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

new details in zimmerman account

New details in what zimmerman described happening. If true, would be a plausible self defense "motive". I think this should be broken into its own section to distinguish it as zimmerman's alleged version of events, vs things that can be objectively shown from the 911 calls timeline etc.

 Done (self) I added this section, but others can clean it up if they dont like my wording. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Reuters article be added as a reference

The Article states that in Zimmerman's account to the police he said that Trayvon Martin slammed his head into the sidewalk multiple times, broke his nose, and attempted to grab his weapon.ITBlair (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

One more reference to add. It restates what the Reuter's article states. But notes that a "Watchman" corraborates Zimmmerman's account (i.e., that Trayvon Martin was hitting him). ITBlair (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon's weight unsupported by source

Any credible source of this information? If not it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The police report put him at 160, several RS have reported him at 140 (without saying how they got the information). Until the autopsy comes out, or some other official report, that is as good as we can get, but its certainly not going to be wide off the mark between the two estimates, and is helpful for people to judge relative threat/self defense issues. Since I am fairly sure those were actually footnoted, why not actually read the footnotes? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Nevermind, sorry! Still, the 160 figure seems more reliable.

Considering the article sourced for giving his weight doesn't give any reasoning for putting the 140 I agree that the 160 should be put up. While it is only an estimate, it is by a police officer and is also located in the actual police report. I don't know that any of it can be certain till the release of an autopsy report. Not sure how long that could be Lunaspike (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The 140 should stay. Police officers don't weigh dead bodies. Trayvon's weight was reported by his parents. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 20:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

False claim regarding 7-Eleven Store proximity to The Retreat at Twin Lakes

The present article wrongly states:

"Location The Retreat at Twin Lakes is a recently built private community in Sanford, Florida consisting of townhouses and condominiums. Vehicular access is by gates to the north and east, which are unguarded but electronically controlled. Several 7-Eleven stores exist within from 0.7 to 1.3 miles of the property.[42]"

Actually the 7-Eleven store nearest where Trayvon Martin drew his last breath is approximately 0.7 miles from the gate nearer that store, but between 0.9 and 0.96 miles from where Martin died. The store is #34198; it is located at 1125 Rinehart Rd, 32771.

The second nearest 7-Eleven store nearest where Trayvon Martin drew his last breath is approximately 1.97 miles from the gate nearer that store, but between 2.21 and 2.26 miles from where Martin died. The store is #34832; it is located at 101 S Oregon Ave, 32771.

The third nearest 7-Eleven store nearest where Trayvon Martin drew his last breath is approximately 2.07 miles from the gate nearer that store, but between 2.26 and 2.32 miles from where Martin died. The store is #34658; it is located at 4700 W State Road 46, 32771.

The fourth nearest 7-Eleven store nearest where Trayvon Martin drew his last breath is approximately 2.20 miles from the gate nearer that store, but between 2.26 and 2.41 miles from where Martin died. The store is #25882; it is located at 2700 West 25th St, 32771.

The fifth nearest 7-Eleven store nearest where Trayvon Martin drew his last breath is approximately 2.25 miles from the gate nearer that store, but between 2.44 and 2.50 miles from where Martin died. The store is #29920; it is located at 4085 W State Road 46, 32771.

The sixth nearest 7-Eleven store nearest where Trayvon Martin drew his last breath is approximately 2.32 miles from the gate nearer that store, but between 2.51 and 2.57 miles from where Martin died. The store is #33347; it is located at 4900 W State Road 46, 32771.

I have a list and could go on, but I think the point has been sufficiently made that there are in fact not "several" 7-Eleven stores "within from 0.7 to 1.3 miles of the property." In fact, there is only one 7-Eleven store that meets that criterion, and the second-nearest 7-Eleven store is more than three times the lesser distance claimed.

For verification, refer to a map of the area and to published addresses of 7-Eleven stores. Three streets comprise The Retreat at Twin Lakes gated community: Retreat View Circle, Twin Trees, and Long Oak Way. According to the claims of 9-1-1 callers, the shooting could have occurred in only one or the other of two areas inside the gated community: either behind the north-facing houses of Long Oak Way or behind the west-facing houses of Twin Trees; consequently, establishing maximum and minimum distances is a simple matter. (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering the actual source is original research and the store is never questioned. I think it would be fair to remove it entirely. Only blog posts have used Google Maps to chart the distance and the most probable route, but it is not confirmed he chose THAT 7-11 and no source states it by address. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

These are the coords of the north gate at The Retreat at Twin Lakes Community: 28°47′38″N 81°19′51″W / 28.7938°N 81.3308°W / 28.7938; -81.3308 (The Retreat at Twin Lakes Community in Sanford, Florida) and the coord of the 7-Eleven at 1125 Rinehart Rd 28°47′32″N 81°20′29″W / 28.792238°N 81.34142°W / 28.792238; -81.34142 (7-Eleven at 1125 Rinehart Rd, Sanford, Florida).

