Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin

FBI Mulls hate crimes charges (among other tidbits)

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/fbi-seeks-charge-george-zimmerman-hate-crime/nN5pR/

• FBI considering hate crime charge
• Photo of Zimmerman with black grandmother mentioned (not shown)
• continued sealing of evidence and witnesses
• witnesses redacted even from Zimmerman attourney
• prosecutors mention inconsistent statements from zimmerman as part of decision to charge with 2nd degree murder.

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The article states: "He's facing a second-degree murder charge, which carries a maximum possible sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. But if Zimmerman is charged and found guilty of a federal hate crime involving murder, he could face the death penalty."

That is highly notable, because usually, people on the political left are against the death penalty, not for it. This information should be added to the article.

P2d4b8z2 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

P2d4b8z2 now blocked as sock of banned editor User:Grundle2600. Note that "Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems with a banned user's participation outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason." Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What a bizarre statement. The FBI is looking into charging Zimmerman with a hate crime; I don't see where the "political left" enters into it. MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That's who Holder is a tool of. Andyvphil (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the article about the FBI investigating this as a hate crime. I wonder why WFTV is just now reporting on it. ABC obtained a copy of Zimmerman's medical records. [1] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The political left does enter into it, primarily because Attorney General Holder is a child of left-wing group think. How else to explain his unwillingness to charge African Americans who commit crimes agains whites, for plainly racist reasons, with hate crimes? How else to explain his unwillingness to charge African Americans who violate laws forbidding voter intimidation "because there is no proof any whites were prevented from voting"? How else to explain his unwillingness to discipline Department of Justice heads who make blatantly racist statements like, "I didn't join the Justice Department to protect white people from black people."

I hope this latest development turns out to be baseless, because there is NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER that would indicate Zimmerman acted out of racial animus, and frankly it makes me angry that this is even being raised as an issue! There is evidence that Zimmerman was fed up with criminals who had been victimizing the neighborhood that, as Neighborhood Watch Captain, he had been charged with monitoring. That most of those criminals were black is well-known, yet hardly relevant to the behavior Zimmerman noted as suspicious--the 9-1-1 calls make it plain that Zimmerman noticed Martin because of his behavior, not because of his race. The left seems perpetually confused on these issues. Apostle12 (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You must have missed the big notice at the top of the page explaining that this isn't a blog, nor an outlet for your various personal opinions about Eric Holder and race relations in the U.S. Please at least pretend to make an effort to comply with this site's talk page guidelines and policy on biographical material. MastCell ^Talk 06:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course...momentary lapse.Apostle12 (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) -- the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch -- has revealed that Zimmerman was not only NOT a Neighborhood Watch Captain, he was not even a member of any group recognized by the organization (http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization.php). Moreover, it is NOT Neighborhood Watch policy to go on patrol with a loaded gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhysdux (talk • contribs) 23:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The HOA recognized him as "our Captain" and the SPD used him as their contact. See the recent doc dump by the prosecution. And he wasn't "on patrol". What's your point? Andyvphil (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The FBI investigating the incident for a hate crime is old news. There is no indication he is going to be charged with anything. What is new is: "A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury.." http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532#.T7MHOOtYsT8 Emeraldflames (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just added the new information about the medical report to "Ongoing Investigation," along with the source. The WFTV "hate crime" story does add a new twist that the article previously has not referenced--the "enhancement" from life in prison to the death penalty. Also the story indicates that the "hate crime" investigation is current and ongoing. Apostle12 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the FBI investigation is old news as well. The investigation has been ongoing since March 20, and it is already mentioned in the article. I don't think this WFTV report is any more relevant than what is already in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, the report's focus on Zimmerman's greater legal exposure is significant and relevant. Apostle12 (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The legal exposure is only significant and relevant if he is charged. The article only states that he "may" be charged, which is just speculation on the part of the TV station reporting it. We shouldn't be suggesting that he "may" have commited a crime that hasn't been charged. See WP:BLPCRIME.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is just the ABC affiliate's legal analyst being an idiot. No death penalty unless you enhance deprivation-of-civil-rights Murder ONE. And the state's M2 is already a ridiculous overcharge. Andyvphil (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A rather important aside to the new knuckle information is that the funeral director claimed that trayvon had no injuries on his hands. The rabbit hole is getting pretty deep for the race hustlersWhatzinaname (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That is why you don't simply include such things in Wikipedia. A funeral director isn't an expert in medical autopsies. Actually the progress of the Martin/Zimmerman story in the media, and Wikipedia's coverage of it would be a terrific example of why we have WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP policies on Wikipedia. This case is rife with gossip, lies, innuendo, misrepresentation, and more, from well-intentioned people, as well as people with a political or personal agenda. It really shows why we need to lean strongly toward careful and prudent coverage of media-intensive stories. -- Avanu (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't need an MD to see bruising or open wounds on someone's knuckles. The funeral director was part of the problem, which is why it is relevant. He gave numerous interviews saying there were no injuries on trayvons hands all the while critcizing the case for being handled unprofessionally by the police.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon autopsy info starting to become available

Shows bloody knuckles, not much more info available yet. http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/autopsy-results-show-trayvon-martin-had-injuries-h/nN6gs/ Gaijin42 (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"The medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body: The fatal gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles."-- Isaidnoway (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"The reports also noted the fatal wound's surrounded by a two-by-two inch pattern called stippling, caused by gunpower burns. It suggests Zimmerman fired inches away from the teenager."{CBS}[[2]] MSNBC says Z fired from "intermediate range", shamelessly not explaining that, in this case, "intermediate range" means inches. Biased again, or merely incompetent? [[3]] Andyvphil (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think still biased AND still incompetent is the judgement on NBC/MSNBC. Long after other sources had figured out that "intermedate range" is a term of art in forensics NBC is asserting that it is a "contradictory assessment" that Martin's sweatshirt showed a contact shot and his body a wound of intermediate range. The bias is obvious in the headline, among other things. (Z is still white, not brown.)[[4]]

Media reports also seem to differ on the injury/injuries to his knuckles/knuckle. Some are reporting it as knuckles [5] and NBC reported it as a "small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size – on his left ring finger below the knuckle." [6] That seems to be a huge discrepancy in the details of their reporting, is it more than one knuckle with injuries or just one knuckle. Biased reporting or incompetent? Either way, both versions of their reporting are included in the article. The NY Times is reporting on a more detailed description of police missteps (Sanford police). [7] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Some sources have reported bruising of knuckles plural. As to injury to the hand, the Autopsy specifically states a 1/4x1/8 inch abrasion ring finger left hand. I have no idea how much damage a punch capable of breaking a nose and blacking two eyes would do to one's fist. That is the job of an experienced policy investigator and a medical examiner. A real forensic investigation is carried out in a methodical, careful manner; cases that become media feeding frenzies can confuse the public and obstruct justice: incomplete or confused reports pile on top of each other.

Apparently "intermediate" is a forensic term, not contact range but close enough to produce powder burns or stippling from gunshot residue, i.e. 1 to 18 inches. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Terminology used may be county, state or regional. A forensic pathology atlas by a Cook County Illinois medical examiner uses the terms "contact", "close", "distant" and "long-range"--distant being over 24 inches (no stippling from gsr) and does not use term "intermediate". Naaman Brown (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So many problems

1. He shot an unarmed teenager
   • The word "unarmed" implies "harmless, inoffensive, unaggressive" and (coupled with old pictures of the baby-faced kid when he was much younger and smaller) makes it sound like he was out strolling or "on an errand" when some crazy white mofo shot him to death for no reason
2. without arresting him
   • What do you call it when the cops take away your gun and bring you to the police station - rather than the hospital emergency room and question you for hours before releasing you?
   • Don't we mean that after the arrest, they decided not to charge him and they released him? (Depends on the exact meaning of "arrest")
3. Parents of dead teen wanted shooter "arrested, tried and convicted" - where is this quote?
   • Many people (presumably of the same race as the deceased or in sympathy with members of that race) presumed / assumed that:
     1. Any death of an unarmed black, caused by a non-black (with a gun), must inevitably be unjustified (e.g., motivated by racism)
     2. (This is not such a far-fetched idea, if you study the history of KKK and lynching, but it still has to be covered in an unbiased way.)
4. Lack of coverage of the inquest option
   • Did anyone in the pro-Martin camp, the pro-guard camp, or neutral parties (if such exist) ever suggest that before arresting the shooter (again?), i.e., charging him a crime, that there must be a reason such as evidence, suspicion, etc.?

It may help to indicate who felt the guard should have been charged (on the same day, rather than released), and so on. Who expressed outrage that the cops released him?

We could balance this with reports (if any) of those who felt the police did the right thing, say, on the basis of a witness who said he saw Martin on top of the guard, trying to bash his head in.

• Did Martin not know that the guard was armed (see concealed carry), or that he conceivably might be?
• Was this the first time Martin ever got into a violent scuffle?

It goes on and on. Anyone care to take the several hours required to edit this article into shape, so it's comprehensive and balanced? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• • He was unarmed. This is a fact. It does not imply anything other than unarmed. We did not write any of the other adjectives you are worried about in the article.
  • Arrest is a specific legal term, which is often misunderstood in the public eye. Zimmerman was not arrested. He was detained/held. Confusion on this point is legitimate, but saying he was not arrested is not an inaccurate statement. "Taken in for questioning" etc is not an arrest, even though you may be handcuffed, and not free to go. See Travis Stop, etc
  • the assumptions you mention are possibly true or not true of the general public, but are not discussed in the article, so it really doesn't matter.
  • It may be the case that information regarding the inquest and notable opinions regarding that have been lacking. There were several discussions on that (now archived) including some proposed additions. Feel free to read throught eh archives, or propose some additions. Be aware that only highly notable opinions (Dershowitz etc) reported in reliable sources (not random blogs etc) will be acceptable for inclusion
  • Not sure what your point is. Discussion about if he should be charged or not was surely massively covered and thought about, as is self evident from the fact that he wasn't arrested for almost two months, while they did investigate and think about it? It could certainly be that they came to an incorrect decision to arrest, or charge or overcharge (we will see when the court case moves on) but you are risking WP:FORUM
  • MArtin had no reason to know that Zimmerman was armed. He was not a guard,he was the neighborhood watch, and Martin was not a permanent resident and would have no reason to recognize him as such.
  • There are some stories of prior possibly violent history on Martin's part, but they have not been discussed in reliable sources neccesary for inclusion in this article. Further, there has been a long and detailed debate about inclusion of negative historical information for both zimmerman and martin (suspensions, fights, assault, domestic violence etc) and thus far it has been semi0decided not to include information for either of them not directly relevant to the case. When the trial begins, some of that history may suddenly become relevant to the case if it is brought up as evidence.
  • If you think there are specific things that need to be addressed, address them, or make specific suggestions here so others can evaluate and possibly make them. Making general "this sucks" statements is not helpful to the article, or your pov. Be aware that this is a very controvercial article, and very closely watched. lack of neutrality and pushing of POV will be dealt with swiftly. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

These NPOV objections are baseless. Really don't know how much more neutral the article could be, and we have editors of all stripes on hand. I am going to remove the tag. Apostle12 (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: the word "unarmed", I think he has a good point. This is how our friends at wiktionary define "unarmed": "1. defenceless and lacking weapons or armour" "2. not carrying arms". I think the OP finds that "defenceless" connotation of the word to be troubling, and I agree. It is true that Trayvon was "lacking weapons" (and armor), but given the eyewitness testimony, picture, and medical reports, I think it's hard to argue that he was "defenceless". In order to avoid this possible connotation, I would prefer that it be simply stated that "Trayvon was not carrying a weapon." Emeraldflames (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Its really splitting hairs to say that it is a problem. 1) EXTREMELY widely used to describe this situation by almost all sources - no need to bowlderize/ or talk around it. 2) Extremely common LEGAL definition (unarmed vs armed robbery, unarmed spotter plane, etc). 3) all of the definitions using "defenseless" are using it directly in the context of not having weapons (referring to the castle's defenses etc). - Not a single definition is mentioning weak or in a position to not be able to defend/attack with hands - this is explicitly acknowledged by the well known phrase "unarmed combat". Un armed - without arms. Unless you are going to try and argue that the 2nd amendement says we have the right not to be forcibly amputated, you are just being pendantic for no reason. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

To use a non-wiki source, American Heritage Dictionary defines un·armed this way "a. Lacking weapons or armor; defenseless". If the word is ONLY used to mean that someone is not carrying a weapon, then there would be no reason for American Heritage (and wiktionary) to add "; defenseless". They added it because there is a connotation in some uses of the word that implies an "inability to defend oneself".

