Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin

dershowitz accuses corey (multiple)

So Dershowitz has accused prosecutor Corey of a bunch of stuff (somewhat covered in article and talk before) but I had not seen this particular video before, which is pretty harsh.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIYV5MuoVCQ&feature=player_embedded#!

Dershowitz now alleges that Corey is threatening to sue him and Harvard for libel/slander regarding his criticism (article in next link written by Dershowitz). In this article, dershowitz speficially compares Zimmerman misleading court by not fully revealing funds raised, to Corey misleading the court by slanting information in the affidavit.

• http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Zimmerman-Trayvon-Angela-Corey/2012/06/05/id/441305

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

His latest comments are included in the article. While I agree that Corey overcharged this case, Dershowitz is over-reacting as well. The affidavit is not "illegal". Under Florida rules, the affidavit is in compliance. Dershowitz also fails to mention that these type of probable cause affidavits are filed all the time in courtrooms all across the country for arrest warrants and search warrants.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:

"The affidavit is not "illegal". Under Florida rules, the affidavit is in compliance. Dershowitz also fails to mention that these type of probable cause affidavits are filed all the time in courtrooms all across the country for arrest warrants and search warrants."

The affadavit was Judge Herr's sole basis in the constitutionally required (4th+14th amendments, see Gerstein v. Pugh, SCOTUS '75) determination that Corey's information provided probable cause to detain Zimmerman on a charge of 2nd degree murder. Herr blew off his obligation to notice that the Affidavit was terminally inadequate. Does unconstitutional count as "illegal"? Andyvphil (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not meaning to change the subject, but T-mobile recently had to retire Zimmerman's old cell phone number after they re-issued it last month and the guy immediately started getting harassing phone calls. [1] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This story does have "legs":

Alan Dershowitz, "Zimmerman Prosecutor Threatening to Sue Harvard for My Criticism", News Max, 5 Jun 2012.

Jeff Weiner, "Dershowitz: Zimmerman prosecutor ranted against Harvard", Orlando Sentinel, 6 Jun 2012.

Jeralyn, "Dershowitz Says Angela Corey Threatened to Sue Harvard for Zimmerman Criticism", Talk Left, 6 Jun 2012.

Jeralyn Merritt, a criminal defense attorney who posts at Talk Left: The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news, had this to say about Corey's affidavit:

"In my opinion, not only was the affidavit in this case legally questionable as to what was included and omitted about the investigation, it failed to allege any facts to establish probable cause for second degree murder, the crime for which the arrest warrant was sought. The affidavit didn't apprise the reviewing magistrate of the elements of the crime or its theory as to why probable cause for that particular crime existed, as opposed to manslaughter or a lesser crime. There were no facts set forth that it represented to be evidence that Zimmerman acted with a depraved mind or out of hatred, ill-will, malice or spite."

--Naaman Brown (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions from anyone regarding changing what is in the article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Dershowitz's latest comments are already in the article. The rest of the criticism about her would probably fit better on her page, Angela Corey.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we agree. Regarding the comments that are already in the article, they're more about the conflict between Dershowitz and Corey than the topic of the article. I would suggest putting in more about the criticism of the affidavit and removing the parts about the personal conflict between Dershowitz and Corey. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing the part about the conflict between Dershowitz and Corey. If you think more criticism about the affidavit from Dershowitz is warranted, I don't object to that either as long as it is placed appropriately in the public response section with his other comments. I oppose it being in the prosecution's account of events where his current criticism is placed at. I thought a compromise had been reached on that issue.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

More about Corey from an op-Ed piece. http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/400601/ron-littlepage/2012-06-08/ron-littlepage-angela-coreys-hissy-fits-threats Fasttimes68 (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's wife arrested

George Zimmerman's wife was arrested Tuesday afternoon for allegedly lying at his bond hearing about the couple's finances. Shellie N. Zimmerman, 25, faces a perjury charge. She met conditions for a $1,000 bond and was released Tuesday afternoon, according to the Seminole County Sheriff's Office. http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/12/justice/florida-zimmerman-wife/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 -- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There's also this: [2] which says

"Jeffrey Neiman, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said cash transactions in excess of $10,000 usually trigger a reporting requirement by the bank to multiple government agencies — including the IRS.

"If Mrs. Zimmerman intentionally structured the financial transactions in a manner to keep the offense under $10,000, not only may she have committed perjury in the state case, but she also may have run afoul of several federal statutes and could face serious federal criminal charges," Neiman wrote in an email to The Associated Press" .

Not sure if this is really appropriate in this article, as it doesnt so much relate to the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Is there another offshoot article where it may be more appropriate?Minor4th 00:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant to me, unless we want to engage in assassinating Mrs. Zimmerman's character just for fun. Apostle12 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's speculative anyway, so let's keep it out of this article.Minor4th 00:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wife's arrest/charge should absolutely not be included in the article per WP:BLPCRIME as she is not a well known individual. If she is convicted of perjury eventually, then that is a different matter. A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured She is a tangental subject of this article, notable only through the actions of her husband. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Good enough for me. It adds nothing meaningful to the subject and unnecessarily ca this person in a negative light when final resolution of the charge is beyond speculative. Minor4th 13:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