However this is all orginal research, but we could put the coords of the gated community in the article.

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be deleted because there is no credible source for Trayvon having gone to a 7-11, or any other store for that matter. This appears to have been made up just like the story about having left at half-time of the NBA All Star Game. True Observer75.21.147.150 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The matter of 7-11 has widely been reported by various sources. Which one was it, no one knows. As for the NBA matter, I don't see a source for it amidst all the NBA show of support. Anyone got a link? Google News isn't helping me any. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources tough to find now with the flood of articles. It was definately sourced previously. Here is what I can find. One possible explanation for confusion is that I have seen some (non rs) sources claming it was college basketball they were watching, which could explain the half-time discrepancy, but many sources do claim the NBA all star game. Not claiming the below sources are sufficiently RS,

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the NY Post one an opinion piece? That title is terrible. Yale Daily News is opinion. Telegram is opinion as well. Popsspot might not meet RS, but I think the NY Mag one is okay. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • None of the information I have seen specified which 7-Eleven Trayvon had allegedly visited; however, the current Wiki article indicates both (a) that Trayvon had gone to, and was returning from, a nearby convenience store, and (b) that such convenience store was/is a 7-Eleven. I indicated the closest 6 stores for 2 reasons: (A) to show the current text is easily disproved, and (B) to provide a small sample of reference stores similarly branded, with their respective addresses and distances. The reason this is important is because of the claim regarding what Martin had been doing:
    • A fit adult male human walks normally at speeds between 2.8 and 3.1 mph, with 3.0 being average among "Western" males; jogging increases the pace to 4.0 mph. This, together with the other evidence {you are reading the article, yes?} indicates if Trayvon had visited the nearest 7-Eleven, even if he went directly there and directly back without any distraction or delay, he would have spent 40 minutes walking in the rain at night without an umbrella or other rain gear. If he went to the sixth-nearest 7-Eleven, he would have spent nearly 2 hours walking.
    • Add to those numbers the time lost in the store, even if (incredibly) it's only a couple of minutes, and it becomes patently clear that Trayvon had no desire to watch the basketball game with his dad -- if, in fact, that is what he had been doing.
    • The condition of his clothing did not reflect cross-country hiking: either he floated supernaturally to and from the store, or he walked along public roads. There is no evidence he at any point during his final escapade occupied a vehicle as either a driver or a passenger. (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I know it may be irritation if not maddening, but Wikipedia cannot include original research or synthesis of materials. Until it is specifically cited as being a specific store it we cannot include it, even if everything is logical. WP:OR and WP:Synth are clear about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • If true, then the present material so indicating (supra) in the article should be immediately deleted. Else, it's just partisan propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, consider this quote from the article, which is sourced to an opinion piece: "During a break in an NBA basketball game on TV, Martin left his father's fiance's home in the gated community of Twin Lakes to walk to a nearby 7-Eleven convenience store to buy some Skittles. While returning to the house, Trayvon was seen by George Zimmerman,[48] ...."
    • Again, if what you are saying is actually Wikipedia policy and you're not editing to promote your own opinion, then the above quote which leads the "Shooting" section should be eliminated. There is no credible evidence that Trayvon was at Green's house at any time that day, especially as has been frivolously claimed in the current version of this article: it's ALL opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
We can't do OR. News sources can. We repeat what news sources say. They might be wrong. Verifiability, not truth. the statements in the shooting section (and others) have been widely reported in many RS, so they are included, even though some of what they say may be THEIR OR or SYNTH or conjecture. Such is the way of wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No one can edit it right now. The page is protected. Though he was at his father's house, timelines have been released and the majority of sources state 7-11, but the basketball one I have not found. I'd gladly cite the sources if able to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 March 2012

Re: "The New Black Panther Party has offered a $10,000 reward for the abduction of George Zimmerman."