Yes, it has been commonly used by the media to describe this situation. And there may a number of reasons they reported it in this way (not all of them positive.) But the media does not universally report it that way. I've heard the media phrase it in other ways as well. It's a matter of which one is *best*.

Do I think it's a huge deal to continue to use the word unarmed? Not really. I just don't see the point in describing the situation using a somewhat 'loaded' word that carries a definitive connotation, when we could just as easily describe it in a way that does *not*. Emeraldflames (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I disagree with the characterization that it's been semi-decided not to include information about their backgrounds. Sometimes, the article includes the suspensions and prior arrests of Zimmerman. Other times, it does not. Right now, it does not, but there has been no consensus to exclude them. Emeraldflames (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The 'consensus' has been that we abide by WP:BLP. -- Avanu (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the way my POV tag was handled and the reference to "unarmed spotter plane" is irrelevant. We're not talking about two countries at war, are we? (Or did you mean to imply that "white" (Hispanics) and "black" are in a war? If so, let's be explicit about the issue and describe it neutrally.

In a military or diplomatic context (as in the incident that occurred right after Bush took office and China forced down a US plane), the presence or absence of arms is terribly important. There are use of force doctrines involved, as well as international law. Also, based on airplane design, it is usually known beforehand whether a given aircraft is armed or not. The Soviets know KAL 007 was unarmed; that wasn't even the issue (i.e., whether it imposed a threat or "clear and present danger"); they wanted to punish a "violation" of their military airspace.

This was an incident that took place between two residents of the same country. But the issue of whether one person attacked the other is the elephant in the room which we're all dancing around. Saying one guy shot another (unarmed) guy is like saying police "opened fire" on a crowd. It doesn't make any sense without describing what took place (if anything) before the shot(s). In fact a more neutral title for the article would be the Death of Trayvon Martin because (in American English anyway) "shooting" implies wrongful shooting.

There was some sort of incident which took place, and whether Zimmerman simply shoot Martin out of racial animus (what? and faked his head injury?) or whether Martin tried to rough up Zimmerman "for following him" (and who knows? I might do the same on a dark night if some stranger started following me) we may never know. But let's be careful about avoiding all bias on our part and write the article with the must scrupulous neutrality. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Butchery of "Public response" section

Editor Isaidnoway's recent "edit" was not really an edit. What it did was make the statement by Steele nonsensical. Without the first paragraph, the following paragraph becomes a non sequitor:

"It has given us a generation of ambulance-chasing leaders, and the illusion that our greatest power lies in the manipulation of white guilt. The tragedy surrounding Trayvon's death is not in the possibility that it might have something to do with white racism; the tragedy is in the lustfulness with which so many black leaders, in conjunction with the media, have leapt to exploit his demise for their own power."

"It" in this paragraph reads as though it refers to Trayvon Martin's death, which is not what Steele is saying at all.

With respect to Sowell's fine essay, which is directly relevant to the section dealing with unprovoked attacks on whites by blacks that have been linked to the Trayvon Martin case, Isaidnoway simply engaged in exactly the kind of censorship Sowell refers to. There was nothing "inaccurate" in the summary provided (I just reread Sowell's piece to make sure), and his valuable perspective was published just two days ago.

Steele and Sowell are two very notable, eloquent people, and their views deserve a place in the "Public response" section. Eliminating their views (Sowell) or butchering them beyond recognition (Steele)are uncalled for.Apostle12 (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Thomas Sowell piece opens with a description of two white newspaper reporters who were beaten by a mob of young blacks, beaten so badly that they had to take a week off from work, that might sound like news that should have been reported, at least by their own newspaper, but wasn't. Then he goes on to talk about "violence by young black gangs against white people chosen at random", and the media and authorities tendency to try and sweep these episodes under the rug, and "what the authorities and the media seem determined to suppress is that the hoodlum elements in many ghettoes launch coordinated attacks on whites in public places." What has this got to do with the shooting of Trayvon Martin? This wasn't a case of "violence by black gangs against white people". This is a case of Zimmerman shooting Martin allegedly in self defense and the aspects surrounding this specific case. Sowell doesn't even mention Martin or Zimmerman at all or even try to make a significant or relevant connection to this case, nor mention that this "violence by young black gangs against white people" is "linked to the Trayvon Martin case" whatsoever. Furthermore, the section is titled "Public response", which indicates to me at least, that the "responses" made by individuals are directly related to the specific topic of this article.

Steele does write very eloquently and specifically referenced this case, but why give so much weight to his statements as opposed to other notable figures who made public responses as well. I would think the President is more notable than Steele, but yet his statements don't receive the weight you think Steele's statement's require. Why is that? I have seen more RS reporting on Obama's statements than RS reporting on Steele's statements. While is is important to reflect all relevant viewpoints on this case, we should also consider their viewpoint (Steele's) prevalence in reporting in RS. I don't think this article should give more weight to Steele's statements with the detail that is included without RS reporting that his viewpoint is more prevalent than other notable figures who made a public response. Steele's statements should be condensed or summarized appropriately and not being given undue weight in the public response section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Thomas Sowell piece is referenced only in summary. It was published just a few days ago in the wake of numerous attacks by blacks on whites, among them attacks where those attacking specifically referenced "Trayvon." No, Sowell does not specifically reference Trayvon, yet I believe his piece does have relevance to the racial tensions surrounding the Martin case. Apostle12 (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR states "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article".Since Sowell does not specifically mention that the "numerous attacks by blacks on whites" are "linked or connected to the Shooting of Trayvon Martin", his piece is not directly related to the topic of this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

More to the point: dozens, if not hundreds, of notable individuals have voiced their opinions in writing about this incident. On what basis have these specific opinion pieces been selected and prominently featured? If we're going to open the floodgates to opinion pieces, then we should probably have a serious discussion about what criteria we're going to use for inclusion, rather than just reproducing the Hoover Institution's party line on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The section titled "Public response" deals with the many ways people let their opinions be known about the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Apparently "the floodgates" have already been opened, however they have been equipped with an ideological filter intended to exclude conservative points of view.

The problem with this section is that it deals almost exclusively with the opinions of those who support Zimmerman's arrest and who have obviously made the rush to judgment that Zimmerman should be convicted, imprisoned or worse. We learn of the Change.org petition created by Martin's mother, signed by 2.2 million Martin supporters. We learn of the thousands of people expressing their opinions nationwide through "Million Hoodie" marches. We learn of the use of Skittles candy and cans of Arizona Iced Tea to express opinions of support and protest. We learn of students expressing their opinions by staging walk-outs from high school. We learn of Al Sharpton's opinion, where he irresponsibly uses the prejudicial term "murdered" before the trial has even begun. We learn of Jesse Jackson's opinion. We learn of President Barack Obama's opinion. We learn of the opinions of those who, through many incidents, express their opinion that Martin's "murder" needs to be avenged. And we learn of Spike Lee's opinion, voiced by Tweeting Zimmerman's address in a remarkable display of contempt and lack of concern for Zimmerman's safety. (He only apologized for getting the address wrong, not for attempting to put Zimmerman's life in danger.) We learn of the opinion of the New Black Panthers as they offer a $10,000 reward for Zimmerman's "capture."

This section deals very little with the opinions of those who favor a more measured public response, because by definition such people are waiting to see the evidence. They have respect for the legal process, and they are likely to honor any decision a jury makes when the case comes to trial. Yes, we hear of Geraldo Rivera's hoodie statement, and his subsequent apology. And we hear of the death threats made against Zimmerman, likely encouraged by Sharpton's use of the term "murdered" and Jackson's ambulance-chasing rhetoric. Finally we hear Alan Dershowitz' opinion that the afidavit of probable cause is defective.

What we most certainly do not see in the "Public response" section are the reasoned opinions of ANY conservative public figures. I chose one, a black man who is appalled by the ambulance-chasing and who views the shooting of Trayvon Martin in a larger context. That man is Shelby Steele, and I believe the two short paragraphs I chose are essential to provide at least a modicum of balance to the "Public response" section:

Referring to Trayvon Martin's death, Senior Fellow Shelby Steele at the Hoover Institution stated:

"And this points to the second tragedy that Trayvon's sad demise highlights. Before the 1960s the black American identity (though no one ever used the word) was based on our common humanity, on the idea that race was always an artificial and exploitive division between people. After the '60s—in a society guilty for its long abuse of us—we took our historical victimization as the central theme of our group identity. We could not have made a worse mistake.

"It has given us a generation of ambulance-chasing leaders, and the illusion that our greatest power lies in the manipulation of white guilt. The tragedy surrounding Trayvon's death is not in the possibility that it might have something to do with white racism; the tragedy is in the lustfulness with which so many black leaders, in conjunction with the media, have leapt to exploit his demise for their own power."

