Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin

Proposed Detailed Timeline with Geographic Data

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)

This blog article, which was mentioned in a Chicago Tribune column, has links to pictures of Zimmerman's truck from Fox that night and a crime scene photographer the next day. Psalm84 (talk) 22:39, 29 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;
  • 7:16:11 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#!
  • 7:18+ PM First officer arrives at the crime scene

** 7:25:00+ Zimmerman is treated for his injuries while in detention in the back of a police car

• • 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

** Zimmerman provides SPD with a crime scene walk-through (no legal counsel) ITBlair (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC) I noted in BOLD some proposed updates to the timeline. The source is below. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html?pagewanted=1 If I hear no screams, I will make the updates. ITBlair (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC) I finished this round of updates to the Timeline, where possible I note Geographic locations. I am still trying to determine when TM left the townhome. He left the 7-11 around 6:24. ITBlair (talk) 19:10, 25 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 note 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 check to 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)

I still have to work on the Timeline for Dee Dees calls. Hopefully other folks will look at this task to. ITBlair (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that we will have to wait until the Trial before we can get good data on the locations of Zimmerman and Martin over time and where Zimmerman parked his car/truck. ITBlair (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that the part that reports Martin left his townhome at 6:40 still needs to be included? It seems confusing, at least without an explanation that there's a conflict with the convenience store video timestamp. There was also a previous report in the American Thinker here that said the writer spoke to 7-Eleven and they turned over to police a video taken between 6 and 6:30 that day. It doesn't seem like the 6:40 will turn out to be the actual time. Psalm84 (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am looking for a better RS to explain this issue. I think we should leave it in, but I will add an explaination. ITBlair (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible Timeline Glitches

There are some possible concerns about when Zimmerman started his call (see above), what we have listed is well documented. The issues I see are as follows:

1. Girlfriend calls around 7:12, but Zimmerman states that Trayvon Martin is running at 7:11:33. Did he start running before his girlfriend made the suggestion that he run? It is hard to line up her timeline with the SPD timeline.

2. The 7:16 time that the girlfriend states is when the phone went dead is also when calls arrive at SPD. I would expect a lag. I will check the timelines on the 911 calls. Fixed this issue. ITBlair (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

3. 7:16:55 is when a shot is heard on one of the 911 calls. The press reports state that officers arrived at 7:17. My sense from the press reports is that that neighbors went out and talked with Zimmerman and that one or two minutes elaspsed prior to the arrival of the police. We should check into this. Police did not get on scene til after 7:18. Patrol Cars arrived at 7:17, but the officer did not leave his car until after the shoot was fired. Fixed this issueITBlair (talk)

4. New Issue, Trayvon Martin leaves townhome at 6:40, but is at 7-11 at 6:24. Attempting to find the time where he left. Ideally I will also find when this father & girlfriend left and when they returned. ITBlair (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

5. New Issue: Who was the person with the flashlight described in some of the 911 calls? He/she does not appear to be an officer. Officers are reported in the front of the townhomes, but not in the back and on the walk-way. ITBlair (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

6. New Issue: Need to find out more data on Dee Dee and other calls and then integrate them into the timeline. ITBlair (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

My hope is that other folks will look into these timeline issues as well. ITBlair (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked the police report (below). Officer Tim Smith arrived in the gated community around 19:17. However, he did not leave his patrol car until after the shoots were heard and he received multiple reports. He would not have arrived at the shooting until sometime after 7:18. I propose to note his arrival at 19:18+. http://www.wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Twin-Lakes-Shooting-Initial-Report.pdf ITBlair (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Chris Serino-based Timeline Glitches - Help

I looked at Report of Investigation by Chris Serino in the Evidence File. He constructs a different timeline. In particularly, the start-time of Zimerman's call is different. This is on pages 5 and 6. I will copy the text below.

"Investigator D. Singleton using information obtained from the Seminole County Sheriffs Office Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), established the following time-line.

Event 2012571655
1911:12 (vs. 7:09:24) Call Received from George Zimmerman reporting suspicious person
1.48 seconds delta 1913:19 (vs. 7:11:33) Zimmerman relays suspicious person is running from him.
1913:36 (vs. 7:11:59) Dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he is following suspicious person
1913:36 (vs. 7:12:00) Dispatches advises Zimmerman "Okay, we don't need you to do that
1915:23 (vs. 7:13:41 ) Approximate time call with Zimmerman ends.
1:42 second delta

Event 2013571669
1916:43 (vs. 7:16:11) 911 call placed by XXXX where Zimmerman is heard screaming for help. - +32 seconds delta, again this time is fits the tape recording based on a 7"09"24 start time)
1917:20 (vs. 7:16:55) (Shot fired screams from Zimmerman cease - 25 seconds delta, I tripled checked the recording the shot occurs 44 seconds after the call starts, the log has the shot occurring 47 seconds later.

Event 20120571671
1917:40 (Accepted - no alternate source) Office T. Smith arrives on scene
1919:43 (Accepted - no alternate source) Office T. Smith locates and places Zimmerman in custody

We should have a talk on how to handle these different times in the article. My guess is that they are using the wrong start-time for Zimmerman (per my prior discussions). ITBlair (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My approach has been to accept the Zimmerman call start time that the removed record indicated. It fits in better with the other 911 calls, the Dee Dee call, and is the start time used by almost all the RSs. This means that Event 2012571655 has a different start time. We also identify this as an issue in the article text and may revisit this start-time in the future.

Event 2013571669 uses the start time from the other RS. In particular, when you listen to the first 911 tape the shot occurs 44 seconds into the tape. The call log is wrong in terms of when the shot occurred. Hence I stuck with alternate RS start-times. We should note this issue in the article (I will add it, unless someone else beats me to it).

I found no alternate sources for Event 20120571671, so I kept these times as is.

Yell if you find better RSs or note huge problems with the approach I have taken. If others will review this material and we get a consensus I can shift to the 19:11:12 start time for the GZ call. ITBlair (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Zimmerman 9911 Call History was released as a PDF created 3/20/2012 and is readily available. The Call Event Number: 20120571656 is listed as Connected 02/26/2012 19:09:34 The dispatchers log was Created 02/26/2012 19:11:12 by snoffke on terminal TM21 when the first dispatcher comment was logged. --Naaman Brown (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This recent NY Times article used 7:09. Psalm84 (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As usual, the "reliable sources" aren't. But you may find this [1] useful. Andyvphil (talk) 23:50, 29 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)

What they are changed to matters less than that they are changed. The gold teeth pic the racist insist on using was STOLEN from his account by racists. Deleting any mention of this I add from this page does not change the FACT that it happened. I bet 'Emeraldflames' is a stormfront user. If you don't want to believe me, http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t875667/, take it from the racist themselves, or http://gawker.com/5897485/white-supremacist-hacks-trayvon-martins-email-account-leaks-messages-online, or http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120330/trayvon-martin-racist-allegedly-hacks-slain-teen

