Talk:Killing of Trayvon Martin/Archive 11

Trayvon autopsy info starting to become available
Shows bloody knuckles, not much more info available yet. http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/autopsy-results-show-trayvon-martin-had-injuries-h/nN6gs/ Gaijin42 (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body: The fatal gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles."-- Isaidnoway (talk)  12:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The reports also noted the fatal wound's surrounded by a two-by-two inch pattern called stippling, caused by gunpower burns. It suggests Zimmerman fired inches away from the teenager."{CBS}[] MSNBC says Z fired from "intermediate range", shamelessly not explaining that, in this case, "intermediate range" means inches. Biased again, or merely incompetent? []  Andyvphil (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think still biased AND still incompetent is the judgement on NBC/MSNBC. Long after other sources had figured out that "intermedate range" is a term of art in forensics NBC is asserting that it is a "contradictory assessment" that Martin's sweatshirt showed a contact shot and his body a wound of intermediate range. The bias is obvious in the headline, among other things. (Z is still white, not brown.)[]
 * Media reports also seem to differ on the injury/injuries to his knuckles/knuckle. Some are reporting it as knuckles and NBC reported it as a "small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size – on his left ring finger below the knuckle."  That seems to be a huge discrepancy in the details of their reporting, is it more than one knuckle with injuries or just one knuckle. Biased reporting or incompetent? Either way, both versions of their reporting are included in the article. The NY Times is reporting on a more detailed description of police missteps (Sanford police).  -- Isaidnoway  (talk)  15:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some sources have reported bruising of knuckles plural. As to injury to the hand, the Autopsy specifically states a 1/4x1/8 inch abrasion ring finger left hand. I have no idea how much damage a punch capable of breaking a nose and blacking two eyes would do to one's fist. That is the job of an experienced policy investigator and a medical examiner. A real forensic investigation is carried out in a methodical, careful manner; cases that become media feeding frenzies can confuse the public and obstruct justice: incomplete or confused reports pile on top of each other.


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

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


 * I would favor its inclusion. I defer to those with more technical knowledge. Apostle12 (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If they were taken by the police, a public agency, the photos would not normally be copyrighted. --DeknMike (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are they even available online? I have not seen those images, particularly with the extent of injuries you describe The Sound and the Fury (talk)

Photos at CBS News, WJLA, Florida Today, IBTimes. --Pmsyyz (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Orlando Sentinel has them too: -- Isaidnoway  (talk)  15:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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


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


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

Revert of Wall Street Journal editorial
. The edit summary for reverting this referred to BLP. The Wall Street Journal, however, is an established newspaper and a reliable source. In my opinion, a more appropriate argument for not including it is UNDUE. Is there consensus here that this opinion piece is UNDUE for this article? Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to add...I know there have been hundreds of editorials written about this incident in newspapers around the US. Choosing which ones for inclusion in this article is a weighty chore.  I suggest summarizing the different themes from the different editorials, including this one from the WSJ, in a couple of paragraphs. Cla68 (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You lumped together 3 edits into that single diff, which is probably why the edit summary didn't make sense to you. The BLP concern had to do with citing Newsbusters, a partisan blog which is clearly inappropriate for BLP-sensitive material. Here's the diff with matching edit summary. I removed the Wall Street Journal not on BLP grounds per se, but because it's entirely unclear why this particular opinion piece was selected from the hundreds or thousands of reliable sources available. I did actually make that clear in the accompanying edit summary: . The bottom line, to me, is the one you're getting at: how do we choose which opinion pieces to feature? The selection process seemed a bit ideologically driven and unbalanced, so it's probably worth considering a more encyclopedic approach and perhaps summarizing opinions, as Cla68 suggests. MastCell Talk 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


