Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

ABC is a wp:RS?

ABC's new Exclusive [1] contains this lovely sentence: "In police surveillance video obtained last month by ABC News Zimmerman's wounds are(!) not apparent, and there were no bandages on his head." The fact that (1)ABC was clowned by various other sources that noticed that GZ's wounds -were- apparent on the original [2] "Exclusive", and (2)that ABC had had to announce [3] that GZ's wounds -were- visible (albeit (a)they ignored the sources that corrected them, instead (b)claimed to have discovered this when they "enhanced" the video, and (c)the title ignored this development in favor of mentioning that a doctor in their employ denied that GZ could have a broken nose) has somehow gone down a memory hole. We definately need a bigger section on media "mistakes". Andyvphil (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is why we should Fair Use the images - even if we arrange to see the exact same image, we'll see different things. My impression of that police station surveillance video was that for one second you can see two tiny little dark spots which, if you know from looking at the photo of his bleeding previously where they are, you can recognize as injuries. But, I mean, it's not like he was coming in with a fat lip and a black eye - there are lots of people who have spots on their heads permanently which are much more visible than that. The readers should see for themselves, and thereby escape hype from whichever angle. Wnt (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your impression is false. I gave you the link. [4] (suggestion: turn off "AUTO START" and reload). NOT "tiny little dark spots" that could be mistaken for freckles or somesuch, never mind the point in the original video [5] where a policeman examines the back of GZ's head with an interest that ABC/Gutman failed to make note of. Exactly how do you defend ABC/Gutman's "wounds are not apparent" lie when his byline was on a previous story saying "The never-before-seen evidence of an injury to Zimmerman, in this case a gash or mark to his head, would appear to back his claim..." is just inexplicable. (And, as I said, the title was not "We Were Wrong", but "George Zimmerman Video Shows Little Evidence of a Broken Nose, Doctor Claims", which claim I suggest you test by looking at the side-by-side before-and-after photos here: [6].Andyvphil (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a quick link to the side-by-side photos Andyvphil mentioned. [7] --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Also as to the media malpractice involved in denying the possibility of a broken nose based on a video in which you can't read the EXIT sign, I offer the following exchange from the bail hearing:

O'MARA: Have you ever had your nose fractured or broken.

GILBREATH: No. O'MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct? GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven't seen any medical records to indicate that. O'MARA: Have you asked him for them? GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No. O'MARA: Do you want a copy of them? GILBREATH: Sure.

O'MARA: I'll give them to the state. It's a more appropriate way to do it. If you haven't had them yet, I don't want to cross you on them.

This is from the CNN partial (only the parts broadcast) transcript[8]. Is there a more complete one on the web? Andyvphil (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's the CNN transcript for the part of the hearing that is before the link you provided.[9]

Here's another link FYI for finding other CNN transcripts.[10] --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair Use photos of Zimmerman's injuries?

The last time I tried to add a Fair Use photo of something discussed in the text (the baby-faced photo) the outcome was that mine was reverted and the hoodie photo was permanently removed for the article. So I'm a bit reluctant to mention this, because it'll probably just mean the end of some other photo, but just for the sake of auto-quixoticism let's try this one for size: should we include Fair Use photos for the cellphone picture taken 3 minutes after the call, and for the one from the police station video surveillance. See http://gma.yahoo.com/warning-graphic-photo-possible-evidence-shows-george-zimmermans-050145810--abc-news-topstories.html at 2:04, though better sources may exist for each.

Despite warnings of "graphic photos" and discussion of it as a major injury, I should note that these look like two tiny little scalp abrasions, as someone so hairless could get from even the shortest slide against concrete. They may well be evidence he was tackled, but to me they don't look like any indication that "his head was bashed against the sidewalk repeatedly while he was fighting for his life", as some seem to be saying. But that's OR - the only way to give the reader a fair chance to decide unbiased, is to let him see the actual pictures for himself. Wnt (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted fotos are accessible through the articles that are linked. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone at wikipedia cares about your feigned expertise, Doctor Quincy. This wikipage sure doesn't68.115.53.79 (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Amen. The photos (or at least links to them) should absolutely be included. MiamiManny (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

They're potentially exculpatory. If you think there's a rule the forbids us from showing it, that's a good "rule" to ignore. NPOV trumps FAIRUSE. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Skittles"... seriously?

When noting Martin's movements just prior the incident, is it really necessary to specify that he was at a "7-Eleven", and that he bought "Skittles" and "Arizona Iced Tea"? The brand names of these items are irrelevant and have nothing to do with the confrontation. Considering the nature of this incident, this information seems needless and superfluous. I felt it was more appropriate to simply say a "local convenience store" and "food items". However, I was reverted by someone who feels that "Skittles have become iconic" because of this incident and therefore should be specifically identified within the article. Since the article is 1RR, I thought I would seek consensus, before reverting it back. Anyone else have an opinion? - thewolfchild 04:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Leave it as Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea (which can be used in a fight as a weapon -- not saying it was, mind.) htom (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else? (with a real response, a little more serious and reasoned) - thewolfchild 06:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, we shouldn't have a one-sided article. While it might not be immediately relevant to George Zimmerman, it was relevant to Trayvon Martin, and it rounds out the story to tell the tale with this robustness. Skittles, 7-Eleven, a Hoodie, and young Trayvon are all central elements to the tale, and it seems a bit odd to leave some of the key players out. -- Avanu (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Providing these specifics gives Martins actions a sense of normalcy. He was a normal kid doing normal kid stuff at places and with items which our readers all know and can recognize. Not any unknown convenience store: a Seven-Eleven. I can picture the parking lot and where the counter is, and how transactions happen. Not just any can of pop:Arizona Ice Tea, which I know comes in a tall, SOFT tall tin can. Skittles...most likely in a little rectangular box colored red. I do not support reverting it back. Why deprive our readers of known, verifiable information? Is your concern free advertising? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't care personally, but such narrative trivialities are not at all encyclopedic.Whatzinaname (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement from the J. Peterman Catalogue. Items should be kept neutral, factual, necessary and specific to the event described. Perhaps, you would prefer something like: "It was unusally cool for Florida, but young Trayvon Martin was shielded from the rain and cold in his Acme brand, fleece-lined cotton-polyester hoodie. Available in sizes small to double-extra large and in six different colors, it's perfect for running errands or just lounging around the house. At only $29.99, you too can be warm and comfy, without the hassle and discomfort of bringing along that bulky extra jacket. The hoodie has features such as nylon draw-strings for the hood and waist, and the patented Kanga-roo-pouch-style pocket, in which Trayvon liked to carry his favourite comfort food, Skittles. Yes, Skittles, those whimsical little fruit flavoured candies adored by millions. Availble in 60 and 100 gram packages, they are a delicious snack, perfect for filling the 'hunger-gap' between lunch and dinner or, while watching a movie or driving in the car. Trayvon also enjoyed a tall refreshing can of Arizona Iced Tea, the tart, lemony beverage that can both lift the spirit and soothe the mind, body and soul all at once. It's iconic, SOFT tall tin can comes in a very fulfilling 23 ounce size, with just the right mix of caffeine and fructose to give you the energy you need. Both Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea are available and very reasonably priced at 7-Eleven, Amedrica's favourite corner store. With 40,000 locations world-wide, there is always a 7-Eleven near-by, with everything you need to get you going, and keep you going. Yes, Skittles, Arizona Iced Tea and 7-Eleven, what could be more symbolic of everyday Americana? Just normal, everyday things for a normal, everyday kid. But this wouldn't be a normal day, for just as the sun was touching on the horizon, fate would tragically cross the paths of poor young Trayvon with..." (point made?) - thewolfchild 17:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How is it unencyclopedic to include details that are obviously important to a large portion of the readers? Yes, he wasn't shot BECAUSE he had a bag of Skittles, but he did have them, and it seems, as Buster implied, that it helped people to identify with Trayvon Martin. 'Hey he's a normal guy who likes Skittles.' To make this encyclopedic, we need a neutral tone, but we don't need to completely take all the energy out of the narrative. Other than just your opinion, do you have some rationale as to why this bit of information is not encyclopedic? -- Avanu (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, Is it OK with you to keep it in the article but move it to the Public response section as described in the proposal below? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How are these brand names "important to a large portion of the readers"? How does removing them take away from the factual narrative of how Martin and Zimmerman crossed paths? - thewolfchild 17:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Mention of Skittles, Arizona Tea, and 7-Eleven by name should be moved to the Public response section. The names are insignificant for the description of the incident in the Shooting section but Skittles, and maybe the other two names too, would be significant in the Public response section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"A local convenience store" and "food items" sounds a lot more reasonable to me. The media=-defined iconic nature of the skittles, hoodie, etc. can go in the Public Response section as Bob said. Emeraldflames (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a proposed change for the shooting section:

Martin was staying with his father at the home of his father's fiancée.[32] On his return from a 7-Eleven convenience store, where he bought a bag of Skittles candy and a can of Arizona Iced Tea,[77][78] he was observed by Zimmerman,[79] who was in his truck on a personal errand.[80] At the end of their interaction, Martin was shot 70 yards from the rear door of the fiancée's townhouse.[81][Note 2]

And here's a proposed addition to the Public response section:

Bags of Skittles candy and cans of Arizona Iced Tea were used as protest symbols too. Martin was returning from a 7-Eleven convenience store with a bag of Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea when he was shot.

Once the main change of moving the info to the Public response section is done, additional editing of this material can be done as usual. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I like it. It is much simpler and clear for the lead. Details on the actual items should be in their own section and not the lead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please reread the discussion here. It was not pertaining to the lead. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Not the article lead, but the section lead in. Which now that I look at it, I think it the shooting section should be expanded and updated with more details as the "Sanford Police arrival and initial investigation" section has those points. Calls, accounts, and phone records before the investigation should be summed up there. This includes the background to the incident in which the candy and tea could be brought up. Its like a mini-introduction to the event and is a lead-in, not the article lead, but still serves to detail the information in the section. I do not believe skittles and tea are important enough to take center stage with the background events leading up to the shooting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. We're on the same wavelength now. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving the product placement brand names to the Public response section seems like a reasonable solution. Does anyone here object to this as an alternative? - thewolfchild 17:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In agreement to this reasonable solution. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

When the media first picked this story up, their mention of Skittles and Arizona iced tea were not meant to give a "plug" to those specific brands or "product placement." The narrative given at that time was that an unarmed african-american teenager carrying nothing but a pack of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea was shot and killed by an over zealous white guy who had not been arrested for the shooting. That narrative was simply carried over to the article, and no endorsement or product placement was ever implied by including it, nor is it implied by it remaining in the article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved Skittles etc from Shooting section to Public response section per consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be product placement - I don't at all trust the news media were unaware of the possibilities when writing these stories or choosing them to feature. But we can remain blissfully above such considerations, if we simply resolve not to remove information because we can. It is one thing to be concise, another to be deliberately vague in writing. Wnt (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Distracts thewolfchild by opening the bag of Skittles, throwing them in his face, and then bashing him across the side of his head with the fat sturdy glass bottle of Arizona Iced Tea. I don't know that that's what happened, don't know if the Skittles were in a bag or not (around here they're in that annoying paper-plastic bag), how many there were in the container, and whether the Arizona Iced Tea was in a bottle or can (I've not noticed it in a can, but don't drink much of it, it's far too sweet for my taste.) Serious enough? htom (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to say but, it seems something like "Waaahh... wolfchild was right and I was wrong. Now I'm sooo embarrassed that my lame attempt at sarcasm has blown up in my face... - htom" That's ok sweetie. Go take your lithium and have a rest. The big people will take care of big people stuff... - thewolfchild 01:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It was me that reverted your deletion of the skittles and iced tea. These are, UNDENIABLY, iconic symbols - so to remove them completely from the article would be ridiculous. Surely you agree? The location change seems like a good idea to me, although I don't think there was a problem to begin with.. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well it seems you were wrong. These brand names were not "removed from the article completely" - just from the incident history, were they simply do not belong. (So, no, I surely do not agree) They are still mentioned elsewhere in the article. Also, please note that I do not DENY that they are iconic symbols, nor do I hold that that they are... I really don't care either way. They just aren't relevant to the chronology of events leading to the confrontation. - thewolfchild 02:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(@htom)I know you're just being funny, but let's keep the dramatic violence off the talk page before somebody loses an eye. Wnt (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I know, I know. Humor is a dangerous tool, as likely to damage the user as making the user's point. htom (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Absent info.

While reading through a lengthy post this information was what I remember reading, but lost along the way. According to police, Tracy Martin could not identify Trayvon's voice on the 911 call. He said it was not his son's voice. [11] Also this section details a lot of information we do not have. Like Crump's previous actions. [12] "Crump and law partner Daryl Parks had previously gained renown representing the family of a black teenager who died in a boot-camp-style youth detention center in 2006, winning the boy’s family $7.2 million in damages from the state of Florida and Bay County." Why is this absent? For reasons of privacy and matter, I am not going to go into certain other details... but I think we have a lot of information known that is not being included. Though the article is improving. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Tracy Martin's observation was ever mentioned in the article, but I did include the information about the boot camp at one time under Martin family attorneys. It was promptly removed as not being relevant to the shooting. There is still one sentence remaining there though that says he sued to have the video released in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, in the 2006 case, Crump contacted Sharpton then to gain national exposure just like he did with this case. Here's the statement from Sharpton saying he worked with Crump before in Florida, [13], this statement is also the one where he claims that racial language was used when Zimmerman called the police. This was before the calls were even released, which we now know was completely false.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

→comment removed in accordance with WP:BLP←

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

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

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

I'm afraid I never quite understood that comment anyway. It referenced the phone call by Martin to his girlfriend. [14] I don't know if Crump will be involved in the civil case, but indeed, whoever handles that case is likely to make some money. Wnt (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest you examine Florida Statute 776.041(2))[15]. (1) doesn't apply because caselaw requires that the forcible felony be independent. And charged. And in this case there was no such charge. (2)(b) doesn't apply because because Z was in no position to retreat at the point he shot. So,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggest new photo for Zimmerman

Now that Zimmerman has made bond, he will always appear in court in civilian attire. He has also chosen to go clean shaven. Since he will be associated with court proceedings into the forseeable future, suggested that one of the court photos replace the booking photo. One possibility [16]

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

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

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

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

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

In Shooting Section, change yards to feet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Material in the lead

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

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

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

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

Here is the copy of the press release from the Sanford Police Department. [17]

and here is an article from the Orlando Sentinel where Serino (the lead homicide investigator) gives an exclusive interview to them and says "The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."[18]

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

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

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

Who was yelling for help?