I intend to reinsert Steele's statement as soon as possible. If the "Public response" section is guilty of promoting any "party line" it certainly is not that of the Hoover Institution. To imply that I am giving "undue weight" to Steele's statement is highly ironic given the present bias. Apostle12 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not imply anything. I stated it. You are giving undue weight to Steele's statements. All of the other statements you referenced in the Public response section are summarized in simple and short one or two sentences. Do you think that by giving Steele's statements undue weight you are making up for what you see as bias in the Public response section? Do you think his statements are more relevant than other notable figures who made statements? Has his statements received widespread RS reporting like the other notable figures statements have? I don't have an issue with a short summary of his statements, but giving them undue weight isn't the right way to go either.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to summarize the other "statements" because they are so devoid of thoughtful analysis. And, yes, a succession of such statements, all supporting the same basic idea (Zimmerman bad, Martin good) does constitute bias in the "Public response" section. Steele's statement is concise, and I doubt any accurate summary of the ideas he expresses would be any shorter. In a sound-bite world, thoughtful analysis comes up short.Apostle12 (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your personal appreciation for Steele and personal disdain for other commentators isn't a valid rationale for a content decision here. The statements currently in the article are not sourced to opinion pieces; they're sourced to independent news articles. These were statements considered newsworthy enough to be reported upon by independent sources. If an independent source (for example, a major newspaper) writes a news article about Sowell's response to the incident, then we could feature it, but you're comparing apples and oranges here. MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added a (too short) summary of Steele's statements. The two spare paragraphs I previously chose were, I believe, a far superior way to introduce the thoughtful perspective Steele voices in his lengthly WSJ piece. Just to clarify, my disdain is not for the other commentators; I believe their voices deserve to be heard. My disdain is reserved for editors who artificially limit the scope of discussion to suit their own ideological bias. Apostle12 (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the Steele statements comments a lot more on the state of black America/black leadership than about Zimmerman and Trayvon specifically. If its included I think it should be pared down some. Emeraldflames (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggest a Neutrality Flag on this article

I saw a ton of inaccuracies on this page, clearly trying to sway opinion one way or the other. I highly suggest one of those "The neutrality of this page is in dispute." If there's one that says "the facts of this page are in dispute" that would actually be more accurate. I would add it, but I have no idea how or even if I have permission.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you give specific examples of inaccuracies or disputed facts, so we can address them on an individual basis.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had the time. It's in the minutiae, and it would just take too much time and effort and sourcing to do it justice. If no one else feels this way, then I suppose I will bow out.Jasonnewyork (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there are "a ton of inaccuracies" in the article. When you have the time, if you could point out a couple then we could discuss it. Overall, I wouldn't say the article is either pro- or anti-Zimmerman. Emeraldflames (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You know what, I was going too fast and wasn't reading carefully enough. Sorry. Apparently, Zimmerman made several different calls to the police on different days. I read them all as the same call. So, when the details of those calls didn't line up, I thought there were a bunch of inaccuracies. Sorry about that.Jasonnewyork (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. That section is titled "Shooting". Maybe since those phone calls were made before the shooting, we could make a sub-section under Zimmerman's role in the neighborhood watch with those phone calls listed there instead.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to the reader's concerns, I added a note clarifying the timing of the first of Zimmerman's two February 2012 calls. Since the events associated with the February 2 call are directly associated with the content of Zimmerman's February 26 call, the February 2 call provides valuable perspective. Apostle12 (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

More results from autopsy of Martin

This station in Miami is reporting Martin had marijuana in his blood and urine and a photo of Zimmerman taken that night. [8] It's only a suggestion, but discussion is needed about the marijuana aspect before inclusion, I think. I'm not saying it shouldn't go in the article, but more feedback from other editor's.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

AGREE! The drug test results should absolutely should be included. CNN is reporting the drug use as well (in addition to a number of other news sources). See the CNN report here: Autopsy: Drug THC found in Trayvon Martin's system. The Miami Herald story said the autopsy report showed Martin was actually 5-foot-11 (not 6'3") and weighed 158 lbs. The Miami Herald also reported Martin had a red lighter in his pocket. I hate censorship and oppose Wiki editors who advocate keeping properly cited material out of an article. Wikipedia is a major source of information for tens of millions of people. This article should include everything that can properly cited, and we should err on the side that it is relevant. If it's relevant to the court, the prosecutor, or the defense and featured in national news stories, it's relevant and appropriate to include in this article. MiamiManny (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As with most things, I'd favor giving it a day or two to see how things play out, per WP:NOTNEWS. Arguably the toxicology findings are relevant, although it should probably be borne in mind that urine toxicology is typically positive for at least 2-7 days and sometimes longer after marijuana use. Blood toxicology is usually a tighter time frame, although (as I think the CNN article notes) the relatively low level of THC in Martin's blood doesn't necessarily indicate any significant level of intoxication, although it does speak to usage within the past several days. MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have come to believe the same thing about waiting a day or two as well. This is not the 10:00 news, so I don't sense a need for urgency in including it. I don't think the toxicology findings are that relevant to the legal case, but I don't object to it being included as part of the overall autopsy report. In fact, a sub-section would fit nicely with all the info from the report in one place.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Used marijuana in the last several hours, not days, if my memory of biochem is correct. The carboxylic metabolite is what hangs around, not THC. Pure THC means very recent usage. This autopsy report has actually been out awhile now, it's the same one with the "bloody knuckles", just the media didn't jump on it. Maybe they are milking this thing into a daily news cycle. Hmm. I just read a foresic doctor claim it could have days as well, but find that incongruent with the biochemistry, it should only take a few hours for the body to convert THC to the carboxyl form almost entirely.Whatzinaname (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

So a professor of forensic medicine says the blood level means it "might have been days" since Martin smoked pot ([9]). But that doesn't jibe with your personal recollection of "biochemistry". What to do? MastCell ^Talk 04:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words. He's using the cover of "trace"(not to mention "night" for even more weaseltude) levels to claim you can have trace levels for several days -- that's true, but misleading. You can't have trace levels that high, but you can have trace levels. As you say, give it a few days. Dollars to donuts it's not at all as he detailed Whatzinaname (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly do you think we should wait a day or two on relevant sourced information? Do you think the autopsy report details could possibly change within the next 48 hours?MiamiManny (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see a need for urgency. Time is on our side. Yesterday, early media reports indicated Martin had scrapes on his knuckles, now it is being reported as just one knuckle. The day before that we included a report that the FBI may charge Zimmerman with a hate crime as if it was somehow more significant than what was already included in the article about the same topic. Somehow the revelation that it was a death penalty crime became significant, now we hear the FBI cannot determine if it was a racial slur. Having said that, I can't stop anybody from editing this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that that Autopsy results with the THC finding should be included, but it is OK to wait to see the different accounts converge to a more complete picture.ITBlair (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have to rely so much on media's interpretations of events anymore, since- in a lot of cases- we can see the original reports and documents. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a link to the documents released, looks like it is about 183 pages. [10] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600 and WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article states that the autopsy said that the gunshot was fired from an "intermediate range," which is an awfully vague phrase to most readers. ABC cites the distance as "between 1 inch and 18 inches away," which is a lot more informative. I think this information should be included in the article, because everyone knows what that means. http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witnesses-back-george-zimmermans-version/story?id=16371852&page=2 QfB6Kqqd5u (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that one of the articles cited in the medical section already states that THC was found in his system. Since one of the of references already mentions it, should it be included now? 214.13.69.132 (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• thc in trayvons system is now in the authoritative primary source, and has been reported I multiple secondary sources, thus passes the verifiability and reliability bar of BLP
• Zimmerman reported that "he's on drugs or something" and "up to no good"
• Martin actually being on drugs is directly relevant to that statement, - this goes to both the motives of zimmman, and his reliability/judgement . If travyon had not been on drugs, then zimmerman thinking a black kid on drugs is a probably sign of racism. Trayvons actually being on drugs shows that perhaps Zimmerman could correctly recognize odd behavior.
• being on drugs is certainly not a crime justifying being shot - but it does perhaps justify the initial suspicion on zimmermans part
• being on drugs may have caused Martin to otherwise act strangely in the way of his movement, or the way he was looking around, depending on the level of his trippiness. Agaithis goes to if Zimmerman had causes for being suspicious
• we should certainly not imply that th drugs has a correlation with other possible criminal behavior (casing/robbery) as there is no evidence for that
• while pot is not generally associated with violence, it is associated with paranoia, which may have affected trayvons actions later in the interaction.
• I'm ok with waiting a day or two to see if the information changes quickly, but more delay than that seems like stonewalling frothe opposing editors. This is information asked on an autopsy from months ago, and the raw information is unlikely to change rapidly (although media analysis of that information certainly could)
• obviously the bulk of the analysis I included above should not be included in the article as OR unless is can be found repeated in RS which I believe some of it has, however, I included it here to show relevance past the mere BLP criteria being met.

What does it mean to be "on drugs"? You have several experts saying that the levels found in Martin's system are unlikely to represent intoxication and are more likely representative of past use. I think you're getting out over your skis a bit. Like I said, I'm fine with including the fact that Martin's blood and urine showed evidence of marijuana use, but we need to also convey the interpretation of that finding by experts. That's what the sources do. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any RS reporting that Martin "actually being on drugs" or it being relevant to any statements Zimmerman made in his call to the police. I agree your analysis should not be included in the article as well. I also have not seen any editor's who yet oppose including the autopsy results either. Here are a few links reporting on the results with experts analyzing the results. [11] [12] [13] [14] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is reasonable per WP:BLP to avoid surmise and speculation -- but now scads of strong reliable sources mention the marijuana, and it would be ludicrous for Wikipedia to ignore CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, etc. They all cover it, and we should make the factual claim in this article. AFAICT, the exact amount of THC found was not released, and even if it were released, there is no way for editors to determine more than the fact that the autopsy found that chemical. [15] implies that if the THC were in the blood, that it would have been recent use, but that if the THC were not in the blood, but other means of detection were used, that the use might have been even weeks ago. Does anyone here have an RS source on whether a "blood test" was the source of the finding, or was it a different test? Collect (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Per TIME, the blood level of THC was 1.5 ng/mL, and the blood level of the carboxylate of THC was 7.3 ng/mL. TIME describes these levels as being "so low as to almost certainly not be connected to recent intoxication." The article quotes an expert thus: "THC in blood or urine tells us nothing about the level of intoxication... That says nothing about his functioning." Source: [16]
• Per CBS, THC was found "in Martin's blood and urine". The expert quoted by CBS stated that the "THC amount was so low that it may have been ingested days earlier and played no role in Martin's behavior." The expert went on to say: "This kind of level can be seen days after somebody smokes." Source: [17]
• CNN repeats that the blood levels of THC and THC-COOH were 1.5 ng/mL and 7.3 ng/mL, respectively. They write: "It was not immediately clear how significant these amounts were." An expert quoted by CNN "cautioned against reading too much into the blood THC levels, adding that one cannot make a direct correlation between those findings and a level of intoxication. He also said that levels of THC, which can linger in a person's system for days, can spike after death in certain areas of the body because of redistribution." Source: [18]

Does that answer your question? I think the recency and potential import of the findings are addressed by multiple experts in multiple reliable sources, and if we include the positive finding, we should include the relevant context in which to interpret it, as these reliable sources do. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Interesting also is [19] which says that two states established a legal limit of 2ng/ml for THC for impaired driving, and more than a dozen states set the limit at zero. Clearly an issue of substantial interest. See also [20] which implies that blood tests generally show no THC after 24 hours. The chart furnished there implies, if I read it correctly, that levels under 1 ng/ml are reached in blood at the 7 to 8 hour mark after one smoked dose, and the THC-COOH reaches the 7 ng/ml level at about the 4 hour mark for one "dose." Collect (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • So do you want to go with that WP:SYNTH, or do you want to just use the actual experts quoted in the actual reliable sources dealing directly with this actual incident? MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
      • First of all -- SYNTH does NOT apply to talk page discussions, so drop that bit <g>. And some of the "experts" are not specifically experts on the drug level issues in the first place (I love seeing just how far some media go in giving expertise to uncredentialed pundits). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Please focus - I'm asking what you want to put in the article. That's what this talk page is supposed to be for - to discuss what sort of content is appropriate for the associated article. So what do you want to put in? The WP:SYNTH you described above, or material from actual experts quoted in actual reliable sources describing this actual incident? MastCell ^Talk 00:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
          • What do I want put in the article? NOTHING! See below. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

WTF? Just saw this added to article. No case has been presented as to its relevance. It's nonsense. It's completely undue. Just makes this article look even sillier. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll try again. Can anyone explain why adding does anything more than attempt to build a case along the lines of "He was a druggie. He deserved to be shot"? He could have been high on heroin, and I still wouldn't see any relevance to this article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Read above. Also look back in archives. It is "high" time this (universally reported) information is included. Silly would be to continue to censor it. Emeraldflames (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Excerpt from Associated Press article Trayvon Martin Case: Evidence Of Marijuana Found In Martin's Blood:

"Martin's autopsy indicated that medical examiners found THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, when they tested Martin's blood and urine. The amount described in the autopsy report is such a low level that it would have played no role in Martin's behavior, said Larry Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

'This kind of level can be seen days after somebody smokes,' Kobilinsky said. 'If it comes up in the case, I would be surprised. It wouldn't benefit the defense, it wouldn't benefit the prosecution, and if the defense tried to bring it up, the judge would keep it out.'