She's already mentioned in the article in relation to Zimmerman's bond being revoked. The prosecution alleged that she and Zimmerman misled the court as to their financial situation, was involved in "coded" telephone conversations and transferred large amounts of cash back and forth between accounts, which resulted in Zimmerman's bond being revoked. She is mentioned specifically in the prosecution's motion to revoke bond, [3] and is specifically mentioned in the judges written order to revoke his bond, [4]. Her alleged actions are relevant as to why Zimmerman is back in jail, awaiting a new bond hearing. She became notable because of the actions she allegedly commited. The alleged collusion between these two individuals has also placed Zimmerman's credibility in question, [5]. It seems relevant to include a sentence pertaining to her arrest.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Per Isaid, given that her collusion with Mr. Zimmerman, leading to his bond being revoked, is already in the article, I do not think it would be too much to add a few words saying that she herself was later arrested, if even in parentheses or perhaps a footnote. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The suggestion that her arrest is only tangential to the case overall is a fairly ridiculous one. The charge of perjury against her is directly related to testimony that resulted in her husband's bond being set at the amount it was and is directly related to the court's decision to revoke said bond. Her actions and the charge against her are now both part-and-parcel of the case. To suggest that this therefore violates WP:BLPCRIME is disingenuous at best. The arrest should be restored. Grandpallama (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My point was that it was tangental to the shooting (the subject of this article), not the actual court case. Her testimony, if she commited perjury or not, will have no bearing on the shooting, and if Zimmerman was justified or not in doing so. Beyond that, I'm not sure why his having the money was that big of an issue. If bond is to be set at a level which cannot be afforded, then why do we have the concept to begin with? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The judge said in his ruling that it was apparent that his wife testified untruthfully and that Zimmerman also testified and did not alert the court to the misinformation. He went on to say that "most importantly" Zimmerman has demonstrated that he doesn't respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process. Whether or not she commited perjury is irrelevant to the shooting. But this collusion between the two of them has put Zimmerman's credibility at risk. This episode makes the 4th time that he has been less than honest with the police and the courts. His claim of self-defense is going to rely on his credibility, and this collusion has jeopardized that even further.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the fine distinction that Gaijin42 is trying to make, and it's true that the wife's perjury charge cannot affect what has already taken place (i.e., the shooting itself), but the collusion, as Isaidnoway points out, will certainly have an effect on the case he and his counsel will attempt to make in court. Grandpallama (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your statement, just curious what the four times were that Zimmerman has been less than honest with the police and the courts. If you could respond here, or on my talk page, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that this incident would be allowed to be presented to a jury as being both prejudicial and irrelevant to the actual event. I also find the dual standards of what information is considered article relevant through a chain of logic - For zimmermans wife, apparently any plausible chain of logic is considered sufficiently relevant for inclusion of information which conflicts with BLP and BLPCRIME. For Martin similarly reliably sourced and plausible logic chains are insufficient. Even more baffling, Zimmerman's own history (assault, domestic etc) follows the Martin example (yay consistancy!) but it does not apply to his wife (inconsistancy boo). @Isaidnoway : What are the other 3 incidents? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(1) On the night of the shooting, he told police he had no prior arrests and had a "clean record"--not true. I'm sure you remember (Gaijin42) that Martin's family blasted the SPD for telling them that Zimmerman had a "squeaky clean record", in turn, the SPD issued a press release stating that Martin's family had misunderstood the officer, because Zimmerman had told them he had a "squeaky clean record". (2) When Zimmerman was arrested in April, he told the officer booking him that he had never been in a pre-trial diversion program--not true. (3) At his bond hearing when he apologized, he testified under oath that he thought Martin was closer to his age, but told the dispatcher the night of the shooting, "late teens"--contradictory statements. And now we have number (4) where in collusion with his wife, allegedly misled the court about their finances. Additionally, Gilbreath testified at his bond hearing that Zimmerman's claim of Martin slamming his head was not consistent with evidence they had found. According to the Orlando Sentinel, Zimmerman also told police that Martin reached for his gun, and they struggled over it, which is not corroborated by other evidence. He told the police that Martin was circling his SUV while on the phone with the dispatcher, but failed to tell the dispatcher that. You put all that together and the prosecution is going to argue there is a "pattern" of Zimmerman not being truthful, which affects his credibility to his claim of self-defense. The preceding was compiled from info already in the article and these sources, [6] and [7],-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On the four times Zimmerman lied, it doesn't seem so clear. I could only read part of one of the Orlando Sentinel articles because I'm out of free access there, so correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand the first statement still came from the police. The second is from a Sentinel report. In either case, it's hard to trust without actually going over what was said. The SPD didn't seem to come up with a capias request until after the story was national news, and the media has reported things like Zimmerman was "self-appointed" N.W. captain and called police 46 times in a year for black males. On some of the other things, in the recorded testimony of "John," he says the guy on the bottom did end up on the sidewalk, and again, we only have a leak about Zimmerman saying Martin was "circling his vehicle." Maybe he just went around it once, or even not completely. He did tell the dispatcher Martin was coming up to the vehicle, and the dispatcher said to tell him if he "did anything else," which seems to mean if Martin did something like attack. Psalm84 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting...thanks. I noticed the disparity between his saying at the bond hearing that he thought Martin was close to his age and his "late teens" response to the dispatcher. The misleading statements to the police are especially troubling, as he must have known that what he said would be carefully scrutinized. The latest revelations about speaking in code and purposefully misleading the court as to their finances also negatively impact Zimmerman's credibility. The "head slamming on concrete" seems less a problem, since his injuries were well documented and his head must have hit something hard; makes me question Gilbraeth's statement. Likewise the "circling" issue, because Zimmerman did mention that Martin was coming toward him while he sat in his vehicle and that Martin was "just staring" at him. Some of that could come down to interpretation. This case is truly a difficult one to gauge--I trust the jury will have an easier time of it than those of us who are attempting to write this article. Even with careful study, it's impossible to know what to think, and the general public seems hopelessly confused by the various disparities. Thanks again! Apostle12 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should leave this out until it can be shown that a couple of reliable sources have referred to the wife's arrest in the context of opining as to how it might come back to haunt Zimmerman at trial. Let's not speculate on that - the only legitimate basis of inclusion, as far as I can tell - ourselves, but wait until there is evidence of reliable sources doing so. Then it could be added to the article, in a single sentence. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here are two sources with different views, one says her arrest does affect the case, [8], and this one says it won't, [9].

The judge also ruled today on the additional discovery to be released, [10]. Looks like Zimmerman's statements to authorities will be released along with tests performed on him. Some witness names will be released as well, those who have already appeared in interviews, others will remain anonymous. The recorded phone calls between them at the jail will be released as well. His ruling says they have fifteen days to comply.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not an RS, but I believe relevant under "recognized expert" analysis, as the author is a cornell law professor. http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/perjury-charge-against-shellie-zimmerman-raises-more-questions-of-prosecutorial-overreaching/ Gaijin42 (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I would favor referencing the information contained in the above source. The prosecution's grooming of Shellie Zimmerman's testimony, completely leaving out her offer to phone the brother-in-law, is exculpatory and deserves a place in any discussion of the charges against Mrs. Zimmerman. Apostle12 (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed.Minor4th 08:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would include the wife's arrest in the timeline, but not in the text of the article. NoSeptember 05:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• I would leave it out until (unless) there are a variety of reliable sources discussing the arrest as relevant to the shooting of Trayvon Martin. As pointed out above, we have been careful to refrain from throwing in negative information about Zimmerman and Martin, even though widely reported, because it has nothing to do with the case (but everything to do with public perception and rushes to judgment). The events leading to the bond revocation are described in the article -- it is irrelevant whether or not she was arrested or not. Shellie Zimmerman's arrest cannot be held against Zimmerman or offered as evidence of his guilt or innocence in any way. It is not a conviction...it is meaningless as of now. If we are going to include this tangent in the article, then I think we need to go back and beef up the character descriptions of Martin and Zimmerman as well. Minor4th 07:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about including the information on Zimmerman's wife or not, although it does seem to be tied into this case. But I just added the background on Zimmerman's arrest and the domestic violence injunction, and noted that the judge didn't find them that important at the bond hearing. It seemed they needed to be added because they're mentioned where the judge is quoted on the Zimmermans allegedly misleading the court. Psalm84 (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about info on Zimmerman and Martin

I noticed in the sections about Zimmerman and Martin there is little information about aspects that have been widely reported in numerous reliable sources ..such as Zimmerman's prior brushes with the law and Martin's suspensions. Is there a reason to keep this infomration out, as I think it balances the current information and presents a more complete picture of the players. Also, today or yesterday Judge Lester issued a written ruling on Z's bond revocation in which he specifically cites Zimmerman's previous domestic violence orders and indications of past violence. I understand the logic in keeping out information about charges that never resulted in convictions, but now that Lester has mentioned these things in a new order, is it something we should consider for the article? What I don't want to happen is a character assassination of one of the players while leaving the other painted in a more positive light than has been widely reported. Would like the community's input on this. Minor4th 23:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources, certainly, and there are sources to be found biased one way and the other way, so there are ample sources for equality in character assassination. I would caution against any emphasis on past negative behavior for either guy, and concentrate instead on what the legal teams are using as their arguments. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Pick any archive at the top of the page and you will find a discussion on this topic with any number of arguments for excluding and including. It's usually a good idea for a new editor to an article to scan the archives first before editing the article, especially one that is as controversial as this one is.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that emphasis on past negative behavior should be minimized. However, I agree that Lester's written ruling on Zimmerman's bond revocation should be presented in full. Apostle12 (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to collect a few links for discussion and possible inclusion in the article. It's possible this has already been discussed on the talk page, but I have just recently started editing again and am not aware of what's already been hashed out.