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a link to an aritcle by the Daily Beast [19] that says a source told them that the FDLE re-enacted the scenario with Zimmerman lying on his back and yelling for help while they recorded it. They may have used it as an investigative tool, because how do you factor in the fear and adrenaline that would have been present during the yelling, regardless of whether it was Zimmerman or Martin.--Isaidnoway (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's History

Zimmerman's past arrest and situation with his ex-girlfriend was front and center in the legal proceeding today. These two facts remain conspicuously absent of mention from this article. I think some mention should be made of it- as well as Martin's past history of 'suspicious' behavior (bag of jewelry, "burglary tool"), etc. I can see why one would want to exclude one if you exclude the other, but I think the answer is to include them both. Anyway, there really ought to be a mention of the incidents that were discussed in court today. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I previously took the strongest stance against both of these, but it seems that if they are coming up in court this is a characterization matter. Not all characterizations are valid or proper. Under policy for WP:BLPCRIME the fact there was no conviction on either end and no formal decision reached is pretty much apparent. We should not include them as they are not related to the matter and it is just pushing back and forth. Just doesn't seem the time to go all mudslinging when we keep the other positives out as well. WP:COATRACK anyone? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as a matter of mudslinging- but of at least acknowledging the existence of these incidents in some way for the people who want to have a complete understanding of the situation (for example, people who watched the hearing on T.V. today might go to Wikipedia to 'get the facts' on the incidents referred to by the prosecution). Wikipedia, to me, is where you go to "get the facts" on everything that is out there. That, to me, is what makes it great. I just hate to see things that are often mentioned in the news or often brought up in popular discussions not even be mentioned by Wikipedia. It seems like we could devote a sentence or two to these topics. Emeraldflames (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that they were front and center today, they were mentioned and testimony was given and questions asked, but the Judge said the incidents had no effect on his decision on whether or not to grant bail. I think his decision to not consider them today possibly reflects on how he will rule when the prosecutor tries to enter it into the trial. I thought the state investigator was more compelling and revealed more information about the case than anything else. He testified (on the record), that he didn't know who started the fight, and he used the word "profiled" in the affidavit to describe Zimmerman's reaction to seeing Martin in the gated community the night of the shooting based on "no facts." I think the incidents should only be included if they become relevant at the trial (if there is one)--Isaidnoway (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, it opens the door to including the reportedly recent bad behavior of Martin, e.g. the pot smoking, breaking into lockers, stealing jewlery, assault on bus driver...etc. I think this is predujcial and basically irrelevant to the events of that night, although I'm sure it will be brought up in the trial as well. Some of it is speculation to a degree and I've stated my stance that RS is not, in and of itself, sufficient justification for inclusion. Think about it, do the editors of the World Book or Britannica include everything that is published in the newspaper/magazine/TV? No, they scrutinize it and publish what they consider to be the most reliable and factual, and therein lies the value and thereupon rests their credibility. A conservative approach in what we include will best server Wikipedia. We would like it to be where readers turn for facts - leave the speculations and gossip to the yellows and rags. ProfJustice (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Emeraldflames on this. Zimmerman's attorney discussed previous accusations of violent acts on Zimmerman's part, for which the police were involved, and for which his attorney said he had to attend anger management classes. This is not speculation or gossip at all. We should consider that to not include this, properly sourced, is to leave out a relevant fact about his past - relevant because he now is accused of the violent act of murder. At this point, the information available makes no accusation of acts by Martin on the night of February 26 that have any connection to any reason he had some high school suspensions. (Let's remember that there was no police involvement that has been brought forth, which would mean that there were no crimes committed - just infractions of school rules. Those of us who can remember high school no doubt know the difference between being arrested and being suspended from school.) I am reasonably sure that if he had been found with burglary tools on his dead body, or a bag of weed in his pocket instead of a bag of candy, we'd know that by now - so if there are reliable sources saying that, by all means post them here on talk. Until and unless a connection is made in reliable sources, Martin's background (significantly overstated in the previous comment, by the way) is not relevant. No door is opened - one thing has nothing to do with the other. Now that Zimmerman's attorney has made public statements about Zimmerman's past, we can't claim they are speculation and gossip, so that argument against inclusion does not hold water. Tvoz/talk 23:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not only is martin's questionable past activities equally relevant as zimmermans, he does not get offered the protection of BLP. Not only is reality against you, so are specific wikipedia rules.Whatzinaname (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to Zimmerman. Assault on the bus driver has as much bearing as assault on a police officer, as do the bulgary charges. It's a false dichotomy. Both go to background and behavior/character. Plenty of RS on those things regarding Martin. If anything, we can include the info about Martin, but must exclude anything about Zimmerman (regardless of RS) that doesn't comport stritcly with BLP - which is probably the strictest standard on WP. ProfJustice (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd still prefer not to have allegations unsupported by evidence for Martin's side, it is not even relevant to the incident, but I have a feeling that they will make their way back into the article. Zimmerman and Martin seem to be under WP:WELLKNOWN so it seems only proper to acknowledge them at this point. We must be exceedingly careful not to convict Zimmerman or misrepresent the 2005 incident. For Martin the suspensions could go back in, but only as one sentence lines detailing the fact. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am for the inclusion of the suspensions, because they are well-known and, to an arguable extent, are relevant to understanding the personality of one of the persons involved. Zimmerman says Martin was acting suspicious and like he was 'on drugs'. Maybe he was. Tvoz makes a good point re: no burglary tools or drugs were found on him at the scene, but he also may have ditched them when Zimmerman began to follow him. (I'm not saying this is likely, by the way, just that it is possible.) If Martin truly was an "A and B" student and was never suspended for anything, it would certainly be considered relevant by many people here (in fact, that is how the article used to read.) As far as him attacking a bus-driver, I wasn't aware of their being a solid source on that- only that one of his friends made a comment on his twitter page that could possibly be interpreted in that way. Unless there is something more solid than that, I wouldn't go with that. Emeraldflames (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP applies to both of them, just a little less so to Trayvon Martin. In addition, our article requires a neutral tone in keeping with WP:NPOV. So it requires a 'fair' treatment, not a one-sided treatment, of both individuals. Unless there is a direct connection to this incident, the past histories of both of them should be excluded under the "Presumption in favor of privacy" section of BLP. If a direct connection to this event can be shown, for example, the wife and father of George Zimmerman testified via telephone on his behalf for the bond hearing, so the relationship there might be explored (IF sources are found that allow for that), but it is still something to be careful about regardless. -- Avanu (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

His past charges were brought up in court in relation as to whether he was a violent person and should be granted bail. They could be included in that context, there are plenty of RS that have reported on that. The judge described his past charges as "run of the mill" and "somewhat mild" when making his determination on the bail.[20]. I don't think we will see Martin's past brought up in court in relation to the incident though, there is nothing to indicate that Zimmerman was aware of Martin's past when he reported him as acting suspicious and on drugs. If the ME report shows he had traces of marijuana in his system, that may make it's way into the court record though. Trying to connect Martin's past actions to the incident would be speculation at this point.--Isaidnoway (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not just the story of an ordinary murder and murder trial. The story of this case is the story of the attention paid to this case and the differing views of it in differnt circles. The creation of a public perception and its trajectory should be a major subject of this article. We can say that the story that TM hit a bus driver is merely one interpretation of a tweet to him, if that's true, but it is unencyclopedic to ignore the allegation and its effect on the perception that TM could, after all, have attacked GZ. Or not. Andyvphil (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"WP:COATRACK" is one of the most odious essays on Wikipedia. In theory, indeed, as written, it says that you shouldn't just toss in any random thing to an article because you like it. In practice, it is used, almost invariably, to mean that some people feel free to take anything out of an article because they don't like it - even when a large number of sources specifically mention the thing as being relevant to the case. Wnt (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If you object to the essay, then take it up there - this isn't the place. Tvoz/talk 06:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Point is, essays aren't guidelines or policies; they're just some page somebody wrote up. Wnt (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

For those active in editing this article, there is a new article from Reuters regarding Zimmerman's history, and ethnic background, which includes Afro-Peruvian.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Fallout

Since the shooting there have been so far two beatings of young men where the perpetrators gave the killing of Martin as justification. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to have a section including this part of the fallout of the shooting. It's too early to speculate if whatever happens to Zimmerman is going to lead to some kind of disturbance such as what happened after the Rodney King beating and in the Crown Heights riots, but are these beatings notable/relevant enough to be added to the Wiki page?
1: http://chicagoist.com/2012/04/23/alton_hayes_trayvon_martin_oak_park.php
2: http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/23/man-beaten-mob-critical-condition-ar-3659891/ Biggirlnow (talk)

If we get to rodney king levels than certainly good for inclusion without question. Of the two you suggested, I think the second one possibly could be, because the accused has directly said Trayvon was his motive. For the first one, that source does not make any linkage so it should not be included (at least not on that source). Wording will need to be very careful. How we quantify/qualify the events will need a lot of tweaking. Why don't you put together a proposed inclusion for us to discuss here? At most a sentence or two, and be careful to distinguish from where the accused has directly admitted the Trayvon motive, from where some pundit is just making that connection. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

For the www2.wkrg.com story, it says the witness (the sister) said she heard one of the mob members make a reference to justice for Martin. Biggirlnow (talk)

I think we should avoid that one for now. There are potential WP:BLP issues. The sister said, that one member said that, does that mean the entire mob had the same motivations? etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Race hatred was fanned. Consequences should be mentioned.

"For the first(sic) one, that source does not make any linkage."? "As the attackers walked away, leaving Owen bleeding on the ground, Parker says one of them said 'Now thats justice for Trayvon.'" Looks like "linkage" to me. WP:BLP issues? Name one. Andyvphil (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

One. Multiple attackers, one person said something. Are all acting under that same motivation. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Boy am I not following you. We are somehow traducing the reputation of the other criminals by mentioning the words of their associate??? Andyvphil (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll just mention this: http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/23/man-beaten-mob-critical-condition-ar-3659891/ I'm not even going to add it to the article right now, in the wild hope that when I come back tomorrow I'll hear it was some broadcaster's prank. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin: thanks for moving my comment up here - missed this section. Since discussion has further advanced, I'll say that seriously, I'd want to see a bit more confirmation of the linkage. One provision of BLP that I actually agree with is that allegations should be "presented as true", and right now, the articles don't quite present the sister's testimony about that point as true, per se. She certainly could have motive to lie (hypothetically, if the beating were for some embarrassing reason, or she wants the bastards who did this to get a hate crime enhancement, or many other explanations). Wnt (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Follow your own WKRG link. Neighbor also heard it. Andyvphil (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK: despite this discussion, or I suppose perhaps unaware of it, someone went ahead and added a section to the article called "Retaliation" with these incidents and some other material. I removed it, with this edit summary: (Remove section - this is under discussion on the talk page - see "fallout". Please wait until consensus is reached abt including or not including). Unsurprisingly, the request to discuss here was promptly ignored and my removal of the section, complete with a grammatical error, was reverted back in without any acknowledgment of the request to discuss, and with no edit summary. I believe this contentious section should be removed again, pending the outcome of this discussion, but obviously someone else will have to do it, which I hope someone will. It's too bad that some editors think they are above it all and don't honor requests to discuss rather than act unilaterally when a problem has been identified. Tvoz/talk 03:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In my experience folks who delete information and demand consensus (ie, their agreement) before it's put back asre usually obviously acting in bad faith. They're edit warring, and the result depends on the correlation of forces. Andyvphil (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[21] --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

@Editor Bob. While your solution is a good one and I probably would have supported it after a discussion here, I and other editors were deprived of that opportunity. It has been my experience that when an editor reverts with an edit summary requesting discussion, but the originating editor resubmits the edit without changes or discussion, the questionable edit can and should be reverted by a third party. This second revert should never be construed as opposition or support for either editor but only as a neccesary step to include all interested parties. I support your change but feel it should have been accomplished differently. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well said. What kind of discussion would be had before this kind of section is added? Is there a vote? I'm not an editor. Biggirlnow (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Buster, maybe I wasn't clear: I didn't say it was the originating account who put the section back in, it was a second account name. But the point remains the same, and especially so when there already is a discussion underway. I do think that BobK's solution was a good one, however. Tvoz/talk 07:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Everyone, please note the section Try to fix problems of Wikipedia:Editing policy. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, BobK - thank you - you did a good job capturing the essence of the section in a sentence, appropriately weighted for the article, and I have no need to keep talking about it if essentially stays that way. My objection was directed to the reposting of the section without comment or acknowledgment that it was under discussion, after being so advised in edit summary. Your edit works well for me. Tvoz/talk 18:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

LEAD Part II

The most critical aspect of this case centers on the details of the confrontation/altercation between M and Z. Not on who was walking where or stay where or who was a neighborhood watch, etc. In other words, there are a lot of minor and irrelevant details in the lead. While the most critical facts are systematically eliminated in order to whitewash the situation in an extremely POV manner. It is absolutely indefensible NOT to include Zimmerman's account of the attack in the lead. We have the corroboration of an eyewitness, whose account is unambiguous (unlike others) in what he actually SAW (not maybe heard), which not only is in complete accord with Zimmerman's account, but is further supported by direct evidence - photos of Z's cut and bloody head, taken at the scene, immediately post attack (all cited from RS). How is NONE of this in the lead? It goes directly to the heart of the matter, was it self-defense or not? The is no reasonable explanation for burying all this in on page 12 (i.e. in the body of the article). These aren't skittle vs food or fiancee vs girlfriend (i.e. peripheral) issues here. This is THE lead. Any responsible publication would lead with the most important information, and this is it. Little wonder Wikipedia is getting so much negative press for pushing a biased POV. It's just so obvious. As it stands now, I have serious BLP issues with this article and I suggest we get some outside eyes to take a look at this situation. I am tired of having irrelevant information protected, with the claim the lead is too short, and highly relevant information removed with the excuse the lead is too long. It is beyond blatant POV at this point and verging on libel. With no room any, ANY compromise. It's shameful any twisted logic is used to protect this goldilocks version of the story that is controverted by an ever increasing perponderace of evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfJustice (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The lead is just an introduction to what is in the article. We summarize the most important and relevant aspects and put the detail that is related to those aspects in the body of the article. It is not necessary to give the detail that you have included in order to make your point of it being relevant. The lead should include that there was a confrontation and that Zimmerman claimed Martin attacked him and he shot him in self-defense. That is all that is needed to convey the point that this aspect of the story will be included in the body of the article in greater detail. Including Zimmerman's version of the events without including what the prosecution says happened is giving preference to Zimmerman's story and we shouldn't be doing that. As for the eyewitness, again you single out one witness to make a point when there are other witnessess who have a different version of events. We shouldn't single out one witness and place more importance on their version than another version. We should include all witness statements together in one section and not show preference to one or the other. That is not maintaing a NPOV when we select one statement, whether it be a eyewitness or Zimmerman's statement, out of many conflicting statements to support what we believe to have happened.--Isaidnoway (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"there are other witnessess who have a different version of events." No. There aren't. I just reviewed all of the witness statements. Although what they say varies depending mostly on the time described (e.g. before vs after the gunshot), not one is inconsistent with the statements given by Zimmerman and John (the eyewitness account referenced), whose account was the most detailed and explicit. Plus the physical evidence fully supports this account, so where are the statements that controvert it? Please post them here and explain if I am mistaken, don't just say I am, post it here. Be explicit. Read their statements. There are no conflicts. And I did not post what I thought happened. I posted only statements from RS. Everything I posted is Verifiable and cited to an RS. If not, please explain what statement is not. ProfJustice (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"Police say Z's account, corroborated by witnesses, indicate M was the aggressor." "The lead detective says he played a recording of that voice [crying for help] for Trayvon's father and the Miami man said the voice was not his son's." Source: Orlando Sentinel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfJustice (talk • contribs) 04:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The variations in witness accounts (as well as George Zimmerman's) help make this case so difficult. The current state of the lead pushes the reader to choose a side because of the inclusion of a single witness' testimony when there are different versions of the altercation. If you choose to keep the witness account in the lead, it only seems fair to include the competing witness account that is currently included in the section designated for witness testimony. (See quote below.) It appears, though, that it would be easier, more sensible and more balanced to keep all witness accounts in the section designated for them so as not to sway the reader before they actually get a chance to dive into the complexity of the case.

Quote pulled from Witness Accounts section: "On March 29, 2012, an eyewitness referred to as a male said that he saw two men on the ground scuffling, then heard the shooting, and saw Zimmerman walk away with no blood on him.[119][120] The witness later appeared on CNN AC360 referred to as a female, giving more details on her account. She pointed out that she heard an argument between a younger and an older voice. The whole time she witnessed the incident the scuffling happened on the grass. She said that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top, and that it was too dark to see blood on his face." --Jacqham (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

(1) A 13 year old boy saw a man on the ground before the shooting and identified him as wearing red...his mother later disputed the testimony and claimed the police pressured him into choosing what color the man was wearing. (2) Mary Cutcher and her roommate stated that she believes there was no punching, hitting, going on just prior to the shooting and saw Zimmerman on his knees straddling Martin on the ground. (3) March 29, an eyewitness saw two men on the ground scuffling and then heard the shooting and saw Zimmerman walk away with no blood on him. (4) Martin's mother says the shouting for help heard on some of the 911 calls is her son's voice. (5) Zimmerman's father says his son was the one calling out. (6) Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued. Witnesses heard people arguing and what sounded like a struggle. During this time period witnesses heard numerous calls for help and some of these were recorded. (7) She said (Martin's girlfriend) that she heard the sound of pushing and that Martin's headset went silent, leading her to believe that he (Martin) had been pushed (by Zimmerman). (8) One witness, who had only heard but not seen the events, believed Martin was the one calling for help and said the police tried to get her to change her testimony.

Here are seven statements made by witnesses and the affidavit's theory of what happened that was pulled out of the body of this article. It would seem rather obvious that they all differ from one another. So why would we pick out just one and include it in the lead giving it preference over the rest of these statements, and push that particular POV.--Isaidnoway (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Per Editor:Jacqham... "The current state of the lead pushes the reader to choose a side because of the inclusion of a single witness' testimony when there are different versions of the altercation." We are not obliged to choose one over the others. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I also concur with editors Isaidnoway and Jacqham. We cannot cherry pick reports of one witness's account over others that have been reported on - whether they support Zimmerman's story or dispute it - and the lead is not the place to present multiple witnesses, especially since the ones we know about may not even include all of them: we're not trying the case in our article. The lead is intended to provide an overview, and including this one witness is, as Jacqham says, pushing the reader toward one version of the narrative. Further to Buster7's comment - we not only are not obliged to choose one side over the other, we are prohibited from doing so - that would be a violation of NPOV. Tvoz/talk 17:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz. No matter what witness we use there are major concerns surrounding all of them and the lead is no place for witness accounts which push one account before the body of the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

@ProfJustice: Are you not even willing to listen to other editor's opinions on how to improve this article or discuss with other editor's on how to improve this article or come to a consensus that all the editor's inolved with this article can agree on? Or are you just here to push a pro-Zimmerman POV in the lead.--Isaidnoway (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If you read my posts, you see that I have been working very hard toward that goal. I am working for the best possible article here, and have been relentless in taking a logical approach based on common standards, rather a single POV approach. Please remember that discussion, based on logic, should dictate the content. Concensus is not a vote. And objective editor will note I have changed my edits and position on a number of points throughout this process. I have not, however, seen that same open-mindedness from everyone, unfortunately. Discussion requires effort and an open-mind. Absent those elements, any cooperative approach is likely to break down at some point.