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he had THC in his system. I submit that this is irrelevant to this article. Being true does not make it relevant. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone already laid out several reasons above as to why it may be relevant to this case. So when you say "No case has been presented as to its relevance. It's nonsense.", *that* is nonsense. You're statement that the *only* reason to include it would be to imply "he deserved to be shot" is also nonsense. The idea that anyone who thinks it may be relevant is a "bigot" is also nonsense.

Are the NY Times, Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, BBC, etc. ,etc. bigots too? They all reported it. If you disagree with the arguments above, you are welcome to try to counter them. But pretending that they don't exist is nonsense. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the fact that it was reported. I'm asking - How does the fact that it was reported make it relevant to the article? HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Paraphrasing above: 1. Zimmerman has been accused of "profiling" Martin (racially and otherwise.) Zimmerman reported that "he's on drugs or something" and "up to no good". Martin testing positive for drugs is directly relevant to that statement. Trayvons actually being on drugs shows that perhaps Zimmerman was not racially profiling, but merely correctly recognizing odd behavior. (If Travyon had tested *negative* for drugs that would support the idea that Zimmerman was jumping to conclusions about Trayvon for no good reason. Being on drugs is certainly not a crime justifying being shot - but it does perhaps justify the initial suspicion on Zimmerman's part.

(If Martin *had* been smoking "the pot" that night, this may have also caused Martin to otherwise act strangely in some manner in front of Zimmerman, depending on the level of his trippiness.) * While pot is not generally associated with violence, it is associated with paranoia, unclear thinking, and other mental effects that might have influenced Trayvon's decisions actions in the interaction. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that better expressed response, but it still contains an awful lot of words like "if", "perhaps", and "suspicion". It's all very speculative. If this really has to be added, could it be placed in the sort of context you describe, rather than sitting out there like a shag on a rock allowing any less informed reader think "Ah, OK. He was on drugs. That's why he was shot." HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, Regarding the excerpt that I posted above, did it indicate that marijuana did or did not play a role in Martin's behavior on the night of the shooting? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who has been following this case in the media knows that it has been widely reported the reason that Martin was in Sanford (suspension from school for traces of marijuana in a baggie). Zimmerman's call to police where he states that Martin looks like he is on drugs or something. Along with a slew of other speculation about this young man reported in various media outlets. People interested in this case have been waiting for the autopsy report to be released for their own various reasons. We can present this report in a section appropriately titled, maintaining a NPOV with expert's analysis and give the readers of WP a place to get unbiased information about this autopsy. I don't see it "sitting out there like a shag on a rock", it is placed in the appropriate section and adding any sort of context other than expert analysis risks pushing a POV about "if" "perhaps" and "suspicion" which we should avoid.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, Was that suppose to be a response to my question to HiLo48? If so, please try again and may I add that the answer to the question does not involve taking a position on the issue, but just an understanding of what the excerpt said. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

BobK, no I wasn't responding to your question for HiLo48. Sorry, I didn't see your question when I posted my position. But, to answer that question for myself, yes I understand what the excerpt says and that it why I included it in the article. I didn't put the comments about the case in though, do you think they should be included? My first thought was to put them in, but I changed my mind because I thought the "behavior" aspect was more relevant than whether the results would be admissable in the court case. I can see an argument for including them though.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Re "I didn't put the comments about the case in though, do you think they should be included?" — My preference is no, if you are referring to, "If it comes up in the case, I would be surprised. It wouldn't benefit the defense, it wouldn't benefit the prosecution, and if the defense tried to bring it up, the judge would keep it out." These comments are a short term prediction which will become obsolete as the case progresses. One reason I included these comments in the excerpt was to give some perspective to the marijuana issue for the participants in the discussion here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a section on the National Highway Transportation site, that describes THC and its effects.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm

A number of states States (Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin) have passed “per se” laws, in which it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle if there is any detectable level of a prohibited drug, or its metabolites, in the driver’s blood. In a few other states it is 2 nanograms or greater is considered driving while impaired.

Around 34% of crash victims have drugs in their system. http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/drugged-driving

A more detailed synopsis on the effects of THC are in the NHTSA report report (pages 7 - 12). www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/drugs_web.pdf Basically, you get high and can have 40 ng, but these levels start to fall. After 12 hours they get to under 1 ng. File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

Check-out Table 5 in the following link, it deals with THC concentrations in the blood. According this graph the THC levels in TM's blood are consistent with somehow who used marijuna two to three hours prior to detecting this level of THC in the blood.

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugtestguide/drugtestdetection.html

I will try to dig up more data, but in many states the levels of THC in Trayvon Martin's blood would make him legally too impaired to drive. ITBlair (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevada and Ohio have a 2 nanogram THC limit for driving. Pennsylvania has a 5 nanogram limit, but that's a state Health Department guideline, which can be introduced in driving violation cases.

See: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/05/15/colorado_house_passes_bill_on_marijuana_duis/

A note on the effects of marijuna from the Federal government. It causes poor judgement and sometimes paranoia. http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana-abuse/how-does-marijuana-use-affect-your-brain-body

So far there is no solid agreement on how the levels of THC in the blood relate to performance/cognition impairment. Although it is clear that the higher the levels the greater the impairment. ITBlair (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Detailed Timeline with Geographic Data

Template:The 7-eleven surveillance video shows Trayvon paying for Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea at 18:23pm; according to Google Maps, the store is 0.7 miles away from the north entrance to the gated community It should be possible to provide more detailed timeline. Indicate when Zimmerman made his various statements. Once the case file is released it should be possible to cross-reference this timeline with more details from the cell phone conversation with Trayon Martin.

In addition, I assume we could show where these individuals where when they were making these various statements. For example, Cell phones usually can let you know where the phone is within 15 feet or so. I assume the state collected this evidence. We could also look to statements as to where Zimmerman said he was was. Ideally, this timeline with geographic data could show where the Witnesses were. I have seen a few websites that attempted to link timelines and location data.

It would be a fair amount of work to put this together, but useful. The detailed data should be available shortly. ITBlair (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the location data from the cell phone: I haven't finished reading the entirety of the reports. I'm about halfway through them. I've seen a few officers note that they were unable to get into the cell phone because they did not have the code. They asked T-Mobile if they could bypass the lock and were told they could if they obtained some code in reference to the account (read: seek permission). The police asked Mr. Martin for the code that was needed, and he said he would have to talk to his lawyer. I haven't read anything beyond that yet, but again I'm only about halfway through the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsfj50pa (talk • contribs) 18:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Below is a URL to the Google Maps of the area where the shooting took place. We should be able to locate where Zimmerman parked his car, the location of the mailboxes, the fiance's house, where the shooting occurred, etc. It will be harder to overlay a timeline on this map as to the location of Zimmerman and Martin at different times. For example, where was Zimmerman when his phone call with the police ended and where was Trayvon Martin? Alas, I did not see phone records in the material released so far and read that phone records are not considered part of the public records in FL. http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.79295,-81.32965&spn=0.005,0.005&t=m&q=28.79295,-81.32965 ITBlair (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The police report states that Trayvon Martin's body was between 1231 Twin Trees Lane and 2821 Retrient View Circle (page 14). We have a location for the map. His father stated (TV interview) he was 70 yards from his girlfriend's (Brandi Green) house. So this should be able to locate her house. I will try to and see if the records indicate where George Zimmerman's car/truck was parked. ITBlair (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No luck on car/truck location (I will continue to look). On page 40 the police have a timeline. A Problem is that this timeline starts at 19:11:12. Four or five newspapers state the first 911 call started at 7:09. Another source pulled a copy of the Sanford Police Department logs and stated the start time 7:09:34 (SEE: http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/the-missing-230-and-deedees-testimony ). Based on the 19:09:34 start time, the following is the (updated) timeline.

• February 26, 2012
  • 7:09:34 PM – Zimmerman's call to Sanford police begins (see transcript)
  • 7:12 - 7:12:59 PM – Trayvon's girlfriend calls him
  • 7:11:33 PM George Zimmerman states that Trayon Martin is running (see transcript).
  • 7:11:59 PM George Zimmerman states that he (left his car and) is following Trayvon Martin (see transript)
  • 7:12:00 PM Sanford Police Dispatcher states you do not need to do that [follow TM - see transcript]
  • 7:12:02 PM George Zimmerman says OK (stops following Trayvon Martin - see transcript)
  • 7:13:10 PM George Zimmerman states he cannot see, does not know where Trayvon Martin is located (see transcript)
  • 7:13:41 PM Zimmerman's call to Sanford police ends (see transcript)
  • 7:16 PM Trayvon call to girlfriend goes dead;
  • 7:16:00 PM First calls from witness about a fight [at location of body]
    See: http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Lawyer-Trayvon-Martin-s-girlfriend-heard-altercation/-/1637132/9613958/-/57edqqz/-/index.html
  • 7:16:55 PM Shot Fired [at location of body] See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a58plIcrdo&feature=player_embedded#!
  • 7:17 PM First officer arrives on scene
  • 7:30 PM – Martin pronounced dead at the scene by paramedic
  • 7:52 PM – Zimmerman's arrival at police station recorded on video
• February 27
  • Approximately 1:00 am – Zimmerman released (duration described as "five hours")
  • 3:07 am – Timestamp on Sanford Police Department (SPD) Initial Report
  • Martin reported missing by father
  • SPD informs father of Trayvon's death before 8 am
  • SPD publicly identifies Zimmerman and Martin

ITBlair (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

According to a recent NY Times article, the police didn't realize Zimmerman was driving so his wife moved the truck before they could seize it, so there probably won't be more than approximate locations until it comes out where Zimmerman and his wife say it was parked. Psalm84 (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The released documents in the case file give two or three different start times for the call from Zimmerman. Can someone help me confirm what the Actual Start Time is? ITBlair (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In the Case File review I ran across three start times for Zimmerman's call to the police. The first was stated approx. 19:12 (Capias). The second was page 6 of 13 and listed a 19:11:12 time. The third was 19:10 in the ME report. An earlier Stanford PD web page had listed the call connect/start time as 19:09:34. The record was created on 19:11:12. Given that the dispatcher noted fit with a 19:09:34 time (i.e., TM starts to run) and that start time is what most published reports list. I will Assume that start time is 19:09:34. We should note these other possible start times. ITBlair (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I finished the timeline on Zimmerman's call. I will try to triple confirm the timelines on the other 911 calls, and the calls from Dee Dee. It would be nice to link calls and times to locations, but so far there has been almost no location data published. ITBlair (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Elements missing in the media coverage section/bias