• [11]"Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of Trayvon Martin"

• [12] "Trayvon Martin suspended from school three times"

• [13] "Trayvon suspended THREE times for 'drugs, truancy, graffiti and carrying burglary tool' and did he attack bus driver too? New picture emerges of victim as parents claim it's all a smear"
• [14]"Zimmerman does not properly respect the law" (“…This is a serious charge for which life may be imposed; the evidence against him is strong; he has been charged with one prior crime, for which he went through a pre-trial diversion program, and has had an injunction lodged against him,” Judge Lester wrote. “Most importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process.” )
• [15]"Zimmerman accused of domestic violence, fighting with police officer"

Those are just a few examples.Minor4th 23:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A bit off topic, but I agree with Apostle12 that the article should have full written rulings on the case. Obviously not written out in the body of the article, but collapsed or listed by links. Some quick way people can open and read complete rulings. ArishiaNishi (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've not seen any complete rulings -- essentially the same quote is in all the sources. I'm not aware of any repository for the case documents, unfortunately. Minor4th 15:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The 18th Circuit Court's site has media advisories and public record documents pertaining to State v. Zimmerman here, [16]. They update it regularly and usually have them the same day they come out. The detailed discovery that was released on May 17th is not available on their site though. They were only made available to media outlets who set up accounts with the Florida State Attorney's Office. The NY Times has all 183 pages of it though and 4 audio recordings of some investigator interviews with witnesses that were released here, [17]. Also see this discussion on a previous talk page [18], where it seems we are forbidden from using the audio recordings due to "tricky copyright issues".-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

i don't see that discussion as forbidding usage, and I find the "govt recordings are not copyrightable" argument extremely compelling. Is there something other than that talk archive that makes you think this actually is copyrighted? Gaijin42 (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is another link discussing the issue, [19], I agree that the site hosting all of the audio recordings was not a RS and couldn't be used in the article, but as far as the copyright issue went, it was a bit confusing. I agree with moonriddengirl's statement that we treat witness statements as we treat other public records that we know to be copyrightable. We can link to them where right to publish is unquestionable (such as government sites) and we can quote from them to the same extent we quote from other non-free works. As far as I know, there are no government sites hosting the audio recordings of the interviews with the witnesses, the only way to obtain them from the State Attorney's office was by being a member of the media. My question was and still is, if the NY Times has the audio recordings on their site, why couldn't we provide a link in the article to them. The response I got on the previous talk page [20] really didn't seem to make sense to me. What is your take on it?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Certainly the NYT does not own the copyright
• I think it is patently obvious that the author of the recordings is the govt, and as such the recording is not copyrightable
• The original words could theoretically be copyright by the speaker, but I find this a weak argument
  • The words were provided as testimony
    • I think there are tons of examples of compelled speech by the govt, being recorded by the govt, being used for commercial and non-commercial purposes, without the consent of the speaker. (TV shows etc) As such there is a presumption of non-copyright status for the content of the recordings
  • They were not put into a fixed medium by the speaker
  • They are not a speech, or other creative materiel
• The recordings are verifiable, through both the NYT (reliable source) and the original govt site.
  • The fact that the govt site is not generally accessible is not a barrier to verifiability. We allow references to books etc which are in private libraries, or to papers that require membership to view. The fact that such membership in this case is harder to get does not change the fact that it is theoretically verifiable.
• Absent significant proof of copyright or barrier, we should follow the precedent set by thousands of other use of govt created materiel.
• Regardless of copyright, linking to or importing the documents has a clear fair use rationale as they do not have commercial value, and there is no possibility of obtaining a reasonable replacement.

Gaijin42 (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the most pertinent part of your conclusions is that they are not a speech or other creative material, which I think would be the only claim of being copyrightable. These were interviews given to a investigator working for the state attorney's office, and were recorded for a specific purpose, i.e. State vs. Zimmerman. I also think there is a fair use qualification here and the NY Times is a RS.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO I think we should be free to use any of the discovery material as appropriate as far as copyright and reliability are concerned. That being said, I have not reviewd the recordings or other information myself, so I am not making a !vote or comment on the appropriateness/relevance of any particular piece of evidence, and I do think there may be a primary/secondary sourcing barrier for some information as well. I think those issues (relevance, notability, primary/secondary) would need to be handled on a case by case basis depending on what the particular piece of evidence/recording was.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Bits about Zimmerman's past were in the early stages of the article. When news of Martin's negative past came out, it was added, but quickly removed. In the interest of fairness, it was also removed from Zimmerman's section. Personally, I don't believe either individual's past actions are relevant to this article. --Korentop (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Investigation and "discovery evidence"

The subsection about the initial investigation is largely duplicative of information detailed in "Discovery evidence". Since we are well beyond the initial investigation and into discovery, can we eliminate the initial investigation section or at least eliminate the duplicative information? Perhaps the "Discovery evidence" should be moved out of "court proceedings" and have its own stand alone section that pulls in other evidentiary information? The article is becoming unwieldy and we're at the very beginning of the legal process. The bulk could be improved by trimming repetitious information. Thoughts? Minor4th 14:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The initial investigation section in this case is important, as it is the source of a lot of the controversy around the police/govt actions. decisions not to arrest, prosecute etc. The information that was known at those times is directly relevant to those decisions. (Vs information known in hindsight from further investigations, which change peoples opinions about what should/shound not happen) However, we should be trying to organize the information as much as possible, and information that does not help elucidate that controversy should be condensed down into the discovery secion probably.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading through it again, I'd say you're right that the initial investigation is important to give context to the initial determination against making an arrest or bringing charges. In that light, most of the section looks ok, with the possible exception of information about medical records and autopsy report. I don't believe any of that was reported early on as part of the initial investigation (we don't know for sure what was considered since police were pretty tight lipped). That information seems misplaced and it is detailed elsewhere. I might remove that or merge it with discovery unless there are objections. Also, the 911 recordings are referenced and described repetitively -- I think we need to find one place where this fits best and trim the superfluous accounts. I will not have any more time to looks at this today, possibly this evening, so if another editor is feeling bold...Minor4th 15:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the medical records and autopsy results into the discovery section. I merged the ABC report on Zimmerman's medical records in as well, I think they are notable. I do think the discovery section should remain in the court proceedings section for now anyway, as they were released as a result of a court order. In the next week or so, when Zimmerman's statements along with the rest of the discovery the judge ordered to be released, we may have to take another look at it. You are right, the discovery section will certainly expand with the additional evidence. I also agree about the 911 calls, all that should be in one place as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible Changes

There's been some discussion about making changes to the article so it will be organized better. There are a couple possibilities that I wanted to mention. One would be moving most of the section on Zimmerman's role in the neighborhood watch to a new section that would be background on the shooting. It could also include Zimmerman's first call to police in February. And right now the "Shooting" section only has Zimmerman's call in it. Before it also had the testimony of his friend, but even that doesn't cover the shooting. It seems to make sense to move all the accounts of it here, but I wanted to get other people's opinions on it. Psalm84 (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What you are proposing isn't clear enough for me to comment in detail. However just reread the "Shooting" section, and I find that it works for me. When you refer to "the testimony of his friend," I don't know exactly what you are referring to. Also when you write "It seems to make sense to move all the accounts of it here," I do not know what you mean. Specifically "accounts of it" and "here" have insufficient antedecendents for this to be a clear proposal. Apostle12 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry if what I meant wasn't clear. I meant to write "there" not here. What I was referring to is that all the accounts of the shooting are at different places in the article. The account of Trayvon's friend who had been on the phone with him used to be in the "Shooting" section, but it was just moved to the witness accounts. It makes sense for it to be with them, but maybe all the accounts, including the witness statements, should be in the "Shooting" section. That question was brought up recently when there was some disagreement over adding criticism of the prosecution's account to the section on it. Right now the "Shooting" section doesn't cover the shooting. Psalm84 (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean--the "Shooting" section does not cover the shooting, a real problem! I made one simple change by eliminating a subcategory, which has the effect of bring everything related to the shooting under "Shooting." Not trying to be heavy-handed here; it's just easier to make the this sort of change (boldly) and solicit comments. Please let me know what you think; for me it kind of works.Apostle12 (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just made two other minor changes--changed "Shooting" to "Shooting and initial investigation," while eliminating "and initial investigation" from "Sanford Police arrival." Hope this flies; let me know. Apostle12 (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That really is much better. It makes a lot more sense. The only account not under "Shooting" now is the prosecution's. Maybe it isn't needed there. I do wonder, though, if it does make more sense to have all the accounts of the shooting together in one place. It may be simpler for readers to do that since there's so much to the story. That was why I suggested moving most of Zimmerman's role in the neighborhood watch to a new section. I'd like to try that and see how it works. If there are any objections I wouldn't mind if it was changed back. Psalm84 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Changed the heading a bit. Timing of neighborhood watch formation seems important--not really clear before. Also eliminated reference to The Retreat at Twin Lakes, since it appears again in the first sentence of this unit. Reworded one sentence to make it clear that reports of attempted break-ins also included at least one break-in that was accomplished; the thieves had already disconnected the occupants' television.