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

Glaring evidentiary deficiency not reported herein wrt George Zimmerman's account of events
Recent photos of Zimmerman shortly after the shooting made by the police show no blood spatter on his front including his shirt. His account claims that Martin was directly over him when he shot him. Yet a 9mm hollow point wound in Martin's front chest would be expected to shower blood all over Zimmerman. This evidence clearly contradicts Zimmerman's account. Another report indicates that the shot was fired from more than 18 inches away. This contrary evidence and contradiction in Zimmerman's story should be noted in this wiki article. Speculation is that Zimmerman achieved standing (off the ground from a lying down position) status after Martin's struggled with him and then shot him with his 9mm as payback for the beating upon himself which he had apparently initiated. By leaving these facts out of the article it suggests that wiki authors are suspending the laws of gravity and common sense. BTW, who locked the article down from further editing? The 'holier than thou'/'superior to the rest of us' wiki editor police? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.143 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing is "locked down." If you want to edit, all you have to do is register and engage with the other editors in the process of give and take.
 * If you read the article, you will see that "intermediate range" is between 1" and 18', not "more than 18"."
 * Blood spatter is not as predictable as you might imagine.
 * I am sure, if there is a disparity here, it will be addressed at trial.
 * You seem to pretend you know what happened. Strange...none of the rest of us do.
 * Even the prosecution admits as much.
 * The tragic intersection of these two young men's lives awaits a jury verdict, likely one that will have to be decided on the basis of incomplete evidence.
 * Perhaps, if what I have written here makes even a bit of sense, you might issue an apology. NHMB (not holding my breath).
 * Apostle12 (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * This point may be brought out in the trial. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing to remember is that, since there aren't any witnesses to the actual shoothing, circumstantial evidence might be very important. Things like blood spatter and gunpowder stipling may be discussed in some detail during evidentiary testimony in the trial. Cla68 (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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

So many problems

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

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

We could balance this with reports (if any) of those who felt the police did the right thing, say, on the basis of a witness who said he saw Martin on top of the guard, trying to bash his head in.
 * Did Martin not know that the guard was armed (see concealed carry), or that he conceivably might be?
 * Was this the first time Martin ever got into a violent scuffle?

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


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


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

Re: the word "unarmed", I think he has a good point. This is how our friends at wiktionary define "unarmed": "1. defenceless and lacking weapons or armour" "2. not carrying arms". I think the OP finds that "defenceless" connotation of the word to be troubling, and I agree. It is true that Trayvon was "lacking weapons" (and armor), but given the eyewitness testimony, picture, and medical reports, I think it's hard to argue that he was "defenceless". In order to avoid this possible connotation, I would prefer that it be simply stated that "Trayvon was not carrying a weapon." Emeraldflames (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its really splitting hairs to say that it is a problem. 1) EXTREMELY widely used to describe this situation by almost all sources - no need to bowlderize/ or talk around it. 2) Extremely common LEGAL definition (unarmed vs armed robbery, unarmed spotter plane, etc). 3) all of the definitions using "defenseless" are using it directly in the context of not having weapons (referring to the castle's defenses etc). - Not a single definition is mentioning weak or in a position to not be able to defend/attack with hands - this is explicitly acknowledged by the well known phrase "unarmed combat". Un armed - without arms. Unless you are going to try and argue that the 2nd amendement says we have the right not to be forcibly amputated, you are just being pendantic for no reason. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To use a non-wiki source, American Heritage Dictionary defines un·armed this way "a. Lacking weapons or armor; defenseless". If the word is ONLY used to mean that someone is not carrying a weapon, then there would be no reason for American Heritage (and wiktionary) to add "; defenseless".  They added it because there is a connotation in some uses of the word that implies an "inability to defend oneself".


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

Race
Why does the race of Martin and Zimmerman need to be included on Wikipedia? If you look at Jeffrey Dahmer's page, race isn't included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.98.95 (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are/were allegations that race/racism played a role in Zimmerman's actions, the police investigation, and in the decision to prosecute/not prosecute Zimmerman. Emeraldflames (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and in the media's motivations for covering the case the way they have. (MS)NBC still says Z is white, not brown. Andyvphil (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jesse Anderson does mention race may have played a factor in his and JD's murder. It isn't sourced, but if it can be, it probably should be mentioned in the JD and CJS articles. That's a discussion best held there though. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * CJS? Easy to assume "JD" refers to Jeffrey Dahmer, but there is no immediate antecedent for "CJS." Why use these shorcuts at all?  Just fogs things up. Apostle12 (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * JD's murder at the hand of CJS (Christopher Scarver) may have had a racial motivation component. Andyvphil (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


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


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

Perhaps less important than telling people what race the two people are / were, we should summarize what people said about their race (or apparent) race.
 * Some people called Zimmerman a "white Hispanic"
 * Some people hinted or declared outright that they felt Zimmerman's decision to pull the trigger was racially motivated
 * At least one early media report included an audio clip in which Zimmerman mentioned Martin's race
 * Some people felt Zimmerman had volunteered the racial identification and concluded that this indicated an anti-black bias on his part
 * Some others charged the media with (deliberately?) misleading editing of the clip; arguing that Zimmerman had not volunteered Martin's race or color but described him as black only after the police dispatcher asked him for a description