I don't think asking that you don't use a picture stolen from a dead kid by racist hackers who want to promote more hate and violence is asking for too much. What is wrong with this page that you are using such a picture and refusing to allow change or reference to the hack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huslkgc (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

First, you are supposed to put your posts at the bottom of a thread and not the top. I moved them down here. Second, as I've already stated, the sources you have provided are not reliable sources. Finding an unreliable source on the left- and then find an even more unreliable source on the right- doesn't make a reliable source. Third, even with those sources, they do not show that the particular picture we have up right now was acquired through "racist KKK hackers". Fourth, you need to establish consensus before you change the picture. Until you prove this picture came from "racist KKK hackers", I don't think you will be able to do that. Fifth, there is nothing wrong with the picture. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I made this comment below in the Trayvon picture section. I have no issues with the photos currently selected. However, I think we should add a photo of Trayvon Martin at the 7-11. This is the last photo of him available and is also what George Zimmerman would have seen when he reported a suspicious person. I suggest the following photo from the 7-11 video by an RS (NY Daily News). http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-martin-trip-7-11-newly-released-video-article-1.1081543 ITBlair (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As others have noted, the 7-11 photo has extremely poor resolution. It is impossible to make out a face, and I do not think this photo belongs in the article. Apostle12 (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon's Picture - plus add 7-11 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 [2], 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)

I don't think it is too much to ask that an editor(s) who assert that it was hacked or allegedly hacked to provide a RS for that claim. The link referenced above by Psalm84 says it was released by the family. This RS [3] attributes it to Facebook and this site [4] sourced it from Wikimedia. A picture of him closer to the age at the time of the incident is more pertinent to this article than a younger one.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The one with the hoodie IS close to the right age, and it is also close to the right clothing. In any case, there is no meaningful advantage to the other picture. We don't need RS to observe a potential case of simple decency. These are people we are writing about.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: "These are people we are writing about". If you think a picture of Martin that has been included in RS has no meaningful advantage, how do you feel about Zimmerman's bio picture in this article, which is his mugshot from his April, 2012 arrest? WP:MUG Don't they Doesn't Zimmerman's family deserve a little courtesy as well?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no credible evidence that the existing photograph was acquired through the actions of racist KKK members. Until there is, there remains no urgency to remove it. Second, the picture you replaced it with is Martin at what appears to be a significantly younger age. It's also merely a black and white picture used for 'artistic' or 'iconic' effect. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the current photo choice, "Trayvon Martin in the backseat of a car." It's a good clear shot that shows his coloring, and his expression is neutral--neither boyishly angelic nor menacing. The black and white "hoodie" photo looks photoshopped to me, and it gives little insight into how he actually looked. Also think the Zimmerman photo is good with respect to his coloring and a neutral expression. Apostle12 (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Emeraldflames and Apostle12 and additionally, this photograph is hosted on the English-language Wikipedia, [5] and is for minimal use WP:NFCC#3 and it's use is for this specific article WP:NFCC#7 and the purpose of use is a visual identification of the person in question for his bio in this article WP:NFCC#8 and is not replaceable with free media that adequately represents his age at the time of this incident WP:NFCC#1 -- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If you read my edit, it clearly says if you don't like the prom pic, use a different one that was not stolen by a racist hack. 'Emarldflames', your argument is disingenuous because you neglect to mention you also deleted my adding references to the hack of Trayvon's account. Here they are again. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t875667/, take it from the racist themselves, or http://gawker.com/5897485/white-supremacist-hacks-trayvon-martins-email-account-leaks-messages-online, or http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120330/trayvon-martin-racist-allegedly-hacks-slain-teen, or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/white-supremacist-trayvon-martin-email_n_1389584.html

Then you changed it back to the racist pic from an edit someone else did without any explanation. Just admit that you want to use the stolen pic to promote your racist agenda. I don't think asking that you don't use a picture stolen from a dead kid by racist hackers who want to promote more hate and violence is asking for too much. What is wrong with this page that you are using such a picture and refusing to allow change or reference to the hack?

Furthermore, the prom pic I uploaded has not only been removed from the page, it was removed from wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huslkgc (talk • contribs) 15:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Per above, you're supposed to post at the bottom of the thread. You are stuck on the fact that you believe that the current picture was "stolen by a racist hack." You provide as evidence 3 sources, none of them reliable, which do not show evidence that this picture was the result of a clandestine KKK operation.

The deletion of your references is documented in the history of the article I first referred to. They were poor references- and in addition to that, some of the statements you made were unsupported by them. I personally think you might be referring to a picture of Martin where he is smiling with gold teeth on in front of the camera. I don't know how or why the prom pic was removed by wikipedia.

I have seen another picture that might be acceptable online: http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/abc_trayvon_martin_zimmerman_2_nt_120517_mn.jpg If you can get a consensus to add that one I would support it (if its technically feasible. (i.e., you can find where the original is, there are no copy rights, etc.) Emeraldflames (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This photo is superior to any of the others. Apostle12 (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10011780.html Alternatively, you can go and accuse CBS of being racist KKK hackers. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The photos of Martin are not under the same scrutiny regarding copyright etc as he is dead, and therefore there exists no possibility of obtaining new free pictures of him, therefore, the only barrier for switching between particular photos of Martin is our consensus. I think I am more likely to support the ABC image linked above as it is face on, rather than the tilted head version, but I think the "hoodie" photo is better, as being clearer, and illustrative of the iconic hoodie image. I do not think any "it must be changed" reasoning has been given that carries any significant weight. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked the references you provided, and not a single one of them state that this specific picture was stolen or hacked. In fact, there are references provided above that clearly indicate this particular picture was released by the family. So, I'm not really sure what your problem is. There are no editor's that I am aware of that are promoting a racist agenda towards this article. Your problem seems to be that you can't support your wild and unfounded allegations with any reliable sources, so you post totally irrelevant links. As far as the prom pic goes, you didn't upload it to Wikipedia, you uploaded it to Wikimedia.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I uploaded the above picture from ABC, it can be seen here: [6]I like this picture of him face forward better. The one we have now is alright, but I prefer the other one. I don't like the hoodie photo for his bio though, he looks younger and is not representative of his actual age at the time of the incident.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no issues with the photos currently selected. However, I think we should add a photo of Trayvon Martin at the 7-11. This is the last photo of him available and is also what George Zimmerman would have seen when he reported a suspicious person. I suggest the following photo from the 7-11 video by an RS (NY Daily News). http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-martin-trip-7-11-newly-released-video-article-1.1081543 ITBlair (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be added. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree - The 7-11 photo should be added. That's the way he looked when he was shot. — MiamiManny (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless I heard screams or someone else does it first, I will add the photo on May 28th. ITBlair (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to scream loudly, however I do think the 7-11 picture is a very poor one. The resolution is so low that one cannot discern a face. A while back Emeraldflames found this photo (http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/abc_trayvon_martin_zimmerman_2_nt_120517_mn.jpg) which I think is the best I have seen to date, better than the one of Martin in the backseat of a car. Why not use a good photo instead of a grainy one that is pretty much generic "black man in a hoodie?" Apostle12 (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: I think the 7-11 pic should be added somewhere else in the article, not as a replacement for the main picture. Emeraldflames (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's okay; no objection. How about the photo noted above (http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/abc_trayvon_martin_zimmerman_2_nt_120517_mn.jpg) as the main photo--any support? Apostle12 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The goal is not to replace the existing pictures, but simply to add the 7-11 picture. I was thinking of having the two pictures next to each other. The 7-11 picture would have a caption stating what it was and its source. If we want to put the picture elsewhere in the article that works as well. ITBlair (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, we have three for adding the 7-11 picture (in addition to the pictures already there) and one partial objection that the picture is too grainy. I agree that it is too grainy, but we have other TM pictures to handle this issue. This 7-11 picture is what GZ would have seen from his SUV when it was dark and raining. I will add it. ITBlair (talk) 19:14, 28 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)