The repeated attempts to portray zimmerman as "white" needs to be included, as well as the weasly copout of "white hispanic". Bernard Goldberg might be someone worth citing, given his history in the media and early pick up on this media canard. Additionally the repeated attempts by the media to claim two different but related things: that zimmerman was told not to follow martin, which is a biased interpretation of a phrase, as well as claiming zimmerman continued to follow martin after the "you don't have to do that" that they claim meant "don't follow him"Whatzinaname (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Goldberg is OK, I would think. Here is a timeline from a not so RS about the "white" portrayal in the intitial reporting. [21] As far as the "biased interpretation of a phrase", I don't see it as particularly relevant but then again, my english comprehension is not that great. :) -- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Breibart.com is not a reliable source for any encyclopedia article, much less for one with WP:BLP implications. Is this covered in reliable sources? MastCell ^Talk 03:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree about Breitbart, but the article does link to the original article put out by the AP where they described Zimmerman as white on March 8. [22] It also has a link to the Orlando Sentinel article on March 12, where they described him as white as well. [23] It also has a link to the comments by the Rev on March 12, where he said racial language was used before the tapes of the calls were even released. [24]Just because a source is deemed unreliable, doesn't mean they can't be used for information gathering to other RS which have been used in this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

those sources seem irrelevent unless you're proposing OR Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't see the relevance in that the media claimed he was told "not to follow trayvon" when in fact he was never told that? Or that even further claim that he not only was told not to follow him but in fact continued follow him, which we also have no proof actually happened -- and neither does the prosecution according to testimony in court already. No proof he pursued him after the "we don't need you to do that" comment. NoneWhatzinaname (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Present an argument that establishes the relevancy along with the RS to support your argument. I do understand your concerns with the biased media coverage, but I just don't see the point in turning this article into a editorial soapbox about the media and their biased coverage of this case. I see this article being about the legal issues and the ramifications that will follow from those issues. Here is what we have in the article now about this subject. [25] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The media repeatedly lying about it is "relevancy". http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/911-call-shows-zimmerman-stopped-following-martin-after-dispatchers-request-corroborates-story/ I'm not sure what you are so confused about. Whatzinaname (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What I am confused about is why you just don't add it to the Media coverage section. As long as it is presented in a NPOV and is relevant like you seem to think, then do it. I really don't see anybody fighting against it's inclusion. If someone raises an issue about it, then it can be discussed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, I remember watching CBS Evening News shortly after the shooting, and they, without qualification, claimed that Zimmerman used a racial slur on the phone with the police. Since it later came out that it could not be determined what he said, has CBS News explained why they were so sure at that time? Cla68 (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

To answer MastCell summarily declaring Breitbart an unreliable source, I have a couple of comments. First, Breitbart isn't a source, it is a publisher. And in this story particularly, you are less likely to see 'reliable' coverage of media bias from the same entities that created or participated in that same bias. It might require an outside type of journal in order to get a reliable opinion on the bias of those publishers that are considered mainstream (and therefore somehow more reliable). To simply exclude a source because you don't like its publisher or its author, or the content of the article is not diligent and encyclopedic. But if it represents a reasonable and well researched statement, it has every right to be considered. -- Avanu (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please take the time to re-read WP:IRS. In the very first section, the guideline prominently notes that discussions of "reliable sources" explicitly include the reliability of the publisher.

Are you seriously contending that breitbart.com meets this site's sourcing criteria, for example that it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? I'll leave out the obvious unsuitability of this source for any sort of BLP-related material for now.

Maybe Cla68 could comment, since he's experienced in evaluating sources, but if you're making a serious argument that breitbart.com is a reliable source in this context, I'll be happy to go to the relevant noticeboard for outside input, as I've had to previously to deal with the way inappropriate sources are staunchly defended on this talkpage. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean this? The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings. Because from what I see there a "reliable source" must be reliable on all three of the criteria laid out. You *only* mentioned the publisher, and you failed to explain a rationale as to why it didn't meet the criteria for reliability on this article. I *never* said Breitbart was actually reliable, but if you're going to summarily exclude a source, it seems only reasonable that you explain why. -- Avanu (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your comment. You said: "Breitbart isn't a source, it is a publisher." WP:IRS explicitly states that there's no such distinction. It seems obvious to me that breitbart.com lacks the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" demanded by this site's sourcing guidelines. If you disagree, then you can either explain why you think it meets those criteria, or we can ask for outside input. If you don't want to use the source but are just playing devil's advocate or something, then let's not waste our time. MastCell ^Talk 03:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Go to RS/N - enough folks here find it reliable that mere assertion that it is not, does not prevail. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

MastCell, you sound like you don't like anyone putting information into the article that defames the press. The problem with the tale of Trayvon and George is that the media really went off the rails in their attempts to portray George Zimmerman as a villain. He, in fact, may be a villain here, but we simply don't know. The press didn't seem to care. Whether it was to avenge Trayvon or to show people that racism still exists or whether it was to sell more advertising, the mainstream press went crazy. Now you want to assert that Breitbart is an unreliable publisher, unfit for use. Such things usually depend on context. You want to claim that ABC, NBC, CBS, etc are good and reliable publishers... for this story? They do not have a track record on this story that is reliable. You need to read the fullness of the WP:RS guideline, and not just cherry pick a bit out that supports what you want to happen. Because most of the mainstream media has been so unreliable on this story, we can't just assume they are going to be reliable for this story in the future. Same thing goes for an outlet like Breitbart. Has their coverage of this story been accurate and consistent, or sloppy like those others? You might also remember that the WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV policies trump the WP:RS guideline. To sum up, back up your assertion just a little please, don't just declaratively say "Publication X is completely unfit". Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait - I want to hear something from Collect (besides cop-outs). I don't expect much from most editors here, but Collect actually understands what a reliable souce is, and likes to present himself as a defender of good sourcing and WP:BLP. Collect, do you think breitbart.com is a reliable source? For BLP-related material? MastCell ^Talk 00:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you keep generalizing when we need specific statements. Nothing is likely to always be reliable for all purposes. But we're talking about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman and this case. So the question would be "Is Breitbart a reliable source for material related to this case/this article?" Sheesh. -- Avanu (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Breitbart.com is a reliable source for Andrew Breitbart's opinion. A lot of pundits have opinions on this incident. Is Breitbart's opinion so significant that it should be included here? Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Breitbart.com isn't a reliable source for Andrew Breitbart's opinions, inasmuch as Breitbart no longer has any, being dead. It's as good as source as, say, the Huffington Post, as far as I know. Andyvphil (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't even notice that the guy had passed away. So, who is running his website now? Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Photos of Zimmerman's injuries

The back of Zimmerman's head

Are the photos released yesterday of Zimmerman's injuries, including the abrasions on the back of his head, the broken nose, and the two black eyes, public domain since they were taken by a government agency, i.e. the Sanford police department? If so, could we upload them to the article? Cla68 (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I would favor its inclusion. I defer to those with more technical knowledge. Apostle12 (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If they were taken by the police, a public agency, the photos would not normally be copyrighted. --DeknMike (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Are they even available online? I have not seen those images, particularly with the extent of injuries you describe The Sound and the Fury (talk)

Photos at CBS News, WJLA, Florida Today, IBTimes. --Pmsyyz (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The Orlando Sentinel has them too: [26] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I added one. There may be more that are appropriate. It is nice that Florida government photos are public domain. --Pmsyyz (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

AGREE - The photos of Zimmerman's injuries should absolutely be included. MiamiManny (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

AGREE - Please add it. Apostle12 (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Revert of Wall Street Journal editorial

[27]. The edit summary for reverting this referred to BLP. The Wall Street Journal, however, is an established newspaper and a reliable source. In my opinion, a more appropriate argument for not including it is UNDUE. Is there consensus here that this opinion piece is UNDUE for this article? Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to add...I know there have been hundreds of editorials written about this incident in newspapers around the US. Choosing which ones for inclusion in this article is a weighty chore. I suggest summarizing the different themes from the different editorials, including this one from the WSJ, in a couple of paragraphs. Cla68 (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You lumped together 3 edits into that single diff, which is probably why the edit summary didn't make sense to you. The BLP concern had to do with citing Newsbusters, a partisan blog which is clearly inappropriate for BLP-sensitive material. Here's the diff with matching edit summary.

I removed the Wall Street Journal not on BLP grounds per se, but because it's entirely unclear why this particular opinion piece was selected from the hundreds or thousands of reliable sources available. I did actually make that clear in the accompanying edit summary: [28]. The bottom line, to me, is the one you're getting at: how do we choose which opinion pieces to feature? The selection process seemed a bit ideologically driven and unbalanced, so it's probably worth considering a more encyclopedic approach and perhaps summarizing opinions, as Cla68 suggests. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The comments of Rivera deserve to be included if there is a legitimate source. MiamiManny (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

ABC deliberate manipulation of photos?

Allegedly ABC manipulated a photo of Zimmerman to make him look "whiter". Does anyone know of the veracity of this or have a some more proper article that talks about it? This was taken off a blog of sorts so I don't have much faith in its veracity. But if this were deliberately edited by ABC, this would be a major deal. http://startthinkingright.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/george-zimmerman-photo-altered-to-make-him-look-white1.png Whatzinaname (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's the original post I tracked back from your link to the image: https://wildwildplanet.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/abc-deliberately-alters-zimmerman-pic-to-change-his-race/ But is there any mainstream mention of this? --Pmsyyz (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

When I first heard of this, I did a bit of sleuthing in the early reports of this incident, and I found the picture in question seems to have been credited to the associated press. Some other news outlets used getty/afp http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1047410.1332570263%21/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_200/image.jpg However, I'd say 90-95% of this early photo in case I've seen in the media is the distorted AP image. Someone's got some 'splainin' to do. Whatzinaname (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

[sarcasm]Maybe the change from the orange jumpsuit to the red jumpsuit made his skin photograph lighter (though they did a remarkable job of getting the same expression and pose).[/sarcasm] No one in the media has learned anything from fallout from the manipulation of the O.J. image to make him more sinister: newsweek v time oj Naaman Brown (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious that the photo was manipulated for one reason or another, as there are multiple versions floating around. However, we can't really talk about it in the article, because there are not reliable sources discussing it. Any specific allegation or motive (even extremely plausible or probable ones) are WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH Gaijin42 (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious that the photo is manipulated. But I can't figure out who did it. I just checked ABC's primary website and found a ton of pictures of Zimmerman. Not one of them was the altered image in question. I'm thinking the image might be actually a screenshot from a news broadcast. I can mess with the settings on my TV to make Zimmerman blue if I want to. Is there some reliable source discussing this issue? Sperril (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Eyeballs needed

On TM's high school, and the school's namesake. [29] [30] I fixed it, I think, but I don't do wiki stuff anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

document dump may include older documents

The latest document dump may include older documents. There is an assumption among some editors that the latest batch overrides previous information. Date checking and provenance is important, especially in areas like analysis of the audio of the police calls (911 and non-911). --Naaman Brown (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of the older documents that were included in this recent dump also seem to have Zimmerman's statements redacted as well. For example, in the recent release, Officer Timothy Smith's initial report has Zimmerman's statement he "shot Martin and was still armed" redacted and his statement of "yelling for someone to help me" redacted as well. The initial report we have included in the article is not redacted. [31]

The recent release also indicates that the request for a capias was filed on March 13 [32]. According to what we currently have in the article here[33] an affidavit was filed on the night of February 26. I didn't see an affidavit dated on February 26, included in the recent release, has anyone else seen it? ABC's article on the affidavit is dated March 27. [34] At the risk of speculating about Serino's motive for filing the request for a capias on March 13, why would he then 3 days later give an interview to the Orlando Sentinel [35] where he states that "his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account – that he had acted in self-defense". and also say in the same interview that "everything I have is adding up to what he [Zimmerman] says". Seems contradictory to the capias request and would be a nightmare for the prosecution to call him as a witness. -- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Glaring evidentiary deficiency not reported herein wrt George Zimmerman's account of events

Recent photos of Zimmerman shortly after the shooting made by the police show no blood spatter on his front including his shirt. His account claims that Martin was directly over him when he shot him. Yet a 9mm hollow point wound in Martin's front chest would be expected to shower blood all over Zimmerman. This evidence clearly contradicts Zimmerman's account. Another report indicates that the shot was fired from more than 18 inches away. This contrary evidence and contradiction in Zimmerman's story should be noted in this wiki article. Speculation is that Zimmerman achieved standing (off the ground from a lying down position) status after Martin's struggled with him and then shot him with his 9mm as payback for the beating upon himself which he had apparently initiated. By leaving these facts out of the article it suggests that wiki authors are suspending the laws of gravity and common sense. BTW, who locked the article down from further editing? The 'holier than thou'/'superior to the rest of us' wiki editor police? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.143 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is "locked down." If you want to edit, all you have to do is register and engage with the other editors in the process of give and take.