A lot of this is mentioned in the article, but I'd like us to be more thorough in making sure we maintain neutrality. This is actually quite easy, because all we have to do is identify each POV and say whose viewpoint it is.
 * 1) Are there any sources who accused Zimmerman of acting out of anti-black prejudice?
 * 2) Are there any sources who charge Zimmerman's critics of pro-block prejudice (and or "using" charges of racism unfairly)?
 * 3) Have there been any sources who say Martin could not possibly have been "up to no good" because "black people aren't like that"?

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

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

It would appear here:

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

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

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

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


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


 * Zimmerman: Yeah.


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


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


 * Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?


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

Then they discuss Zimmerman's address:


 * Dispatcher: Okay do you live in the area?


 * Zimmerman: Yeah, I...[unintelligible]


 * Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?


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

Then they discuss where he'll meet police again:


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


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


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


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

Zimmerman clearly gave directions to his truck when first asked by the dispatcher where'd he meet police. And now the article clearly describes this conversation,in order.Psalm84 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That took some trouble. I guess properly presenting an original source doesn't count as original research. It would be better if there were a proper secondary reliable source we could use for such basic explication as this. But yes. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked and so far I've only found it mentioned on a couple of law blogs that aren't well-known, and an American Thinker article that says Zimmerman "asks police to meet him at his truck near the mailboxes," which isn't entirely accurate either. Psalm84 (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How is that not accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs) 15:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * His truck isn't near the mailboxes. He tries to give directions to his truck, dispatcher suggests mailboxes, GZ agrees then demurs. Not same as "asks police to meet him at his truck near the mailboxes". Andyvphil (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of sources do say that his truck wasn't near the mailboxes, which are reported to be by the clubhouse, and he himself says "past the mailboxes" and that he was parked near the cut-through. Psalm84 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but which cut-through? At the left end of the "T" [] or across the street SW []? Andyvphil (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The exact location isn't known, and it doesn't seem like the police will be able to say for sure. There's a NY Times article that says the police didn't realize that Zimmerman had driven so they didn't secure his car (link. That's something I thought should be added here too but I didn't have time to and not sure if I will immediately if someone else would like to. The article also mentions other things which don't seem to have been mentioned elsewhere, like that Zimmerman passed a voice stress analysis. Psalm84 (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the voice stress analysis was reported on briefly in early April. Hal Uhrig had just joined the defense and commented on it. The story really never gained any traction in the media reports at that time. We had a discussion on the talk page when it was reported on, but it never got included in the article. Not sure why, as several editor's supported including it at that time. I was pretty much the only one opposed to it, as it won't be admissable in the court case. Here are couple of more links to stories where it is briefly mentioned in early April. -- Isaidnoway (talk)  15:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did see the CBS News story after I saw it mentioned recently in the NY Times. It was the first I'd heard of it. I did add it to the article. Do you still oppose it, or should something else be added to explain what it means? Psalm84 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't oppose it. At the time, the discussion was about it giving credibility to his statements. I didn't think we should be implying that it gave any credibility to his statements as it was just used as an investigative tool and the test didn't make any difference as the SPD wanted him arrested for manslaughter. Apparently it didn't make any diffeence to the state attorney's office either as they still charged him. I don't think any explanation as to what it means is necessary either. I would suggest it be moved to the "Sanford Police Station" section though, that is where and when the test was administered. It's really not part of his "account of events".-- Isaidnoway (talk)  02:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't include it in the Sanford Police Station section because it seemed to be about the investigation that night, and I wasn't sure when that test was done. The source didn't say. I have found a Reuters source from April that said it was done that night, but the actual Reuters article has been taken down. Psalm84 (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Multiple Censors Launching Flaming Material and then Censoring by Deletion of Legitimate Rebuttals
Per the section above: -- Glaring evidentiary deficiency not reported herein wrt George Zimmerman's account of events -- above the following censors (whom may be sock puppets for the same clown) are active as follows:

Apostle12 with snarky response posted :Apostle12 (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC) below the main post.

My repsonses were mischaracterized (in the edit summary field) and then deleted by Apostle12. Apparently Apostle12 doesn't know how to read the edit history log either to see who posted what. Also they can dish it out but can't take it either.

This has happened multiple times for my embedded responses to his comments.