My edit describing the article's use of the word "abduction" as a euphemism for the word the media uses, "capture" was reverted for RS as to the term "euphimism." I believe the two positions can be reconciled as follows: While I agree that a "capture" of an uncharged person by non law-enforcement personnel amounts to an "abduction" ... The term is one the MS media is using. And so unfortunately, it is the term with "reliable sources" behind it. I propose instead, using the following under the existing citation:

"The New Black Panther Party has offered a $10,000 reward for the "capture" of George Zimmerman, an event which if perpetrated, would be tantamount to an abduction." Gmw112252 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be WP:SYNTH unless you can find an RS saying its tantamount to abduction, we cant use it. You might also look for "dead or alive" which was reported in non-RS sources, but if an RS is talking about it would be a good add. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • A citizen's arrest clearly does not apply to these circumstances. The person has to have committed a felony in their presence. No legal protections are afforded to citizens and it runs afoul of vigilantism. He is not on the run, he is in hiding for his life and retains legal counsel. He may or may not already be under the protection of law enforcement due to the circumstances regarding the case; it is clear a great many people would take the law into their own hands given the chance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Found a source. [10] When a Sentinel reporter asked if he was inciting violence, Muhammad said, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." In the same article which links to the paper, "The City is requesting calm heads and no vigilante justice,' the statement said. 'Attempts by civilians to take any person into custody may result in criminal charges or unnecessary violence." Another link to the article.[11] Given the statement, yes the change should reflect that it may result in criminal charges like all vigiliantism. Change abduction to: ""The New Black Panther Party has offered a $10,000 reward for the "capture" of George Zimmerman, an event which the perpetrators could face criminal charges." Then cite the source which corresponds with the law. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Good source, and definitely can be used to flesh out that detail, but I dont think it supports the actual request made by the OP above as it does not talk about capture being a euphemism for abduction. We can say that the police warned against vigilante justice, and that when asked for confirmation the speaker said "eye for an eye" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The group is entitled to their statements and 'bounty' is a preferred form published by reliable sources. Even though it does state 'capture'. Considering that they are issuing leaflets with 'Wanted: Dead or Alive" this is clearly inciting vigilantism. The response has even been denounced by Rev. Jesse Jackson. [12] Also in that same article the "New Black Panther Party has been designated a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti-Defamation League." I'd put this as an extremist view considering their classification of the group and the denouement from leading civil rights members of the community. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you in casual conversation. However, for the purpose of inclusion in the encyclopedia, we cannot do the OR/SYNTH/Analysis. AFAIK, the dead or alive flyers have _not_ been talked about in RS. If they have I think they would be a great addition to the article. The bounty can be included, and incitement to vigilanism can be included as per the NPR ref. But the OP request is not supported by the source. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The flyers have been talked about, specifically for dead or alive. This one has a poster in its article picture. [13] The clip comes from Fox affiliate WOFL Orldando, Florida meets RS when interviewing Jesse Jackson which specifically mentions the dead or alive posters. Even as a snippet, the interview confirms with plenty of other sources that the posters were released. The Examiner urls are blocked here, but I prefer Jesse Jackson's comments as he is notable for many reasons. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with ChrisGualtieri, they can't perform a citizen's arrest no more than you or I can. I realize it is out there being reported on by RS, but this is nothing more than hyperbole.Isaidnoway (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Technically anyone CAN perform a citizen's arrest, but not under these circumstances and those who do such acts are not exempt from criminal charges and are legally liable for any action they do take. Said instances are rare and are not manhunts; it is like locking an intruder of your home in some room and preventing their escape until the police arrive, or stopping a fugitive who just murdered an individual and they are detained by citizens. A citizen's arrest is exceptional and rare. The NBPP 'bounty' is basically inciting vigilantism for that reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems clear this lacks consensus so while I'm not an admin, I've removed the template request for now. Free free to re-add the request if consensus is reached and the request is still needed. 01:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Biased media refuses to show current pics of Martin with gold teeth and tattoos