If you read the article, you will see that "intermediate range" is between 1" and 18', not "more than 18"."

Blood spatter is not as predictable as you might imagine.

I am sure, if there is a disparity here, it will be addressed at trial.

You seem to pretend you know what happened. Strange...none of the rest of us do.

Even the prosecution admits as much.

The tragic intersection of these two young men's lives awaits a jury verdict, likely one that will have to be decided on the basis of incomplete evidence.

Perhaps, if what I have written here makes even a bit of sense, you might issue an apology. NHMB (not holding my breath).

Apostle12 (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Forensics on the hoodie show a contact shot.[[36]] 198.228.200.143's "speculation" is uninformed. Andyvphil (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

198.228.200.143, Thank you for your opinions. Please note that information added to articles must be verifiable using only reliable sources that have been published. See WP:V and WP:NOR. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The information is verifiable and the comment about the missing blood on Zimmerman in contradiction to his story is probably easily found - in addition to already being mentioned previously on this talk page (had you taken the time to read it all). Does wiki want to paint Zimmerman as the victim here? One might assume so after seeing this point skipped. But then WP is deemed an unrelaible source anyway so no biggie anyway right.

If the information is verifiable then why haven't you provided us with any links? If the comment is "probably easily found" then why don't you go probably easily find it, and then share it with us? Less yapping, more sourcing. Emeraldflames (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This point may be brought out in the trial. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that, since there aren't any witnesses to the actual shoothing, circumstantial evidence might be very important. Things like blood spatter and gunpowder stipling may be discussed in some detail during evidentiary testimony in the trial. Cla68 (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"a 9mm hollow point wound in Martin's front chest would be expected to shower blood all over Zimmerman" Expected by whom? Real life shootings don't match what people expect from TV special effects. An entry wound from a bullet will actually be smaller than the diameter of the bullet since skin and flesh are pliable; the entry wound may close up and bleed little. A hollowpoint does internal damage after penetration. Clothing around the entry wound would also soak up bleeding. On the other hand an exit wound may shower significant blood splatter. The autopsy describes the bullet did not exit the body of Martin, the major damage was internal, both lungs collapsed and the chest cavity filled with blood from internal bleeding. Naaman Brown (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

All sources I have seen say the gunshot was made between 1" and 18". What legitimate source is saying that the shot was more than 18" away? MiamiManny (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Where Zimmerman was to meet police, according to the taped phone call

I edited the part about where Zimmerman was to meet the police because it wasn't accurate. It also took the call out of chronological order, making it less clear. It said:

"Asked if he "wanted to meet with the officer" Zimmerman at first agreed to the dispatcher's suggestion that he meet the police by the mailboxes...

But when "(a)sked if he "wanted to meet with the officer," Zimmerman actually said yes and gave directions to his truck (transcript below). And by editing to fix that error, the the paragraph is also put in the correct order of time, making it clearer. The new edit also eliminates another error in the article: "Zimmerman said he couldn't tell the dispatcher the address of his current location," when he actually couldn't give the address of his truck (transcript below).

Dispatcher: Alright George we do have them on the way, do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?

Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes,[Note 3, 4th picture] that's my truck...[unintelligible]

Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?

Zimmerman: I don't know, it's a cut through so I don't know the address.

Then they discuss Zimmerman's address:

Dispatcher: Okay do you live in the area?

Zimmerman: Yeah, I...[unintelligible]

Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?

Zimmerman: It's a home it's 1950,[Note 3, 3rd picture] oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.

Then they discuss where he'll meet police again:

7:12:40 Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?

7:11:42 Zimmerman: Yeah that's fine.

7:12:43: Dispatcher: Alright George, I'll let them know to meet you around there okay?

Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?

Zimmerman clearly gave directions to his truck when first asked by the dispatcher where'd he meet police. And now the article clearly describes this conversation,in order.Psalm84 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That took some trouble. I guess properly presenting an original source doesn't count as original research. It would be better if there were a proper secondary reliable source we could use for such basic explication as this. But yes. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked and so far I've only found it mentioned on a couple of law blogs that aren't well-known, and an American Thinker article that says Zimmerman "asks police to meet him at his truck near the mailboxes," which isn't entirely accurate either. Psalm84 (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How is that not accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs) 15:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

His truck isn't near the mailboxes. He tries to give directions to his truck, dispatcher suggests mailboxes, GZ agrees then demurs. Not same as "asks police to meet him at his truck near the mailboxes". Andyvphil (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A lot of sources do say that his truck wasn't near the mailboxes, which are reported to be by the clubhouse, and he himself says "past the mailboxes" and that he was parked near the cut-through. Psalm84 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but which cut-through? At the left end of the "T" [[37]] or across the street SW [[38]]? Andyvphil (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The exact location isn't known, and it doesn't seem like the police will be able to say for sure. There's a NY Times article that says the police didn't realize that Zimmerman had driven so they didn't secure his car (link. That's something I thought should be added here too but I didn't have time to and not sure if I will immediately if someone else would like to. The article also mentions other things which don't seem to have been mentioned elsewhere, like that Zimmerman passed a voice stress analysis. Psalm84 (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the voice stress analysis was reported on briefly in early April. Hal Uhrig had just joined the defense and commented on it. The story really never gained any traction in the media reports at that time. We had a discussion on the talk page when [39] it was reported on, but it never got included in the article. Not sure why, as several editor's supported including it at that time. I was pretty much the only one opposed to it, as it won't be admissable in the court case. Here are couple of more links to stories where it is briefly mentioned in early April. [40] [41] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I did see the CBS News story after I saw it mentioned recently in the NY Times. It was the first I'd heard of it. I did add it to the article. Do you still oppose it, or should something else be added to explain what it means? Psalm84 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't oppose it. At the time, the discussion was about it giving credibility to his statements. I didn't think we should be implying that it gave any credibility to his statements as it was just used as an investigative tool and the test didn't make any difference as the SPD wanted him arrested for manslaughter. Apparently it didn't make any diffeence to the state attorney's office either as they still charged him. I don't think any explanation as to what it means is necessary either. I would suggest it be moved to the "Sanford Police Station" section though, that is where and when the test was administered. It's really not part of his "account of events".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't include it in the Sanford Police Station section because it seemed to be about the investigation that night, and I wasn't sure when that test was done. The source didn't say. I have found a Reuters source from April that said it was done that night, but the actual Reuters article has been taken down. Psalm84 (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I altered the Start time of this call to 19:09:34, the updated timeline should be confirmed (see above and article). ITBlair (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Race

Why does the race of Martin and Zimmerman need to be included on Wikipedia? If you look at Jeffrey Dahmer's page, race isn't included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.98.95 (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

There are/were allegations that race/racism played a role in Zimmerman's actions, the police investigation, and in the decision to prosecute/not prosecute Zimmerman. Emeraldflames (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

...and in the media's motivations for covering the case the way they have. (MS)NBC still says Z is white, not brown. Andyvphil (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Jesse Anderson does mention race may have played a factor in his and JD's murder. It isn't sourced, but if it can be, it probably should be mentioned in the JD and CJS articles. That's a discussion best held there though. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

CJS? Easy to assume "JD" refers to Jeffrey Dahmer, but there is no immediate antecedent for "CJS." Why use these shorcuts at all? Just fogs things up. Apostle12 (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

JD's murder at the hand of CJS (Christopher Scarver) may have had a racial motivation component. Andyvphil (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The race and ethnicity of Martin and Zimmerman should be included. The race and ethnicity should also be included in the Jeffrey Dahmer article. Wikipedia should include all properly sourced information and err on the side of relevance. MiamiManny (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but IMHO, MSNBC is not a reliable source, especially for this subject. --Mt6617 (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps less important than telling people what race the two people are / were, we should summarize what people said about their race (or apparent) race.

• Some people called Zimmerman a "white Hispanic"
• Some people hinted or declared outright that they felt Zimmerman's decision to pull the trigger was racially motivated
• At least one early media report included an audio clip in which Zimmerman mentioned Martin's race
  1. Some people felt Zimmerman had volunteered the racial identification and concluded that this indicated an anti-black bias on his part
  2. Some others charged the media with (deliberately?) misleading editing of the clip; arguing that Zimmerman had not volunteered Martin's race or color but described him as black only after the police dispatcher asked him for a description

A lot of this is mentioned in the article, but I'd like us to be more thorough in making sure we maintain neutrality. This is actually quite easy, because all we have to do is identify each POV and say whose viewpoint it is.

1. Are there any sources who accused Zimmerman of acting out of anti-black prejudice?
2. Are there any sources who charge Zimmerman's critics of pro-block prejudice (and or "using" charges of racism unfairly)?
3. Have there been any sources who say Martin could not possibly have been "up to no good" because "black people aren't like that"?

There also hasn't been enough clarity about the encounter itself. We need to clarify that there have been contradictory accounts given (and withdrawn?) by various witnesses about the sequence of events leading up to the physical encounter. Particularly controversial is whether there was a scuffle, when (or if) anyone wound up on the ground and if so, who was on top for how long and what did they do to the other person; who yelled or screamed; whose blood was on Zimmerman's head, how did it get there, and who saw it or photographed it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Bloody head at police station?

The back of Zimmerman's head at the police station

The picture of Zimmerman's bloody head is in the section Sanford police station, implying it was taken there. Earlier in the article it said that his head was treated at the scene of the shooting. Seems contradictory. Did a source say the picture was taken at the police station? --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought it seemed contradictory as well. If they did treat his head at the scene, it wasn't very well. This photo gallery from the Orlando Sentinel [42]says the pictures were released as part of the evidence and they look like they were taken inside somewhere. Where else could it have been? I will look some more.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a couple of sources that say it was at the police station. [43] [44] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That settles my concern. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

[45] --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just confuses me. Only bloody head shot in the article is three versions of Z's head in the surveillance video. There is a cellphone shot taken at the scene and injury shots taken at the SPD, but none of them are in the article, last time I looked. Andyvphil (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify your comment? Isn't the picture that is in the article an injury shot taken at the SPD? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Photos of Trayvon Martin should be replaced with Pics from 7-11 which is what he looked like shortly before death

The pictures of Trayvon Martin shown in the article do not reflect what shooter Zimmerman saw before his confrontation. Pictures from the convenience store where Trayvon Martin is seen buying things should be added to this article. The currently shown pictures are of a younger version of deceased Martin and may bias readers in their analysis of the events.

What is this heresy you speak?? Get with the program. Don't you know it's been agreed by all media outlets, "black leaders" and all right-minded people everywhere with Politically Correct© certification that Trayvon Martin is to at all times be portrayed as 12 years old, gunned down by a racist madman in a Klan robe? This is the ONLY approved version. I have a good mind to report you to Al Sharpton for even suggesting such a thing. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL - not Al !!!