Did the police actually weigh Zimmerman? Or was it a guess? The arrest weight appears to be verifiable. If you include the police report weight, other weight estimates should be included as well. I am satisfied with simply using the arrest weight. — MiamiManny (talk) 04:31, 26 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)

According to Miami Herald, the Martin family reported Trayvon Martin's height as 6'3" and weight as under 150 lbs. Early sources citing the family or lawyer Crump gave his weight as 140. Naaman Brown (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the measurements performed at autopsy should rule. They are 5' 11", 158#. His family's impression that he was taller and lighter are obviously incorrect--unless you want to allege that someone falsified the autopsy. Apostle12 (talk) 01:17, 28 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)

Seriously now - I get that people are treating this talkpage as a free-fire zone to attack Crump, but consider this a formal warning: you need to stop using this talkpage as a platform to smear living people. If you want to talk about something, bring sources. This isn't a forum, and it's even less a forum for this sort of stuff. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 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)

I note we already have an extensive Public Reaction and Media coverage sections. This information about both sides looking for support, setting up rallies, getting funds, etc. seems (to me) relevant to these sections. I agree it has little to to with the actual shooting. Perhaps we should break off the Public Reactions and Media Coverage section into a separate Wiki page. My sense is that that public reaction points are already large and are going to grow substantially. I also agree on the the need to limit ourselves to reliable sources. ITBlair (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The public reaction is reaction to the shooting and subsequent investigation. The items you have listed above are not reactions to the incident, but rather reactions to the reactions. Meta reactions if you will. Further they are really investigations into the lives, jobs, relationships, finances, and actions of the relevant parties or their families. This is not directly relevant to the shooting or investigation, which is the topic of this article. A case could be made that it is relevant because the case/media/reactions etc could conceivably be manipulated by others for political, or financial gain, or fame, but such speculation would need to be clearly formulated by the RS, and directly reference specific incidents to be anywhere close to the realm of being considered for inclusion. And even then the barrier is still going to be relatively high in terms of who was making that speculation, and why is their particular opinion notable. Forking into a seperate article does not resolve that issue unless that particular sub-topic has gotten enough coverage to be independently notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. The public reaction we have already cited and the ongoing public reaction that is occurring is not limited to the immediate reactions to the shooting. I think how different groups are organized, set up rallies, conferences, petitions, the positions they take, and how they are funded around this shooting is relevant to the public Response section. These are relevant to the Public Response and Media Coverage sections. However, I will defer to the group judgement. It would be a lot of work to collect this data. Eventually, (I think) these sections should be moved to a separate Wiki page, I think the article is getting too large. ITBlair (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"This is not directly relevant to the shooting or investigation, which is the topic of this article." I disagree strongly. The Shooting of Trayvon Martin got more media coverage than the Presidential election, for a period, and it was misleading and tendentious coverage which resulted in an attempted judicial lynching. The homicide, investigation and trial are illuminating incidentals to the important subject of an article on this event. Andyvphil (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the relevance of the items mentioned in the first paragraph is very remote. I would oppose the creation of a section for that kind of stuff. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. The consensus is that we do not do this. ITBlair (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 May 2012

In addition to the claim of NBC bias I think a claim of Fox news bias should be reported as well. Several media outlets have critisized Fox news for for their angle in reporting on this case

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/20/fox-news-coverage-of-the-trayvon-martin-case-criticized.html

Johnpen1 (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Request declined. Specific description not provided. Andyvphil (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If anything, fox is about the only news station that covered this case responsibly, without jumping in half-cocked on every little half truth the other media organizations exaggerated instead of vetting.Whatzinaname (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This talkpage needs less of people spouting off their personal opinions like that, and more serious discussion of questions like this edit request. Would anyone else like to take a shot at answering it? I'm interested to hear serious rationales for/against this proposed edit, rather than further re-statements of editors' personal opinions. MastCell ^Talk 20:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The guy who accuses anyone of not agreeing with him as being "right wing bloggers", now sees himself suddenly as some sort of fair arbiter of what is or is not a valid rational opinion on the talk page. You do know the talk page is all about editor's opinions, right? 21:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs)

If a RS is reporting on the media coverage surrounding this case, I think it should be considered for inclusion. I support including this aspect about Fox news, simply because I had previously inserted a quote from this same article above: "between Feb. 26 and March 19, CNN had devoted 41 segments to Trayvon Martin, with MSNBC airing 13 and Fox News one", only to have it promptly deleted by an editor whose reason was because they had seen more than one report on Fox news. Here are a couple more links about their reporting, [7] [8] [9] [10] However, when it comes to those columnists who like to pontificate about this case, like Sowell and Steele, I think they should be vetted a little more closely for relevance and if any RS have reported their opinions. -- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"I had previously inserted a quote from this same article..." Seriously? You inserted the claim but not the rebuttal? Andyvphil (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

When did blogs in the dailybeast become "RS"?Whatzinaname (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You've previously cited the Daily Caller and a right-wing WordPress personal blog as sources ([11], [12]), so I welcome your newfound dedication to high sourcing standards. In any case: The Pew Center and Tampa Bay Times are clearly appropriate sources. Thinkprogress and MediaMatters are partisan sources, and are better off avoided, in my view. The Daily Beast is sort of in-between; it amply passes the rather low bar for sourcing adopted by the talk-page regulars here, but it's not ideal. I do think there's enough for a well-sourced couple of sentences, based on the sources provided by Isaidnoway. MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Where does the tampa bay times and the pew center come into any of this related to this blog/op ed of some random nobody from the leftist daily beast?23:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs)