BTW:RFQ is not the time for every current editor to weight in. We had comment from one new party (although it looks like a possible SPA), whose suggestion - regarding eyewitness accounts being reserved for the relevant section in the body - I immediately adopted. I don't mind the borderline jibes, like that one, I just assume GF. But let us keep in mind we are dealing with a situation here involving BLP issues. Engaging in political gamemanship in this situation (i.e. NBCing the lead) has the potential to compound an already tragic situation. Let's assume this man is innocent until proven guilty. He has a right to have his side of events (esp. when supported by eyewitness/photo evidence), even if in brief, heard. ProfJustice (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

He has a right to have his side of events heard in a court of law, absolutely. But that has nothing to do with how our article is constructed, and he doesn't have some kind of right to have the details of his version of events in the lead here. Details have been added to the lead this weekend that are not even in the body of the article - that is not how we write articles. The lead is a summary of the body, and the body gets the details. This is getting out of control. And I'm afraid you have not demonstrated that you are presenting a neutral POV here - you have made it clear what your opinion on the case is and you have let it affect your editing - e.g., "NBCing the lead". Tvoz/talk 04:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please Tvoz, WP:AGF is a cornerstone of wikipedia. ProfJustice (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I just finished reading the whole wall of text above this and there are six editor's who do not agree that the amount of detail you have added in the lead is necessary and the discussion on how to proceed has been ongoing, but yet you still revert it back to your POV. I just think it should remain as it had been for a long time until all editor's involved with this article can come to an agreement about what to include.--Isaidnoway (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL, in other words. You want to keep it all out. ProfJustice (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If you would read the section called "Zimmerman's account of events", you will see that his side of the story has been well represented there and has been there for awhile. I guess to balance out the detail you have included we can include the details from the affidavit as well, which tell a different story.--Isaidnoway (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No. If you think the lead should be shortened. Let's cut out some of the unnecessary details. Not remove the information most critical, and I'm talking about that part that is exculpatory to Z being portrayed as a murderer. Hiding that info in the body is tantamount to a WP:BLP violation IMHO. ProfJustice (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

His side of the events and the information most critical are well represented in the article (in his own section). His eyewitness that supports his side of the event is included in the article (witness accounts). The photo which supports his claim of having his head bashed in is included in the article (witness accounts, and there is also detail about his head wounds in the surveillance video section). So, his right to have his side of the events heard is well represented. The lead is where we summarize all of the above information and leave the detail in the article. When you include the amount of detail that is in the lead now, the implication is that Zimmerman's claim of what happened that night is more significant than the other claims that dispute his story. You don't see any of the other witnesses that dispute his claim in the lead, nor any of the claims from the affidavit that dispute his story in the lead. The previous wording in the lead; "Zimmerman told police that Martin attacked him and he shot him in self-defense" summarizes it without presenting any particular POV. It doesn't present a NPOV when Zimmerman is the only one in the lead who gets to present his side of what happened.--Isaidnoway (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

ProfJustice, Re "Not remove the information most critical, and I'm talking about that part that is exculpatory to Z being portrayed as a murderer." — There is exculpatory info in the 3rd paragraph of the lead. What would you like to add? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Exculpatory info was just removed from the third paragraph.[22] This is at least part of what ProfJustice is concerned about. It seems typical for a relatively new controversial article in Wikipedia. The editor left reasons in the edit summary. So one way to proceed is to address the reasons and restore the material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to keeping detail out of the lede, but I'm also struck by this aspect of Tvoz's explanation: "not...in the article body which this is supposed to summarize". IF this -is- GZ's account (and it accords with my impressions of what was said on his behalf... though there's a Telephone problem in that) why isn't it in the article body? (I have myself not looked again, yet, at what is there.)(Btw, have we incorporated [23]?) Andyvphil (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think what Tvoz was referring to was the claim that "Martin went for Zimmerman's gun" which was in the lead at that time, but not in the body of the article. Although if it is reliably sourced, it could be added to the section "George Zimmerman's account of events." As far as "exculpatory evidence" (which is really not the proper term) is concerned, Zimmerman's claim as to what happened and the eyewitness and the photo obviously didn't exonerate or clear him, as he was charged with 2nd degree murder anyway.--Isaidnoway (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Have to disagree about what's "obvious". I don't know if Z is guilty, but it's clear from the execrable APC [24] that the decision to charge him was made without reference to whether the evidence exonerated him or not.(fifth paragraph: [25]) Andyvphil (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC):

Sorry, let me rephrase to make it clear. The state attorney's office decided that Zimmerman's statement, the eyewitness statement and Zimmerman's wounds obviously would not exonerate or clear him, and he was charged with 2nd degree murder anyway. I hope this clarifies the "obvious" meaning of the sentence.--Isaidnoway (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that you can read the prosecutors' minds regarding their motives. AGF applies to editors, not prosecutors. The affidavit and charges are the prosecutors' version of the case in our adversarial system of justice, and should be treated as such in this article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

AGF does apply to prosecutors and even police when they arrest and choose to charge somebody. That is why lawsuits against police departments and prosecutors are consistently thrown out is because of GF. Proving that prosecutors and police acted with malice when choosing to arrest and charge somebody is very hard to prove. And I don't see any indication that the state attorneys office was acting without GF when they chose not to exonerate or clear Zimmerman in this case. I don't see any evidence that they have been portrayed in a biased way in this article.--Isaidnoway (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Normally, it would be reasonable to agree with this. But there are plenty of exceptions, and it seems to happen especially often in cases where there is strong public pressure the "solve" a crime or "punish" someone. There is clearly a conflict of interest for the police in high-profile murder cases to "get their man" at all costs. In this case, there is intense national, state and local pressure to see a prosecution. This existed before the public was aware of, and now largely inspite of, the evidence. In other words, perhaps the prosecution is influenced by political pressure rather than just the "facts" of the case. It is not NPOV to ignore this aspect of the case. Let's not forget the first prosecutor declined to bring charges so another one was appointed (based on the evidence? or on the political outcry). Since the affidavit in support of indictment was filed, it has been sharply critized, with the sworn statements by the lead investigators being contradicted by their own sworn statements under testimony in the bond hearing (according to some legal scholars, I have RSs for that). We therefore, have RS support questioning the motives and integrity of the prosecutors and investigators in this case. ProfJustice (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You present a very reasonable argument and I actually agree with some of it. There is no doubt that there was intense public and political pressure to arrest and charge Zimmerman in this case. But even if they were influenced by the pressure, the defendant (if acquitted) must prove that the decision to prosecute was based on a motive of malice or vindictiveness. If the evidence they relied on to prosecute shows even a scant semblance of supporting the charge, then a judge will say they acted in good faith when charging the crime. The evidence you talk about does not outright clear him, but it definetely does tend to support his version of what happened. The decision of the other state attorney not to charge that night is actually very common, all that means is they wanted to investigate it further. The media and other individuals blew that way out of proportion. I have read the criticism of the affidavit and I actually agree with their assessment of it and it is mentioned in the article, if something further develops in this aspect of the case, I think it would merit inclusion.--Isaidnoway (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If the case falls apart for the prosecution based on media evidence then yes by all means include it, but as it hasn't happened the matter of recent events obscures historical worth. Namely, if this makes it to trial and O'Mara brings up the matter, he has already shown his brilliance in brief questioning with the matter of profiling. If it does go to trial the political pressure will no doubt reveal itself, because that is a sticking point of why Zimmerman was arrested, even though the police made a formal statement before his arrest that in 3 weeks of investigating there was no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. Even if RS's make speculation we do not have direct evidence of it. Until direct evidence comes out we should be careful in asserting speculation as fact. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly we should ALWAYS avoid stating speculation as fact. No one knows exactly what happened that night. Only Zimmerman and Martin know their respective sides, because there is limited objective evidence. Unfortunately, Martin is no longer with us to tell his side (and we shouldn't be about the business of telling it for him, because that is inherently POV). If we take that position, it is very risky business for the credibility of Wikipedia and is likely to end with egg on our face. It would be refreshing if we could count on the media, or at least the justice system to be completely objective. But ultimately, it is a political system and therefore rests on the integrity of the people. In general, I think we should include more information, but try harder to strike a balance. It's easy enough to parse and remove/summarize as things progress. Speculation should be cited and clearly labeled as such. In the interest of justice, (not for Martin, not for Zimmerman, but for us - the people) let's try a little harder to cooperate toward consensus and objectivity in this article. I'm holding my breath, starting .... now! ProfJustice (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

And if I have personally attacked or offended any other editor here, let me take this opportunity to say that is not my intention. I enjoy debating the facts, but I really don't believe it's legitimate (although sometimes it is tempting) to attack the messenger. ProfJustice (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed from the lead another version of the material that is not in the sources cited, regarding Zimmerman's version of events. Have I missed something in the above discussion - certainly possible - that says that consensus is now that we should put details of Zimmerman's version of events into the lead? My reading of this section is that the sense of the group was that the place for details about Zimmerman's version should be in that section ("George Zimmerman's account of events"), with appropriate references, not in the lead. Can we please come to a definitive agreement about what goes in the lead, and how it is worded and sourced - with the obvious understanding that it may well change as more information comes out. We're talking here - I think the usual procedure is to leave the text in contention out - leave the long-standing text - until editors agree on if and how it goes in. Tvoz/talk 20:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I see I was reverted - my edit summary for my removal of that material was accidentally cut off - it was supposed to say that this info is not in the sources cited and does not appear in the article body, as has been pointed out previously. And it was going to point to this discussion. I still would like to know what I am missing in this discussion where consensus went for including all of these details in the lead. Tvoz/talk 20:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been reverted back to the original text and it should remain that way until a consensus has been reached on to change it or not. Tvoz is right that the "Martin going for the gun" was not in the body of the article and never has been, so why keep on putting that in the lead. I still believe that Zimmerman's claim is sufficient in the body and should not be in the lead. The summary works just fine. We shouldn't be giving his side of the story more weight, we should strive for a NPOV.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here’s a message that I posted in another section.

’’Everyone, please note the section Try to fix problems of Wikipedia:Editing policy. Thanks.’’

Here's the policy section

Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts.

Instead of deleting text, consider:

• rephrasing or copyediting to improve grammar, more accurately represent the sources, or balance the article's contents
• correcting inaccuracy, while keeping the rest of the content intact
• moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
• adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
• requesting a citation by adding the {{cn}} tag
• doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
• adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you are unable to fix yourself
• repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located
• merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

One reason Tvoz gave for deleting the material was that it was unsourced. I found in the section George Zimmerman's account of events a source that can be used for most of the material that was deleted.[26]

The other reason Tvoz gave for deleting the material was that it was not in the body of the article. This is only partially correct because most of the material appeared in the section George Zimmerman's account of events.

However, Isaidnoway's last message mentioned other reasons for not having the info in the lead, so that's where we stand now. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The section George Zimmerman's account of events may need more work. For example, adding the part that Martin was trying to get Zimmerman's pistol and a source for this, if indeed that was what Zimmerman said. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Yes, Bob, I agree with the policy you posted above in principle, and it was a good solution to the other situation, as I said there. But that is not what was going on here - as I said above, my edit summary when I reverted was accidentally incomplete, and was supposed to point editors here to this discussion which I do not think had led to the conclusion that that material should be added. The lack of citation was not the central point (although I don't know why that material would have been added without proper citation in the first place). The discussion here is about whether or not to add these details to the lead, and we had not reached agreement to do so - in fact, I think quite the opposite. So I objected to it being unilaterally added without regard to the discussion going on - this is contentious, and whether it is "the most important thing that should be in the lead" as the edit summary said is not an opinion that everyone shares. Tvoz/talk 22:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And yes, adding that unsourced material was all the more problematic because at least some of it does not appear in the article, as has been said several times here. Tvoz/talk 22:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

1.This article should be LOCKED from editing by anyone who doesn't have an account. 2.Why is everyone trying to say Treyvon Martin didn't go to 7-11? We should add it anyway. According to the prosecutors,The 7-11 he went to has a video of him actually going in and buying the tea and candy. 3.It should be noted that Zimmerman has contradicted himself. In the 9-11 call he says he believed Treyvon Martin was in his late teens. In his bond hearing he said he thought Treyvon was around his age(Zimmerman is in his late 20s). It shows he is lying and it shows his apology was fake. 63.146.74.177 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comments indicate to me that you are arguing for editing to be done based on your personal point of view and not on principles that reflect Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Avanu (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Age estimate after fight: Most likely not lying. I think it is necessary to include the idea that Zimmerman revised the age after being slammed to the ground, with head bashed into the pavement, by a tall guy, 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m), who might be upset at being suspended from school for the 3rd time. Spend a month in Miami Gardens, FL with suspended students, and then reply again. -Wikid77 11:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the injuries, to me, they look like cuts not bruises. I would guess his head was scraped against the pavement, not bashed against the pavement. Stuff like this reminds me that we really do need to get up Fair Use images of these injuries - they're just essential for readers to make individual decisions about the case, because anyone describing them, in any source, is going to introduce personal biases. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bruises take more then 3 minutes to appear, which according to the data was the timestamp from the incident. Unless you have a pinched set of blood vessels bruising does not occur that fast. Its a wrong observation/speculation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also in second note can we mention that Zimmerman's supporters have tried to imply Treyvon is some kind of thug because of the weed that was once found him during school? It really shows how ridiculously vicious and how strong the double standards are in this case(i.e every black kid who smokes pot is breaking into houses) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.146.74.177 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. -- Avanu (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Police calls to The Retreat

Our article says: "Police had been called to The Retreat at Twin Lakes 402 times from January 1, 2011, to February 26, 2012" and that GZ made 12 of those calls. Has anyone seen a correction in the media to the unlikely claim of 402 police calls in a 14 month period (and the Neighborhood Watch captain makes only 12 of them?) ? --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall some discussion of this before with reference to primary sources, you may want to check the archives. Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It was never retracted, but a typo on the primary document was misreported for Zimmerman's calling history, perhaps the same as true for this matter. I do not remember seeing the actual document come up (as Zimmerman's call history did) so it is impossible to actually verify it, but primary sources are often misinterpreted in this case and those misinterpretations played a big role in trying to destroy Zimmerman. i.e. Zimmerman being White on the police report. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Reuters article said "weekly calls" by others in the complex following a rash of breakins. Considering the number of calls made to the single shooting incident, the number doesn't seem unreasonable.--DeknMike (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Bill Lee / Houseowners Association / Timeline

March 1 Police Chief Bill Lee attends emergency Homeowner's Association meeting to discuss shooting

What source for this? LeaNder (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe it was from the timeline published by the police department, but it may not be available any longer after they purged their site. In any case, Im not sure that it is controversial in any way. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would Police Chief Bill want to attend an emergency meeting with them? To assure them there would be no prosecution? LeaNder (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Coons" vs. "punks"

Given that the affidavit -- an official legal document, which should trump everything else -- states that Zimmerman said "punks," shouldn't that eliminate any need for material in the article discussing what he said? It doesn't really matter anymore what the mainstream media's ever-changing narrative is. I mean, there were a lot of erroneous media reports early on on 9/11, but those are not included in the Wikipedia article because they were trumped by official reports and don't matter anymore. 67.233.247.121 (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that some people heard "coons" might end up being relevant to the public pressure put upon the state to arrest Zimmerman. I'm not disputing that it may be best to remove it, BUT at the same time, it is part of the narrative of rising calls for Zimmerman to be arrested. -- Avanu (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

They swore under oath it was punks. It throws out the hate crime possibility is all. Though this might be a lesser case in which the evidence doesn't match the perceptions. Not OJ level, but it could be a key point if the case falls apart since it is hard to profile someone as a criminal rather then profile under race. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

They swore under oath to a number of things that weren't true, or that they did not know to be true. (1) That Z was directed not to follow M. (2) That Z was directed to meet the officers. (3) At the bail hearing one of the affiants admitted "that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin. The affidavit says 'Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.'" [[27]] So this is one "official legal document" that trumps nothing. Anyway, "coons" is part of the biased media and trumped up outrage story whether GZ said it or not. Andyvphil (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Official legal documents and oaths and so forth may have some weight in a courtroom, but even there jurors do not always assume they are true. For Wikipedia purposes they are simply good primary sources. A good article includes all published points of view, considering their relative weight in the secondary literature to determine the prominence of each, but omitting nothing but the most fringe interpretations. What is believed by a substantial fraction of people is not, of course, a fringe interpretation. We should not decide who is right and who is wrong - we are not a jury and this is not a verdict. Wnt (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Primary documents are not to be taken and interpreted in a show of OR, but reliable secondary sources given analysis about them is the accepted standard. A vast majority of comments from legal professors and lawyers have denounced the affidavit as being flawed to the point that it could cripple the prosecution. Especially considering that the affidavit outright contradicts the documents and this is under oath. Now I'm now sure if this is shenanigans, but that is actionable by the court if it goes to trial. The analysis of primary documents is proper for Wikipedia, even if the opposing side argues a point you disagree with. For the defense and the statements, we have lying under oath, directly contradicting official documents. If a reliable secondary source says that their statments contradict those documents under oath it should be go in under analysis. The average Wikipedia reader is not an expert in legal affairs, rational and reliable sources analyze the proceedings and found what they believe to be 'right' and 'wrong' and both interpretations are foundations of the prosecution and defense sides of the law. Both sides must go in to be neutral, even if both say the other interpretation is wrong. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, one of the duties we have in Wikipedia is to use "reliable" sources. How do we determine reliability? We use our minds and logic and sometimes we compare the secondary sources to the primary sources. Sometimes it is easy to see if someone is not adhering to the primary source, sometimes it isn't, but it is at least worth a discussion if there appears to be a conflict. -- Avanu (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