I think the prosecution's account should stay where it is, since it is part of the court proceedings. Apostle12 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just had suggested moving them together to make what happened a little simpler to follow, but this way seems to work too. Psalm84 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I thought all those changes were fine. Something that also needs some attention is the "911 Call history" for Zimmerman, since it goes back to 2004 and most weren't 911 calls. Psalm84 (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph in Zimmerman's bio needs to be moved to the neighborhood watch section as well. It pertains to the neighborhood watch.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I left that there. It seemed like something still needed to be said in Zimmerman's bio about him being in the neighborhood watch. There were already two similar sentences about Zimmerman being appointed the coordinator so I just moved one. Psalm84 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I moved it to the section where it belongs. It pertains to his role in the neighborhood watch, which has it's own section. If there are two sentences saying the same thing, get rid of one.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I thought it made sense to mention something about him being in the neighborhood watch in his bio. Psalm84 (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead section, there is a section devoted entirely to the neighborhood watch, it's mentioned in his account of events and it's mentioned in the Initial Sanford Police investigation results. How many times do we need to mention that he was a neighborhood watch volunteer? I'm not sure why it's even in the police investigation results section.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Copied from another section:

• What I do have an issue with is Trayvon Martin's bio being stripped bare. What is up with that? There are 3 sentences left. Meanwhile, George Zimmerman has a glowing 3 paragraphs. Is this balanced? The information needs to be put back here, instead of elsewhere. I am going to restore it back where it belongs.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

On the information that was moved from Trayvon Martin's biography, some of it has been recently added. It isn't all from the beginning of the article. I did take out the "Miami Florida area" because I combined a sentence. And I'm surprised that you would oppose taking his suspension out of his biography, since the biography should just include major facts about someone. And Zimmerman's would be longer since he is older. It isn't all "glowing" about him, too, because it does include mention that his height and weight came from being detained by police. Since someone else created a subheading about Martin staying temporarily in Sanford and mentioning the suspensions, it seemed best to move all the information about it there. Psalm84 (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin's bio and Zimmerman's bio has been there since the beginning of this article, sorry if I wasn't clear enough. It seems kind of counter productive to include it and then remove it without any kind of discussion. I restored it because a consensus was reached to include it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone else created the subheading about Martin living temporarily in Sanford and mentioned the suspension there, so I thought I'd move the rest of the information on the suspension into that section. After moving the information about the neigbhorhood watch from the People section to the Background section, I didn't think this would cause a problem. Maybe I should have explained my specific reason that I had a concern that IMO it would be fairer not to mention Martin's suspension in his bio, and since there is another option it seems to me better there. I only mentioned in the edit summary that I moved it so that it wouldn't be included twice in the article, so I also should have mentioned it there too so that my reasons were clear. Sorry that I wasn't clear on that. Psalm84 (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - (withdrawn) - Zimmerman's bond revocation

Change: "In one, Zimmerman was charged with a felony for shoving an undercover police officer in a bar." to include this information: "In one, Zimmerman was charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. Agent Paul Fleishman wrote that Zimmerman walked up to a pal under arrest and began chatting, refusing to leave. Zimmerman cursed him, Fleishman wrote, before pushing him and causing a “short struggle.”" Reasons: 1. Z was charged with more than one felony. 2. The event entailed more than just a shove. 3. Better sourcing. -- I am not good at writing things in the body of a wiki article and don't know how to create a citation, so, if the request is approved, someone else will need to write it. •See my comments below that include leaving out the prior details as was done with Minor4th's edit as an alternative solution to this edit request.ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)22:59, ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO none of this should be in the article for the same reasons information about Trayvon's suspensions and past allegations against him should be in the article. The only thing about Z's past interactions with the law is what Judge Lester quoted in his ruling. That's already in the article.Minor4th 02:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

With the quote from Lester mentioning the incidents, though, it seems the article has to explain what he's referring to. Psalm84 (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Those changes could go in there. If so, it should probably also be mentioned that the charges were reduced, I believe I read, to misdemeanors and that Zimmerman disputed what the officer said. Psalm84 (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think it needs to be explained any further what he is referring to. They seemed to be of very little importance to the judge. He mentioned them vaguely and essentially dismissed them as having little relevance to Z's bond, citing his "disrespect for the law" as the reason for revocation. Aside from that, it creates a very disproportionate section for the bond revocation within the "Pre-trial" sub category. The bond revocation should not be given such great weight in this section, and the additional information about Z's past does not fit well within pre-trial court proceedings. I also do not think the bond revocation should have its own heading. It's no more important than him being granted bail in the first place or the entry of his plea, for that matter. Minor4th 03:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving out the detail on the priors, just not with trivializing/minimizing them. In other words, if he had two class-three felony charges, we shouldn't say 'a felony', and if he did more than shoving then let's not just say 'shoving'. And if we say what Z said about the incident, then we should give the officer's account as well. Cheers. ArishiaNishi (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it has its own section only because it's notable, and the article's easier to follow with headings like that. If you don't think that descriptions of those incidents in Zimmerman's past should be in the article then you might want to see what other people think. If the judge's words which mention them are included, then they should be explained by WP, IMO. Maybe that part of the judge's quote could come out, if there's agreement that these incidents shouldn't be in the article. Psalm84 (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We have been down this road so many times with Zimmerman's prior arrests, that is why we never included them. I agree with ArishiaNishi that if we include them, they have to be put in the proper context of the entire incident, which includes more details to fully explain them. The only time they were mentioned that was relevant to this case, was at his bond hearing, where the prosecution brought them up in an effort to show Zimmerman had a propensity for violence. The judge didn't buy it and basically dismissed it as irrelevant as to whether Zimmerman should receive a bond. I think all mention of his prior arrests should be excluded, and Martin's suspensions should be excluded as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. One thing is for certain--this information won't be admissable at trial. Apostle12 (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to wait and see about that. There is a way it can get in.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I added the material that explained what the judge was talking about it. It seemed that it was needed since the incidents were mentioned in the quote. That's what I have a question about it, if it needs to be there if the quote stays the way it is. Psalm84 (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably okay. Did change the wording to say simply that Zimmerman "was charged after shoving an undercover police officer in a bar." Although he was originally charged with two felonies, this was probably overcharging, evidenced by the fact that the charges were reduced to misdemeanors and then dismissed. It's too complex to go into the sort of detail that would be required to cover all the bases, so this is a way to mention what happened without exaggerating the severity of the incident. Apostle12 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In most jurisdictions, including Florida, anytime you lay hands on a law-enforcement officer, it is an automatic felony, so it wasn't a case of overcharging, the officer went by the statute.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Is this applicable even in undercover situations? I have a relative who sometimes works undercover, and I know he has to put up with a lot to avoid blowing his cover. Are you okay with the way this section now reads?Apostle12 (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, undercover officers are still law enforcement. Florida also has expanded it to include firefighters, EMT's, public transit employees and a slew of other government workers. But the discretion to arrest or not, is still left to the officer. I did notice though they do include a misdemeanor assault charge as well in their statutes. I'm OK with the section for now.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well done on the edit. I think this is an improvement. I'll strike my edit request. Thanks for taking time to think this over guys. Cheers ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ArishiaNishi. Just found it necessary to reinstate the section after editor Minor4th removed it. Since Judge Lester referred to specific events in Zimmerman's past in his revocation of bond statement, I think we arrived at a good compromise. I object to its wholesale removal and hope that doesn't happen again without achieving consensus here. There is a difference "bold" and "heavy handed." Apostle12 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this might be a little awkward, but, for clarification, it was Minor4th's edit that I was referring to in my previous post. I should have referenced that. My apologies for the confusion. ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, I misunderstood. Of course I disagree with Minor4th's edit. I think the bond revokation deserves its own section, and some explanation of Zimmerman's "crime" is necessary because otherwise readers will not know what Judge Lester is referring to. A less significant objection is the combination in the same paragraph of the bond hearing info and unrelated happenings.Apostle12 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

2nd round of discovery

Here's a list of the State's 2nd redacted supplemental discovery. It's just a list, not the actual discovery. [21] -- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for improving Pre-trial section

Earlier I had made a pretty bold edit, removing the details about Zimmerman's previous diversion and injunction and removing the heading for the bond revocation. My edits have been reverted with a request to discuss this on the talk page. I understand the request for caution. It was stated that a number of editors had discussed it and agreed to leave the information in but I see no such consensus in this discussion.