Other responses within this same subject have also been deleted/censored and then a pontificating lecture was admiinistered by the two-faced hypocritical culprit User:JoeSperrazza "don't delete other's post"! he squealed after he had just deleted mine. Nice.

User:Lvivske and has now mischaracterized by other rebuttals as 'vandalism'.

What it looks like is that when Apostle12 got called to the carpet for his snarky remarks in my rebuttals that he launched a preemptive censorship campaign against me not only for my rebuttals against him but also other rebuttals to other snark clowns roaming at large on WP and whom also answered by original post.

Apostle12 is also being aided and abetted in censoring my responses by User:JoeSperrazza & User:Lvivske who are likely sock puppets.

I suggest that apostle12, User:JoeSperrazza, & User:Lvivske be banned for Censorship under color of being legitimate in their claims by distorting the facts (in the edit summaries).

Otherwise, WP shall remain the playground of those who have waay too much time on their hands to 'power trip' by inserting their flaming brand of BS injected into the discussion and to subsequently ban all legit rebuttals to their inanity. Apparently they can dish it out but can't take it and need to ban the rebuttal to their schtick through deletion censorship covered by some lame misrepresentation of the facts excuse.

I can see why people with legitimate points soon learn that WP is the domain of censorship trolls who have enough time on their hands to wait out their victims and restore the article to whatever slant they wish to impart. Of course, WP can prove me wrong by banning the aforementioned trolls. WP is rightly deemed to be "a non-credible source" with trolls of the likes as I've seen on this talk section for this article. The pontifiacting lectures from two-faced double standard hypocrtitical trolls posing as 'high society'-ist is also quite laughable (Are you hearing me User:JoeSperrazza - not that I care).

WP can decide the matter for me. Either ban trolls apostle12, User:JoeSperrazza & User:Lvivske OR me and I'll respond accordingly.

I also wish to thank the aforementioned self-shoe shining trolls for motivating me to communicate with actual people about issues rather than the surfers of this talk page who are no doubt still enshrined in their Mom's basements eating microwave food whilst in their underwear (I gotta real job lead now Mom - I swear!).

Now do what you do best (self-named) Apostle12 (The 12th apostle - Judas Isacariot- back stabbing rat to the biblical Jesus)...stab me in the back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.152 (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. You are also not allowed to nuke/censor other users talk page posts - as you did, with a nonsensical edit summary containing dubious claims. That was vandalism of the talk page, and that's why it was reverted. If you think I'm a 'troll' and a 'sock', well...good luck with that --Львівське (говорити) 07:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No - you are by misrepresentng what happened. As mentioned Apostle12 deleted my rebuttals including to his all seeing eye snark remark(s).  A person so attacked has a right to answer with a rebuttal.  These were censored by deletion by Apostle12.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  If IT wouldn't let my rebuttal remarks stand then his comments shouldn't be allowed to stand either.  This is only fair.  If you think not then you are merely a closet dicktactor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by  198.228.200.158   (talk • contribs)  00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "This has happened multiple times for my embedded responses to his comments." Don't do this. And sign your posts. Andyvphil (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not ? Do wish that the rebuttals are even harder to track by forcing the reader to figure out which part of the paragraph is being addressed?   How old are you anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by  198.228.200.158   (talk • contribs)  00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Do we really have to endure both vandalism and unfounded accusations from this unsigned editor? Administrative blocking, please? Apostle12 (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They are neither. Unfortunately your actions are found in the history diff files and are easily verified.  Do you hope that by theatrical posturing that no one will check your dastardly deeds done and recorded in the history/diff files?  Just how long have you been getting through life by bluffing Or hoping that nobody calls you on them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by  198.228.200.158   (talk • contribs)  00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I support blocking the guy. And deleting anything further he posts. He has provided no useful, or constructive input or information- just claims he won't substantiate and personal attacks. Emeraldflames (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well of course after I asnwered back your snarky "yapping" adjective in your hit and run post. Would an objective observer who verified your behavior in the history/diff file agree with your summary judgement here?  I doubt it.  How long have you too been getting by in life by bluffing and posturing and hoping nobody checks the facts (history/diff file here) about what you really said. :: Go ahead and wax indignant - it's quite laughable.  BTW, how old are you anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by  198.228.200.158   (talk • contribs)  00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is presently a block of a similar IP address. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent the censoring children here are fabricating lies ala the salem which trials and executing people (blocking IP's). What a fine example of dictatorial control by a pack of self-deluded liars puffing themselves up with 'mob attack behavior' using lies and false indignations.  Your (collective) moms would be proud of you (assuming you have one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by  198.228.200.158   (talk • contribs)  00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong forum for all of this, both his initial complaint, and the counter complaints. Take it to ANI/SPI if you actually want administrative action taken. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Reviewers of this article should see the bald faced slanting going on in the article wherein multpile posters (or one with many sock-puppets) is trying to steer the bias and slant in this article (by omission of verifiable information).  I don't think it's a real big deal as most of the hits to this website are hardly searches of truth readers and more likely the likes of the types seen herein - where they get to 'power trip' - kind of like online gaming but with words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  198.228.200.158   (talk • contribs)  00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Absoutely laughable. JoeSperrazza deleted mny other rebuttals comments to other posters in the same subsubject section then restored Apostle12's drool post but without my rebuttal comments.  Then he liad in the edit summary field by saying he had restored a deleted section (but without saying he deleted my other rebuttals too.)  So he is sneaky like a rat but unfortunately his dirdty deed is there for all to see in the history/diff files wherte he is summarily 'cold busted' for his crime.   He is self-deluded if he thinks a even-handed objective reviewer wouldn't go and check on what he did before making a judgement.  JoeSperrazza is like a child who provokes his sibling into a fight and then strikes and then goes running to his mama crying claiming that the sibling attacked him.  If nothing else he is an entertaining example of childlike behavior.   Maybe if he postures well (thetrically speaking) the website arbiters will just go ahead and block my ip and delete everything I've written just based soley on JoeSperrazza's word.  Wow - that's what JoeSperrazza apparently lives for - 'power tripping by blocking somebody's ip based on a pack of lies and behavior which he himself is guilty of.