More eloquent then my rambling post, but yes, completely agree this is what I was trying to get at! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing, so I'll restate: if the New York Times editorializes that "Jerry lied in his affidavit...", we write "In an editorial, the New York Times wrote that "Jerry lied in his affidavit"." If they and the Washington Post and five other newspapers write in an article that "Jerry's statement was clearly false", and none others disagree, then we write "Jerry's statement was false." without even qualifying it. And if they write that "Jerry's statement was basically true", and we, picking over the transcripts, see that it is a bald-faced lie, we write, "Jerry's statement was basically true.", where the second reference links to the primary court transcript so that the diligent reader can see that for himself. Maybe we even include a well-chosen quote from the transcript without otherwise commenting. But what we don't do is put ourselves up as an authority to contradict the statements based on our own "original research" and "original synthesis", because that's not a role we take on in encyclopedia writing. Wnt (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No way. If 1000 newspapers all say George Zimmerman is the worst racist ever, and primary sources show he mentors black kids and participates in rallies to support black people, then we need some real supporting sources for that claim to be more than just the editorial opinion of a newspaper. We wouldn't write "Jerry's statement was basically true", we would either write nothing or we would write "The New York Times claims Jerry's statement was basically true, based on blah blah blah." But we certainly wouldn't put knowingly false information into an article without some kind of disclaimer, and honestly it would be much better to just leave it out at that point. You might read WP:RS which has a short discussion on factual (reporting) content versus analytical (editorial) content. -- Avanu (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

@Wnt. Actively engaging in deliberate falsification or purposefully misleading readers is wrong! If an error is made citing a well known primary document readily available, we as editors have a duty to highlight that error. By your interpretation we would allow anyone to state 'Martin was shot on Feb 16th' and then link the police report stating otherwise. Same would applies to 'Martin was shot in the back of the head' followed by the source stating that and then the source contradicting it with no mention of the contradiction. Self-contradictions are supposed to be flagged for fixing! We do not engage in deliberate misleading to uphold lies, hoaxes and other willful attempts to mislead readers. It is not WP:OR to point out an error in citation. Clearly it is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH when X citing Y is a 'bald-faced lie' because Y states otherwise. You intend this? "'He's President of the USA!' (Source my comment) (Source to primary document proving otherwise)" If it is that would be highly damaging and irresponsible editing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree here. Reprinting false statements and pointing the finger to RS is no protection against WP:BLP violations! WP can still be sued. We a public platform here and therefore, we have an onus to use it responsibly. Knowingly printing erroneous information, even if properly sourced, is NOT defensible visa a RS. Ask Dan Rather, or NBC or any legal expert. It's called Libel, look it up. Never mind, I looked it up for you. "LIBEL: A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation." ProfJustice (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

But we don't know something is false until some reliable source reports it! It is true that I support going with the primary source when we can interpret it ourselves in accordance with WP:OR - see [28] for an actual example - but when it comes to telling whether a statement given in testimony is true or false, that is a more complicated interpretation that I doubt we can make reliably on our own. Wnt (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Include both viewpoints: The contradictions between secondary and primary sources is typically a case where the contradiction would be noted in the text, most likely with a detailed footnote explaining why, such as a witness said the streets were wet from raining, versus a weather report listing no rain on that day, and then ponder if the weather data was correct. As you know, some issues require great expertise to interpret, so at least include both viewpoints with the detailed footnote. Once an article uses a primary source to exclude all other opinions, then it has crossed the line of self-righteous judgment, like editors who delete all of what another editor writes, rather than ask their opinion and modify. -Wikid77 08:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If it is so obvious then WP:OR doesn't apply because it is covered under WP:HOAX. The difference here is willful participating in creating and perpetuating lies, if it is a 'bald-faced lies' then your concerns are moot under other policies. OR and Synth do not apply to 'bald-faced lies', but in deriving novel interpretations based on X and Y to state Z. If X and Y contradict each other, you should not mis-attribute Y to state Z. That's the difference. We may report what others have reported, but we have a duty to ensure the verification of that material. If it cannot be verified we use careful wording to make the distinction of sourcing clear. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can concede that a truly obvious ridiculous lie should be noted even if it contradicts a secondary source's opinion, but the notion that a reliable secondary source wouldn't note such a thing ... well, it's unlikely and it's not happening here. Sorry we got so astray with hypotheticals. The point is, whether someone heard, say, one interpretation of a word rather than another - that's not such a simple call. Wnt (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This discussion about my concern is interesting, but let's boil it down to this: the idea that Zimmerman uttered a racial epithet is based on early news reports which have since been re-examined (maybe even retracted). The affidavit says "punks." I would imagine that in cases like this, an official legal record like an affidavit should and would trump any and all news reports, particularly early ones. Given WP:BLP and the potential legal ramifications for leaving the epithet, mention of the racial epithet should be removed from the article. 67.233.246.106 (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What legal ramifications? WP is not stating and/or implying that a racial slur was used by Zimmerman. It is clearly stated in the article that the media reported it and the re-examinations are reported as well and the affidavit is in there too. Additionally, it also says the transcript of the phone call lists the word as unintelligible. It should stay in as it was reported on heavily in the media at the time and was used by many Martin supporters to bolster the idea that Zimmerman was racially profiling him.

As far as the affidavit is concerned, yes it was entered into the record, but if another analysis conducted by law enforcement authorities can definitively and unequivocally identify the word as something other than punks, then they are certainly free to use the new interpretation, and disregard the affidavit as the best information available to them at that time. And the affidavit still doesn't negate the fact of the controversy that initially surrounded his alleged use of a racial slur.--Isaidnoway (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"What legal ramifications?" Defamation, for one. I guarantee that if the false information is removed, then there DEFINITELY won't be any chance of anyone taking the information as implying that Zimmerman really said that. Quite frankly, you cannot, in good conscience, include false information about someone even if hundreds or thousands of MSM outlets initially reported it as fact. 67.233.240.156 (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should read that paragraph again, because you seemed to be confused. It clearly states that CNN and other reports alleged (Not WP) that Zimmerman had uttered a racial slur. It was not reported by the media or WP as being a fact that he said it. There was no deliberate malicious intent (defamation) whatsoever by including this controversial statement that was sourced to the media reporting on it. You seemed to be confused about the affidavit as well, while it is a fact that it was entered into the court record, they did not state in the affidavit that it was a fact that he said punks. It is merely their interpretation of what he said. I hope this helps to clear up your confusion.--Isaidnoway (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Get this word "trump" out of your head. There is no "trump", there is only "fringe". Are the early news reports wild conspiracy theories held by a tiny minority of people? No. So we mention them, and we mention the other interpretation, and if history comes to a consensus one way or another then we explain whose ears are most accepted. Wnt (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, let's not get the word "trump" out of anyone's heads. Break up your first question into two: "Are the early news reports wild conspiracy theories?" Yes, they are, and they have been thoroughly debunked by subsequent findings and the FACT of what Zimmerman said is now a matter of legal record. That DOES trump these early false reports, just like the facts of 9/11 trump the early erroneous reports which are no longer included in the 9/11 article. "Are the early news reports held by a tiny minority of people?" That question has two issues: #1: it's really academic as given time and facts, they will be, and #2: you cannot take the past (when the media erroneously reported en masse that Zimmerman used the racial slur simply because it made for a "good story") and apply it to the here and now when the facts have come to light. 67.233.240.156 (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You ought to be careful throwing around the word 'fact' so much. -- Avanu (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Particularly as regards the Affadavit, which is in so many respects a tissue of irrelevancies, falsehoods and unidentified conjecture. Andyvphil (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Name your sources that say that the "coon" is clearly and unequivocally refuted? To the extent that thinking that was the word said is a "fringe" interpretation? So far as I know the bottom line is still that nobody is entirely sure what the word was one way or the other. Wnt (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Previous Zimmerman "Employee Suit and Tie" Photo Tagged for Deletion

The fair use and non-free use rationale on a photo of Zimmerman that I uploaded is no longer valid because a public domain photo of Zimmerman is now in use in the article Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin. This photo is scheduled for deletion on April 30 per "di-orphaned fair use". Intrepid (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it known who made this image available, and when? The continued use of the mugshot by the media (which should also be in the article, despite WP:MUG) after this became available is a component of the case for media bias, which we should address more than it is now addressed. (And if you're experience in the business of getting photos into articles, I'd suggest looking into substituting the cropped version of the 3/28/12 TM family group (#11 at http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-trayvon-martin-pictures-20120328,0,3247003.photogallery) for the "backseat" TM, as it illustrates his youth, height, and general appearance much better than the latter. Andyvphil (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I Agree. I was surprised at Martin's adult appearance in picture #11 as you mentioned above. I suggest all Editors take a look at it. I'm also outraged that the media is still using the "baby-faced" picture of Martin and the "Chubby Faced" Mug shot of Zimmerman. Intrepid (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If you can find media discussion of a particular Fair Use image, I think it should be includable even though a public domain image is also being displayed. Wnt (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin was not "walking"; records of Martin's phone calls

The article currently reads "While on a private errand, Zimmerman saw Martin walking inside the gated community where he was visiting his father and his father's fiancée...."

The following is an excerpt from Attorney Crump's press conference.

"She relays how he went to the store. When he came out from the store, he said it was starting to rain, he was going to try to make it home before it rained. Then he tells her it starts raining hard. He runs into the apartment complex and runs to the first building he sees to try to get out of the rain. He was trying to get shelter. So he tries to get out of the rain. [29]"

Martin was running through the apartment complex not walking.True Observer (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Call transcript:

"Zimmerman: ... This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."

...and then there's the problem that the 7-11 is ~15 (walking) minutes away (per my unchecked memory... but that's the right magnitude) and the Skittles were bought about 40 minutes before Martin was shot (~6:30). No problem if he was hanging out under awnings etc between breaks in the rain, but as hard to square with him running all the way as the idea that Z pursued and caught him. Andyvphil (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Crump was not there, nor was anyone from the family, so her characterization of how Martin was moving is irrelevant and unreliable. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he was walking when Zimmerman first saw him and started running as the rain picked up. Who knows? There's some great original synthesis to be done here, but alas, not by us. Don't be afraid to have out and out contradictions in the article as long as each one has an inline citation. Wnt (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The phone records are false. Crump's own evidence shows Martin was NOT on the phone with 'DeeDee' at the time of the incident. They even released the original document pointing to it. Can we please move on already? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think it would be proper to label it as a hoax. Anyone agree? The actual document is in stark contrast to Crump's statement. Read it here if you want. PST not EST. [30] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC) (Late sign)

I don't think hoax is an appropriate characterization, as it was not created with the intent to fool anyone. People may or may not lying, or may or may not be mistaken, or may or may not be confused. For us to assign a particular motive to them is WP:OR. Additionally Phone records are rounded to the minute, and AT&T and 911's logs are not necessarily synchronized. Two events with the exact same minute timestamp could be as far as 59 seconds apart. Conversly, two events that have timestamps that differ by one minute, could be 2 seconds apart, or almost 120 seconds apart. The fidelity of the information is not such that we can make a determination. Possibly more detailed records will be made available during the trial. Further, any analysis of the times on our part would be WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin42, please look at my source. All times are PST. According to Crump, DeeDee was on the phone with Martin as 7:12 PM EST (Assumed to be EST, but records at the top is PST). Notice it? That's a 3 hour difference in time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hrm, I think for us to go that route we would need a pretty major RS making that same conclusion. The phone call has been very widely reported as happening approximately at the same time. Being 3 hours different would be a major falsehood, and throw out a good portion of the conflicting evidence. I m not saying it isn't so, but for us to make that determination would be major WP:OR There are multiple explanations that could correct this - different records (multiple phones?) - bug in at&t printout, etc . Im not saying any of those are actually true, but just that we aren't in a position to be making that decision. This is certainly something that will be covered in detail in the trial, and we should either wait for that, or rely on major RS (def avoid all the blogs for this imo) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Its why I haven't added it to the article yet, all the major blogs had a post about it. This one has the article's discovery. [31] Specifically this post. [32] While it is a lengthy piece of investigative journalism with a clear bias it does make very strong points which haven't yet been addressed by mainstream media... much in the way that NBC's altering of the 911 tape started. This is a whole different ball game though, this means the entire case falls apart and that a sworn affidavit is false. This could essentially do a huge amount of damage, but then again other matters have been swept under the rug before. Found old posts from news which state Zimmerman shot Martin at the convenience store and another stating Trayvon was shot by Zimmerman while Martin was robbing the 7-11. The entire media response is stunning. By the same note, the three main blogs have been responsible for the largest push-backs on the case. RS or not, we will see how this pans out. Newsbusters got NBC and we still don't call them a RS, despite the story originating from them. The 'armed neo-nazi's patrolling Sanford' was dis-proven by a blog too. My only major problem is... Crump released the document and the document does not say what he says it says. And I don't want to put a blog in for what the large portion of the conservative blogosphere reports on before a traditional 'RS' reports it as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a reliable source - it's probably best to focus more on the relevant primary sources such blogs can uncover - in this case, http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/call+log.pdf . We should be cautious about interpreting this document, but certainly it is a useful primary source. Wnt (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's my point. But I don't think the fact that it states all calls are in PST time is 'objectionable', quite clearly this is the same document that was in the ABC interview and the call records match. The document is either real or not, and given the source it will be bad either way. Releasing a fake document or falsely interpreting a real document; then the whole matter of 'DeeDee' comes up if EITHER are true. It is a no win situation for Crump. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea whether this is a hoax or not, but I think it is simply incredulous to assume that Crump or the State's investigators overlooked this important detail when it is clearly noticeable to even the untrained observer. For what it's worth, I just checked my cell phone records online (not the same provider) and the list of phone calls/texts are all listed by the time zone I live in, but when I click on the little "info" box beside each one, the detail of the call/text lists them all as US/Eastern timezone (not where I live or called or texted).--Isaidnoway (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Always hard to believe Crump would put his personal fortune at risk of suit by GZ by inventing records easily debunked by T-Mobile. Particularly given his association with Sharpton, who is still (I think -- was until quite recently, anyway) kept busy evading payment of the judgement against him after the Tawana Brawley affair. Anyway, this link seems to show it's a T-Mobile software problem: http://support.t-mobile.com/message/117416. Andyvphil (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, then if the document is wrong why would that not be addressed? Why would such a 'bug' go unnoticed when something is entered as evidence? Why wouldn't T-mobile address the situation because that would mean their records are wrong. If it was previously a bug, then when was it addressed? Either way someone has explaining to do on this matter because a top provider of phone services getting such matters wrong especially when their time stamps are used in other criminal cases is well... important. I can't imagine they would say one thing and have another, but other matters don't line up either. So confusing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The phone record shows text messages in Pacific time and voice messages in Eastern time, because charges for text messages are the same regardless of the time they are made but the charge for voice calls varies according to time. If the call was made at 7:12pm PST it was three hours after Martin's death while the phone was in police custody. 70.233.162.245 (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My point is it says all calls are in PST, not EST. That's why there has been discussion about it, but so far no source has countered with that explanation either. If it is true it pans out, but the person who is widely believed to be DeeDee still doesn't appear to be his girlfriend or anything 'special'. Just need better sourcing and investigation to be done into that. So I'm thinking we keep it out for now, even though a few sources bring up the DeeDee matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The alleged wrongness of the dates has not been covered in the mainstream, so it is not surprising that nobody has refuted it. I'm sure that will be covered in the trial, if the girl is called to testify. Im not sure her being a gf, vs a friend, vs whatever really matters - her statement has nothing to do with their relationship. In fact her not being a girlfriend improves the reliability of her testimony as she would have less motive to lie. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin's acquaintances in Miami Gardens