Here's my proposal to improve the article:

1) More sub headings under "Pre-trial" allows more detail There should not be a separate heading for bond revocation because it gives too much weight to that one pre trial event. I agree that the bond revocation is more notable than some of the other smaller motions, but no so much that it deserves it's own heading. Plus, this may change again on June 29. As a sort of compromise and keeping in mind that the pre-trial section is going to grow a great deal and become difficult to read, how about we group the pre-trial events into related categories. There could be a "Bond" sub category that recites the initial bond and subsequent revocation and whatever happens at the later bond hearing. There could be another section for motions from the media, another section related to discovery etc. I have not looked so closely that I can come up with definite categories off the top of my head, but you get the idea. In this manner, as other pre-trial events take place, we can add them to their sub section, and the Pre-trial section remains well organized and readable.

2) Add sub headings to "discovery evidence" Since there has now been a second set of discovery released, perhaps we should think about dividing up the discovery section as well with subcategories, e.g. 1st set of discovery, 2nd set of discovery, autopsy records, medical records, etc. This would make this section more readable, and the reader could easily find what he's looking for without having to read every sentence of a huge subsection.

3) Zimmerman's past Regarding the detailed explanation of Z's past, if other editors think it belongs in the article, no problem, but I don't think it fits so well in the pre-trial section unless we expand Pre-trial into more subcategories. Under a global "Bond" subheading, we could go into more detail about what the judge considered at the first bond hearing, which included Z's past brushes with the law. Then the subsequent ruling referring back to those incidents would have context.

Please weigh in. Minor4th 00:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

On having subheadings like "Bond" and "Discovery," that makes sense since there's a lot to this case. Psalm84 (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with there being a sub-section for his revocation. It was a major setback for Zimmerman, and the judge did issue an awful harsh ruling on the matter. Additionally, when he has a hearing on the 29th, it could easily be added here as well.

• What I do have an issue with is Trayvon Martin's bio being stripped bare. What is up with that? There are 3 sentences left. Meanwhile, George Zimmerman has a glowing 3 paragraphs. Is this balanced? The information needs to be put back here, instead of elsewhere. I am going to restore it back where it belongs.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I restored the information to the background section, and I'll comment on this in the Possible Changes section here because it is off-topic for it to be discussed here. Psalm84 (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, and please do not remove his bio information again. It has been here since the beginning of this article. If you want to include it elsewhere, that is fine, but a paltry couple of sentences for Trayvon Martin's bio is not balanced or fair, whereas Zimmerman has a complete three paragraph bio.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't move it just to move it. I actually thought it would be a lot fairer to Trayvon Martin to take the suspension out of his life biography since there's another section now on background to the shooting, and someone started to mention it there. Psalm84 (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I also want to add, that like I said, I didn't move that information to disrespect anyone else's work, or to deliberately shorten Martin's biography. As I mentioned in my comment in another section, Martin's bio is just shorter because he was 17. And IMO, the suspension is negative and may remind people of other negative things that have been reported about him, so it's more fairly placed in a "background" section. It had sincerely bothered me before that the suspension was in his bio, since Zimmerman's didn't really contain anything that negative. Psalm84 (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Psalm84 is right that the details about the suspension should only be included once in the article. I personally think it belongs better in the Bio because it is not necessary to explain the details of the suspension to describe why he was staying with his father and not in school. Having said that, Isaidnoway, you are edit warring again and violating the 1RR on this page: See here [22] and here [23]. Please discontinue this practice, as you have been warned repeatedly. Also, please do not issue commands in all caps in edit summaries or in hidden text within the article. This is a collaborative project, and you do not own this article. Regarding Martin's other suspensions, if it is information that is notable and reported in reliable secondary sources, then there's nothing wrong with including it as a brief mention in the bio, especially since we are now going into details about Zimmerman's past that have nothing to do with the case, as well as Zimmerman's wife's arrest. If we leave Martin's bio completely untarnished, despite wide reporting of the suspensions, then it leaves the article improperly weighted against Zimmerman. Minor4th 05:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with his suspension being in his bio or the article whatsoever. What I do have a problem with is editor's scalping his bio down to a mere three sentences, while leaving Zimmerman's bio at three paragraphs. Yesterday it was four paragraphs. The reason for Martin's bio being short isn't because he is 17. It is because over time, editor's have removed it piece by piece, while adding irrelevant information to Zimmerman's bio. At one time, Martin had three paragraphs about his life in his bio as well. If there is going to be a major change made to one of the major actor's in this article, like removing his bio, I think it ought to be discussed first. Don't you? It didn't seem to "sincerely bother" Psalm84 a couple of weeks ago, when he was the very first one to !vote to include his suspension.

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) 5:58 pm, 28 May 2012, Monday (18 days ago) (UTC−5) 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)

If Psalm84 has changed his mind, I'm fine with that, I have changed my mind about several things editing this article as time has passed as well. I politely asked the first time not to remove his bio and then, yes I resorted to shouting, after it was done again. I apologize for that and edit warring.

I have never claimed to own this article or any other article on WP and I really don't appreciate the insinuation. I have also never included any hidden text in the article, if you are referring to the comment about Martin's other suspensions. That has been in this article for a long, long time and was placed there by someone other by me, and I don't appreciate that insinuation either. So, if you could be so kind as to strike that false accusation, and refrain from assuming and accusing me of edits that do not belong to me and ownership of articles which I have never claimed to own and will never claim to own, I would appreciate it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for attributing that to you erroneously. That was a careless mistake on my part. Minor4th 06:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

One question I wanted to ask you, Minor4th, is about the Michael M. Krop High School in the Background section. I was wondering why you object to it having a wikilink. Psalm84 (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont object to it. If I deleted the wikilink, it was an oversight when I was making another edit (probably by copying and pasting a prior version that did not have the wikilink). Minor4th 14:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I didn't think of that. It just didn't make sense. Thanks for restoring it. Psalm84 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I've looked back on some old versions of this article. Some of them mentioned things like Martin's interests, and they've been out of the article for some time. I know I didn't see any versions like that. It seems like that sort of information might have been removed because the same sorts of things weren't also in Zimmerman's bio. But I didn't remove any of it so I don't know. Now the article contains just the most basic biographical information for both Martin and Zimmerman. And IMO one reason why Martin's bio is shorter is because of his age. And another reason, too, is because some of the information on Zimmerman, like his racial make-up, is related to the accusations against him. And I was bothered by the mention of Martin's suspensions in his bio. Where it would go wasn't discussed when it was being discussed whether or not the suspension should be in the article. Psalm84 (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I see;