 * BTW, the ips are dynamically assigned and you may be blocking hundreds or thousands of users by taking such actions. Way to Go.


 * Anyway, I'm done with what amounts to a silly and grand waste of time. About the only thing this article is good for is identifying primary source but this is also easily done using google.


 * Now go ahead children and start swarming all over this with your misrepresetations of the facts, lies, flase indignations, and impressive displays of WP procedures and so forth - so that you will look more 'official' (you think) in your dastardly deed of blocking my ip which serves hundreds or thousands of other persons who have never even visited this page. Can you say D' D' D' Dopes?


 * Go ahead and block me you morons - I'm way past due! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.158   (talk • contribs)  00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Does "Stand Your Ground" work in Trayvon Martin's Favor?
I have a question: If an unarmed person is confronted by a second party - with no uniform and no official standing, and who is holding a gun in his hand; and the unarmed person in fear of his life attacks the one with the gun, I want to know two things:

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

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


 * (1) Running won't work, as bullets are faster than you.
 * (2) The unarmed person is under no obligation to retreat. See (1). Andyvphil (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * Earlier in this talk page, someone chided me for suggesting that Martin may have known that Zimmerman was armed. So some questions that are immediately raised include:
 * At what point did Zimmerman take out his gun?
 * Was he on the ground, having his head beaten in and then takes out his concealed weapon or what?
 * In general, we are taught not to begin fighting with someone holding a gun. Only the most advanced karate or judo master would dare to do this. (Or someone who thought it's "fight back" or die. Has anyone speculated that Martin (a) attacked Zimmerman and that (b) it was because Martin thought he be killed if he didn't?


 * This article is important for two reasons:
 * We all want to know what happened
 * Many of us are interested in what other people think about it, particularly the ramifications for race relations and the fate of stand your ground (and maybe also concealed carry or shall issue laws)


 * Let's try to include all the relevant context and not sweep anything under the rug, as much as possible, and in conformance with established Wikipedia precedents. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "In general, we are taught not to begin fighting with someone holding a gun. Only the most advanced karate or judo master would dare to do this." — I remember a story someone told me about his judo instructor, a high ranked black belt. The instructor was showing the class what to do if you're confronted with someone who has a gun pointed at you. The instructor said, "First you kneel down on one knee. Then you go down on the other knee. You place one hand in front of you open and vertical. Then bring the other open hand together with it as if you are praying. Then you say, 'Please don't shoot me!' " --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

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


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

Sorry, I agreed the above is all speculation and this is not a forum. We need reliable sources. ITBlair (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Location of Zimmerman's vehicle
Cut from article:
 * They did not realize Zimmerman had been in a vehicle, however, so it was moved before they could seize it.