They're among the 4 links provided by Isaidnoway, two posts up. For reference: Pew Center, Tampa Bay Times. The other two links provided by Isaidnoway are MediaMatters and Thinkprogress, which I think are better avoided here given their partisan nature. MastCell ^Talk 00:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

So the guy whining about any amount of nonsense in this wiki finds it notable that "MSNBC gave more caverage than FOX". Gee that's such a shock! That deifnitely belongs in the lede!Whatzinaname (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Daily Beast is a left-wing blog and not a RS, and I have never heard of this author. Does he have some notoriety? The jouralism.org seems like it might be a good source. Emeraldflames (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to take a stand for quality sourcing and exclude partisan blogs, I'm behind you 100%, and I'm fine with not using the Daily Beast on those grounds. I'm sure I can expect your support for the removal of other partisan blogs as well, in the interest of consistency. MastCell ^Talk 05:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There may be exceptions, but generally, I would not accept quoting from partisan blogs on either side(unless the author has notoriety or established expertise of some kind.) Emeraldflames (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

One bias point was that that between Feb. 26 and March 19, CNN had devoted 41 segments to Trayvon Martin, with MSNBC airing 13 and Fox News one. However, a Fox News spokesperson disputed those numbers on Tuesday afternoon, saying the network by then had aired roughly 15 segments on at least seven programs (13 vs. 15 for Fox). For this point there is no documented bias.

The article did not like the Fox coverage (e.g., it would discuss how the killing would be used by organizations trying to ban guns). It does not appear that Fox was not eliminating content or context. The context they put the shooting in was not agreed with. There was a note that the covered the New Black Panthers, much more than this shooting, but not timelines were provided or a source for the counts. Plus there is an issue of this source not being RS. Right now I do not see any bias. ITBlair (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This story has been a train wreck for the assertion that the MSM are "reliable sources" with deserved reputations for editorial oversight. Pew's Journalism.org also fails the test. Consider the determined ignorance that went into the following sentence:

In the mainstream media... the primary discussion has focused on two politically oriented issues-gun control laws and the Florida Stand Your Ground statute, which gives citizens the right to use deadly force when they believe they are being threatened.(emphasis added)

That should be, of course "reasonably believed" and "threatened with death or grievous bodily harm, and it doesn't depend on "the Florida Stand Your Ground statute", but is ordinary deadly force self defence law in 50 states. Andyvphil (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're seriously dismissing the Pew Center as a reliable source, I'll make yet another trip outside this bizarre bubble to the reliable sources noticeboard, for input from people who may suffer a bit less from tunnel vision. MastCell ^Talk 06:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Good argument.(/sarc) Who should we believe? The reliable sources noticeboard or our own lying eyes? Your edit makes the same "point" -- we can see Geraldo Rivera saying what he said on the embedded video from Fox, but unless one of your preferred sources quotes him, here in WikiWorld it never happened. You wish. Andyvphil (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that particular sentence from Pew Research re: SYG law is flawed, but the nature of the SYG law was beyond the scope of their article. It seems to me that they provided a quick, incomplete summary of SYG, but again, one would never cite that article for that particular line. Emeraldflames (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't "a quick, incomplete summary of SYG", it was an complete misstatement and conflation of SYG with ordinary self-defence. And note that Pew reports that Gun control/SYG/FL self-defense law was the reported to be the dominant subject on one of the three channels Pew examined. How determinedly ignorant do you have to be to review all that material and still end up knowing less than nothing? And, yes, it is quite common for Wikipedia editors to insist that garbage just like that remain planted like a turd in article text because there is a "reliable source" for it. Andyvphil (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

...and I want to emphasize that the mistake is in no way trivial, and is in fact evidence for severe bias in the source, which is on this evidence fully embedded in an anti-gun rights blue partisan echochamber where no one points out or is aware or even seems capable of taking cognizance when it is pointed out, that the SYG element of the 2005 changes to Fla law has no bearing on the M-Z case. Andyvphil (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Malarkey. Pew Research says the SYG was a big part of the discussion, varying by medium and by demographic. Surely you don't disagree that people were discussing SYG in relation to the case. The SYG law was supposed by observers to have allowed Zimmerman to move forward unnecessarily with deadly violence, in contrast to the generally accepted concept of self-defense. SYG has every bearing on the case. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What specifically does someone wish to insert from the Pew article? Emeraldflames (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Pew article discusses the differential handling of the incident by MSNBC, CNN, and FoxNews, which seems relevant enough for brief inclusion. There are other sources which could be added to expand the subject, but I'm not willing to invest a lot of effort unless I get at least some marginal support for this site's sourcing guidelines and policies. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with request. Johnpen1's suggestion is good except that Pew Research is a far better source, a studiously neutral source of information. Pew says, "Moreover, the Martin story has been a much bigger story on MSNBC, whose talk show hosts are liberal, and a much smaller story on Fox, whose prime time lineup leans conservative. The focus of the discussion differs as well. Conservative talkers paid the most attention to questions about who Martin is and to the defense of the man who pulled the trigger, George Zimmerman. Liberal hosts focused primarily on gun control and the Florida law." They said, "Fox News covered the story much less than" MSNBC and CNN. "On Fox, questions about Trayvon Martin's past and statements in defense of George Zimmerman also garnered the most attention by far. That was followed by attention to the media's handling of the story." Pew said, "Some of these differences in approach can be seen in how the three channels handled a mid-afternoon March 26 press conference called by Trayvon Martin's family. MSNBC showed the press conference live for over 14 minutes, with no commercial interruptions or comments or summary by the new hosts. CNN also provided live coverage of the press conference, but for less time than MSNBC, a little over five minutes. Fox did not show any footage from the press conference when it was occurring and did not discuss the case in that hour." They said, "The No. 1 storyline among liberal talkers was gun control and the Florida law followed by a discussion of the remark by Fox News' Geraldo Rivera blaming the hoodie for Trayvon Martin's death." These are all good sentences providing info about Fox's coverage. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the site is a RS, but I still think it should be presented as "A Pew Research study found" (or some words to that effect) and the date should be given to as to what time period they were addressing. Emeraldflames (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliability should be evaluated at a more granular level than the site, but the politics of this case are inadequately covered in the article and I have no objection to including Pew's observations. I do wonder what technology they used to evaluate the "subject": results of, e.g., "millions of tweets", but I'm not convinced on that basis that they're just smelling their own farts. I've previously provided two polls of the extreme differences in the impressions of this case along lines of racial identification (Reuters/Ipsos],Today/Gallup) and that material should go in as well. Andyvphil (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I just read it and the Pew Center report looks like an excellent, neutral summary of the media coverage of this incident. I think it should be included in the article. By the way, I have seen a demonstration of software that collects, analyzes, and reports on trends/issues in tweets and other social media. I would assume that the Pew Center would use something like this since it is their job to watch this kind of stuff. Of course, I could be wrong. Cla68 (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