The biased mainstream media keeps showing a very old, outdated pictuyre of Treyvon Martin from his childhood. His current pictures from Twitter and Myspace show that he has gold teeth and tattoos, and that his chosen screen name is a racial slur. source 6ty4e (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Unreliable source, while its contents may or may not be true it has not been picked up by the media and while it does consist of original research and the evidence is circumstantial, it also preceded the pot controversy which made national news. Even if it is all true, most of it will not meet other wikipedia criteria. The article serves only to attack Martin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Now that Zimmerman's version of the shooting is coming out, I have noticed several RS are starting to post that pic of him grinnng from ear to ear. I guess they have bashed him enough in the media, now it's Martin's turn under the spotlight.Isaidnoway (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Pcis will probalby eventually get picked up by media. If talked about in the media, then we can use them. Media is unlikely to do significant meta-discussion about its own bias/censoring, so that will be very difficult to get into the article. Until such time as RS start talking about those other pics, or drug dealing, etc, it is not fit for the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Martin's own words labeling himself "NO LIMIT NIGGA" are not reliable? Since when? They will only serve to attack Martin? Both of those claims are unsupported subjective opinion. Think it through. Martin himself made a conscious choice to describe himself using the language No Limit Nigga, so clearly Martin did not regard the label as a perjorative or as disparaging. Your position, if true, would mean Martin disparaged himself, which makes no sense. Furthermore, the racial angle is part of what makes this story notable.The article contains plenty of commentary about Zimmerman's and the police's possible racism. In point of fact, Trayvon Martin is the only person for which there is evidence he used slurs. This makes Martin's use of slur notable, I would think. (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
His Twitter tag shouldn't be associated with him on this article. The reporting source is unreliable and even if it is true serves no purpose other then to negatively characterize Martin. The page is currently protected over the suspension for pot issue. Let's not pour gasoline and light a match to his personal life over a blog post consisting of original research and synthesis of various matters. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think its pretty obvious that the twitpic/twitter/myspace etc are his. However, we should not include it, and certainly should not place any meaning on it, until it has been done in RS. Im sure this will come to light eventually, and then it will be grounds for inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  • His chosen screen name on twitter is not a racial slur. It is a common slang term used amongst the african-american community, especially with young black youths. Remember "homey" and "brother", it's the same difference. I can't believe you haven't heard it before. It's not racist and would not portray Martin in a negative light. The pics and the tattoos are a non-issue as well. For crying out loud, I have a tat myself. Having said that, I agree it should not be included unless for some bizarre reason, a RS decides to make an issue of it. Even then it's questionable as to relevancy. I think the tweets he shared with his friends are more relevant than his screen name or pics of him with a tattoo. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant, not usable. And we are not responsible for what the "biased media" do or don't do as in the header of this section - please take your complaints to the blogs, not this talk page, and stick to talking about how to improve the article. Tvoz/talk 06:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal issues -- statutes

In the section, "Legal issues," the statement "Florida law prohibits arresting a suspect who claims self defense, unless it has probable cause to show the force used was unlawful, and awards damages, repayment of lost income, court costs, attorneys fees if an arrest is made, and the suspect is later found immune to prosecution due to the self-defense statute." links to the Florida statute.

This is a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of the original Florida statute, which is WP:OR and doesn't belong there. (I think it should go in the "External links" section.) There are lots of WP:RSs which describe that Florida law and should be cited instead.

There are many reasons for not allowing Wikipedia editors to interpret or even quote original legal statutes. One important reason is that the law, as written in the statute, is often reinterpreted or reversed by the courts. Another reason is that laymen often misinterpret statutes. But it doesn't make any difference. It's WP:OR. --Nbauman (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, the statute I quoted says almost EXACTLY what I put into the article. There are many RS talking about the stand your ground portion, but I was not able to find any talking about the prohibition of arrest part. Happy to use one if can be found. In the meantime, the statute text is not ambiguoous, and I almost quoted it. Would be happy to change to an actual quote from the statute if you want. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
If you can't find any sources discussing it in the context of the shooting then it sounds like a classic case of WP:Syn Nil Einne (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
How is it synth? It is one source. it is a primary source, sure. but in no way did I do OR or SYNTH. put THE EXACT TEXT FROM THE SOURCE in , and it says exactly the same thing. Did you even bother to read the ref? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Using a primary source like that is a clear cut case of WP:Syn unless the primary source (statute) mentions the shooting of Trayvon Martin which I don't need to read the source to know it doesn't. Nil Einne (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Direct quote from statute "As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1)."

my text in article "Florida law prohibits arresting a suspect who claims self defense, unless it has probable cause to show the force used was unlawful, and awards damages, repayment of lost income, court costs, attorneys fees if an arrest is made, and the suspect is later found immune to prosecution due to the self-defense statute."

I defy you to find any meaningful difference between those two, and further defy you to find anything that says paraphrasing a primary source is synth. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. This is an article about the shooting of Trayvon Martin. You haven't established the relevance of said statute to this article by any reliable secondary source. Instead, you're synthesing that the statute is of some relevance to this article and the non arrest of Zimmerman based on your intepretation of the statute and the case. If this was an article about Self defence in Florida or Legal arrest in Florida perhaps your source would be relevant but again read the title of the article and you'll find it isn't and article on either of those things. If police say they didn't arrest Zimmerman because of the statute, or if other sources say perhaps police were afraid of arresting Zimmerman because of the statute then fine, but you haven't shown any sources which say this. In the absence of sources, as unlikely at it may be for all we know the police didn't consider the statute and no one else thinks they did either. What you're doing is little different from someone finding a 2000 article on racism on Sanford or some other random thing and adding it to this article, a clear cut case of synthesis unless other sources have established the relevance. Nil Einne (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

direct statement from police department saying such Gaijin42 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