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

It's not just a routine detail, but it has a bearing on discussions about whether Zimmerman "should" (morally or legally) have remained in his vehicle (to avoid a confrontation). This in turn, relates to the whole can of worms about whether people are supposed to stay away from trouble and not "provoke" it and/or may proactively go out and see what's going on. (I'm neutral on this, I'm just reporting and describing.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I restored that sentence, because it does seem accurate and it is properly sourced from a New York Times article. It also explains why there has been no evidence coming out from authorities on where Zimmerman's vehicle was parked. While the 911 dispatcher knew he had a truck, it doesn't seem like the police were informed of that until later, and the officers who secured the crime scene didn't include it, according to the New York Times article. Looking at the call log, too, there's no mention in it of Zimmerman having a vehicle.Psalm84 (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * NYT is retailing Crump spin about SPD screwing up. As with the complaint about nor drug-testing GZ, it's BS. The SPD had no grounds or reason to seize GZ's truck. Andyvphil (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That could definitely be, but finding a RS that says that probably wouldn't be easy. Psalm84 (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Photos of Trayvon Martin should be replaced with Pics from 7-11 which is what he looked like shortly before death
The pictures of Trayvon Martin shown in the article do not reflect what shooter Zimmerman saw before his confrontation. Pictures from the convenience store where Trayvon Martin is seen buying things should be added to this article. The currently shown pictures are of a younger version of deceased Martin and may bias readers in their analysis of the events.
 * What is this heresy you speak?? Get with the program. Don't you know it's been agreed by all media outlets, "black leaders" and all right-minded people everywhere with Politically Correct© certification that Trayvon Martin is to at all times be portrayed as 12 years old, gunned down by a racist madman in a Klan robe? This is the ONLY approved version. I have a good mind to report you to Al Sharpton for even suggesting such a thing. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL - not Al !!!

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * propose a specific picture please with link
 * beware WP:FORUM


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

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


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


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

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

I don't think asking that you don't use a picture stolen from a dead kid by racist hackers who want to promote more hate and violence is asking for too much. What is wrong with this page that you are using such a picture and refusing to allow change or reference to the hack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huslkgc (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First, you are supposed to put your posts at the bottom of a thread and not the top. I moved them down here.  Second, as I've already stated, the sources you have provided are not reliable sources.  Finding an unreliable source on the left- and then find an even more unreliable source on the right- doesn't make a reliable source.  Third, even with those sources, they do not show that the particular picture we have up right now was acquired through "racist KKK hackers".  Fourth, you need to establish consensus before you change the picture. Until you  prove this picture came from "racist KKK hackers", I don't think you will be able to do that.  Fifth, there is nothing wrong with the picture.  Emeraldflames (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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


 * Did the police actually weigh Zimmerman? Or was it a guess? The arrest weight appears to be verifiable. If you include the police report weight, other weight estimates should be included as well. I am satisfied with simply using the arrest weight. — MiamiManny (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