(1) Zimmerman's place of birth is mentioned, Martin's place of birth isn't. So, it's basic biographical information to include Zimmerman's place of birth, but it's not basic bio info for Martin? (2) Zimmerman's fathers occupation is mentioned, neither of Martin's parents occupations are mentioned. Basis bio info for Zimmerman, but not for Martin? (3) Zimmerman was raised a Catholic and his father was Baptist. No mention of Martin's or his parents religion. Basic bio for Zimmerman, but not Martin? (4) Zimmerman's a registered Democrat?? (5) His goal was to become a police officer, but no mention of Martin's goals. Basic bio info for Zimmerman, but not Martin. (6) Zimmerman's racial make up included because of accusations against him. Martin's race not mentioned even though it has been widely and repeatedly reported he was allegedly profiled because of his race. So, it would seem that even though Martin was only 17, this very same "basic biographical information" could be included for him as well or is this kind of basic bio info exclusively reserved for Zimmerman's bio? I realize that you didn't write any of their bio's, but do you see my point? Even though he was only 17, his bio information shouldn't be minimized.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I do see your point. Some of those things about Martin maybe should be added. From looking back a little, things like his parents' professions and that he wanted to be an aviation mechanic were in there. I didn't see the reasons why they were taken out, though. Some of that information about Zimmerman isn't entirely basic bio information, either. His father being a magistrate has been brought up a lot. And if Zimmerman had been born in Florida, too, maybe where he was born wouldn't be mentioned. It probably doesn't need to be in there, but a few things reported about him in the news have had to do with Virginia, so it may make more sense to have it in there. But like I said, it still does seem like more could be said about Martin, too. Psalm84 (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me there is a lot going on under the surface here:

-Martin's race isn't mentioned because everyone knows he was black. And everyone has seen his parents, both of whom are black. Probably their racial background is more complicated than that, at least as complex as Zimmerman's family background, however in terms of self-identity...hey, Martin came from a black family and he self-identified as black.

-Even a little research yields some facts about the high schools Martin attended, and it is obvious that Martin's first high school was rough (okay, a "ghetto school") where young black boys have to act tough to survive. Guns were commonplace, and straight-up, good-student behavior was not admired. Young black boys in these environments learn swagger and street smarts--by age 14 most start getting "jumped" and are forced into at least the beginnings of gang affiliation.

-None of this means Martin was a bad kid who had shifted over to a life of crime, nor does it mean he deserved what turned out to be his fate. But, is it likely Martin had learned that the best defense is a good offense?...I would bet on it! The situation escalated out of control, and I don't pretend to know what the escalation looked like, or who threw the first punch, or what exactly happened during the minutes after Zimmerman ended his call to the police dispatcher.

-We aren't going to engage in this sort of speculation in the article. But it is ridiculous to pretend these issues don't exist and that they don't apply to this situation. In my opinion, the young black men who made a habit of breaking into the homes at The Retreat at Twim Lakes (and it was, by all accounts, only young black men) set Martin up--he was probably unaware how he might be perceived in such an environment, especially if he appeared to be casing the homes to see which ones might offer easy pickings.

-If we continue to ignore the obvious, we will not as a nation be able to deal with the fallout from this case. In every city in America, petty theft and quasi-criminality (leading often to real criminality) is a cultural norm among young black men. Among young black men, this sort of activity is romanticized, much as hunting is romanticized in rural white America.

-Okay, I know I'm off topic, and I'm done. I just get sick of everyone dancing around this crap when most of us have a pretty good idea how things work. Apostle12 (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know any of that about his high school or the environment where he grew up. In fact, I know very little about Trayvon because it has almost become taboo to mention anything about him unless it is positive. No doubt he had many positive qualities, but he surely had some that were not as flattering too. (Just like Zimmerman). In an article about his shooting death, it's my opinion that there should be as much information about him as possible, especially if we're going to have a bio heading for him. This is a very detailed and lengthy article, and it seems rather absurd that there is not more information about the main subject. Minor4th 14:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You do realize there is a counter-point to every point you make, right? I won't even bother, as this is not a forum for discussion about Zimmerman or Martin and the complexities surrounding this incident. What needs to be decided is whether or not to include more or less bio info for these two based on what RS have reported, and is it relevant to this article. Aproximately two weeks ago, a consensus was reached by seven editors to include Martin's suspension and the reason for the suspension in this article. It was inserted into his bio. Now, an editor wants to move that info elsewhere, leaving Martin's bio stripped down to basically a couple of sentences, while Zimmerman's bio is three paragraphs long. Is this acceptable? Should they both have equal space in their bios? Is Zimmerman's bio more important than Martins? What, if any info should be added or removed to improve their respective bios? -- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Right - not a forum for discussion about Zimmerman or Martin, just wanted introduce a bit of reality check. The only sense in which a discussion of some of the above-mentioned points might be relevant is that the affidavit of probable cause specifically accuses Zimmerman of "profiling." When we have Fernando Mateo, president of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers, coming out in favor of racial profiling, saying quite accurately that "the God's honest truth is that 99 percent of the people that are robbing, stealing, killing these drivers are blacks and Hispanics," and he is Hispanic with a black father, I would submit that we are long overdue for such discussions and the inclusion in the article of issues related to racial profiling could be justified.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/taxi_big_fair_to_profile_0QVhd88HvjGJbruypDUj2L#ixzz1xyXu8Ox8

I would favor expansion of Martin's bio. The problem with expanding his bio is that some of it, if it is honest, may reflect negatively on him and/or his family. Nevertheless, if our aim is to inform and elicit some understanding of who Martin was, we can't avoid it.

One of my main hopes, not likely to be addressed, is that the racial/ethnic issue might be clarified. Both young men, for example, could be considered "people of color," so the whole white/black thing is a bit absurd. We have a detailed discussion of Zimmerman's lineage - what about Martin's?

Zimmerman's father's profession as a retired magistrate was allowed into the article because some people suspect that his professional connections allowed him to pull strings in order to gain protection for his son. I would favor inclusion of information regarding profession, education, employment, etc. of Martin's parents to match the Zimmerman information. Such information allows readers to discern the background of these two young men. But what if some of this information makes them look less established or reliable - in or out?

I have gone along with the choice to eliminate information regarding Martin's previous suspensions from school, however the information that he was found with a large screwdriver and a collection of women's jewelry is certainly suspicious and raises the possibility that he might have engaged in thievery. In or out?

Martin's first high school was a rough place, although he transferred and his most recent high school was better. In or out?

What about Martin's "gangsta" poses, published on Twitter, specifically calling for violent reprisal with a firearm. In or out?

One thing I do not favor is splitting of Martin's biographical information by including some of it under the heading "Background to the shooting - Martin's temporary residence in Sanford." This information should move back to his bio, especially since it appears quite early in the article.Apostle12 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's splitting Martin's biographical information to put the suspension in the "Background to the Shooting" section, but I wish that when I moved the information about the neighborhood watch to that section I'd explained why IMO it improved the article to do that because the reasons are the same for Martin's suspension. Some of this information about Zimmerman and Martin may only be included in their biographies because of the shooting, and what it means to the case is disputed. Even in Zimmerman's case, the fact that he had a gun and was in the neighborhood watch seems to be given a lot more importance to his biography than it would have if the shooting hadn't happened. That's why to me it seemed better to move information like that out of their biographies. Psalm84 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The other categories in "Background to the Shooting" seem fine to me. Zimmerman's "right to carry" permit, for example, helps clarify that his being armed did not originate with neighborhood watch. I don't see a similar need for the Martin information; it could just as easily remain in his bio.Apostle12 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I still have to go with having the suspension in the "Background" section. It seems more NPOV not to have it in his bio. I am sorry, though, that I didn't start a discussion about it being in his bio right when it was put in the article. The negative information about Zimmerman isn't in his bio or even the background section, but further down in the article. Psalm84 (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If the only reason Zimmerman's fathers occupation is in this article is because "some" people suspect something that is not verifiable by a RS, it's pure speculation and should be removed.-out

Did Zimmerman find Martin with a screwdriver and jewelry? Irrelevant as to why Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.-out

Are social media sites like Twitter a RS?-out -- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah...such a consistently imperious tone. How unfortunate! Apostle12 (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

