Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A
— Assignment last updated by Zariagibson (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2023
To change the spelling mistake of "inured" instead of "injured". Incessant worthlessness (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  General Ization Talk  04:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This Wikipedia story incorrectly describes the events under which an adult killed a child.
This Wikipedia story incorrectly describes the events under which an adult killed a child. Zimmerman did not kill Martin is self defense. Under Florida law, Martin was allowed to stand his ground against an armed adult who was stalking him. Martin was killed while attempting to defend himself. Zimmerman did not shoot Martin in self defense. Martin was killed by an armed adult who instigated an assault on a child. That’s not self defense. 138.88.157.54 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While you are entitled to your opinion, the jury that heard the case and acquitted Zimmerman found otherwise. All of the content in the article, including the discussion of various dissenting opinions about Zimmerman's state of mind and whether the acquittal was justified, is based on citations of published, reliable sources. We are not permitted as editors of an encyclopedia to promote your opinion to fact simply because it is your opinion.  General Ization Talk  05:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Then it should be clear in the wording that a jury found Martin acted in self defense. Not that it is a fact that he fired in self defense. "A jury found Zimmerman shot Martin in self- defense" is way different than "Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense." Even if it was added that Zimmerman maintains he shot Martin in self defense it would be much more accurate. It also maintains that Zimmerman was injured in the physical altercation, but does not mention that Martin was shot and died during said altercation which should also be added to be more fair and unbias 74.12.38.57 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you find unclear about this wording?  From a legal perspective, the finding of the jury is a finding of fact. We will not retry the case in an encyclopedia. And yes, the article makes abundantly clear that Martin died during the altercation, beginning with the first sentence:   General Ization  Talk  16:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cases like the murder of Emmett Till or the Scottsboro boys should make it clear that the finding of any Jury is not a finding of "Fact". Oftentimes the jury will make bias decisions, have important information hidden from them, be fed fake information, or choose to ignore the evidence presented to them just because. Many of these things happen entirely based on whether or not a jury, prosecution, defense, country, etc. like someone or not.
 * Martin, being a black child, was subject to all sorts of slander. Attacked and killed by someone who is both largely seen as white by his supporters and opponents, and has no problem associating with white nationalists to make money or gain internet fame. The Jury that acquitted Martin, like the one that acquitted Till's murderers, was entirely white.
 * The article's wording is fine but your justification for it ("The Jury's opinion is fact") is not fine, and anything considered using that justification should be discussed beforehand. MayDay2099 (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The jury at Z's trial was comprised of five white women and a Hispanic woman. No guilty verdict was returned so per WP:BLPCRIME, which is policy, we continue to presume Z's innocence. VQuakr (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing that to me. I read through it all.
 * We should only presume Zimmerman was found "Not Guilty" and faced no consequences for shooting Martin. Not his "Innocence". 1. The court of law does not rule "Innocent" and 2. We are smart enough to know the court of law is not infallable.
 * The undeniable fact is that Zimmerman shot Martin, resulting in Martin's death. And that, for valid and historically obvious reasons (Assuming you are American), there is intense "Discussion" on whether or not the not guilty verdict was factually correct and justified. As said earlier, Till's murderers were acquitted, but I am still able to refer to them as "Murderers" IRL because of the undeniable fact they killed him, as well as on this website due to the the undeniable fact that they admitted to it, and later analysis that basically confirmed what black americans already knew back in the 50s.
 * Like I said the wording is perfectly okay (Since it says "Zimmerman was ruled not guilty after *claiming* her defended himself" and not "Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense") but I do not agree with the justification ("The court of law + jury are omnipotent and everything they say is fact")
 * Thus I don't plan on making any changes to the page unless the original phrasing is altered to imply Zimmerman's innocence as fact, since plenty of internet users love to slander dead black people. I will also change it back if it tries to insist his legal guilt as fact, since he faced no legal consequences. We both can say he shot Martin and that many people found this to be extremely uncool.
 * And considering the isue of Zimmerman's race, who's to say that one hispanic woman was not entirely of European descent? Thus white? Hispanic in this context is a culture and in my experience it is invoked by white and black people to try and hide the fact they are white or black. MayDay2099 (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The Contradictions in Zimmerman's Story
A while back I wrote a paragraph about the contradictions in Zimmerman's description of the phone call with a police dispatcher in his recorded interview with police the day after he killed Martin. I used the video Entitled "The Killing Of Trayvon Martin" by left-leaning YouTube Shaun as the primary source, who referred to Zimmerman's claims as provable lies. In verifying that people had noticed this, I also included an article by left-leaning news organization Mother Jones who noted the inconsistency of Zimmerman claiming he fell at the first punch. My edit was removed from the page due to the fact I edited Bill Maher's page in reference to several accusations of Transphobia from 2017 to the present, and accused of POV-pushing. Only one thing that I said in the actual article was somewhat opinion based, but in my description of why I edited the page I see why it was removed. For the editors of their article, I would recommend watching Shaun's video so that the page could be properly edited by someone other than myself to include the contradictions, and if other sources considered less biased than him and Mother Jones could be cited, this would be very beneficial to highlighting context that went ignored otherwise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE84fH_Pc9c

Above is the video. JPHC2003 (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * YouTube is not a reliable source, and OR is not allowed. No objection if you can source your changes to Mother Jones, since it is listed as a reliable source in Reliable sources/Perennial sources:


 * "There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article." Dimadick (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Use of the term "murder" in the info box.
Murder refers to unlawful killing. If the jury found Zimmerman not guilty by reason of self-defense, and he maintains the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, having not been found guilty, he is therefore innocent. This means that the killing was not unlawful and therefore not murder. 2600:6C5A:F0:8600:6C08:F40A:DAD1:26A (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It should be "killing" because that is the article title
 * Ben Azura (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)