An important thing to keep in mind is that the Pew article is dated March 30, 2012, and its parts only pertain to the periods before each part of their analysis was respectively completed. The available evidence, tone of the media coverage, and the public perception of the case and participants may have changed significantly since then. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• DISAGREE - Did Fox attempt to distort the evidence like NBC? Of course not. There is no evidence that Fox has shown bias on this story. The attempt to demonize Fox using an unreliable left-wing blog is just more POV pushing. —MiamiManny (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the Timeline - 7-Eleven purchase time obviously incorrect

There is a problem with the Timeline that I hope someone can fix. The Timeline shows Martin completing his purchase at 7-Eleven BEFORE he left to walk to the store. Tried to view the video to discern the time stamp but was unsuccessful. Can someone please review the video and fix the problem? Thanks! Apostle12 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't really see the hour on the timestamp part, but you can see the minutes and it shows about :24 after. I'm not sure whether the clock was accurate on the camera, but the date was. The 6:40 time given by USA today offers no specific source of it and it's mentioned as approximate. My guess would be that the time he left is inaccurate, in part, because that seems like a lot of distance to cover- there and back again. I would say if there isn't another source for the 6:40 time to get rid of it, because it doesn't really make sense. Emeraldflames (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe it will turn out that Trayvon was in 7-Eleven earlier than what's been reported. According to an American Thinker article, they spoke to 7-Eleven and the store had turned over a video to police from between 6 and 6:30 that night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm84 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think for now I will remove the first line dealing with when Trayvon left his father's fiancees home. It can always be added later.Apostle12 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was the source of reporting this contradiction. I have reliable sources in active disagreement (USA Today & Evidence released by FL). My thinking is to leave the contradiction in place, but just note that it is there. I mentioned this issue above in the timeline section. ITBlair (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Full Audio Of Witness Interviews By Sanford Police, Florida Dept. Of Law Enforcement And Florida State Attorney's Office (Released In Court Discovery Proceedings)

On May 17, 2012, State Attorney Angela Corey released the first batch of discovery documents (and other media )in the second-degree murder case against George Zimmerman for the February 26, 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin. Among the audio released were the witness interviews conducted in February and March by the Sanford Police, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and the Florida State Attorney's Office.

Recordings of interviews with witnesses #1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 were released on with the first batch of discovery documents on May 17, 2012. Axiomamnesia (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the link to the original source of the info? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

These files were obtained directly from the Florida State Attorney's Office via their release of discovery documents associated with the case. Axiomamnesia (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the Florida State Attorney's release directly accessible from them over the internet? If so, can you give their link to their discovery documents? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The release is not directly accessible from them over the Internet. Media access is available via a web portal. In other words, there's no way to simply post a link to these files here. They are accessible only to those who have media accounts with the Florida State Attorney's Office.NoamZinn (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Axioamnesia has been blocked because of their username. On the main issue, see Moonriddengirl's comments at [13] which boil down to tricky copyright issues, serious WP:RS so we can't use them as sources. I agree. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The NY Times has posted the recordings of at least 4 of the investigator interviews with witnesses on their site. [14] The names and identifying details about the witnesses have been redacted by investigators. Since the NY Times is considered a RS, couldn't we link to them for any quotes from those 4 interviews we may include in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look further up the page...

... We went through a small uproar a few years ago with the State of Florida when I took their word for their copyright assertions on their website, but in spite of their assertions, their own high court had said that their constitution does not allow state government produced materials to be copyrighted. This could be a similar case, where an employee is not himself really familiar with the governing law. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Florida law also required that this discovery material be publicly released 15 days after the defense requested it, subject to court orderered redaction, "confession" exceptions, etc., none of which is relevant to these recordings. The prosecution, you may recall, agreed with the defence to hold it more than 15 days, and this was the subject of a suit. The subscription-site-for-media that the courthouse has set up is, I suppose, akin to the copying charges you face whenever you want to do more than see a public document. It's pretty clear there's no more copyright for this material than the 911 calls. Andyvphil (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Sanford Police Department

I'm wondering if a picture of the police department should be included here. I've read that it's a new building, which I added to the Sanford Police Department page. It seems to be a part of the case, with the videos from there, and there's a room for voice stress analysis, which Zimmerman was given. And it also is a little bit involved in the racial controversies in the city. It was located, I believe, between the white and black sections of town. Psalm84 (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC) There's a picture of it on the Sanford city home page. Psalm84 (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant enough to the case to include. People can click on the SPD page link if they want to see it Emeraldflames (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a picture of it on the Wikipedia SPD page, if that's what you were referring to. What I should have said is that I added a section on it being a new building on the SPD page. I wasn't sure, though, if that picture from Sanford.gov is allowed and I'm not familiar with adding images here. The reason I thought of putting a photo here was because of different things that have come up, such as there being some talk the other day that Zimmerman might have a close relationship with police because there's a video of him walking unescorted in the station. But it may be just a public access area in a newer and bigger building like that. Psalm84 (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"...there's a video of him walking unescorted in the station"? News to me. Link? Andyvphil (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's on this page. I did already add it to the article under external links. Psalm84 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Trayon Martin Suspension - Add?

This probably has already been discussed previously. I want add a sentence stating that the reason Trayvon Martin was in Sanford was because he was on a ten-day suspension for having marijuna residue on a baggie. This links to why George Zimmerman would not recognize him as a resident. It also links to the THC found in Trayvon Martin's body. Thus, it is information (I think) relevant to the shooting. Was there a prior concensus on this issue?

The RS I am proposing is: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/30/us/trayvon-martin-profile/index.html ITBlair (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• AGREE - Of course it should be in the article. —MiamiManny (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

O'Mara has said on the legal defense web site that Trayvon's character might be brought up, and from a link I saw on Florida law, it seems it is allowable. But then the character of both should be talked about. Psalm84 (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC) The article I saw on Florida law was at the National Review, and it said that in a case where a victim is alleged to be the aggressor, the state can present good character evidence to counter defense evidence. Psalm84 (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No. This has been extensively discussed. Please review the history - don't add it without consensus, and there is none at present. Tvoz/talk 04:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be included. It is relevant, and there is not a single mainstream RS that has not reported it that I'm aware of. The New York Times, BBC, Chicago Tribune, etc. Every one of them. Unfortunately, there are a group of editors here that substitute their own personal judgment and thereby censor WP. Emeraldflames (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Emeraldflames, please refrain from assigning motives to other editors. Accusations of censorship are incorrect and offensive. Tvoz/talk 17:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Virtually every major media outlet- even the most respected ones- made the editorial decision to report this information to its readers. Just about any public discussion re: this case involves references to this information. It is a fact that has been universally reported and it is well-known to virtually anyone who has followed the case.