  • //

Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could insert this sentence after the second sentence with the statement from PD as your RS. "When police interviewed Zimmerman at the secne, his statement was that he acted in self-defense and at the time, his statement was supported by physical evidence and testimony". Maybe this could clear up the confusion he was seeing there. I think the statute as you have it is just fine and is definetely relevant as to why they didn't arrest Zimmerman. The whole Legal Issues section looks better than it previously did. Good job.Isaidnoway (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Another reason why you can't quote the statute is that lawyers themselves don't use the statute. They use the annotated statute, which contains footnotes to the court decisions about a statute. Often, a court will reject part of a statute, and even though it's in the statute, it's not part of the law. Often, a judge will interpret the meaning of a statute to mean something completely different than what a non-lawyer would think it means. So Wikipedia doesn't allow some anonymous guy on the Internet (which is what Wikipedia editors are) to quote from original sources like statutes. It has to come from a secondary source, as explained in WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggested copyedits

  • In the 2nd paragraph of the "Police arrival" sub-section, Mr Martin is refered to by his Christian name several times, this should be changed to "Martin", in keeping with the rest of the article. This happens again in the "Against Sanford police" subsection.
  • In the same section, the time of non-identification of ther remains was given as 3 days, in section 3.1 this delay is given as 24 hours. Which is correct? Sources may differ, a decsion must be made based on their credibility. "3" should also be written as a word.
  • Section 1.1, and 1.2 it's "fiancée".
  • In the Legal issues section, why is the "stand-your-ground law" capitalised?

Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Biased Lead Needs to be fine-tuned to address NPOV problems

This graf is so problematic I find it hard to believe so many people have apparently missed these problems.

The circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention, particularly regarding Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law and allegations of racial motivations and police misconduct, triggering multiple investigations and public demands for Zimmerman's arrest.[18][19]

I suggest:

The circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention, particularly regarding Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law and strongly disputed allegations of racial motivations and police misconduct, triggering multiple investigations and public demands for Zimmerman's arrest based on conjecture that the shooting was not justified.[18][19]

The are reliable sources to support these clarifications and corrections of langauge that is biased against Zimmerman.

Thoughts? (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Perhaps this? The circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention, particularly regarding Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law and allegations of racial motivations and police misconduct, which spurred public demands for Zimmerman's arrest. Multiple investigations have been triggered as a result of the outcry. The allegations of racial motivations are not disputed; they are well-known, the dispute about a racial motivation is where disputes have been made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Um -- Wikipedia is not a tabloid.

The circumstances around Martin's death received national and international attention. Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law has been noted, and accusations of racial motivations or police misconduct are being investigated.

The $10,000 bounty etc. do not belong in the lede AFAICT. Collect (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This version strikes me as more neutral.It's also more concise. (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I like your section better then my own. However the public calls for his arrest is not because of the bounty, it is because Zimmerman shot and killed Martin and no charges have been brought. Just because 60% polled in MSNBC/FOX want him to be arrested, an NBA team and various notable figures want him arrested, which might warrant the public outcry for his arrest because it is the truth. Rallies and protests numbering the thousands have called for his arrest as well. While they are verified, it is public opinion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Take care with news polls - they are far from reliable, except to say "X had a poll that said Y", and to include that you really need to qualify it's relevance with an independent source. Fox (as with any other news agency) can make a poll say exactly what they like, statistics are easy to manipulate. --Errant (chat!) 00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Uh. What? I'm stating that public opinion, even if it is verified doesn't mean it should be in lead because it is opinion. I was trying to clear up the fact that the call for his arrest was not about the bounty as Collect seemingly referred to. No one is pushing for the inclusion of such material either; but yeah, keep those out. Public opinion polls are not encyclopedic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, apologies - and I agree. I was skim reading for issues and misread your comment. I think there is solid grounds to mention "Public calls for his arrest". I'm not a fan of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law has been noted; it doesn't do anything to establish who noted it, and for what purpose. Recommend cutting that out and attempting it as a separate sentence. --Errant (chat!) 00:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Enough with the misleading photos.