• propose a specific picture please with link
• beware WP:FORUM

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link of the photos of Martin which can be used within the guidelines of Wikipedia? If yes, please provide the link. If no, let it go.--Mt6617 (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should use the most recent Trayvon Martin photo, once a link is provided. ITBlair (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on the photos I have seen from 7-11, they are of very low quality (low resolution, grainy), and not appropriate for use to replace the "headshot" photo of Martin, as they could realistically be almost any black guy wearing a hoodie (IE, it is not possible to identify the subject as Martin by visual identification, other than we know he was wearing a hoodie and bought tea and skittles at that time). They are also not framed appropriately to replace a headshot (Martin is facting sideways, and typically far away from the camera) However, it may certainly be appropriate to include them as an additional illustration to the article, probably in the section that is discussing the surveillance videos.Of course, if someone has a high resolution photo, particularly one catching Martin face on then I would be willing to re-evaluate this positionGaijin42 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The current Trayvon Martin photo is purportedly from his prom. I removed it once and the editor re-added it. Figured it might be relevant to this discussion. Emeraldflames (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Censors Launching Flaming Material and then Censoring by Deletion of Legitimate Rebuttals

hiding unhelpful ranting and defending of sockpuppetry and anon ip exploitation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Per the section above: -- Glaring evidentiary deficiency not reported herein wrt George Zimmerman's account of events -- above the following censors (whom may be sock puppets for the same clown) are active as follows: Apostle12 with snarky response posted :Apostle12 (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC) below the main post. My repsonses were mischaracterized (in the edit summary field) and then deleted by Apostle12. Apparently Apostle12 doesn't know how to read the edit history log either to see who posted what. Also they can dish it out but can't take it either. This has happened multiple times for my embedded responses to his comments. Other responses within this same subject have also been deleted/censored and then a pontificating lecture was admiinistered by the two-faced hypocritical culprit User:JoeSperrazza "don't delete other's post"! he squealed after he had just deleted mine. Nice. User:Lvivske and has now mischaracterized by other rebuttals as 'vandalism'. What it looks like is that when Apostle12 got called to the carpet for his snarky remarks in my rebuttals that he launched a preemptive censorship campaign against me not only for my rebuttals against him but also other rebuttals to other snark clowns roaming at large on WP and whom also answered by original post. Apostle12 is also being aided and abetted in censoring my responses by User:JoeSperrazza & User:Lvivske who are likely sock puppets. I suggest that apostle12, User:JoeSperrazza, & User:Lvivske be banned for Censorship under color of being legitimate in their claims by distorting the facts (in the edit summaries). Otherwise, WP shall remain the playground of those who have waay too much time on their hands to 'power trip' by inserting their flaming brand of BS injected into the discussion and to subsequently ban all legit rebuttals to their inanity. Apparently they can dish it out but can't take it and need to ban the rebuttal to their schtick through deletion censorship covered by some lame misrepresentation of the facts excuse. I can see why people with legitimate points soon learn that WP is the domain of censorship trolls who have enough time on their hands to wait out their victims and restore the article to whatever slant they wish to impart. Of course, WP can prove me wrong by banning the aforementioned trolls. WP is rightly deemed to be "a non-credible source" with trolls of the likes as I've seen on this talk section for this article. The pontifiacting lectures from two-faced double standard hypocrtitical trolls posing as 'high society'-ist is also quite laughable (Are you hearing me User:JoeSperrazza - not that I care). WP can decide the matter for me. Either ban trolls apostle12, User:JoeSperrazza & User:Lvivske OR me and I'll respond accordingly. I also wish to thank the aforementioned self-shoe shining trolls for motivating me to communicate with actual people about issues rather than the surfers of this talk page who are no doubt still enshrined in their Mom's basements eating microwave food whilst in their underwear (I gotta real job lead now Mom - I swear!). Now do what you do best (self-named) Apostle12 (The 12th apostle - Judas Isacariot- back stabbing rat to the biblical Jesus)...stab me in the back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.152 (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC) You are engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. You are also not allowed to nuke/censor other users talk page posts - as you did, with a nonsensical edit summary containing dubious claims. That was vandalism of the talk page, and that's why it was reverted. If you think I'm a 'troll' and a 'sock', well...good luck with that --Львівське (говорити) 07:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC) No - you are by misrepresentng what happened. As mentioned Apostle12 deleted my rebuttals including to his all seeing eye snark remark(s). A person so attacked has a right to answer with a rebuttal. These were censored by deletion by Apostle12. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If IT wouldn't let my rebuttal remarks stand then his comments shouldn't be allowed to stand either. This is only fair. If you think not then you are merely a closet dicktactor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.158 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC) "This has happened multiple times for my embedded responses to his comments." Don't do this. And sign your posts. Andyvphil (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Why not ? Do wish that the rebuttals are even harder to track by forcing the reader to figure out which part of the paragraph is being addressed? How old are you anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.158 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Do we really have to endure both vandalism and unfounded accusations from this unsigned editor? Administrative blocking, please? Apostle12 (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC) They are neither. Unfortunately your actions are found in the history diff files and are easily verified. Do you hope that by theatrical posturing that no one will check your dastardly deeds done and recorded in the history/diff files? Just how long have you been getting through life by bluffing Or hoping that nobody calls you on them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.158 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC) I support blocking the guy. And deleting anything further he posts. He has provided no useful, or constructive input or information- just claims he won't substantiate and personal attacks. Emeraldflames (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Well of course after I asnwered back your snarky "yapping" adjective in your hit and run post. Would an objective observer who verified your behavior in the history/diff file agree with your summary judgement here? I doubt it. How long have you too been getting by in life by bluffing and posturing and hoping nobody checks the facts (history/diff file here) about what you really said. :: Go ahead and wax indignant - it's quite laughable. BTW, how old are you anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.158 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC) There is presently a block of a similar IP address.[46] --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Excellent the censoring children here are fabricating lies ala the salem which trials and executing people (blocking IP's). What a fine example of dictatorial control by a pack of self-deluded liars puffing themselves up with 'mob attack behavior' using lies and false indignations. Your (collective) moms would be proud of you (assuming you have one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.158 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC) This is the wrong forum for all of this, both his initial complaint, and the counter complaints. Take it to ANI/SPI if you actually want administrative action taken. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC) No it isn't. Reviewers of this article should see the bald faced slanting going on in the article wherein multpile posters (or one with many sock-puppets) is trying to steer the bias and slant in this article (by omission of verifiable information). I don't think it's a real big deal as most of the hits to this website are hardly searches of truth readers and more likely the likes of the types seen herein - where they get to 'power trip' - kind of like online gaming but with words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.158 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_198.228.200.157_Disruptive_Editing_on_Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Absoutely laughable. JoeSperrazza deleted mny other rebuttals comments to other posters in the same subsubject section then restored Apostle12's drool post but without my rebuttal comments. Then he liad in the edit summary field by saying he had restored a deleted section (but without saying he deleted my other rebuttals too.) So he is sneaky like a rat but unfortunately his dirdty deed is there for all to see in the history/diff files wherte he is summarily 'cold busted' for his crime. He is self-deluded if he thinks a even-handed objective reviewer wouldn't go and check on what he did before making a judgement. JoeSperrazza is like a child who provokes his sibling into a fight and then strikes and then goes running to his mama crying claiming that the sibling attacked him. If nothing else he is an entertaining example of childlike behavior. Maybe if he postures well (thetrically speaking) the website arbiters will just go ahead and block my ip and delete everything I've written just based soley on JoeSperrazza's word. Wow - that's what JoeSperrazza apparently lives for - 'power tripping by blocking somebody's ip based on a pack of lies and behavior which he himself is guilty of. BTW, the ips are dynamically assigned and you may be blocking hundreds or thousands of users by taking such actions. Way to Go. Anyway, I'm done with what amounts to a silly and grand waste of time. About the only thing this article is good for is identifying primary source but this is also easily done using google. Now go ahead children and start swarming all over this with your misrepresetations of the facts, lies, flase indignations, and impressive displays of WP procedures and so forth - so that you will look more 'official' (you think) in your dastardly deed of blocking my ip which serves hundreds or thousands of other persons who have never even visited this page. Can you say D' D' D' Dopes? Go ahead and block me you morons - I'm way past due! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.158 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC) [47] [48] --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Two experts for WaPo analyze calls

The Washington Post retained two experts to analyze the yelling in the background of the 911 calls, with opposing views. [49] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"He's running? Which way is he running?"

The above was asked by the Dispacther BEFORE the sound of Zimmerman's door opening. I believe it's essential it be included in Shooting / Zimmerman's February 2012 cell phone calls to police because it indicates why GZ left his vehicle and is factualy correct in the timeline of events on the recording.

It would appear here:

At 2:37 minutes, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher, "he ran." (INSERT SUGGESTION: The dispatcher then asks "He's running? Which way is he running?") The sound of an "open door" chime, a change in Zimmerman's voice and the sound of wind indicate that Zimmerman has left his vehicle, prompting the dispatcher to ask if Zimmerman is following Martin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckDemFacts (talk • contribs) 03:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does "Stand Your Ground" work in Trayvon Martin's Favor?

I have a question: If an unarmed person is confronted by a second party - with no uniform and no official standing, and who is holding a gun in his hand; and the unarmed person in fear of his life attacks the one with the gun, I want to know two things:

One, would it in fact be reasonable for the unarmed person to engage in fight or flight under these circumstances?

Two, doesn't the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine eliminate the legal requirement for the unarmed person to retreat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.207.71 (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) Running won't work, as bullets are faster than you.

(2) The unarmed person is under no obligation to retreat. See (1). Andyvphil (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a hypothetical question that wouldn't really have a place in this article. The nature of the confrontation, and who initiated it, have not been established. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was wielding his gun in the beginning of it. Emeraldflames (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not hypothetical; he's talking about the current incident, using general language. And if any RS has said something like this, then it should be in the article.

Earlier in this talk page, someone chided me for suggesting that Martin may have known that Zimmerman was armed. So some questions that are immediately raised include:

• At what point did Zimmerman take out his gun?
• Was he on the ground, having his head beaten in and then takes out his concealed weapon or what?

In general, we are taught not to begin fighting with someone holding a gun. Only the most advanced karate or judo master would dare to do this. (Or someone who thought it's "fight back" or die. Has anyone speculated that Martin (a) attacked Zimmerman and that (b) it was because Martin thought he be killed if he didn't?

This article is important for two reasons:

1. We all want to know what happened
2. Many of us are interested in what other people think about it, particularly the ramifications for race relations and the fate of stand your ground (and maybe also concealed carry or shall issue laws)

Let's try to include all the relevant context and not sweep anything under the rug, as much as possible, and in conformance with established Wikipedia precedents. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Re "In general, we are taught not to begin fighting with someone holding a gun. Only the most advanced karate or judo master would dare to do this." — I remember a story someone told me about his judo instructor, a high ranked black belt. The instructor was showing the class what to do if you're confronted with someone who has a gun pointed at you. The instructor said, "First you kneel down on one knee. Then you go down on the other knee. You place one hand in front of you open and vertical. Then bring the other open hand together with it as if you are praying. Then you say, 'Please don't shoot me!' " --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not a Lawyer, but I presume that if Zimmerman pulled his gun this would be a direct threat to Trayvon Martin's life and Trayvon could have legally attacked Zimmerman. But, this is a hypothetical, we have no evidence here. In fact, so far, the published evidence indicates that Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman first. Zimmerman has bruises, cuts, and a broken noise, there were no signs that Zimmerman ever hit Trayvon Martin. On the other hand their may be missing evidence, perhaps Zimmerman said threats or pushed Trayon Martin, but did not leave a mark on his body. One can also argue that the injuries were not life threatening and hence did not justify lethal force. This would be manslaughter, not 2nd degree murder. As more evidence is published the picture should become more clear. ITBlair (talk)

Come on, guys, this isn't a forum. No sources are being brought, bring it up when we have reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Conflict between prosecution's affidavit of probable cause and transcript of Zimmerman's call to police dispatcher

The prosecution's affidavit of probable cause asserts that the dispatcher told Zimmerman an officer was on his way and to wait for him, but according to the call transcript the dispatcher never instructed Zimmerman to wait for the officer. Instead, after informing Zimmerman that an officer was on his way, the dispatcher said just let me know if this guy does anything else.