But several Wikipedia editors argue that this reliably-sourced, universally-reported, and widely known information should be withheld from Wikipedia readers (many (if not most) of whom find the information relevant). That's censorship as far as I'm concerned.

And it is the result of overreaching Wikipedia editors second-guessing the highly respected media outlets, that have universally reported reliably-sourced information. It is the result of their belief that they should make the decision as to a subject's relevance, not the readers.

Wikipedia is- embarrassingly- the only major media outlet that does not report this information. Thus, every week we have users asking "Why aren't the suspensions in here??" I stand behind my comments, though I'm sorry if they offended you. Emeraldflames (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that newspapers have reported a factoid does not mandate that we include it, because this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Particularly in the case of private figures notable only for a single event, WP:BLP indicates that some details, while reliably sourced and reported by news outlets, do not belong in our article. It would be helpful to have more editors experienced with WP:BLP issues active here, because this is a matter of basic site policy and good editing, not a matter of "censorship". Of course, #1 on this list also pertains. MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What actually pertains is the observation in the header: Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies. POV warriors whose motivations are obvious but who duplicitously hide behind AGF are a cancer in Wikipedia. Andyvphil (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see what the WP:BLP experts say, too. My understand of BLP is that the emphasis is not on excluding information but on being exceptionally careful to abide by the core principles of Wikipedia when adding it. How do we summon them? Emeraldflames (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please visit the WP:HD and describe your problem there. Someone will point you in the right direction.Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is something that the mainstream media has covered, and it makes sense that it will be part of the case. This is Florida law which is a National Review article quotes: "(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY. — Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except: 2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor." Zimmerman's legal site also mentions it here: "While certain details regarding Trayvon Martin may become part of trial, they will never be a part of our online discussion, and we will aggressively moderate comments on our page on Facebook, and discourage others from making disparaging comments." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm84 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That was a quote of parts of the National Review quote, which is a quote of parts of the relevant law. I thought the actual law was more informative and dependable.[15] --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Include because the sources report this information. I would object to a "character" section being added, but this bit of well sourced information can certainly be added somewhere in the article. Florida law with respect to court admissability has nothing to do with keeping this information in or out of the article.Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This article about the shooting of a person. (See the title.) To suggest that the victim's marijuana use some weeks earlier has any connection at all with his shooting is just plain laughable. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No one has made that assertion. The proposal was to include Martins supsension, which according to the RS is why he was visiting his father in Central Florida. Is there an issue with this? Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Why he was there is irrelevant to the fact that someone shot him dead. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is unfair to Trayvon Martin not to include this information. Because if you don't know that he was suspended for marijuana some days before people may automatically assume he was smoking marijuana on the night of the shooting (which hasn't been established as far as I know.) Emeraldflames (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Section 1.1 lists him as a high school juniorThe RS states he was suspended. The marijuana reference need not be included. Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I would vote to include marijuna reference and the third suspension data. But I can live without it. This suspense (and marijuna) information comes from many RSs and is relevant to the shooting. TM had THC is his system. We are not a court. This suspension for marijuna residue may or may not have any connection to why he was shooting. At this point we do not know and it is not our job to find out. Other RSs can determine that. In fact most forensic specialists state the THC in TM's system may have come use days before and plays no role in the shooting. It is also not our job to hide reliable information. This information does explain why he was in Sanford and why George Zimmerman would not have recognized him. It also provides background as to why there was THC in his system. Finally, this information is already well known. We can avoid suspensions 1 and 2 in this article, since they speak more to character and are not directly related to this shooting. ITBlair (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I could see the usefulness of another Wiki article where a more complete overview of the background and character of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman would be presented. For example, why George Zimmerman had a depraved mind, committed domestic violence, and beat-on police officers or why Trayvon Martin was a drug-user who regularly got into into fights and followed a gang-banger ethos. Or why GZ was a saint protecting his community and why TM was an innocent kid. However there appears to be desire to construct such an article. It would also be very difficult to edit. I could see it in the context of summarizing what other RSs were saying about GZ and TM. Again, I have not seen a desire among editors to create this article. Also, I the work involved would be too large for me. I would love for some others to do this. ITBlair (talk)

This sentence from a May 17 NY Times article seemed to sum it up well.[16]

"Mr. Martin had been taken by his father to Sanford from his home in Miami Gardens after he was suspended from high school when traces of marijuana were found in an empty baggie in his book bag."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that explains why he was there, but it doesn't explain why it belongs in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it is information relevant to the topic of this article, in that it tells the circumstances that led to Martin being in Sanford on the night of the shooting. So there's my explanation of why it should be in the article; what's your explanation of why it shouldn't? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's NOT relevant. This article is about someone being shot. The shooter would not have known why that someone was there. His reasons for shooting this person have NOTHING to do with why he was there. IT'S IRRELEVANT!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's commonly reported because it is likely to be relevant. Zimmerman also didn't know that Trayvon had been at 7-Eleven, but that's also commonly reported and in the article. Psalm84 (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's commonly reported because the mass media has column inches and air-time minutes to fill. We don't. They've also told us about Martin's parents, and all sorts of other stuff that doesn't need to be here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't just about the shooter's reason for shooting. This specific info contributes to the topic by showing why Martin was in Sanford, hundreds of miles from home on the night before he would normally go to school. Now you may think it is not sufficiently important to be included, which is a reasonable position to take, but it's clearly relevant. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does anybody need to know WHY he was there? IT'S IRRELEVANT!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This issue appears to be one of the most contentious content debates currently with this article. I suggest doing a straw poll to see what the prevailing opinion is among participants about including the information. Cla68 (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This has been done several times before. Most editors have found some of the suspensions to be relevant, reliably sourced, and have supported their inclusion. There are a handful of editors that are consistently- and uncompromisingly- opposed to its inclusion. They further argue that since "there is not a consensus" that the information, by default, should be removed from the article.

The quality and reliability of the sources that have reported it does not matter to them. The number of editors that *do* find it relevant does not matter to them. *They* find it irrelevant and oppose the inclusion of this information, period (regardless of how carefully, balanced, and fairly it is presented). In other words, consensus building with them has gone nowhere (in part because they cite a "lack of consensus" as their justification for removing the information. That's my take on it, anyway. Emeraldflames (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The relevance of the information is subjective. It is similar in relevance to the particular items he bought from the store; i.e., subjective. However, if it is repeatedly mentioned in reliable sources, then consider the possibility that it ought to be included here. Note that I'm not saying that I agree or disagree. But it enters tricky territory when we start deciding for ourselves what is "relevant" and what is not, rather than looking at the tenor of the reporting by reliable sources. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll on Martin's suspension

• Should mention be made in the article that Martin was suspended from school at the time of the shooting and the reason for his suspension?