This man was not a child. He was seventeen years old and over six feet tall. Please add an accurate picture of him or don't include one at all. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Picture is the most current one and is not the commonly circulated 'child' version. Cannot edit, but this is the best picture we have that is neutral. Certain other pictures portray Martin in a negative light, the current one is neutral. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

African American

If his father is caucasian and his mother is Peruvian, how is Martin African American? —Entropy (T/C) 00:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no where does our article say Martin has a caucasian father and Peruvian mother. It does say Zimmerman has a white father and Peruvian mother which is another thing entirely. (Nor does our article call Zimmerman African American anywhere.) Nil Einne (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I think he might be confusing the info box. Martin is an African-American, and Zimmerman is a white American. (Even Zimmerman's mother is a light-skinned Peruvian.) Zimmerman's a white dude. And Martin was a black dude. It's that simple. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I would say Zimmerman appears very Hispanic - calling him a "white dude" is inapt and not proper in any BLP-compliant page. BTW, I would not call Zimmerman's mom "white" as her picture is very clearly not all that "light-skinned". Collect (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Sighs. Listen very carefully. I'm NOT gonna belabor this nonsense with you. The fact is that Zimmerman is Caucasian, and officially considered so. You think that "white" has to be red-headed or blond haired people with freckles? FAIL. There are "dark whites" in the world. Also, for that matter, there's such a thing as "white Hispanics" too. (Andy Garcia, Ricky Martin, Cristina Aguilera, etc) My point is that his mother was not black looking. Again, Zimmerman is basically a white dude. You are whatever your father is anyway (sperm blood etc....though some people have that backwards...another debate.) But to say idiotically that "Zimmerman is not white" in your edit comment is POV madness and stupidity, and is just plain inaccurate. Even if his mother was sorta "darkish looking" it doesn't matter. Zimmerman is basically a white dude, and identifies himself as such, and is counted as such. Also, again, in general, NOT ALL "Hispanics" are "brown" (though lazy sloppy types like to many times stupidly think that, per their brain-washing and ignorance of history, or vision problems or whatever). Some are white (I mean LILY WHITE), and some are "brown", and some are even outright black. But you can't go around saying that Zimmerman was a "Hispanic" (in any full-fledged or basic sense) if A) his father was white, and (as sexist as this sounds it's just a biological fact) you are whatever your father is, and he has his father's last name, and his mother was NOT a black or dark brown Peruvian, but just a general olive type looking one maybe. The most you can say is that Zimmerman is PART "Hispanic" (whatever that word means anyway), and basically Caucasian. Zimmerman looks like a dark white dude. I know some Greeks and Croatians and Armenians who look just like Zimmerman. And many Jews who look like him. It's WHATEVER. He's white (basically). Get over it. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Try NPOV will ya? The fact is that he is not "light-skinned white" for sure, nor is his mother light-skinned white either. You seem to think that anyone who is not black is white which is untrue and a real problem here. And that you say there are Jews who look like him -- amazing! Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
While this is OT and I'm not going to discuss the other points 'You are whatever your father is anyway (sperm blood etc....though some people have that backwards...another debate.)' and 'his father was white, and (as sexist as this sounds it's just a biological fact) you are whatever your father is' are plain incorrect. In some countries and traditions race or ethnicity follows the father. In others it does not. However this has no basis in biology as few if any of the traits associated with the questionable concept of race are inherited primarily from the father. Blood type is not and 'sperm' only in very a limited way. If you continue to be confused, I suggest you check out our articles, or any article on the genetics of race and also on human inheritance or ask factual questions at WP:RDS. P.S. It's perhaps worth remembering for a female the only way she can inherit traits exclusively from her father is via Epigenetics and for a male, while there is the Y chromosome it's very small. Nil Einne (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I know about the "traditions" of some people, and that doesn't matter. If you're bringing up Jews today, they're wrong in saying "according to the Torah you're a Jew if only you're mother is a Jew". That's just flat wrong. The Torah doesn't say that at all. For real. It says the OPPOSITE. The "Talmud" is NOT the "Torah". According to the TALMUD, yes, but NOT the Biblical "Torah". Even some Jews have admitted this, and have written this very thing, that the Talmud actually REVERSES the Hebrew Bible reckoning of it. In the Hebrew Bible (this is just a fact that can be checked out) you were whatever your father was. According to the Bible (both "Testaments"). Example: A Jewish father, and a non-Jewish Moabite mother (Ruth)...married, had children, in the Bible, the children were still considered fully racially Jewish. In Chronicles too, the father passed down the seed and lineage. That's just a fact, that can be seen and measured and proven there, not an opinion. Now as far as biology, there's actually a MIS-notion that mtDNA (Mitochondrial DNA) is passed down only by the mother. PCR testing proves that's not really true. Another debate though. And there's some other issues (shown on 60 Minutes years ago) that only father passes down certain vital traits and details, not the mother. Also, again, the LIFE-SEED (spermatozoa) is transmitted by only the father always, as we know, never the mother. The mother is the vessel, the father the ultimate determiner, of both gender and ethnicity. But regardless of any of this, Zimmerman considers himself white, or the broad Caucasian at least, and looks white (dark white is still white, even if he doesn't look like Owen Wilson), his father is white, and his mother is NOT some "black Hispanic" who looks like Sammy Sosa's sister or something. So the overall point is it's POV and stupid to say "Zimmerman is not white, he's Hispanic" arf arf. THAT is blatant NPOV and sloppy rhetoric. (I'm the only one being NPOV here in the ultimate sense.) Also, again, there IS such a thing as "white Hispanics". (Check Wikipedia's own article on that point of fact, to see, etc.) Even if Zimmerman's Peruvian mother did not have blond hair and blue eyes and lily white skin, that does not necessarily mean that she's necessarily an ipso facto "brown" person, like Pablo Guzman (of channel 2 news) might be considered. But even so, the best way to describe Zimmerman (to be thorough for the nitpickers) is to say he's Caucasian and Hispanic. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