Who were Martin's homeboys (running buddies or acquaintances) near his home in Miami Gardens, FL (inland from North Miami Beach, Florida)? More background is needed in the article. Sometimes black teenagers have several white friends, but Martin's neighborhood was primarily black. During 2009-2011, Martin attended Carol City High School, for his freshman/sophmore years, then on 31 August 2011, another 17-yr-old black youth (Tyrae L.) shot 4 teenagers (2 girls, 2 boys) leaving campus after school, and Martin was transferred to another high school, where he was suspended 3 times (for graffiti "W.T.F." on lockers in an unauthorized area in October 2011, for truancy, and for a "marijuana pipe" and residue in baggy in February 2012). His father drove him to central Florida to keep Martin away from his "friends" after being suspended the 3rd time. The term "homeboys" avoids the POV-term "friends" which might not be true, depending on what "friend" means with peer pressure to commit crimes. -Wikid77 16:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Your description of hypothetical friends as homeboys (a ridiculously loaded term), and choosing as your example as possible friends people involved direclty in crime, with no evidence to show that they actually were friends is stupidly pov. Your thought that somehow "friends" is pov, and "homeboys" is not shows your complete lack of neutrality on this subject. There is absolutely no reported linkage between Tyrae and Martin. I went to the same school as Ashton Kutcher and several member's of Elijah Wood's family. That doesn't mean I am in the hollywood crowd. The possibility that Martins family wanted him out of a troubled school, where bad things were happening is in no way unusual or negative. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I will take that answer to mean you don't know anything here, and are highly disturbed about this subject. Sorry to bother you. -Wikid77 06:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Holding him responsible for an entire school district's crimes is nonsensical. We should indeed have responsible coverage of his background, by which I mean, going with what the reliable sources present as his situation, without making absurd connections on our own. Please note that 35% of high school seniors admit to using marijuana] in the U.S. So if Martin got in trouble over this, does it mean he's a gang-banger, a bad kid? Absolutely not. What it might mean is that someone was looking at him harder than the other kids, because he was black, because he wore a hoodie, because he was tall, because he looked to this side and that too often... who knows why? Wnt (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I would not refer to User:Gaijin42's connections as "absurd" but rather as misguided, and upsetting to hint that Tyrae L. and Martin were friends. Meanwhile, try to focus on the original subject of Martin's homeboys. -Wikid77 06:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

wtf, how are thy my connections at all? I was saying YOUR connections are absurd. Homeboy is an obviously loaded term. Every dictionary brings up at least one definition talking about membership in a gang. By insisting that the word homeboy is more neutral, even though it has the gang connotation, you are showing your obvious bias. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Friends from middle schools attended new high school: I found a 3-page source (MHerald-2012/3/22) that explains that when Martin transferred, as a sophomore, from Carol City High School to Michael M. Krop Senior High School (2,700 students, p.3), he met old friends from his prior 2 middle schools (a middle school in U.S. public education is midway between elementary school and high schools), who had not attended Carol City High. That Miami Herald article states that Martin had attended a Spanish-language class at a middle school with a friend whose mother was from Colombia, and talked with him at the new high school. The influence of other friends is sketchy, not revealing a group of homeboys, but the connections to both of his middle schools clarifies that Martin was not a loner, outsider at his new high school. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Logical question: Why did he attend 2 middle schools. There is no evidence of his mother having moved around.True Observer (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing at all how there is a clearly established connection between school friends and the event at Twin Lakes. This entire section seems like off topic speculation. I've also renamed the section, because I'm getting annoyed seeing 'homeboy' in every edit summary, which is an inappropriate term for the article, unless it is found in a direct quote from a source. -- Avanu (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Related cases in Miami Gardens

As many people know, there was an arrest in Miami Gardens, FL, on 5 September 2011 (5 months prior), of 17-year-old youth Tyrae L. who police claim confessed (WSVN-TV-News42) to the shooting of 4 teenagers (3 wounded) near Carol City High School in Miami Gardens, where Trayvon Martin lived. One of the victims had been shot 4 times and was really "angry" about it. Among the numerous other shootings in Miami Gardens, this one is interesting because the teenage shooter (Trayvon's age) was charged with 3 counts of "aggravated battery" for the shootings, and the same high school staged a walk-out (on March 22, 2012: MHerald67), with hundreds of students flooding the streets, because Zimmerman had not been arrested. The prior day, 3 hispanic men had been shot in a "random shooting" in Miami Gardens (on March 21, 2012), during the first week that protests began to increase about Zimmerman not being charged for the shooting. Within days of Martin's shooting, there was another shooting in Miami Gardens, outside the mansion of rapper Rick Ross, but the span of days is so short for TV news from central to south Florida, that a connection is unlikely. More should be placed in the article about the shootings and other students who were suspended when Trayvon Martin was suspended from school in February and October 2011, nearer the time of the school shooting. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The article needs more detail about the 2 schools Martin attended. His mother never gave a satisfactory explanation of why she took him out of one and put him in the other. Maybe there is a connection to these shooting stories.True Observer (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, do you have 2 more sources which confirm Trayvon had attended Carol City High School, where the September shooting occurred and the other 17-yr-old black youth was arrested for shooting the 4 other teenagers? -Wikid77 19:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources of Martin attending Carol City High: Of course there are 2 major sources: attended freshman/sophmore years MiamiHerald-3/22/2012; transfered in junior year (after school shooting Aug. 2011) CNN-3/30/2012. Nailed it. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain simply what the connection is? They're different articles, different shootings, different cities ... a lot of people get killed in Florida. I'm all for including mention of them if there's some sourced connection there, but if you said there is one I don't understand it. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Connections within Miami Gardens: The size of the town is about 20 square miles (51.8 km²), so no wonder Trayvon Martin had formerly attended the high school where the other 17-yr-old shot those 4 teenagers after school. One connection: Trayvon Martin lived in an area where shootings were common, many by other black teenage guys near his age. -Wikid77 19:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH establishing a connection when there is no evidence otherwise. You can't say X because Y might be related to Z. The only one with Zimmerman counts because he assisted in the arrest of a burglar and was said to prevent a second, Zimmerman has direct evidence of a connection to crime in the community and his status. Martin does not, just because a shooting took place that doesn't mean Martin held a connection to it or it adversely affected his actions on Feb 26th. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how you can pick out one shooting and say it's relevant. If what you're saying is you want to give background on the neighborhood he lived in, say whether it's a high crime area, well, maybe (still probably not relevant enough unless some source commented on it), but at least get a general impartial crime/murder statistic for the two towns. You can't highlight one particular case just because you happened to read about that one. Wnt (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Connection: Martin attended Carol City High School near his (mother's) home in 2009-2011; there was a school shooting there in August 2011 by another 17-yr-old black youth, and Martin transferred to Michael M. Krop High School, where he was suspended 3 times as a new student during 7 months. Students at his former high school staged a walk-out protest on March 22, 2012. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So is your point that Martin was transferred out of that school because there was a school shooting and his parents thought it was too dangerous for him to stay there? Or because you think he was secretly part of some kind of gang which steals jewelry and shoots people? Or because you think he was really the one who shot those people? This sounds like white-hot stuff some source should have commented on, if only to take a guess or give some partisan opinion. Is there something we can cite? If not, how would we describe the connection without making up some crazy story out of thin air like I've just done? Wnt (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• There is no "crazy story out of thin air" to make. It is just the simple facts, as stated above: Martin attended a high school near his home for 2 years, there was a shooting there by another 17-yr-old black youth arrested for shooting 4 teenagers/students, then Martin transfered to another school where he was suspended 3 times, got shot while away in central Florida but shooter not arrested, and his former high school held a protest. That is all, so far. Let other people add any remaining details. There is no "crazy story" for worry or censoring. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Simple but irrelevant facts. This is the article about the shooting of Trayvon Martin not an article about random other stuff in the life of Trayvon Martin... In fact it's not clear that the school shooting bit would even belong in a biographical article about Trayvon as there doesn't seem to be an established connection to him other then it occurring in his school. (The changing school but at least would probably belong in a biographical article as details on schooling are generally considered relevant.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This case is filled with mystery. There seems to be no explanation for why Martin changed schools. It has to be rare for a high school student to transfer to another high school after his sophomore year unless the family was relocating out of the school district.True Observer (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Transferred as sophomore: True Observer, sources are indicating Martin transferred to another school during his sophomore year (not junior), and he had old friends at the new school, which answers your concerns. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

While that is true it is a synthesis as Wikid77 did to put that as relevant to Martin's school changing while at the same time using improper wording to reflect a peaceful demonstration organized by the principal with a student 'walk-out'. Synthesis or misrepresenting facts with deceptive tag lines from article headers is not good. Neither of these are what the sources state what was inserted into the article. We must excerise care, and discuss it first before such contentious material is inserted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Read the sources, not just the headlines: If you read the full text of the sources, then it is clear that "the students" held a walk-out into the streets (hundreds of students), despite the administration trying to contain the protest on campus. As for synthesis, it is an unusual synthesized view that a shooting at a school, 5 months earlier, would have no bearing on school life there. WP:SYNTH does mean "ignore simple reality"; instead just read the policy again, while also reading the contents of source webpages. That is how I have been able to find the answers to so many complex questions, here, so quickly. -Wikid77 08:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because the sources don't state connections to what you think they state. The hook: "Hundreds of students at Carol City High School in Miami Gardens held a massive walkout Thursday to protest the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin and the lack of an arrest in the case." The truth, "According to Miami Gardens police, the school principal sanctioned an on-campus peaceful demonstration to take place on the school field. However, some of the students left campus." Everything else in the article is useless background to Trayvon Martin. Basically we are left with only two key facts. 'Principal to make peaceful demonstration' and 'Some kids left campus during demonstration.' Oh yeah, that is real 'Hundreds of students held a massive walkout'. Talk about overblowing. The students didn't even arrange the so-called walk-out, and while hundreds took part in the demonstration (because of the principal) only some of them left campus. According to this they did not protest or march on City Hall, or anything else, they just left. There were no 'hundreds' walking in the streets to protest off school grounds, it was on school grounds and only 'some' left. Huge difference. WP:SYNTH is clear in the fact that you cannot interpret the source in a novel way to arrive at a different result not supported by the source. The prior shooting and its relation to Martin are unrelated and not connected for good reason. Classic WP:SYNTH and its the reason why they were removed. Your 'ability to find the answers to complex questions' is not what Wikipedia is about. We report the reports, not interpret various material in a novel way to arrive at a conclusion unsupported by any reliable source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's role in the neighborhood watch: unnecessary info

I see this has been removed: "Sanford Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival, told the Miami Herald that she met Zimmerman in September, 2011 at a community neighborhood watch presentation. Dorival stated that she gave a warning with respect to vigilante behavior at that meeting: “I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location.’ There’s even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don’t know how many more times I can repeat it.”" The information removed seems useful and appropriate to me. Isaidnoway, would you explain your reasoning a bit further? I don't understand yet. Thanks. ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe this was the speculation mixed with her spiel and was not specifically addressed to Zimmerman on a personal level and was more of Dorival trying to save face. In light of the information which has surfaced the matter of her 'saving face' and the matters of Zimmerman being a vigilante, both accounts have their concerns. Considering Zimmerman did as she noted, her personal emphasis and speculation add nothing relevant because they highlight something being taken out of context. Zimmerman was following what she had said and called 911, he also listened to the operator by several accounts and did not pursue Martin further when told 'we don't need you to do that', by the time the call ended police were on their way and Zimmerman was going to meet them. Zimmerman's actions were not vigilante Batman-style as some have suggested. Her comments are not particularly constructive or useful with regards to the matter at the present time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, that makes sense now. Her words assume he was acting as a vigilante. I agree with the edit now. ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

My issue is that her remarks suggest they were directed at Zimmerman and him alone and when she met him, she had warned him and only him of not being a vigilante.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont read the removed information as saying it was directed personally at Zimmerman. Zimmerman was there, he recieved that information, he later acted not in accordance with that information. Doing so was not illegal, but it is extremely relevant that it was against the reccomendations of the police given to the watch, and as leader of the watch zimmerman should be especially aware of them. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The reference cited does not make it clear that the warning was in respect to vigilante behavior or was just part of her overall presentation that she regularly gave. It also says "at the meeting" was it the meeting with Zimmerman when she "met him" or at the presentation she gave to all of the participants. The language in the sentence is ambiguous to say the least.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

prosecution accidentally leaks witness info

Thoughts on if this is important enough for inclusion? http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-witness-names-20121115,0,3953822.story Gaijin42 (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If something further develops out of this, such as the judge admonishing De la Rionda or reporters start harassing these witnesses, then yes I favor inclusion. Right now as it stands, it seems on the surface to be accidental.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As it is now, it would merely be fluff in an already long article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary Detail

Does anyone else think the level of detail in this article is really over the top? I get that this received some public attention and all, but the need to put every last scrap of information found really overwhelms the article. We live in the age of 24 hour news so every current development is seen as really important, but come on, long portions of material on mundane pretrial motions for routine discovery is really trivial and unnnecessary. It seems to me that whatever was recent was just put in no matter how insignificant the new bit of information is. The article is really bogged down with trivial material that severely decreases the overall quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.172.243 (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. You may be comforted to know that this is fairly common with current events articles. After the furor dies down, and the trial is over, it will be clearer which details have relevance and which do not, and the article will be trimmed. I would support considerable trimming now, but fear I am in the minority in that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If you could specify some of what you think needs to be trimmed here on the talk page, then we could take a look at it and go from there. Considering that the trial or the SYG hearing has yet to take place, there is bound to be a significant amount of new material that will need to be added. There is always room for improvement in any WP article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

suspension location

I am personally of the opinion that the 3 suspensions SHOULd be included, however we currently have it in the article twice, which I think is unnecessary and excessive/biased. The question is which location is better, 1) On the brief Trayvon bio, or 2) In the "Background of shooting". I can see good arguments for either location. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally feel like it should not be included, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with Zimmerman shooting Martin. I removed it from his bio and left it in the "Background of the shooting" section. Zimmerman's prior bad acts are not listed in his bio, why should irrelevant suspensions be in Martins.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've stated before I would support inclusion of all of both participants background. I can see an argument that Martin's are much more recent and frequent (3 suspensions in the previous 5 months). The obvious counter argument is that suspensions are certainly not as serious as an assault charge or restraining orders. You assert the suspensions are irrelevant, which I would classify as WP:OR/WP:POV as they are being discussed in the media, and are being brought up in the case. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree Gaijin. Apostle12 (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Put it in the proper context Gaijin42, Zimmerman's run ins with the law were at a young age, Martin's suspensions were at a young age. So, they both were in trouble at a young age. Even though Zimmerman stayed out of trouble for a few years, he is now facing a murder charge. We'll never know about Martin. There is alot of things that were, and are, being discussed in the media about this case, some make it in the article, some don't, just depends on who the current group of editors working on the article are. You know that. All editor's offer their own WP:OR and WP:POV on the talk page, you know that as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's happened at a young age, and he may or may not have changed/matured since then (and as stated, I am 100% open to including them). Martin's happened at a young age, and the most recent was at the time of the incident, with 3 others in the last 5 months, and also issues like the fight club, etc which may be indicative of his behavior/attitudes in a very recent timeframe. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The tendencies and/or past actions of both these individuals in the past few months and/or past few years can be discussed till we're blue in the face, but in the long run, it really just ends up being a debate about these two individuals here on the talk page. For every argument, there is a counter argument. Martin's suspensions are being discussed in relation to this case, and I don't have an issue with it being included in that context, I would object to it being in his bio section though. Zimmerman's prior bad acts have also been previously discussed in court in relation to this case, and I don't have an issue with it being included either in that context, I would object to it being in his bio section as well. On three previous ocassions, I have inserted Zimmerman's prior bad acts into this article, in relation to the court case (bond hearing), and they were promptly removed. If someone wants to tackle this in a NPOV manner, and put Zimmerman's prior bad acts and Martin's suspensions in the article, as related to the court case, I support it 100%.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I would tend towards having the more general info about Martin in the bio section, and the info more specific to the circumstances of the incident in the "Background to the shooting" section. An example for the bio section would be something like, "In the year leading up to the shooting, Martin had been suspended from school three times", while in the "Background to the shooting" section there could be, "He was in Sanford while under suspension from school." --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This general info about Martin's school suspensions and all his records from school along with his social media accounts has been brought into the arena of the court proceedings now, with O'Mara requesting that information, and the judge ruled that he can have access to it, with her retaining the right to decide whether it is admissible or not. I think that would be the most appropriate section for inclusion. Zimmerman's prior bad acts were brought out in a court proceeding as well (bond hearing) and should be included too. See comments below:-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2012

"...but the location of the shooting was only 80 yards from Zimmerman's vehicle..." from Zorn's Chicago Tribune article is nothing but speculation from the author. If you look at the ABC7 video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kvHLnN4UAUU at the 1:55 mark it is very obvious that it is not 80 yards.