 * I think the measurements performed at autopsy should rule. They are 5' 11", 158#.  His family's impression that he was taller and lighter are obviously incorrect--unless you want to allege that someone falsified the autopsy. Apostle12 (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Will you guys drop this obsession please. What fucking difference does size make when only one of the two guys has a gun? HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you didn't bother to read but if you read carefully you'd find one of the witnesses originally didn't know who was on top, then later AFTER watching the coverage in the media, she thought it was zimmerman because of "how big he was". You need me to go on as to its relevancy or you got it from here?Whatzinaname (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is already so much irrelevant, undue, probably POV bullshit in this article, I tend to question every weird suggestion for content. This article is completely out of hand. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. MastCell Talk 06:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding NPOV, how would y'all say the NPOV of this article compares to the NPOV of the reliable sources? --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What "reliable" sources? Andyvphil (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hard to tell. Too much undue bullshit to isolate the reality. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is an internal Wikipedia construct, so it doesn't make sense to speak of the "NPOV" of outside reliable sources. If you're questioning the quality or neutrality of reliable sources, then that's best done on a source-by-source basis. I think we can agree that the breaking-news-style coverage has been shoddy - which is why we should avoid rushing every such breaking news item into our article. I haven't found a lot of support for that kind of restraint on this talkpage, though - mostly, if you suggest waiting a day or two to see how a news item develops, you can cue up the cries of "zOMG censorship!!!1!!" Also, it seems that editors' dissatisfaction with reliably-sourced coverage usually serves as a pretext to use patently unreliable sources, as in, "Well, NBC screwed up once, so we may as well cite the following dozen partisan op-eds and blog pieces..." Some of the reliably-sourced coverage has been poor (although generally self-correcting with time), but I don't think the current crop of talkpage denizens has come up with a constructive response to that concern. MastCell Talk 16:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Problem with the Timeline - 7-Eleven purchase time obviously incorrect
There is a problem with the Timeline that I hope someone can fix. The Timeline shows Martin completing his purchase at 7-Eleven BEFORE he left to walk to the store. Tried to view the video to discern the time stamp but was unsuccessful. Can someone please review the video and fix the problem? Thanks! Apostle12 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't really see the hour on the timestamp part, but you can see the minutes and it shows about :24 after. I'm not sure whether the clock was accurate on the camera, but the date was. The 6:40 time given by USA today offers no specific source of it and it's mentioned as approximate. My guess would be that the time he left is inaccurate, in part, because that seems like a lot of distance to cover- there and back again. I would say if there isn't another source for the 6:40 time to get rid of it, because it doesn't really make sense. Emeraldflames (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it will turn out that Trayvon was in 7-Eleven earlier than what's been reported. According to an American Thinker article, they spoke to 7-Eleven and the store had turned over a video to police from between 6 and 6:30 that night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm84 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think for now I will remove the first line dealing with when Trayvon left his father's fiancees home. It can always be added later.Apostle12 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Trayvon's Picture - plus add 7-11 picture?
See Article History. A user replaced Trayvon Martin's picture with one from his prom. I reverted it since there was no consensus to do that. He placed the picture back with: (cur | prev) 21:20, 22 May 2012‎ Huslkgc (talk | contribs)‎. . (149,446 bytes) (-35)‎. . (Using a picture stolen from a dead person should is not appropriate. If you don't like his prom picture, find another one not stolen via a kkk hack. Deleting any reference to the hack makes you more guilty of manipulating the narrative than NBC) (undo)

I am not going to edit war with him, but I would encourage him to make his case for the new picture- as well as his other claims here. Emeraldflames (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Emeraldflames, I would like to see a case for the new picture as well. As far as I am concerned the new picture is worse than the other one. It is blurry and grainy. Please provide some RS to back up your claim of it being "stolen via a kkk hack". I will not revert it at this time. But a consensus needs to be reached on whether to leave the new one in or to use the other one. I oppose the new picture on grounds of it being blurry and grainy looking-- Isaidnoway (talk)  01:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The picture of Trayvon in a car seems to be the same one in a slide show at www.examiner.com/slideshow/photos-of-slain-florida-teen-trayvon-martin#slide=44678621 which says the photos were released to the public by his family. I think there are others too that his family have given the media. Psalm84 (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right, it is at that site and it does say they were released to the public by his family. There were other pics of him as well, but most were younger.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  03:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's blurry, grainy. Also, it's from his *prom*.  He wasn't wearing glasses and a suit and tie during the event this article covers.  Has sort of a feel of propaganda to me.  How balanced is it to have a *mug* shot of Zimmerman, and a *prom* photo of Martin?  Emeraldflames (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Favor the previous picture over the prom one.Apostle12 (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Cla68 (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Use #11 here, cropped further (it is already a crop of #10). Andyvphil (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There was no need to use an allegedly hacked picture, especially when there was one that is public use that more closely matches his attire at the time of the shooting.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been no proof (RS) offered that it was hacked and there is no need to use the same picture twice in the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  16:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We aren't trying a case here. This is a more pertinent picture, and unassailable from any POV.  It's a recent picture of him dressed as he was in the shooting.  As for the hacking argument, there is a matter of civility.  The kid is dead.  Give the family a little courtesy.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is too much to ask that an editor(s) who assert that it was hacked or allegedly hacked to provide a RS for that claim. The link referenced above by Psalm84 says it was released by the family. This RS attributes it to Facebook and this site  sourced it from Wikimedia. A picture of him closer to the age at the time of the incident is more pertinent to this article than a younger one.-- Isaidnoway  (talk)  17:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The one with the hoodie IS close to the right age, and it is also close to the right clothing. In any case, there is no meaningful advantage to the other picture.  We don't need RS to observe a potential case of simple decency.  These are people we are writing about.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "These are people we are writing about". If you think a picture of Martin that has been included in RS has no meaningful advantage, how do you feel about Zimmerman's bio picture in this article, which is his mugshot from his April, 2012 arrest? WP:MUG Don't they Doesn't Zimmerman's family deserve a little courtesy as well?-- Isaidnoway (talk)  20:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no credible evidence that the existing photograph was acquired through the actions of racist KKK members. Until there is, there remains no urgency to remove it.  Second, the picture you replaced it with is Martin at what appears to be a significantly younger age.  It's also merely a black and white picture used for 'artistic' or 'iconic' effect. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