What do Jewish traditions have to do with anything? And why did you suddenly bring mitochondrial DNA in to the discussion for no apparent reason? And what on earth is a 'life seed' and a 'vessel'? (For that matter what are 'vital traits and details'?) These aren't biological terms, they sound more like terms used by some religions. The simple fact is, your comments are supported by no reputable biologist I'm aware of and instead sound like a mismash of confused largely non scientific claims trying to sound scientific (but failing miserably to anyone with even a basic biology background) so I suggest you stop making such claims if you want to have any credibility. You may have valid points in other areas, but they aren't helped by your completely wrong (and OT) biology. (P.S. 60 Minutes is not a reliable source for scientific matters although even they aren't normally as confused as you.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Moot. And by the way, that 60 Minutes piece QUOTED scientists, and it was going into certain pertinent matters. As far as "life seed", bright boy, what do you think the Greek (scientific) word "spermatozoa" even means? Seed of life. That has nothing to do with "religion", just a scientific point of fact. I don't have time for you, nor is this the forum to debate this junk. Nor do I have the patience for your rudeness, dismissive arrogance, nor your logical fallacy of appeal to authority. (Sighs...try looking up "appeal to authority" article in WP, to see how your non-specific addressing, but just rude insults and argument from numbers etc, are not an argument at all, and I don't have time to waste on things like that.) The point is Zimmerman was basically a white dude, as even the New York Times called him, now get over it, and stop whining about nonsense like this. Thank you. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
If you think quoting random scientists is how you determine scientific consensus or how you get an understanding of the science behind something, you have no idea how science works. (Hint: There's a reason why most scientists care much more about publishing their research in reputable peer reviewed journals then appearing on 60 Minutes. And in their published articles, they cite other peer reviewed articles and not what some random person said in 60 Minutes, except of course when 60 Minutes is part of their research.) And the Greek meaning of "spermatozoa" has no bearing on modern scientific understanding (the fact that you think it does suggests again you have no idea how science works). And there's a big difference between 'appeal to authority' and recognising that if scientists reject your claims and you use terms in a way no scientist will, it means you have no real basis to claim you're discussing science. (If you want to discuss pseudo-science I suggest you do it elsewhere or at least make it clear you're discussing pseudo-science.) If you don't have time for this, you should stop talking nonsensical science in the talk page and getting offended when people point out that's what you're doing. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Well I meant I don't really have much time for this NOW. (Also, I don't remember asking you to write me, that was your choice.) But when I wrote what I wrote, I had some time. And again, bright boy, you're MOOT. You say "it's not appeal to authority", but then (lol) DO THE VERY THING THAT IS APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Pathetically with your uhh "peer review" arf arf. Spare me. You're moot, and I grew tired of you the very first sentence I read from you. To be frank, because you dissed me first for some reason. Drones tend to bother me, sorry. Also, as far as you're determined to be whatever this or that parent, there's really no solid clear firm consensus on that anyway, per se. Even if there was, it matters not. Self-confirming laughable "peer-reviews" of people in an echo-chamber and cocoon of group think doesn't mean much ultimately. Consensus does not necessarily mean truth of scientific fact. Though human nature loves to think that's the case. Regardless, (sighs), "life-seed" means "spermatozoa" and the etymology is not exactly an accident. Will you say that the sperm is NOT an A) "seed" of any kind, or B) containing "life" in any sense? Will you call a sperm cell a seed of death? It's whatever. I'm sure you'll respond with more drone-ish typical "peer review" argument stuff (appeal to authority that you'll deny is appeal to authority, even though it is.) Bye. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you read scientific method and perhaps start to understand why recognising the merits of the scientific method as the best method to determine what's is most likely to be correct based on our current understanding (and what is almost definitely wrong), is not an appeal to authority. (For a good reason, scientists generally dislike talking in such absolute terms as 'truth' or 'scientific fact' when it comes to scientific understanding and theories.) And why it generally works far better then listening to random (likely misleadingly cut) quotations on some random TV show not known for their scientific vigour which (from what you've said so far) you lack the ability to really understand. And sorry to break this to you but yes, science has advanced a long, long way since the term spermatozoa was conceived. (A simple scientific description of a spermatozoa is a motile gamete.) Since this whole thing is OT as I said at the beginning, and you still haven't actually provided any solid reliable sources to back up your claims but instead just a confused usage of terminology and mentions of undefined episodes of 60 Minutes, you're right there's no point discussing this further. (As I said at the beginning, a quick look at any reliable source on human inheritance of the genetics of race should be sufficient to show your claims are just plain wrong. Similarly a look at any reliable source on human reproduction should show the concepts of 'life seed' and 'vessel' are basically unheard of, and have no scientific basis anyway.) P.S. I never said you asked me to write anything. What I did say is you made a bunch of nonsense claims that I felt couldn't go unchallenged, I admit for the sake of others on this talk page I probably should have stopped earlier. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
You're acting like I don't know about that. Anyway, the reason for my harsh tone with you is because you chose to diss and belittle me first with terms like "mish mash" and dismissing everything I wrote. Not very cool. Gotta go. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't dismiss everything you wrote. In fact, I made it clear from the beginning I was only considering certain things that you wrote that I took issue with (namely most of the stuff purporting to be science). And I tried to be resonably polite at first, but when you continued to claim your understanding had some sort of scientific basis when it was clear to me it did not, even after I suggested you do a bit of reading and ask questions in appropriate places if necessary to clear up any misunderstanding on your part, I saw no choice but to be blunt. As I've said several times, if you don't want that to happen your best bet is simply don't start (OT) discussions on wikipedia with no RS backing. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but if you make claims on wikipedia talk pages, don't be surprised if they're challenged. Particularly if you're discussing pseudoscience as science. (Remember article talk pages are intended for improving articles so even if your comments are OT, people will generally expect any claims to live up to the same standard we require of articles unless you make it clear you're applying some other standard. While the number of people who check out talk pages may be small and they won't generally have the same expectation of comments as they would statements in articles, there's still a risk and therefore concern that people will be mislead by statements in them.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
My mistake; I didn't see that there were two separate infoboxes at the right. —Entropy (T/C) 00:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone here old enough to remember Emily Litella? This thread reads like one of her tirades. "Never mind." Tvoz/talk 06:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Emily Litella, lol...good call.Isaidnoway (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Discussion at AN