If you are going to post speculations according to Frank Taaffe's Tweets the measurements are:

Frank taaffe @fbtaaffe @Tsaw33 @roblesherald to lay in wait to attack in the dark a innocent man 27 yards car to spot 67 yards spot to home just remember those #'s

24.98.139.66 (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Andybinga

 DoneI don't feel like that level of detail was super important to that section, so I trimmed away that part. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

bad acts

It seems like we have a consensus of the most active editors for inclusion of both participants "bad acts" in the discussions above. I have added some detail of the "bad acts" to both zimmerman and martin's bios. Zimmerman's was mainly taken from the commented out section in the "bond" area of the article. I have summarized the three suspensions of Martins. I think Zimmerman's section could use some additional detail about the nature of the charges, to match the detail in the martin section. I will work on it shortly. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Added the zimmerman detail. Edits/comments welcome. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Gaijin42 for taking the initiative on being WP:BOLD on this. I still don't think this info belongs in either's bio, but I can live with it for the time being, until something further develops in the court proceedings. I do however, object to the mention of the women's jewelry and burgalry tool. I thought this discussion was about his three suspensions. He wasn't suspended for the jewelry.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

From the Miami herald article that appears to be the ultimate source for all of the 2nd suspension information : "In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area “hiding and being suspicious.” Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with “W.T.F” — an acronym for “what the f---.” The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker. Instead the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a “burglary tool,” according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald" - clearly all part of the same incident from my reading. Interpreted that way by other RS (all referring to herald story) as well :

• "Miami Gardens teenager Trayvon Martin was suspended from school in October in an incident in which he was found in possession of women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that a schools security staffer described as a “burglary tool," (Sun Sentinel).
• "Trayvon suspended THREE times for 'drugs, truancy, graffiti and carrying burglary tool' and did he attack bus driver too? New picture emerges of victim as parents claim it's all a smear" (dailymail.uk)
• "In October, Martin was suspended with friends for writing “W.T.F.” on a hallway locker, according to a school report obtained by the Herald. A security guard looking through his backpack for the graffiti marker and instead found women’s rings and earrings and a screwdriver, described by the staffer as a “burglary tool.”" (nbc)

However, I would like to add a statement from the Martin family/spokesperson about them saying this is all just smearing Martin's reputation. Would you like to take a stab at that wording? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I read this article when it first came out in the Herald, but thanks for including it for other editor's who may not be familiar with it. My impression was that we were going to give the specific reasons for his 3 suspensions, and stay away from the spurious implications of the jewelry and a screwdriver, which he was not suspended for. He was suspended for: (1) missing school and/or being late, (2) writing WTF (graffiti) on a hallway locker, and (3) having a baggie that contained marijuana residue. I know the jewelery and screwdriver were part of the second incident, but he was not suspended for it. I still object to the jewelry and screwdriver being included. As for the Martin family response, I can put something in again.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

5 RS disagree with your description of the event (though admittedly, 4 of them are just repeating the 1st.) Even if you can split a hair and say he was not formally suspended due to the jewelry, it is part of the same incident, and was specifically included in the police report of the incident. see also. I found one source that describes things your way, and even they specifically bring up the jewelry and burglary tool in the context of the second suspension. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of cooperation, if you want to add additional detail to the jewelry incident, clarifying that that was not the official cause for suspension, and detailing how the jewelry was not identified as stolen, im ok with that, as long as we stick close to sources. I personally think this is an area where Martin escaped on a technicality. "Someone gave it to me, but I won't tell you who" is pretty weak. Was the jewelry returned to Martin afterwards? If he did nothing wrong surely it would have been. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not disputing that the jewelery and screwdriver was found in his backpack when the security officer was searching for the graffiti marker, but he was formally suspended for the graffiti. He was not arrested, no charges filed, he said it wasn't his, so why include it. I'm assuming that you wouldn't object to the allegations of Zimmerman's cousin being included as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So, you are equating an objective fact (that you admit is true), which was discovered by officials, and reported in a police report, and was formally investigated by the police - with an allegation that has absolutely no backing or evidence and was never reported? If you want to include his statement that he said it wasn't his, and flesh out the result of the investigation to show that he was not charged I am ok with that. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am. A school security guard alleged that a screwdriver was a burglary tool. It was found in a backpack with some women's jewelry and he assumed that the jewelry had been stolen. The police investigated and determined that none of it had been reported stolen, no charges were filed, no arrests were made. There is no evidence that the jewelry was stolen, no evidence that the screwdriver was a burglary tool, but yet the implication is there that Martin was a thief. Martin said the jewelry did not belong to him. A cousin alleged that Zimmerman acted inappropriately and his family were racist against blacks, she did report it to police (SPD, several years later) SPD detectives interviewed her, no charges were filed, no arrests were made. There is no evidence that Zimmerman acted inappropriately and no evidence he is a racist, but yet the implication is still there. Zimmerman said he didn't do it and is not a racist. Both incidents are facts related to this case, both incidents were released as part of the discovery evidence and both incidents were reported by RS. As usual, Zimmerman gets a pass while Martin doesn't. Like I stated above, I thought we were sticking to the school suspensions and the reasons for the three suspensions.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It was not a "security guard", it was a police officer who both discovered the items, and described them as a burglary tool. http://police.dadeschools.net/department-information/faqs/ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. A school police officer alleged that a screwdriver was a burglary tool. It was found in a backpack......my point remains the same.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman sues NBC

The Huffington Post is reporting that Zimmerman is suing NBC over the edited tape. He is suing for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Probably should be added to the article, if it's not already included. Link to story: [33] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Biases

I feel the inherent biases by posting the photographs are too great to ignore. Deliberately young photos of Martin are used here where more up to date ones are available, which suggest to me the bias against Zimmerman whereas only single face photo of Zimmerman post-incarceration/charged is made here (not counting the ones of the injury, which are inherently without bias). Suggesting the removal of them entirely or replace them with up-to-date and unaltered photos, which are readily available. 67.177.27.19 (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC) (sorry, no account yet)

We have limited photos available to us. We are forced into using a fair use photo as it is. Currently we have File:Trayvon Martin on the backseat of a car.png or File:TrayvonMartinHooded.jpg. I don't care which is used, although I note the hoodie one is the better photo from a composition standpoint and the backseat one is in color, which some find preferable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the young photos are by themselves part of the story, since they are a source of controversy by being used in the news stories, displaying the media bias/initial spin. We should however make sure we are appropriately captioning photos so people know what they are intended to portray. There are lots of photos of Martin out there, but getting consensus on any particular one is quite hard. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture to WP that was of him in the same car, but he was face forward, but the consensus was at the time, he looked too "somber" in the picture. It has been deleted, since it was never used. At one time, we had a still from the 7-11 video which showed him moments before he was killed, but I don't remember what happened to it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think very little objection could be raised to the 7/11 pic, regardless of where it falls in the bias spectrum, since it is directly relevant to the article - but I believe the issue at the time was that it was very grainy/unsharp and our understanding of policy was that at the time fair use doctrine said we could only have one pic - Since we are getting away with multiple photos at this point, I think we could add it. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you suggesting we deliberately violate the image policies? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry, are you being snarky? 1) WP:IAR 2) We have either worked out this issue, or are currently in violation. If we are already in violation and can improve the article, then that is not an issue imo. If you want to fully enforce the policy then do so, but prepare for the fallout of deciding which photos are more appropriate. 3) The surveilance photo is likely NOT copyrighted/copyrightable so is not an issue in any case. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, IAR is not for avoiding copyright and fair use policies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been working with images a lot lately, and there are currently two non-free files in the article. The smiling image of Mr Martin File:Trayvon Martin on the backseat of a car.png placed near the top of the article has a valid fair use rationale in my opinion; the photo of Mr Martin in a hoodie File:TrayvonMartinHooded.jpg is the subject of discussion in the article and has a valid fair use claim in my opinion. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, so please don't try to apply IAR when it also involves breaking copyright law. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are thinking there should only be one non-free image, the one in the hoodie has the better rationale, as it is actually discussed. But the other one would be acceptable too, and readers could be left to imagine how he would look in a hoodie, which would not be too hard to do. I don't see how adding a third non-free image (the so-called 7-11 image) of Mr Martin based solely on the rationale that it was taken moments before he died would add to the reader's understanding of the shooting incident. -- Dianna (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The non-free content policy does not contain an explicit 1-item limit. The relevant item in the policy is 3a, which states: Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. So, if more than one fair-use image of Martin is needed to effectively convey the information (and particularly to stay in compliance with other policies such as NPOV), there is no need to invoke IAR in order to do so. VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the key point here is that we do not use IAR to bypass image polices. IAR is for protecting the encyclopedia, not copyright infringement. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There are standard fair use procedures for using non-free images at a lower resolution etc if that is the issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have always thought the 7-11 image was very relevant to the shooting incident. O'Mara even played the video in an earlier court hearing to demonstrate how Zimmerman viewed Martin that night. The media had consistently showed an image of a much younger Martin, which is not what Zimmerman actually saw that night. Zimmerman didn't see Martin in the backseat of a car or see him as the young Martin in a hoodie photo, he saw the Martin in the 7-11 picture and that is relevant, as it was taken moments before the shooting incident.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Isaidnoway that the 7-11 image is relevant and should be used; this image does indeed show the Martin that Zimmerman observed that night. If the 7-11 image were a distortion of Martin's appearance, I would agree with its exclusion. Wikipedia must be committed to minimizing any distortions, either of Zimmerman or of Martin. Apostle12 (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I also think the 7-11 shot is highly relevant. I strongly support its inclusion in addition to what other photos are in the article. Shows Martin at the time. Shows him on the errand to 7-11. Firmly gives a timeline anchor to measure other actions against. I think the image should also be free of copyright, since creativity was not involved in making it. However, if there is a copyright issue, then I do not support it being used in place of the other pictures, as its quality is low, and I am not sure its value in the areas I just mentioned outweigh the quality issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right concerning the copyright, this is not a video that was created for entertainment and would be covered by the fair use doctrine. This is a surveillance video that was released as part of the state's discovery. The media has shown it and used stills from it and it is on youtube as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree. We should be using a lead photo that represents Martin's appearance near the time of his death. ALL the photos we're using now are at a yonger age. Here are some photos that are claimed to be Trayvon Martin 9 Days Before His Death: http://globalgrind.com/news/Trayvon-Martin-9-Days-Before-Death-Photo?gpage=0#gtop Intrepid (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

which 7-11 photo should we use? Here are some candidates I have found

• shows him facing the camera, but doesn't give much context. seems to be the clearest I can find of his face. seems to be cropped http://www.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1081561!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_370/image.jpg
• at the counter, decently facing the camera,iffy camera contrast http://i.ytimg.com/vi/oqLOeuBwJOI/0.jpg
• at the counter, no face, but shows his overall clothing pretty well http://cdn.madamenoire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/s-TRAYVON-MARTIN-large.jpg
• actually shows the skittles and Arizona watermelon drink http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1guTmVSrI8U/0.jpg

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at all four photos, I believe each provides context. Therefore I propose we put them, in small scale, in a series under a single heading - perhaps 7-11 photos of Trayvon Martin. Apostle12 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Note re height wt

Isaidnoway, Looks like you don't like the extra height wt data from the autopsy being in a footnote instead of the main text.[34][35][36] In your edit summary you wrote that you saw no reason for putting it in a footnote instead of the main text. I tried to give you a reason after your first undoing of the note when I wrote in my edit summary that the extra height and weight data was too redundant for the main text since the autopsy values of 5'11" 158 lbs. were only slightly different from the main text values of 6' 160 lbs of the initial police report.[37] So what don't you like about putting the autopsy values in a footnote instead of the main text? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not redundant if they are different, even if it's just a slight difference. I'm sure you recall that in the initial coverage of this incident, Martin was portrayed in the media, through the photos, as younger. Now that we have two different sources indicating otherwise, the reader should be able to see that information presented to them. There is no reason for the reader to have to click on a footnote to read something, when it can be presented in the main text of the article. An autopsy report is an offical document that is part of this case and that information shouldn't be delegated to the undesirable format of a footnote.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure. The numbers are close enough that any kind of size advantage comparison or "danger assesment" a reader might be making based on Martin and Zimmerman's sizes are the same no matter which set of numbers are used. The additional value of the second set (either way) is pretty limited. The autopsy is certainly very accurate for that exact moment. Some might say that height/weight might change slightly after death - again I think those numbers would be close enough to be moot in any way that is relevant. I think the accuracy/alternatives can be valuable for completion, but that writing the information in such a way as to be accurate and complete, while still being easily consumable, is maybe more trouble than its worth. Give some approximate values in the text, give some notes for all the minutia if people care. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason you see a difference in the two values is because the police measured his height with his shoes on, and his weight with his clothes on. In the autopsy, he had neither on. If we were talking about an extended paragraph, I could understand. We are talking about one sentence with the results of the autopsy, which is an official document of this case and which will be discussed in court. The value of the autopsy report is diminished when you put it into a footnote, which the reader has to click on, that takes them away from the text of the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Re "The reason you see a difference in the two values is because the police measured his height with his shoes on, and his weight with his clothes on." — Is this your theory? It looks fallacious to me. However, if you have a reliable source for this, I'd like to see it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, what do you think of including Martin's family's 6'3" 150 lb values? Here's an excerpt from a reliable source that mentions it.[38]

"The report listed Trayvon at 6 foot and 160 pounds, though his family said he was actually 6-foot-3 and weighed at most 150 pounds."

Now that is a significant discrepancy between 6'3" and 5'11"–6'. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am for including all of it, it was in the article at one time. It is not a theory of mine of how crime scene investigations are handled. It's SOP for police to obtain the victims height and weight. The ME will be the one to remove the clothing, so they can process it for trace and possible DNA evidence. When police arrive at the scene, they also secure the scene, note the time of their arrival, check the victim for signs of life, adminster CPR if necessary until EMT's arrive, photograph the position of the victim at the scene before removal, note the position of the victim in their report, obtain statements from witnesses, notify the ME if victim is deceased, photograph specific items of evidence at the scene, including, but not limited to; footprints, cartridge cases, weapons, a can of tea, a bag of skittles, a flashlight, as they are observed at the scene, secure the shooter, read the shooter his rights, handcuff the shooter, photograph shooter, take his clothes for analysis, interview the shooter, and numerous other necessary details. From what I read of the discovery evidence released, the SPD pretty much did all of the above.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Re your comment about 6'3" 150 lb and the Martin measurements by the authorities, "I am for including all of it, it was in the article at one time." — I think we can work together on that. For example, something like, "Post mortem reports gave Martin's height and weight as 5'11"–6' and 158–160 lbs., while statements from Martin's family indicated 6'3" and no more than 150 lbs."

Re your comment, "It's SOP for police to obtain the victims height and weight." — Presumably, since it appeared in the report, but that wasn't the issue. (BTW your digression into other aspects of police activity wasn't useful here.) Your response, or rather lack of substantive response to the points made in my last message, suggests that your comments on how police obtain height and weight data about corpses was just a bad guess on your part and should be disregarded. OK, I can do that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There was no guessing involved here. It's just being knowledgeable about the techniques police use in processing a scene, when the victim is deceased. If you choose to disregard that information being presented here FYI, that's your perogative. I assume that you were AGF when you changed the autopsy measurements from one sentence to a obscure note, but I really don't see an issue with the way it was. The initial police report reflected his values while clothed, and how Zimmerman would have viewed him, 6 foot and 160 lbs. and then the clinical values that were obtained during the autopsy. Both are relevant in their own way. If you want to include what the Martin family said his measurements were, I don't have a problem with that either. More information being presented to the reader is always a good option, in my opinion, especially considering the initial media coverage that portrayed him much younger and smaller in size.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I've been lurking, but haven't commented in a while. What is going on here? Reality check: Martin was accurately measured by the coroner. Any other statements regarding his height and weight are just that, statements, and not facts, sourced or otherwise. If you think this already lengthy article benefits from the addition of a he said she said section on Martin's physical dimensions, go for it. But don't imply any of those non-autopsy dimensions are facts. They aren't, and they don't belong in the bio. Martin's dimensions are what the coroner said they were. ArishiaNishi (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think thats a little strong. ISaidNoway's logic is certainly WP:OR, but the police report size are also facts, although their precision/accuracy could be arguably lesser. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

My comment was meant to be strong-ish. Do you really think that the beat cops on the scene that night actually "weighed" Martin's body? How would they do that? Let me pose the height issue to you this way. If you had one very expensive piece of rare wood, would you have a beat cop measure and cut it, or a finish carpenter? It's common sense - coroners make accurate measurements, and beat cops, not so much. Approximate and read from IDs. Maybe run out a measuring tape? Nothing even close to the accuracy of the coroner. So, why even go there in an encyclopedic article? The article's not bad as it stands, so please don't go off into the weeds like this. Peace. ArishiaNishi (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I presume that the coroner retrieved the body from the scene on the night of the shooting. The height and weight in the police report could have come from the coroner's measurements that night when the body was in the coroner's facilities.

The autopsy report said that the length and weight of the body was measured and that rigor mortis was complete.[39] It didn't say that these measurements were the same as the height and weight of Martin before death. The height might have been reduced by rigor mortis and the weight might have been reduced by loss of blood from the gunshot wound. There may have been other effects on the height and weight after death too. In any case, the autopsy report didn't claim that the measured body length was the same as the height before death. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You are right, the coroner did retrieve the body from the scene. If you look at the initial police report of Officer R. Ayala, it is dated 2/27/2012, 2:28, and look at the autopsy report, it is dated 2/27/2012, 10:30, (both are referenced in this article}. Military time is used throughout the reports, so this would have been a.m. In the initial police report, time stamped before the autopsy, his values are listed as 6 foot and 160 lbs. Martin's full name is also given in the report (including his middle name), his date of birth and his place of birth are also listed. So they couldn't have gotten the weight and height info from the autopsy report. Additionally, it was reported that Martin was not carrying any ID on him. They obtained this info elsewhere, presumably public records database, (DMV). They did have Martin's cellphone, which they could have done a reverse look up on. Regardless, it is quite common to measure one's height with their shoes on and weigh their selves with their clothes on and then give those values as their height and weight. The ME said in the autopsy report that they were viewing the body unclothed, which imo, accounts for the miniscule difference between the two values. My only point is that Zimmerman encountered the clothed Martin, at 6 foot and 160lbs.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A person at the coroner facilities could have measured the body length and weight the night of the shooting for the initial police report, and it could have been measured again in the autopsy room the next morning for the autopsy report.