Yes (sign below)

1. I'd agree with seeing it mentioned along with other information like controversies over the media coverage and the release of information in the case, or along with some of the past of Zimmerman. Some of that could be mentioned as it was a concern at Zimmerman's bail hearing. Psalm84 (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)   I just want to add that Zimmerman's previous problems with the law could also be mentioned as something that bothered Tracy Martin about how police handled the case, since at first they told him Zimmerman had a squeaky-clean record. Psalm84 (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
2. I think it's reasonable to include it. It's part of the story of how Martin came to be there and the toxicology results. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
3. In section 1.1, no need to list the previous suspensions as they are not relevant.Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Universally reported (NY Times/BBC on down), already known to virtually anyone who's followed the case and-for a variety of reasons articulated in previous discussions- considered relevant to the subject matter, either directly or indirectly, by a significant number of readers/editors (if not majority). WP:BLP dictates that we adhere "strictly" to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR when adding this information. Emeraldflames (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Mainly to relate to THC levels in autopsy. Collect (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
6. As I noted above I think the third suspension is reasonable to include. It explains why TM was there and why GZ would not recognize him. It also relates to the THC in TM's system. I also have no issues with including the first two suspensions, but they appear to be less directly related to the shooting. In addition there are a hundred plus RSs on this topicITBlair (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
7. The revelation of the suspensions and associated details made a significant contribution to the disintegration of the Crump-inspired initial media presentation (Google "'good student' Trayvon") of the story, and should be covered in that context. Andyvphil (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutral/reserving judgement

1. For now Cla68 (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments/threaded discussion

*Comment Polls never lead to consensus! HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

*Comment It is unlikely that a poll will lead to consensus on the inclusion of Martins suspension and the reason for the suspension, but it does give us an opportunity to assess where we stand and then continue futher discussion and reach out to those editor's who oppose this information being included and address those concerns civilly and rationally in order to achieve a compromise.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what Andyvphil said about the impact the revelation of these suspensions had on undermining the initial, one-sided media "narrative" about the participants in the event. If not for that initial, public perception being so overwhelmingly favorable to Trayvon Martin, I don't believe that the NY Times, BBC, etc. would have covered it. So I agree that it should be presented in that context. (And if RS are available, include commentary about the impact their revelation had on altering the public's perception and media coverage up until that point.) Emeraldflames (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon didn't buy iced tea, but a fruit drink

According to this story, Trayvon didn't buy iced tea but a fruit drink. It seems that it should be mentioned in the article, even though it's a detail. Right now there is also some speculation that it could be related to drug use, due to some web postings tied to Trayvon, but that isn't from RS. But this information somewhat goes against the "iced tea and Skittles" part of the original story. Psalm84 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What he bought has nothing to do with the topic of this article, which is that a total stranger shot him dead. It's ALL irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The brand was Arizona Iced Tea. There is one reference in the article that calls it "ice tea". Change that to Arizona Iced Tea and the problem is solved.Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's still undue, irrelevant bullshit. One day the irrelevant garbage will be removed from this article and its size will shrink by 75%. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Bickering over the type of drink he happened to buy that day is entirely unencyclopedic. How about we find out what he ate for breakfast and fit that into the article. There's causation, damnit!--Львівське (говорити) 00:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Undue how? I suspect some would like to reference the "watermelon cocktail" which is undue stereotyping, but calling the drink bu its brand name?Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The brand is irrelevant. The drink type is irrelevant. Going beyond "he bought something" is undue. How about we give the caloric value, too?--Львівське (говорити) 00:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If thats the case then remove all the references to candy and drink. And I suggest you might want to read WP:UNDUE. AFAIK no one is disputing what was purchased. All of this is besides the point. The SOURCES deemed it fit to publish this information, and it was certainly gemane to the shooting incident because it was part of the timeline.Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is unimportant. But it is also true. We shouldn't continue to report he had "iced tea and skittles" if he didn't, in fact, have iced tea. As Fasttimes said, we should remove all references to iced tea then. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's something more to just keep in mind for the moment. Right now quite a few news sites have reported it in their articles on the evidence released, including the Denver Post, Tampa Bay Online, Sacramento Bee, and Des Moines Register. And I noticed a blog which seems African-American focused, in which there was anger about the can being photographed on top of Trayvon's body. It is hard to understand a reason for them doing that, unless to prove it was really with him in case they weren't able to find out where he got it from and they wanted to show it was really with him and not planted. With it being watermelon-flavored, they might have been concerned about proving it was something he had with him. Psalm84 (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The can was in the middle pocket of TM's hoodie, fell out when CPR was attempted, and was presumably placed on the yellow tarp covering the body because placing it on the ground would have been misleading as to its position (keys, phone, flashlight, etc. on the ground resulted in numbered position markers). Andyvphil (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

News sites can report what they like, to suit their particular target audience's interests and inclinations. This is an encyclopaedia with an article called Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Nothing beyond the scope of that title should be included. I don't care whether he scrunches or folds his toilet paper (nor what he bought that night). HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The community decides what the scope should be. The RS deemed the purchase relevant for whatever reason, and it is tangently related to the article itself. Its not even controversial. So what else is there left to discuss? I'd hate to ask for an RfC for something as trivial as this, but we can go that route if you continue with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The RS deemed it relevant to its content policy, not ours. HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please cite the WP:Policy you are referring too. Id prefer to try and get some agreement here before caving in and calling others.Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

They were reporting evidence, which does make it relevant to the case, and it's also relevant to the story. Skittles and iced tea became a very famous part of it. Right now, though, it isn't clear that it needs to be mentioned in the article. Psalm84 (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What makes it "evidence"? That's what police gather, not what the rabid media tells us about. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't click on any links. It's in at least one crime scene photo. And the article may need to mention it. Here it says: "Additionally, bags of Skittles candy and cans of Arizona Iced Tea were used as protest symbols. Martin was returning from a 7-Eleven convenience store with these items when he was shot." Psalm84 (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You'll probably need to explain to me (and the rest of the world) how "bags of Skittles candy and cans of Arizona Iced Tea were used as protest symbols". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 27 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The Wikipedia article on Trayvon Martin's shooting says that. Psalm84 (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC) It's under the "Public Response" section. Psalm84 (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

[17] --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with naming the items he bought at the store, especially if they were later used as protest symbols. Cla68 (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be the only thing that would make them worth mentioning. And it would need to be done exclusively in that context. HiLo48 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we include the information beause the sources include it. It is certianly ok to include it as a protest symbol, but there is no reason to exclude it elsewehere.Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is. It's irrelevant. This article is about someone being shot. What he bought some time earlier has absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. HiLo48 (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No, this article is not merely "about someone being shot". It's about the media lynching too, and the tea-and-skittles meme is very much part of that story. Andyvphil (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Update Police and Standford Police Station Sections on Manslaughter

I would like to update the Police and Standard Police Station sections on the manslaughter charge. I want to add the reasons why the local investigators wanted to press this charge. From the NY Times"

"Some Sanford officers were skeptical from the beginning about certain details of Mr. Zimmerman’s account. For instance, he told the police that Mr. Martin had punched him over and over again, but they questioned whether his injuries were consistent with the number of blows he claimed he received. They also suspected that some of the threatening and dramatic language that Mr. Zimmerman said Mr. Martin uttered during the struggle — like “You are going to die tonight” — sounded contrived."