More like let's look at the facts of the case tone, rather than engaging in speculation, rumor and innuendo which doesn't belong in this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's father's occupation being in there may make sense. There's been a lot of talk that his father was a judge, when he was actually only a magistrate. The article doesn't mention that false idea, but some people might see that there's a difference. Psalm84 (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean here, Psalm84. Could you please explain a bit? Apostle12 (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that the article doesn't talk about false information much, like that Zimmerman's father wasn't actually a judge. However, if it mentions that he was a magistrate some people who think he was a judge might realize there's a difference, or click on the link and read what a magistrate is. Psalm84 (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. Apostle12 (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Using the word "allegedly"

I just wanted to mention something about why I removed it. I had it in the paragraph describing Zimmerman having a gun and leaving his car on the night of the shooting, and that he was criticized for "allegedly" violating neighbhorhood watch rules by doing so. The reason I removed it is that I was concerned that "allegedly" tends to suggest being accused of doing something illegal and it could create some confusion. I also thought the word wasn't quite necessary because Zimmerman didn't follow N.W. rules in having a weapon and leaving his vehicle, even though he might reasonably believe he needed to follow Martin. To avoid any confusion, I'd like to change the wording of the sentence so that "allegedly" isn't necessary. Psalm84 (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the phrase about neighborhood watch rules could be removed so it just says that Zimmerman was criticized for having a gun and leaving his vehicle to follow Martin. Psalm84 (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One issue at a time. The first issue is whether Zimmerman "observed from a safe distance." If you will recall, he was on the phone with the dispatcher and, from his perspective, Martin disappeared. ("He ran.") The dispatcher asked Zimmerman to tell him if Martin did "anything else." (Contrary to the false assertion in the prosecution's affidavit, the dispatcher did not at that point tell Zimmerman to wait for the police to arrive.) Zimmerman may have felt that he could get out of his vehicle and try to ascertain Martin's whereabouts while still observing from a safe distance. After all, he could just as easily have been on foot from the beginning. Only after Zimmerman left his vehicle and embarked on his mission to locate Martin did the dispatcher forward his mild suggestion, "We don't need you to do that," to which Zimmerman replied "Okay." If Zimmerman is telling the truth, which at this point we don't know, Martin came upon him suddenly and confronted him while he was returning to his vehicle.

The second issue has to do with Zimmerman carrying a weapon. According to his father, he was not going out specifically to do neighborhood watch on the evening of February 26. He had become accustomed to carrying a weapon since obtaining his concealed carry permit some 15 months earlier. We don't know whether or not he routinely carried his weapon while doing neighhborhood watch. While people who do neighborhood watch are not encouraged to carry defensive weapons (cans of pepper spray, tasers, knives, guns), neither are they prohibited from doing so if they can do so legally.

Your suggestion could work (will have to take a peek), since it helps us avoid these issues. The fact is Zimmerman was criticized for leaving his vehicle and carrying a weapon.

As an aside, I know one thing for sure: If I were doing neighborhood watch in a subdivision where there had been burglaries, thefts, multiple break-ins and a shooting, I would carry a defensive weapon if I could do so legally. One thing I have been curious about: Have the young black men who were so thoughtlessly victimizing those who live in The Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood stayed away since the shooting? Have they stopped their pattern of criminal behavior? Apostle12 (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Went ahead and edited the sentence. I think it works. Apostle12 (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it works too. Some RS did say he violated the NW rules, and that could be mentioned along with the police comments that he wasn't breaking the law, but it still might create some confusion. I do understand the points you made about Zimmerman's actions, and they're definite possibilities. Maybe when his accounts are released things will become clearer. Psalm84 (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, more clarity would certainly be appreciated. I especially hope that a higher level of clarity is possible before this case goes before a jury; I don't envy them, since any jury ruling will cause one faction or another to demonize them. Apostle12 (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, the source cited does not support the first sentence. The only thing remotely close is; The recent shooting raised troubling questions about whether the homeowners association knew its volunteer was armed with a Kel Tek 9mm semiautomatic handgun. Maybe you accidentally removed a source during editing? Just thought I'd give you a friendly heads up before someone comes along and removes it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is more, even in the article you cited. And other sources within the same paragraph support it. I think such a non-controversial statement can stand on the body of sourcing established throughout the article, as it must have before; I didn't remove anything. Nevertheless I did add two specific sources. Many more are available. Apostle12 (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in the original source cited to support that sentence the only reference to Martin's family was in this paragraph; "But the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin left the boy’s family and attorneys convinced that the volunteer developed a twisted sense of entitlement, one that gave him a false sense of authority to enforce the rule of law in his tiny gated community. Trayvon’s family’s attorneys believe that led to racial profiling and murder." But thanks for adding specific sources, as unsourced material may be removed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin's three suspensions

I added a mild mention of Martin's three suspensions yesterday, and today editor Isaidnoway deleted it with the rhetorical question, "What difference does it make if it was 3 suspensions or 100; he was there because of 1."

What I added was the simple phrase "his third during the preceeding months," so that the complete sentence in Martin's bio read "At the time of the shooting, he was serving a ten-day suspension from high school, his third during the preceeding months." This addition was, of course, accurate and well-sourced.

In answer to Isaidnoway's query, I believe three suspensions from school during the recent past does make a difference. His last suspension from school was not an isolated event, rather Martin demonstrated a recent pattern of minor scrapes with authority, not unlike Zimmerman's minor scrapes with authority. Since the article mentions Zimmerman's scrapes with authority (necessary, I believe, because Judge Lester referred to them), I think it is appropriate to mention Martin's. This goes to the issue of whether or not Martin might have been disposed to confront Zimmerman, as Zimmerman claims. I do not believe it is necessary to go into more detail; any reader who wants more detail can reference the sources. Apostle12 (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference what you believe or what Martin "might" have been disposed to do. That's only your theory, which is not allowed in this article. Find a RS specifically stating that his three suspensions were directly related to what happened that night, and then come back and discuss it further.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have built no "theory" about this case, and I have arrived at no conclusions; frankly I don't know what to believe, and even if I did believe something specific, you are correct that it wouldn't matter. I am only stating (here in Talk, not in the article) why I think mention of Martin's past might best be included. There has been lots of discussion about Martin's suspensions, including specifics about the events leading up to the suspensions, in reliable sources like this one http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html. And this: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Trayvon-Martin-Suspended-From-School-Three-Times-Report-144403305.html Apostle12 (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My question still remains the same; Are there RS specifically stating that his three suspensions were directly related to what happened that night? The rationale behind the decision to include the "one" suspension was to explain why he was in Sanford. I don't see a legitimate rationale to include mention of the other two.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your question and your demand for sourcing. However it seems to me you are setting the standard of relevance artificially high. There is considerable discussion of Martin's suspensions because many people do consider them relevant, despite statements to the contrary by the Martins' attorneys.Apostle12 (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not demanding anything, I just asked a simple question. Discussion like this is meant to find ways that will improve this article. I don't think that adding two irrelevant school suspensions is an improvement.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

We disagree. It is the fact that there were three suspensions during the months leading up to the altercation and shooting that I find notable, and therefore relevant, not the specifics of the suspensions themselves. You want me to find a source that says, "Martin's three suspensions were notable and relevant" - right? You seem to pose a question, however it doesn't come across that way. I'll be happy to call it something other than a "demand" if you wish, but "a simple question" - no. Apostle12 (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of adding them? I think there should be a legitimate reason for adding them. Just the mere fact that a high school student had some suspensions doesn't seem notable to me, unless it is somehow connected to the shooting. I also don't think it is unreasonable to ask that we use a RS stating they are "notable and relevant" to the shooting.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The suspensions have no relevance to the shooting that I can see, even as to addressing why Martin was in the area at the time. Why was Zimmerman living in the area at the time? Who cares, right? They both had the right to be there at the time of the shooting. What did come into play is the fact that they didn't recognize each other, sadly. I think it is reasonable to ask that an editor show multiple RSs that support the argument that the suspension(s) is directly relevant to the shooting event and why, prior to adding that info to the main page, given the voluminous prior discussions on this matter. On a side note: There is some judicial language that comes to mind - along the lines of "more prejudicial than probative" that might guide us here as a general principle, as well. (sorry, not a lawyer, but I think it's a test for whether or not something is admissible evidence) -out. ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the information about Zimmerman's legal problems has been added, I think it's fair to add mention of the three suspensions. If that part would be taken out from the judge's quote on revoking Zimmerman's bond, then they could stay out. Being balanced here seems important because what happened still isn't clear, and negative information on both has been reported in RS. Psalm84 (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Fair" to what or whom? That is not what "balanced" means here. We don't add one "negative" to one "side" every time we add a negative to the other, and the same for "positives". If we followed that pattern, we'd have to remove the fact that Zimmerman shot Martin, because Martin never shot anyone, and it's not fair to be un-balanced.. Tvoz/talk 21:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"If we followed that pattern, we'd have to remove the fact that Zimmerman shot Martin, because Martin never shot anyone, and it's not fair to be un-balanced.."