The 2 lb difference in the weight measurement is way too small to account for the weight of the clothes and shoes. A size L hoodie alone weighs more than a lb.

The 1" difference in the body length could be accounted for by an inconsistency in the two measurement situations, such as different stages of rigor mortis and other post mortem body processes, positioning of the body for measurement, different people doing the measurement, etc, and also rounding off to the nearest inch. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it could have happened that way. I certainly hope that it didn't though. Could be a real problem for the prosecution if it did.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

a claim that Zimmerman struggled with Martin for the gun

First, in "George Zimmerman's account of events" we have quotes from an interview that his father gave. Disregarding that the interview was rehearsed, it was not George Zimmerman's account of events. Zimmerman gave a reenactment to police which was on youtube. In that interview he did not mention a struggle for the gun. And it would be hard to make that claim, since there would then be finger prints on the gun. Anybody heard of Martin's fingerprints being on the gun?? And yet, someone has added back in a quote from THE FATHER, in a section that is supposed to be what Zimmerman said, which was never said by Zimmerman in his reenactment for police. In the reenactment he says something like "He saw the gun, or I thought he saw the gun, and I felt him reach for it". As dubious as the claim of "feeling him reaching" is, it cannot be overnoted - HE NEVER SAID THERE WAS A STRUGGLE FOR THE GUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wickorama (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on speculation about what happened (NOTFORUM), I agree we should remove the entirety of what Zimmerman's father said. This is hearsay at best; someone's father is never a reliable source. This may sell tabloid newspapers but does not meet our standards. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. Tvoz/talk 09:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as the statements of Zimmerman's father are attributed to him, I don't have an issue with it staying in. Even if it is hearsay, the father's statements were reported by a reliable source, we're not saying the fathers statements are reliable, we are saying his statements were reported by a reliable source. Personally, I think it helps to show Zimmerman's inconsistent statements throughout this incident.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to fully attribute them to the father than they should be in a separate paragraph. It doesn't show inconsistency in Zimmerman, since they were said by the father in a rehearsed interview that was done for damage control to paint the most favorable picture to lesson public outcry and the chance for a trial. Zimmerman also never tells police that Martin saw the gun (and inexplicably) continued to hit him yelling "You die tonight". That only came from the father in a rehearsed interview. Wickorama (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's father's statements were first included when they represented the best take we had on Zimmerman's perspective - it was hearsay, but it was reported by a reliable source, and we needed to include something of his perspective. After Zimmerman spoke publicly and his reenactment was made public, his father's statements became extraneous. I think they should be eliminated for that reason. As far as "inconsistencies," it seems to me these are mostly minor - ever try to recall exactly what happened during a traffic accident?! This was an intense personal experience for all involved, and memories are notoriously faulty under such circumstances. Apostle12 (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A skilled and savvy prosecutor, such as Angela Corey, can turn his numerous minor "inconsistencies" into doubt that he is telling the truth. On the other hand, a skilled and savvy defense lawyer, such as O'Mara, would bring all these minor "inconsistencies" out first on his direct, to get them out of the way, and take the sting out of them.

I had a traffic accident back in 1994, 18 years ago, and I can still recall exactly what happened. I still remember vividly to this day that the other guy wasn't wearing his seat belt (I was) and remember his face hitting the windshield, and the windshield cracking into a spider web. I remember getting out of my car and going to check on the guy, and seeing the blood streaming down his face. I also remember that I didn't have my glasses on, wondering what happened to them. I remember the faces of the people who stopped to help. I remember the EMT's when they arrived, I was sitting on a guardrail, and them asking me what year it was, who was the president, what my address was, and their faces as well. And as strange as it sounds, I also remember thinking how I am going to get home now. Intense experiences are easier to recall, you might not tell the story the same way every time, but they are usually something that is not easily forgot.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Scientifically speaking, your intense recollection is probably wrong. Thats what makes eye-witness testimony so risky - people feel like they have a very perfect memory, but they don't. From our own page on eye witness testimony : 52 of the first 62 DNA exoneration cases involved eyewitness testimony.[3] The Innocence Project reports eyewitness misidentification occurs in approximately 75% of convictions that are overturned.[4] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it can go either way. I have had two significant traffic accidents - one I remember perfectly, while the other is totally shrouded, with even the events leading up to the accident missing from memory. That's what "unreliable" means. Apostle12 (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I can tell you this. That guys face hitting the windshield and the windshield cracking is burned into my memory. I actually ran into him recently and spoke to him, he did not remember me, the accident yes, but not me specifically. As to your point about eye witness testimony, I would agree, I don't think the eye witnesses in this incident are really a help to either the prosecution or the defense.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I was not attempting to comment on the witness testimony in this case, as none of them had a very direct observation, and they contradict themselves and each other quite a bit. My point was about Zimmerman's own recount of what was happening. Memories can be very intense and vivid. Doesn't mean squat about if they are objectively accurate to what actually happened. Our mind is very good at filling in blanks based on what we expect, or heard from another source, or what we subconsciously block out. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that Zimmerman's recollection of the incident is fairly accurate to probably what happened, my point is that he has lied about stuff he shouldn't have, telling the police he had a squeaky clean record, telling the booking officers he had never been in a pre-trial diversion program, telling a co-worker the day after the incident he had been mugged, telling Hannity in his interview that before this incident, he had never heard of the SYG law. All unnecessary lies.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

agree. Further, I think once things go to trial, we should probably delete and replace both the prosecution and zimmerman POV with new sections based on what they actually present at trial. If there are major discrepancies between the two time periods, and they are reported/noted, then we could of course put that in as well, but I see no reason to repeat what is likely to be the same thing multiple times throughout the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

live hearing

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/WATCH-LIVE-Hearing-in-George-Zimmerman-case/-/1637132/17729824/-/11a9fgm/-/index.html Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I joined late, but not much happened. Motion to have monitoring ended and be able to leave Seminole county denied. Motion to clarify contact ruling - Zimmerman can have contact with witnesses, but not victim's family. (Seemed to be an issue of if he could talk to his neighbors or not). As a WP:FORUM, if this makes it to trial, the prosecution is in a world of hurt - delorandia is a rambling, incoherent speaker, who uses giant 5 min parenthetical asides, and then jumps back to his original topic. Incomprehensible. Also, for some awesome reason, whenever the court TV switched camera views, they used awesome 1980s TV swipes like giant Hearts growing and switching from view to another. One tidbit - earlier drafts of Capias request (according to delorionda) asked for 2nd degree murder, but was switched to Manslaughter for later drafts. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's bodyguards

Recently this paragraph was added:

It was announced on December 21, 2012, that Associated Investigative Services who provided bodyguards for Zimmerman are suing him and his lawyer. Lawyers for the company said Mark O'Mara stopped paying the bodyguards because Zimmerman couldn't afford them. They claim O'Mara owes them about $27,000 dollars.

This article is about the shooting, not the life and hard time of George Zimmerman. It seems like a blog entry. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

concur. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I added it. You don't like it there please start a separate Zimmerman article about results in his life after the shooting. Merry Christmas Kennvido (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I just want to see discussion about it. To my mind his life doesn't warrant an article and this bit doesn't warrant mentioning. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Enough said for due process by law and innocent until PROVEN guilty or beyond shadow of a doubt! Kennvido (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh . . . yea. I do agree that so far he should be presumed innocent. I do not know what the prosecution thinks it has that will overcome that. However, what does stiffing his bodygaurds have to do with that? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a rather obscure piece of information, totally irrelevant, and awkwardly placed in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

next hearing rescheduled

Was scheduled for Jan 8, moved to Feb 5, bu judge. Coincidentally (or not?) Martin's birthday. Would expect a motion to change as that seems like a neutrality/easy to manipulate emotionally issue. Could be significant if Judge is using the date symbolically? http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/01/george-zimmermans-next-court-date-trayvon-martins-18th-birthday/60573/ Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally, judges re-schedule hearings that have been cancelled according to availability on their "court calendar". A victim or defendants birthday, falling on that given date, is inconsequential to the court. However, due to the notoriety of this case, it wouldn't surprise me if the date is yet changed again. It would seem the media picked up on this, rather than the judge deliberately re-scheduling to his birthday.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert Zimmerman Sr

Why is the race of Zimmerman's father omitted from the article? That seems pretty odd and if he is white it makes the omission pretty suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.204.251 (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It was in a footnote. I just added "white" to the main text.[40] --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing "suspicious" about it; the footnote covered it in detail. Have brought an abbreviated version into the main text; highlighting "white" (or "Caucasian") is inappropriate here. Apostle12 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2013

There is misinformation listed about the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman shooting, the person responsible for stating this claims there was violent fight with Zimmerman and Trayvon as if they were there and saw these two in a fight they are doing the same thing the chief of police got fire for doing and that was believing the statement of the shooter without investigating these claims.

DNA showed there was none of George Zimmerman blood on Trayvon Martin's hands, no one really knows why is hand had two small cuts and his nose was bleeding, DNA does not support his claims of self defense or that Trayvon Martin got in a violent fight with him, if you are going to report please be truthful about and stop trying to make this teen out to be the aggressor. WIKIPEDIA SHOULD ERASE THIS FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION IF THEY WANT TO KEEP A GOOD NAME AS A SOURCE FOR INFORMATION. DON'T ALLOW ANYTHING TO BE REPORTED ON THIS SITE IF IT'S NOT ACCURATE. --2001:558:6007:48:4D1C:B2A2:5C31:30FA (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)QORTEZ BERNARD

That information is generally repeated as Zimmerman's account of events, and was also reported by witnesses who saw them engaged in a struggle. We are not making any claims as to the nature of the encounter. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, we include what has been reported in reliable sources about this incident in a NPOV manner. Wikipedia does not take a stance about who may or may not have been the aggressor in this incident.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

When making an edit request to erase material, it would be helpful if you were more specific and quoted the material proposed to be erased. Also, please note that expressing personal opinions about the case, as you have done, is inappropriate here. Please see notice at the top of this page. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting the facts straight

I thought we had a definitive source for Martin's height and weight, which I believe were 5'11" and 158# according to the autopsy report.

The article keeps seesawing between 5'11" and 6'0" and between 158# and 160#.

We should probably get this straight with sourced info. Apostle12 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. In the edit summaries of the two recent edits, one editor wrote that it was from a police report (which does say 6' and 160 lbs.) and the other editor wrote in their edit summary that it was from the autopsy (5'11' and 158 lbs.). Technically, according to their sources, they are both right. My personal preference is from the autopsy report. Now, having said that, I read Zimmerman's bio and he has two different heights and weights listed. One from the night of the shooting and one from when he was booked into the county jail. Obviously, his weight could have changed from the night of the shooting, but I seriously doubt that his height did. If this turns into an issue or an edit war, a simple compromise would be to include both for Martin's height and weight, like we did with Zimmerman.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the best route is to use both heights just like for Zimmerman. In any case, from the videos I've seen of Trayvon, he was a big fellow, at least 6' and autopsies are not fool-proof. YvelinesFrance (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have seen the videos as well, and he is very tall. But I'm not sure that you can really tell the difference between 5'll" and 6' in those videos. The reason I prefer the autopsy report is because it reflects his height without his shoes on, however, I also realize that Zimmerman would have seen him with his shoes on, which would place him closer to 6'.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Autopsy's and gravity don't lie! Trayvon Martin was measured laying on a flat table and the report states, 5'11" and 158 lbs. If you are pressed up against a flat surface you are taller since gravity and bad posture makes you seem shorter than you actually are. Go get adjusted by a Chiropractor and you are slightly taller afterwards. I am glad to see the authors of the Martin paragraphs disregard science.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In several pictures of I've seen of Martin, he looked a very tall young man. There is one where he is next to a girl in a hooded jumper and he looks massive, I'd give him 6'3". If he was 6' then the woman in the photo is fairly short. (http://i.imgur.com/h5DUu.jpg) I'm about 6'1" and he looks, just from that photo, taller than me. The autopsy measurement was probably a close estimate, and it's not like they would have stretched his body out for it. I would estimate his weight based on other photos (he seems slimmer in the one above) as close to the autopsy weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon was measured laying down flat at 5'11" and 158 lbs. Ask your chiropractor - you are taller lying down verses standing up when flat. Nothing more flat than flatlined. But don't let gravity or science get in the way of making Trayvon out to be a monster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbutera (talk • contribs) 09:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The following excerpt is from the part of the article where Martin's height is discussed.

"Post mortem reports gave Martin's body length and weight as 5 feet 11 inches (1.80 m) to 6 feet (1.83 m) and 158–160 pounds (72–73 kg). Statements from Martin's family indicated his height prior to death was 6 feet 3 inches (1.91 m) and weight no more than 150 pounds (68 kg). "

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. A difference of an 2 inches, and 2 points or so is insignificant in terms of trying to portray anyone as anything. On all sides of this very minor debate, it was an effort towards accuracy and precision. Further, If I had to try and divide the editors of this article based on their personal opinions of the case, i would guess that the people advocating for the autopsty number lean towards the "it was murder" side of the equation. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Bob K31416 explained it the best and covered all the bases, which is appreciated. I find it ironic that the article has to be written in a politically correct way so that people do not inflict damage to the page changing it to 6'3". The medical examiners report is as accurate and as scientific as you can get, and some of us wonder why people dispute science. From personal experience I am 6'2" and 200 lbs and not only do I look taller, but my frame size is much larger than Trayvon. But it does not matter what my opinion is because science states he is 5'11" and 158 lbs. And, since my grandpa did not shrink after he died and could wear his suit without alterations, I think it is a safe bet that Trayvon was 5'11". But that doesn't really matter because in sports the larger man is considered the heavier making Zimmerman the larger of the two guys. If you disagree - prove to me why boxing has weight divisions and not height? jbutera 11:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Jbutera (talk

Re "The medical examiners report is as accurate and as scientific as you can get..." — That's for the state of the body after death. The medical examiner's report didn't claim that those numbers were the same as before death. The only statement regarding height and weight before death was from Martin's family. All were included in the article with citations. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but bones do not shrink, so any loss of fluids would not shrink a body from 6'3" to 5'11". Sorry political correct supporters, you cannot make Trayvon Martin 6'3" - poor babies! And, remember that in the fighting arts there are weight, not height, classes because the heavier opponents have always been considered the stronger opponents. Maybe some of you should write the various boxing associations and tell them that the taller opponents are actually the stronger so they can change the way they categorize fighters? jbutera 11:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Jbutera (talk

Wikipedia articles are based on what is in reliable sources, not on the opinions of editors. If you can find for your ideas, reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of this article, then the information can probably be included in the article. If you would like to learn more about the relevant Wikpedia policy in this regard, see WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I have stated my feelings on the article. To make a case on how much height is lost on fluid lost while the bones do not shrink would be as idiotic as those who keep changing the height to 6'3". It would ruin and distract from the original contact of the article. Jbutera (talk contribs) 07:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, your personal opinions on the Trayvon Martin shooting are not useful for the article. WP:NOR

BTW, according to the reliable sources, Martin's body was in rigor mortis when its length was measured, i.e. it was stiff. There might have been a difference between the height before death and the measured length of the body from a slightly bent position of legs, spine, etc. when the rigor mortis set in. Also, the soft discs between vertebrae might have contracted to shorten the length, but this is pure speculation on my part. This is like your speculation that the length of the body after rigor mortis has set in, etc., is the same as Martin's height before death.

On the other hand, the passage in the article does not consist of the speculation of editors like you and me, but rather it states what was in reliable sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not PERSONAL feelings, but from experience. Considering that the medical examiner got the body in a timely order, serious rigor mortis would

rarely cause a 4 inch length loss. Sorry - it does not add up except if you are one of those who still believes height makes one a superior

fighter like the ones who claim that Trayvon was a monster. I guess the boxing associations ought to read this and pair fighters up by height

and not weight, because the experts judging this incident are pure athletic geniuses. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The question is less that Trayvon was pictured as a monster and more that Trayvon was pictured to the media with photos of him at 14 yo, not as a 17 yo young man. The physical differences between Martin and Zimmerman were exaggerated to portrary Zimmerman as a monster and Martin as a frail kid to fuel media and public outrage; when the police reports and autopsy measurements came out different, there was blowback and backlash. --Naaman Brown (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Archiving confusion

Is there some coherent rule being applied to the archiving of this page? I was looking for a recent conversation, so I thought I would find it in an archive with a higher number. But the archives seem mixed up to me. There are currently 15 archives. I ended up finding very recent conversations (November and December 2012) in Archive 7 and Archive 8, but both the higher-numbered and lower-numbered archives contain older conversations. For example, Archive 9 seems to contain discussions from May 2012 and Archive 6 seems to be from April 2012. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

the bot should archive them intelligently, but its always based on the date of the last comment in the thread. Also, the bot moves to another page when the size of each gets big. It might be starting at the front of the archive list and seeing if a particular conversation fits in an earlier archive, but I dunno if it is or not. If someone manuay archives, then it would go wherever they choose to put it (which I would think would be either the head or the tail) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Time to summarize

It seems like we have way too much detail, broken down by what happened on what date in quite a bit of the pretrial. It seems like that level of detail is WP:RECENTISM. I think those sections should be summarized, and look at things from a more historical perspective. Thoughts? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A summarized historical perspective for some of those sections sounds reasonable and prudent. The SYG hearing is coming right up and the media will be gearing up for another blitz of coverage at the hearing.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This diff is my first pass. lemme know what you guys think. If this seems like an acceptable path I (and anyone else as well) can go through and do similar edits to other sections of the article.