The link is below. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html?pagewanted=all

I would also Wiki link to the term manslaughter and perhaps to the FL law on this subject. ITBlair (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think adding those details to the page would be a reasonable and good idea. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently they didn't "want to" very badly, since they never did press charges. -- Avanu (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Likely falls into "contentious claim" which would require more than a single source using unnamed people as sources. It really would need an officer to be named to be of much use IMO. Collect (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Autopsy Discussion Deleted?

It appears the discussion and references to the Autosopy have been deleted. This is unfortunate, it had a lot of good context and a few agreements about what to include in the article.

I am proposing to note that the THC level level in TM's blood is consistent with a light marijuna user who as smoked in the last 2 to 4 hours or a heavy user who has smoked in the prior 2+ days. However, few expects aggressive behavior from this level unless perhaps one is going through withdrawal. But this would be a hard case to make. This link is below.

Dr. Drew: http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/05/17/dr-drew-talks-trayvon-martin-autposy-report

ITBlair (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion pertaining to the autopsy has been archived, you can find the links for archived discussions at the top of the talk page. We already have an expert analysis in the article about the levels of THC. I don't see a need for anymore.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The expert stated: "Larry Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science stated that the THC amount was so low that it may have been ingested days earlier and played no role in Martin's behavior. "This kind of level can be seen days after somebody smokes"

This statement is true, especially for a regular marijuna user. However, this statement is incomplete. This level of THC is also consistent with someone who has smoked in the last two to four hours as pointed out by Dr. Drew. Generally, this is for an infrequent user. In addition, he further states that there is very limited evidence that these levels of THC are linked to aggressive behavior.

Additional data on the levels of THC vs. time-elapsed can be found at:

Citations on Drugs:http://www.idmu.co.uk/drugtestcan.htm

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

THC more potent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP1d1ahWGww

Eventually, the Trial of George Zimmerman will get into Behavioral implications of THC big time.

In addition, I think it was premature to archive this section, over the next six weeks I expect RSs to start to publish different conclusions on the relevance of the Injury patterns on G. Zimmerman and the injury patterns on Travon Martin. I think we need to keep this Section open for awhile to outline a good summary of what these RSs are saying. ITBlair (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Any threads on the talk page with no replies in 5 days may be automatically archived by a ClueBot. It's archived so any editor can access it at any time they wish to review any past discussions. It's also recommended that new editor's to an article review the archives to see what has previously been discussed.

Koblinsky also went on to say that he doubts the judge will even let it be used by the defense if they try to introduce it at trial. "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". The autopsy results are admissible, but if the defense tries to read anything into the results about Martin's use, it would be speculative at best, and be prejudicial to Martin if they tried to make an argument about his behavior that night based on trace amounts of THC. I don't think the defense will try to bring "behavioral implications of THC big time" into this trial. The references about additional data you provided don't specifically mention Martin or this case, so how are they relevant to this article?

The crux of this case is Zimmerman's claim of self defense and whether the prosecution can prove the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not realize the ClueBot setting. In any event I think think the Defense will bring the behavioral implications of THC up. GZ stated in his call to SPD that TM was on drugs or something. The THC levels and the behavioral implications of THC will speak to this issue. The prosecution will try to prove that GZ is a racist with a depraved mind (needed for 2nd degree mrder and a possible hate crime charge). GZ's team will have to argue that his suspicions were reasonable and that TM was under the influence of drugs. TM was a chronic user and/or had just smoked pot. The GZ team will argue that TM had poor judgement (under the influence), was paranoid and aggressive. It was taking TM 52 minutes to cover a 12 min. route from the 7-11 to home. This is why TM attacked GZ, made aggressive statements in his social media accounts, and staged/started a number of fights (e.g., the bus driver TM was supposed to have hit).

The experts noted (Drew and Koblinsky) mention Martin, but they are drawing on this background research data to make statements about (generalize) what the THC levels say about Trayvon Martin's non-recent or recent use of marijuna. One states it is consistent with use days ago (true for a chronic user), Dr. Drew notes that the THC level is consistent with recent use (2 - 4 hours) by a non-chronic user. Based on research they both argue that these THC levels are at such a low level that the behavioral implications are minimal. They are generalizing about Trayvon Martin's time of usage and behavior from these research results. The defense will argue (I think) chronic and/or recent use per the THC levels and then use the research on behavioral implications on these THC levels (e.g., many states would arrest you for driving with these levels, the effects of THC levels are unpredictable, the effects are worse on younger persons, the 16 hours from death to autopsy lowered the measured THC levels, etc.).

The point I am proposing to make here is that the THC levels are consistent with a chronic user and/or a single recent use and that most experts think that THC at these levels would have minimal or no affect on TM's behavior. Currently, we are only stating use many days ago and not including the broader perspective of Dr. Drew. ITBlair (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a RS saying that Martin was a chronic user? Is there a RS saying that Martin used that day of the shooting? Dr. Drew's perspective about the levels of THC seem to indicate that it had no relevance and doesn't in any way suggest that somebody should have been the object of lethal force because they have low level pot in their blood. We don't know what the defense will argue and speculating about it is WP:OR.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, doctor drew infered that if he was going through a withdrawl period it would indeed be relevat. He also gave a window of time for th the useage in question much more accurately than "could have been days", to instead more along the lines of "several hours to several days"Whatzinaname (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that how each side will use this evidence is currently speculative. I said nothing about justifying the use or non-use of lethal force (although my guess is that the defense will take this position). This THC evidence is in keeping with a chronic (i.e., a frequent user) user (smoking days ago) or an infrequent user who smoked within the past 2-4 hours. Both experts think that it is doubtful these levels of THC had any impact on Trayon Martin's behavior (e.g., being aggressive). In particular, Dr. Drew thinks it would be hard to make a case for TM being paranoid because of withdrawal. Ideally, we would include a few pointers into the literature on the affects of marijuna and then the reader can make up his own mind. This is just a more complete picture of what these THC levels mean from a couple of RSs. ITBlair (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Drew made the comments about lethal force. I don't see how we can include the sourced literature without them making a specific and relevant connection to the THC level in Martin. They don't talk about this case specifically, which is what would be needed to make it relevant to this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

relevance/notability of "evan shapiro"

Wikipedia is not add space, at least last I checked... So why is he notable. He doesn't work in the News media, never did as far as I know, and is simply a blogger the huffington compost. Huffinton itself is questionable, and editorial/blog is even more questionable, and I don't see how his "expertise" is relevant.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)