This is a significant affidavit error, because many people (including many news agencies) have concluded that Zimmerman disobeyed the dispatcher when he decided to park his truck and follow Zimmerman on foot. The alleged first instruction (which never occurred) is quite separate from the dispatcher's "We don't need you to do that" (some interpreting this as a suggestion and some interpreting it as an instruction), which the dispatcher offered only after noticing that Zimmerman had already gotten out of his vehicle and was trying to ascertain Martin's whereabouts.

I just noticed this error myself after reading an editorial in the New Yorker magazine. The author of this editorial had apparently read the prosecution's affidavit of probable cause and took it at face value.

I think we need to mention this conflict somewhere in the Wikipedia article, perhaps under a new section titled Error in affidavit. This is not just a matter of different points of view; it is a true error. Apostle12 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that too but I didn't see that you'd started a section on it. I removed mine. I thought direct quotes might be used more in the section to make more clear that it's the probable cause affadavit saying he was told to wait. Psalm84 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

We can't give our own unpublished conclusions or analysis. WP:NOR. Sorry. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, true. I wonder if anything has been published regarding this error. Apostle12 (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

While technically you may be right, this is just a matter of different points of view. The whole affidavit is a point of view from the prosecution's theory of what happened that night. Unfortunately, it would seem that they played loose and fast with the facts according to several experts analysis of the document. I think we will see more errors as well in this investigation. The 7-11 video clearly shows Martin in khaki pants, but Officer Ayala, the second officer on the scene and who performed CPR on Martin, wrote in his report that Martin was wearing blue jeans. Officer Santiago, another officer at the scene, wrote in his report that Martin was wearing shorts.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I always thought different "points of view" had to do with different perspectives about which reasonable people might differ, not complete fabrications - to wit that the dispatcher told Zimmerman "to wait for the officer" before Zimmerman got out of his vehicle. In fact, since the dispatcher instructed Zimmerman to "just let me know if this guy does anything else," a legitimate perspective on Zimmerman's part might have been that he should get out of his vehicle and at least try to determine Martin's whereabouts so could let the dispatcher know if Martin was up to "anything else." Apostle12 (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Affadavit is a lying POS, but in Florida an elected prosecutor's decision as to what constitutes probable cause for arrest is unchallengeable (at the non-adversary prelim, anyway). Looks like a 4th Amendment vio to me, but who's asking me? Andyvphil (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon's Picture

See Article History. A user replaced Trayvon Martin's picture with one from his prom. I reverted it since there was no consensus to do that. He placed the picture back with: (cur | prev) 21:20, 22 May 2012‎ Huslkgc (talk | contribs)‎ . . (149,446 bytes) (-35)‎ . . (Using a picture stolen from a dead person should is not appropriate. If you don't like his prom picture, find another one not stolen via a kkk hack. Deleting any reference to the hack makes you more guilty of manipulating the narrative than NBC) (undo)

I am not going to edit war with him, but I would encourage him to make his case for the new picture- as well as his other claims here. Emeraldflames (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Emeraldflames, I would like to see a case for the new picture as well. As far as I am concerned the new picture is worse than the other one. It is blurry and grainy. Please provide some RS to back up your claim of it being "stolen via a kkk hack". I will not revert it at this time. But a consensus needs to be reached on whether to leave the new one in or to use the other one. I oppose the new picture on grounds of it being blurry and grainy looking-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The picture of Trayvon in a car seems to be the same one in a slide show at www.examiner.com/slideshow/photos-of-slain-florida-teen-trayvon-martin#slide=44678621 which says the photos were released to the public by his family. I think there are others too that his family have given the media. Psalm84 (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right, it is at that site and it does say they were released to the public by his family. There were other pics of him as well, but most were younger.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's blurry, grainy. Also, it's from his *prom*. He wasn't wearing glasses and a suit and tie during the event this article covers. Has sort of a feel of propaganda to me. How balanced is it to have a *mug* shot of Zimmerman, and a *prom* photo of Martin? Emeraldflames (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Favor the previous picture over the prom one.Apostle12 (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Cla68 (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Use #11 here [50], cropped further (it is already a crop of #10). Andyvphil (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There was no need to use an allegedly hacked picture, especially when there was one that is public use that more closely matches his attire at the time of the shooting.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There has been no proof (RS) offered that it was hacked and there is no need to use the same picture twice in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

We aren't trying a case here. This is a more pertinent picture, and unassailable from any POV. It's a recent picture of him dressed as he was in the shooting. As for the hacking argument, there is a matter of civility. The kid is dead. Give the family a little courtesy.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Location of Zimmerman's vehicle

Cut from article:

• They did not realize Zimmerman had been in a vehicle, however, so it was moved before they could seize it.

This is odd, because Zimmerman told 911 about his truck, and the 911 transcript mentions the tones heard when he opened the door. So (in one sense) the authorities "knew" he had a vehicle in the area. Yet some of them didn't know this. I'd like some more clarity on this.

It's not just a routine detail, but it has a bearing on discussions about whether Zimmerman "should" (morally or legally) have remained in his vehicle (to avoid a confrontation). This in turn, relates to the whole can of worms about whether people are supposed to stay away from trouble and not "provoke" it and/or may proactively go out and see what's going on. (I'm neutral on this, I'm just reporting and describing.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored that sentence, because it does seem accurate and it is properly sourced from a New York Times article. It also explains why there has been no evidence coming out from authorities on where Zimmerman's vehicle was parked. While the 911 dispatcher knew he had a truck, it doesn't seem like the police were informed of that until later, and the officers who secured the crime scene didn't include it, according to the New York Times article. Looking at the call log, too, there's no mention in it of Zimmerman having a vehicle.Psalm84 (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

NYT is retailing Crump spin about SPD screwing up. As with the complaint about nor drug-testing GZ, it's BS. The SPD had no grounds or reason to seize GZ's truck. Andyvphil (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's Weight

In the original police report the police had Zimmerman's weight down at 200. At his arrest, some weeks later, they list his weight at 185. Right now, we only list his weight at his arrest later. Do we have any reason to doubt the accuracy of the one supposedly recorded on the night in question?

The original weight: http://www.scribd.com/doc/93952688/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Discovery

Emeraldflames (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

yes, we have reason to question the accuracy of the initial reporting since the family said his weight was around 170, and he sure the hell doesn't look anywhere near even 200 from the nake eye testWhatzinaname (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? I mean, really, what long term encyclopaedic value would such information have? HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Zimmerman's accurate weight is of value. Many of the initial press reports stated that he weighted 100 lbs more than Trayvon Martin. Also, it has a bearing on how realistic is Zimmerman's contention that he felt his life was threatened. A 85 lbs child is no threat to a 185 lb, 5' 8" man. A 158 lb, 5' 11" teenager maybe, it is certainly within the realm of reason. ITBlair (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I wish you had written that in plain, simple, grammatically correct English. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't personally find it too relevant. But so long as we list their weights, I think we ought to do it accurately. If nobody has reason to question the weight in the original police report, I think we should either include it- or remove all of the weight information entirely. Emeraldflames (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree the weights in the police reports should be the most accurate. ITBlair (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Some witness statements said to have changed

Several of the witnesses were said to have changed their statements between interviews, according to this story, including the one who said he saw Martin attacking Zimmerman mixed-martial style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm84 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow! The witnesses are making a mess of this! I don't envy the jury; whom to believe? Apostle12 (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

this is the danger of having a liar-filled media with a political agenda in most of its news coverage. The one witness who says " i think it was zimmerman because of his size" is invariably believing that zimmerman was a "big guy", cause they said he was like 250 pounds. But he's not. He's about the same weight as martin, and martin was several inches taller. The media didn't bother telling this story changing witness that TM was 6 foot tall. Or she made have said " oh, I'm sure it's martin when I heard he was 6 foot tall" and the other guy was only like 5'8". Also why juries aren't supposed to watch/read the mediaWhatzinaname (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and now we learn that the autopsy says Martin was 5'11", not 6'0" or 6'3". Very careless reporting of the facts. Apostle12 (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

5'11" = 6'0 All depends on time of day (we shrink as the day goes on due to spinal compression) and whether or not they had shoes on or not. Coroner = shoes off. Most people give height with shoes on.Whatzinaname (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Will you guys drop this obsession please. What fucking difference does size make when only one of the two guys has a gun? HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't bother to read but if you read carefully you'd find one of the witnesses originally didn't know who was on top, then later AFTER watching the coverage in the media, she thought it was zimmerman because of "how big he was". You need me to go on as to its relevancy or you got it from here?Whatzinaname (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There is already so much irrelevant, undue, probably POV bullshit in this article, I tend to question every weird suggestion for content. This article is completely out of hand. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup. MastCell ^Talk 06:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV, how would y'all say the NPOV of this article compares to the NPOV of the reliable sources? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What "reliable" sources? Andyvphil (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hard to tell. Too much undue bullshit to isolate the reality. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is an internal Wikipedia construct, so it doesn't make sense to speak of the "NPOV" of outside reliable sources. If you're questioning the quality or neutrality of reliable sources, then that's best done on a source-by-source basis. I think we can agree that the breaking-news-style coverage has been shoddy - which is why we should avoid rushing every such breaking news item into our article. I haven't found a lot of support for that kind of restraint on this talkpage, though - mostly, if you suggest waiting a day or two to see how a news item develops, you can cue up the cries of "zOMG censorship!!!1!!"

Also, it seems that editors' dissatisfaction with reliably-sourced coverage usually serves as a pretext to use patently unreliable sources, as in, "Well, NBC screwed up once, so we may as well cite the following dozen partisan op-eds and blog pieces..." Some of the reliably-sourced coverage has been poor (although generally self-correcting with time), but I don't think the current crop of talkpage denizens has come up with a constructive response to that concern. MastCell ^Talk 16:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

People really need to be careful of the "changes" to these accounts. These people will have to testify and we need to not put words in their mouths. a slight adjustment in wording can mean an entire change of meaning.Whatzinaname (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Other Public Reaction Type Issues - Do we Cover them?

There have been reports that Zimmerman received over $200K in funds and his new web site gets around $1,000/day. Trayon Martin's mother was given eight months of vacation by her fellow workers. The parents are traveling around the country to generate support. Someone is paying these bills. Also, I gather they trade-marked the Trayvon Martin name and are preparing a civil suite again Zimmerman and the gated community. Should we create a section to cover these kind of issues? ITBlair (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone here being paid to push a POV? HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Who knows. With everything else Crump is doing, he may be handing out walking around money to some posters. Or maybe he doesn't need to.True Observer (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Such issues could only be covered if discussed in reliable sources, and I would say those sources should be relatively in depth to warrant inclusion since they are not directly related to the shooting, or the court case. My default answer is, no we should not include them as the information is quite tangental, but if people in RS are writing entire articles or at least multiple paragraph sections discussing this, then I would accede. politically slanted blogs (on both sides) I think are insufficient for inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)