I think it is a bold and needed path that was long past due. A historical perspective is necessary for the reader to get a sense of the complex issues that surrounded this case in the early stages, but I think a short and precise summary suffices. The SYG hearing and possible trial will be an additional bulk of information being added as well. I would like to remind new and old editor's alike that there is two sides to this case; the defense and the prosecution. When something happens in pre-trial proceedings, including ONLY what the defense is arguing or what motion they filed, does not accurately represent to the reader a complete encyclopedic entry as to the nature of the information being discussed by BOTH the defense and the prosecution.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, some kind of summarizing procedure is needed on this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I summarized the discovery evidence released and the removal of Judge Lester and made some clarifications in Martin's bio section pertaining to the graffiti suspension. I started to tackle the "Public response" section and then thought it is probably best to discuss who and what is notable enough for inclusion. Alot of people made comments and headlines with their rhetoric, but some like Herman Cain, Shelby Steele, Bill O'Reilly and Eric Zorn offered their opinions, but were their opinions notable enough that there was widespread reporting on their opinions. Additionally some of Dershowitz's comments are already included in the "Prosecutions account of events", could we move the rest of his comments to that section, Dershowitz's beef with Corey all seemed to develop out of his original comments about the APC.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Burglary Tools + Neighborhood Watch = Silence": Why?

Closing unhelpful suggestion which is not within wiki policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why has no connection been made between what was widely reported in the media as a heightened sense of security for Zimmerman's neighborhood due to a rash of break-ins/burglaries, and "Burglary Tools" found in Martin's locker, along with property that was obviously not his ("women's jewelry")?

So much of the gasoline on this story is pumped by the allegations of racism on the part of both Zimmerman and the local Police Department, and no attention whatsoever has been given to the possibility that Martin was actually the "burglar" that had elevated neighborhood concerns.

Did Martin's unsupervised visits to his father's empty home coincide with neighborhood break-ins & incidents? Did the property in his locker match the description of property that may have been stolen, either in Martin's father's neighborhood, or somewhere else? Who was the owner of the "women's jewelry"? Did Trayvon Martin wear women's jewelry, was it his mothers, was it his step-mothers? And what about the burglary tools? Did Martin take some kind of a shop class? Were they his father's tools? Why were they in school? Exactly what kind of tools were they, to be considered "burglary tools".

My sense is that the reporting of this story by the mass media has been biased in order to further a political agenda by suppressing much of the information that would tend to balance off reporting of the encounter. I hope that Wiki's "encyclopedic" tone would be able to do what a full year of mass-media reporting has not, which is to present a factual, balanced report of what took place.

I also have an issue with the transition in paragraph 4 to paragraph 5, where the normal "flow" of legal procedure was interrupted and a Special Prosecutor was appointed. The article transitions abruptly from the appointment to the reinvestigation of the case, when (I think) it should include language that conveys the idea that everything the Special Prosecutor did came about as a direct result of the political pressure and allegations of racism that were applied. Were it not for that pressure, and that Special Prosecutor, George Zimmerman would never have been charged.Jonny Quick (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The core facts you are mentioning are in the article. They are in the "Trayvon Martin" section". The rest of your analysis etc are WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and unsuitable WP:POV for the article at this time. If the defense raises those possibilities, then they may be suitable for coverage in the trial section. Wikipedia CANNOT, BY DEFINITION, do what the mainstream reporting does not. All information, especially in articles about people (living, or recently dead), MUST be sourced from WP:RELIABLESOURCES. This article is VERY well monitored, and is as neutral as possible, with very passionate editors on both sides of the isle keeping each other in check. Howeve,r I think you would find almost universal agreement from all parties that us directly raising the questions and suppositions as you have would be in violation of wiki policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Your foray into gossip and innuendos is exactly what this article and Wikipedia is NOT. Your unsourced and unstantiated attack on Trayvon Martin is nothing but tabloid trash talk. Forgive my harsh words, but your analysis is based on your own opinions, and nothing more. I won't even bother with a rebuttal to any of your incredulous claims, as anyone can read the article for a unbiased and reliably sourced account of this tragic incident.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This section is not highlighted in pink/red and says "Closing unhelpful suggestion which is not within wiki policy.", but the only two responses are from what I would assume are "standard level" Users that do not have the power to close a discussion. It also says something about "Please do not edit" (or whatever) the section, but I don't know if that means I can't even ask who closed it, and why. My experience with wikipedia has been that if something is somehow vs. the rules, a Senior Editor comes along and explains what is happening, and why. So, I apologize if my efforts are somehow against the rules, however I believe my intentions are good and that this is worthwhile discussion to have. And I see no Senior Editor involved in this discussion which causes me to wonder if closing the discussion indicates the real bias here. As far as original research goes, I think I can find reliable sources that back-up everything that I am merely wondering about (and not trying to actually include in the article). I'm simply asking why it's not there. As far as WP:POV goes, there is not proposed addition or modification to the article. To suppress a reasonable question that common sense demands some kind of answer for is a much more obvious indicator of bias. Minimally, I'd like some explanation on who closed the discussion, why they did it, and if there is any means of appeal. Regards...Jonny Quick (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I closed the discussion, you could look at the page history to determine who made what changes. Closing of a standard issue like this does not require admin privileges etc, although if you wish to appeal, you could certainly make such an appeal on the BLP noticeboard, reliable sources noticeboard, NPOV noticeboard, or via request for arbitration. I closed the discussion because there is not a gray area here. The TYPE of request you are making has well established policies in place. Further, the SPECIFIC issues you were discussing have been addressed multiple times, and there is strong WP:CONSENSUS that they should not be included. If you can find reliable sources, then you can certainly either add the content with that source, or discuss it here. However, your specific statements in the original post are to the contrary : "I hope that Wiki's "encyclopedic" tone would be able to do what a full year of mass-media reporting has not, which is to present a factual, balanced report of what took place". We CANNOT report anything that has not already been reported by reliable sources (generally, reliable pretty much equals mass-media). The random blogs and pundits throwing out opinions are generally not sufficient for inclusion. The ones that we DO include (Sharpton etc) are because those statements themselves BECAME notable, by being covered in multiple media sources, and due to the close relationship with the Martin family. We similarly include statements from Zimmerman's family, and from people like Dershowitz saying that there is misconduct in having the case go forward.

More generally, even if we assume for the sake of argument that all of your suppositions are true, there are no witnesses or evidence asserting any of it. Martin had a troubled past. This is universally accepted (and already reported in the article). But there is Zero showing any correlation between the increased crime in the area and Martin's presence (and in fact, all of the documented crime we are discussing in the article occurred when Martin was not around). Some may think its plausible that Martin was "up to no good". some do not. In either case, that is nothing but personal opinion. Having those opinions is fine. But the opinions are not encyclopedic.

In regards to bias, I started this article, and my initial edits are definitely "murder" slanted, based on the initial media reports which came out. As more information has come out, I lean to the general opinion that Zimmerman was an idiot, who should have stayed in the car, but at the moment of the shot it was probably self defense. Further, I lean more towards the "Martin could have been up to no good - but there is certainly no proof" side than many of the other editors here. If I may speak for Isaidnoway, I think he leans a little bit to the other side, but also has stated that there is "reasonable doubt enough to drive a truck through" or something to that effect. If there is any bias, it is yours, in refusing to see the balance that exists in the article. The fact that both of us agree that your suggestions do not comply with policy is a very strong indicator that that is the actual situation (But you are free to attempt to gain consensus, or appeal elsewhere)

We can only report facts. Interpretation of those facts is not up to wikipedia. A very good specific example of this is the suspensions. I personally fought very had to have the details of the suspensions included in the article, which required finding MANY sources reporting those details. This allows readers to come to their own opinions. However, providing those opinions on the readers behalf is WP:POV

If you really think we are missing something, make SPECIFIC suggestions, and have very reliable sources to back it up.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the rest of this discussion can be closed as well. There are no reliable sources to support any of this theory, nor has any specific suggestions been offered to improve the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed Edit on Prosecution's Theory of Who Started the Confrontation

According to the prosecution's Affidavit of Probable Cause, "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."[29] A prosecution investigator who co-signed the affidavit later testified at a hearing that he did not know whether it was Zimmerman or Martin who started the confrontation.[30]

These two sentences convey a certain irony, in that the official document "Affidavit of Probable Cause" states clearly "Zimmerman confronted Martin...", but then a prosecution investigator who "co-signed the affidavit" later testified that he did not know which party started the confrontation.

In it's current version, it states the theory of Zimmerman confronting Martin as the primary fact, with the second sentence tacked on as an afterthought. A better way to present the irony of this situation would be:

"Despite the fact that a prosecution investigator who co-signed the affidavit later testified at a hearing that he did not know whether it was Zimmerman or Martin who started the confrontation, the prosecution's Affidavit of Probably Cause still alleged that "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.

As it is written now, it asserts Zimmerman's guilty conduct first and downgrades the prosecutor's credibility as an afterthought, and I think it is more respectful and correct to afford Zimmerman his presumption of innocence by describing the prosecutors inability to clearly and consistently enunciate their theory of what took place, despite that they are doing this while under oath. We don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or not, but we ARE certain that the Prosecution is swearing to the truth of two opposing truths. Either they know it, or they don't. They cannot have it both ways, and expect to get the benfit of the doubt on their credibility, and that is why I think the wording should be changed.Jonny Quick (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, The way it is now gives the events in the order they occured, which is a plus. But perhaps we could just combind the 2 sentences and be a little more concise thus:

The prosecution's Affidavit of Probable Cause says "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.", however an investigator who co-signed the affidavit later testified that he did not know who started the confrontation.

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The two sentences as they are presently written are both technically correct. The prosecution is alleging that Zimmerman is the one who first approached (confronted) Martin, before the fight happened. The investigator testified that he did not know who started the fight (confrontation). According to the the sources used to support this last sentence with the word "confrontation": Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch... [41] and also here: He admitted under oath that authorities do not know who started the fight. [42] and here is the actual wording from the transcript of the hearing:

DE LA RIONDA: Why did you use the word "confronted" sir?

GILBREATH: Because Zimmerman met with Martin and it was compiling the facts that we had along with the witness statements of the argumentative voices and the authoritative voice being given from one of the witnesses and then the struggle that ensued that came from several witnesses.

O'MARA: So do you know who started the fight?

GILBREATH: Do I know?

O'MARA: Right.

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?

GILBREATH: No.

So they are actually talking about two separate things here; the initial meeting of Zimmerman and Martin, where the prosecution alleges that Zimmerman is the one who approached Martin (confronted), and then the actual fight (confrontation) where the investigator admits he doesn't know who started the fight or threw the first punch. The consensus of the editor's working on the article at that time did not want to use the word "fight" and instead opted for the word "confrontation". I can see how it would be confusing with the two words being so closely related, but they have to be looked at in the context of what was actually being talked about. I would support changing the word "confrontation" to something more in line with what the sources say, but like I said above, the consensus at the time was not to use the word fight.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I do think the current wording is too confusing due to the similarity of the words. We should fall back closer to the sources in our terminology. For the first "confronted", I think we could use "met" but that seems to convey a mutual intent to "meet", so I would prefer something like "approached", but "confronted" is per source and acceptable as long as we change the latter. For the latter, we should switch to "fight", or "struggle" per the sources. Our current "confrontation" is not in the source, and ambiguously confusing due to the earlier usage. All witnesses and accounts involve someone hitting someone else in someway or another. "fight" oes imply some sort of mutual voluntary combat, so some of the synonyms like "altercation", "physical encounter", "struggle" etc may be appropriate. Both sides allege that the other side "assaulted" the other, but I think that gives too much POV especially since we are saying we don't know who started it. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the latter usage of the word "confrontation" should be changed. If O'Mara is comfortable using the word fight - O'MARA: So do you know who started the fight?, and the prosecution is comfortable using the word fight and the reliable sources use the word fight, and we are saying in the article that Investigator Gilbreath "testified under oath" to the direct and specific question that O'Mara asked, we should stick with his sworn testimony and the sources who reported it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So Zimmerman confronted Martin, but we don't know who started the fight, as the general wording we are using? Im ok with that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So, I'll change it to:

The prosecution's Affidavit of Probable Cause says "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.", however an investigator who co-signed the affidavit later testified that he did not know who started the fight.

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly care for it. The two sentences are totally unrelated and now that they are combined with a however, it casts doubt on the first part of the sentence. see WP:EDITORIAL which states: Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second. That is the case here, the prosecution said that Zimmerman is the one who approached (confronted) Martin to ask him what he was doing in the neighborhood. Then, according to Zimmerman, Martin punched him in the face, while the prosecution says they don't know who started the fight, but even though the prosecution says they don't know who started the fight, they still maintain that Zimmerman was the one who first approached Martin. By combining the two sentences with a however, it undermines the first part of it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your are 100% right and I should have seen that. I was so caught up in making it more concise, I missed that. I'll try again later. In the meantime, I've reverted my change. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I prefer "physical altercation" to fight, which sounds more like mutual combat. My intent is not to parse between the less relevent intitial verbal exchange and the physical altercation that ultimately lead to the shooting, but point is to clearly separate these two, and show that the prosecution used the non-violent verbal converstation they allege Zimmerman started with an immediate transition to the physical altercation and homicide. It reads like "Zimmerman started a fight, and they he shot Martin.", when both of those two facts are completely different, disputed and the prosecution admits they don't know who actually initiated the violence.173.175.96.105 (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Point taken, however, the referenced testimony uses the word fight and people reading the article should know the prosecution is trying to spin this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How about this::

The prosecution's Affidavit of Probable Cause says "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued." Later an investigator who co-signed the affidavit testified that the evidence supports "Zimmerman confronted Martin", but there was no evidence as to who started the fight.

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Being that the lead is just a summary anyway, this paragraph we are discussing could be reduced to the first sentence and the last sentence for a much less cluttered and precise overview.

On April 11, 2012, the Special Prosecutor filed a charge of murder in the second degree against Zimmerman, who then turned himself in and was placed in custody. Zimmerman pleaded not guilty to the charge and is currently out on a $1 million bond while he awaits trial; he has requested a hearing under the "stand your ground" law provisions.

If the APC is to be mentioned in the lead in this paragraph, it should be mentioned in a more broader sense, instead of picking out one particular passage from it:

On April 11, 2012, the Special Prosecutor filed a charge of murder in the second degree against Zimmerman, who then turned himself in and was placed in custody. The prosecution's account of what they allege happened on the night of the shooting is largely contained in the affidavit of probable cause. Zimmerman pleaded not guilty to the charge and is currently out on a $1 million bond while he awaits trial; he has requested a hearing under the "stand your ground" law provisions.

I think this second version of the paragraph is more NPOV and avoids the pitfall of quoting one specific (controversial and disputed) passage from the affidavit. The two sentences under discussion right now are already mentioned in the body of the article. The reader can find the prosecutions account, the affidavit, Zimmerman's account and criticism and analysis provided by reliable sources pertaining to both POV's detailed in the body of the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Richard-of-Earth (talk)

 Done -- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

gather consensus before trial

So, assuming the SYG and trial go forward, we are going to have a ton more to add. Should we split the trial out into a separate article? Its already dominating the article, and its only going to get worse. Either way, at both the SYG and at the real trial, we are likely to get new comprehensive versions of the prosecution and defense description of the events. I think we should largely gut the existing sections at that time as the trial is the definitive version. That does lose some of the context of the earlier protests/arrest decisions, etc, but we can weave in the highly summarized versions as appropriate for the correct context. Also, if there are any major discrepancies between the old and new versions, Im sure those will be heavily commented on by the media, so we can point that out in our updated coverage. If SYG comes back in favor of zimmerman, things will likely be short enough to keep just one article, but if the full trial goes on, and people continue to want the level of detail we have so far, this article will be HUGE Gaijin42 (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

We will just have to take a wait and see approach and go from there. If the media coverage is as intense as it was in the beginning of this incident, then the intensity of editor's wanting to add every detail will be the same. Sometimes it is just best to go with the flow for the moment and monitor the intensity and make sure WP policies and guidelines are being reasonably followed and then when the storm has passed, go back and summarize and fine tune it accordingly. I think there is still alot more work to be done on the current state of the article before the next blitz of editing starts.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)