Please see the following discussion about the locking of the article and deletion of the disputed content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Are non admins allowed to discuss the matter on that page? It seems the page is not intended for disputes about abuse or content. Is it okay that such a discussion is taking place there or is there a better place? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyone can comment on that page. VQuakr (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Time unidentified

One section indicates Trayvon was tagged a John Doe and remained unidentified for 3 days, but the Missing Persons section says he was unidentified for 24 hours. As you have locked this page against editing, please make the correction.--DeknMike (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, is there any report of what else he was carrying? Any cash, credit card or receipt for the items? (Would have helped with identification.) Some in the media have suggested theft of the skittles & tea, but this is pure speculation. Would like to have confirmation yes or no from this community.--DeknMike (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Police Arrival, David Horsey is opinion

How is David Horsey relevant with his criticism about police not checking Trayvon's cell phone to find someone he knew. He is a political cartoonist whose cartoon's appear on the editorial page of the L.A. Times. His comments and cartoon's are purely opinion based and if you look at the cartoon that appears with his short opinion piece about this shooting, it is inflammatory and biased against Zimmerman. Here is the caption and link to the cartoon:

HOW A RACIST CALCULATES...BLACK KID + WHITE 'HOOD = OPEN SEASON This should be removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2012

re: Trayvon Martin wikipedia article: reference [64] is a FOXNews (Orlando) article that contains highly questionable information that blurs the line between confirmed and unconfirmed. therefore, each line of the Trayvon Martin article referencing [64] should be removed for the sake of clarity. it's my understanding that wikipedia pages are locked to prevent this type of situation from occurring. allowing these lines to remain in the article helps perpetuate the idea that wikipedia is a breeding ground for inaccurate information. thank you. (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done the ref is direct quotes from family and witnesses. What specific information are you concerned about from the ref? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^ "Florida Statutes section 776.013".