That isn't the case, though, because self-defense is a reasonable argument here and it's accepted by readers that Zimmerman might have shot Martin for that reason. Shooting Marting out of self-defense wouldn't be negative then. If the forensic investigation had shown that he lied and that he'd shot Martin from a distance, then it would be a different matter. And Martin did lose Zimmerman for at least 2 minutes but didn't go home. He was still in the area of Zimmerman's truck 5 minutes after he ran and Zimmerman left his truck to follow him. So what happened and who was legally right isn't clear, unlike many cases that get a lot of attention. The article does need to be balanced, then.Psalm84 (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; the facts of the case - "what happened and who was legally right," to borrow your language - are far from clear. I think the facts of Zimmerman's past (which are included in the article) and the facts of Martin's past (which have been excluded) affect public perception of the possibilities with respect to both individuals. To the extent that fair exposition of the facts regarding both Zimmerman's and Martin's past serves to open people's minds, rather than to prejudice them, I think balanced full disclosure is a good thing. Apostle12 (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember that all of BLP applies to Martin as well as Zimmerman. ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Right they should be treated just the same. So if we are going to include information about Zimmerman's past, Martin's past should also be included. Apostle12 (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Non sequitur. If Z then M is not the sum of the criteria spelled out in BLP. Perhaps we are speaking different 'languages'. As we don't seem to be making progress, I'll end my part here. Cheers. ArishiaNishi (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to include information about Martin's or Zimmerman's past, it should be relevant to this article, so far it hasn't been proven that Martin's suspensions from a high school some 400 miles away is relevant to this article. If you feel so strongly about Zimmerman's past being included and you don't think it should be, then remove it. I don't see anyone jumping up and down demanding that it be included. I don't object to it being removed, the judge brushed it off at the bond hearing and the prosecution didn't include it in their motion to revoke bond as it is irrelevant to that issue. The judge seemed to be more pissed about being allegedly misled about their finances than his prior arrests. Considering the issue is a bond revocation hearing, it would seem more appropriate to include comments from the judge that are related to the specific issue of being allegedly misled, which he made plenty. If you remove that particular quote presently in the article from the judge, then the paragraph about his prior arrest falls along with it. It's something to consider, isn't it?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Only one suspension is relevant, the one leading to Martin living at his dad's house. The attempt to make the others seem relevant is not based on anything that the court says is important. The other suspensions are part of Martin getting negative press. The previous suspensions will only be mentioned in this article if they become relevant to the arguments made in court. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Really folks, don't put the three in now because we are not trying this case on wikipedia. Of course, it will come up in the trial eventually, so for you folks who want it in there, just wait. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The ten day suspension may get in, but the other two will not come up at the trial. There is no probative value in it.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this case is that it's unusual in a lot of ways and it is being tried in the media. Psalm84 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

To some extent all cases are tried in the media, since the American tradition of open trials, with full media coverage, is designed to provide public oversight of the judicial system. I think the public deserves to know all the facts surrounding this case, especially all the facts regarding Zimmerman's background and Martin's background. Full disclosure in the public realm, especially here at Wikipedia, may be even more important than full disclosure during the actual trial, where some information will be excluded as prejudicial. The jury verdict could go either way, and public peace will depend on a critical mass of the American public being duly informed as to the possibilities--the possibility that Zimmerman attacked Martin, or the possibility that Martin attacked Zimmerman. So far nothing clearly identifies either individual as an innocent or a villain, and the split in public perception along racial lines makes the case incendiary. The jury will likely have a tough time deciding, and we would do well to understand and respect the difficulties they will face.Apostle12 (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

All cases are tried in the media to some extent, as you said. But in this case, the media took a side when what happened wasn't clear. They really haven't followed the evidence. It is hard to know what information should be included here, and it is more difficult due to the media's treatment of the case. Sometimes, like in the case of Martin's third suspension, WP could help to keep things impartial. The info used to mention that his family said it was irrelevant. Balance like that can help. Psalm84 (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a tough issue to resolve and I would only suggest that we wait until a reliable source makes a specific connection for the first two suspensions to what happened on the night of the shooting or the aftermath. For example, it may come if during future court proceedings a connection is made to Martin's behavior on the night of the shooting, or why his father brought him to Sanford, etc. Suggest waiting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Jail audio files

Kennvido, we can't put direct links to the audio files in the article. They must be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons first. See WP:CMF, The audio files have to be converted to the .ogg format. When uploading the files, you also have to address issues like if they are available for free use or are they copyrighted. Here is a link to the upload page; [24] If a RS is discussing what is on the audio files, like the paragraph still in the article, then that is fine.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph - Al Sharpton remark

Speaking on the day of the Zimmerman arrest, Al Sharpton said, "Forty-five days ago, Trayvon Martin was murdered. No arrest was made. The Chief of Police in Sanford announced after his review of the evidence there would be no arrest. An outcry from all over this country came."

I removed this quote and put it here because of Sharpton saying that Martin was murdered, which doesn't seem like something WP should repeat just as it is. Maybe it could be changed to be acceptable, though. Psalm84 (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I would support leaving it out altogether, as it is inflammatory. I don't think we should change the text of a direct quote though to something we deem acceptable. Sharpton is entitled to his opinion whether we like it or not, but we also have the option to not include it, which in this case, I think is the right thing to do.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is inflammatory, however it is also notable and it represents the dominant point of view among American blacks regarding Martin's killing. One of the reasons I added the quote from Shelby Steele is because his term "ambulance chasers" so pointedly references Sharpton and, to a lesser extent, Jesse Jackson. I think Sharpton's statement needs to stay in the article; I believe it is wrong to try to sanitize the reality surrounding Martin's killing. Apostle12 (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that you added it back in. Maybe I wasn't clear enough about what there could be a problem with, but it seems that it could be libelous. He's saying that Zimmerman murdered Martin, which Zimmerman is only accused of. Putting that quote in there could make it seem like WP supports his view. Psalm84 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought it needed to be taken out because he says Martin was murdered, which of course hasn't been legally proven. In a sense it's his opinion, but it could be taken as fact or as a position of WP since there's no context, and it probably will be by some readers. Psalm84 (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Was trying to explain when I encountered an edit conflict.

It is clearly a direct quote, and the fact that Sharpton presumes Zimmerman's guilt, rather than his innocence, is precisely what makes Sharpton's "murder" statement so outrageous. I see no danger that his unproven allegation could be mistaken for a Wikipedia position, especially since it is so typical of Sharpton, who makes a point of championing every black cause celebre victim (please see the Tawana Brawley rape hoax, Crystal Gail Mangum's false rape charges against Duke lacrosse players). What he said is quoted extensively by reliable sources; feel strongly that it must stay, so I reinstated the quote. Sharpton's statements could be considered a violation of Zimmerman's civil rights, however there is zero chance that Holder will pursue it; he has demonstrated that he doesn't care a whit about the civil rights of non-black Americans. Apostle12 (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)