 * The photos of Martin are not under the same scrutiny regarding copyright etc as he is dead, and therefore there exists no possibility of obtaining new free pictures of him, therefore, the only barrier for switching between particular photos of Martin is our consensus. I think I am more likely to support the ABC image linked above as it is face on, rather than the tilted head version, but I think the "hoodie" photo is better, as being clearer, and illustrative of the iconic hoodie image. I do not think any "it must be changed" reasoning has been given that carries any significant weight. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I checked the references you provided, and not a single one of them state that this specific picture was stolen or hacked. In fact, there are references provided above that clearly indicate this particular picture was released by the family. So, I'm not really sure what your problem is. There are no editor's that I am aware of that are promoting a racist agenda towards this article. Your problem seems to be that you can't support your wild and unfounded allegations with any reliable sources, so you post totally irrelevant links. As far as the prom pic goes, you didn't upload it to Wikipedia, you uploaded it to Wikimedia.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  21:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


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

I have no issues with the photos currently selected. However, I think we should add a photo of Trayvon Martin at the 7-11. This is the last photo of him available and is also what George Zimmerman would have seen when he reported a suspicious person. I suggest the following photo from the 7-11 video by an RS (NY Daily News). http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trayvon-martin-trip-7-11-newly-released-video-article-1.1081543 ITBlair (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it should be added. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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

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

OK, we have three for adding the 7-11 picture (in addition to the pictures already there) and one partial objection that the picture is too grainy. I agree that it is too grainy, but we have other TM pictures to handle this issue. This 7-11 picture is what GZ would have seen from his SUV when it was dark and raining. I will add it. ITBlair (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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


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


 * Who knows. With everything else Crump is doing, he may be handing out walking around money to some posters. Or maybe he doesn't need to.True Observer (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously now - I get that people are treating this talkpage as a free-fire zone to attack Crump, but consider this a formal warning: you need to stop using this talkpage as a platform to smear living people. If you want to talk about something, bring sources. This isn't a forum, and it's even less a forum for this sort of stuff. MastCell Talk 17:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


 * No it isn't. It's still undue, irrelevant bullshit. One day the irrelevant garbage will be removed from this article and its size will shrink by 75%. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Bickering over the type of drink he happened to buy that day is entirely unencyclopedic. How about we find out what he ate for breakfast and fit that into the article. There's causation, damnit!--Львівське (говорити) 00:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * The brand is irrelevant. The drink type is irrelevant. Going beyond "he bought something" is undue. How about we give the caloric value, too?--Львівське (говорити) 00:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If thats the case then remove all the references to candy and drink. And I suggest you might want to read WP:UNDUE.  AFAIK no one is disputing what was purchased.  All of this is besides the point.  The SOURCES deemed it fit to publish this information, and it was certainly gemane to the shooting incident because it was part of the timeline.Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is unimportant. But it is also true.  We shouldn't continue to report he had "iced tea and skittles" if he didn't, in fact, have iced tea.  As Fasttimes said, we should remove all references to iced tea then.  Emeraldflames (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's something more to just keep in mind for the moment. Right now quite a few news sites have reported it in their articles on the evidence released, including the Denver Post, Tampa Bay Online, Sacramento Bee, and Des Moines Register. And I noticed a blog which seems African-American focused, in which there was anger about the can being photographed on top of Trayvon's body. It is hard to understand a reason for them doing that, unless to prove it was really with him in case they weren't able to find out where he got it from and they wanted to show it was really with him and not planted. With it being watermelon-flavored, they might have been concerned about proving it was something he had with him. Psalm84 (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The can was in the middle pocket of TM's hoodie, fell out when CPR was attempted, and was presumably placed on the yellow tarp covering the body because placing it on the ground would have been misleading as to its position (keys, phone, flashlight, etc. on the ground resulted in numbered position markers). Andyvphil (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * News sites can report what they like, to suit their particular target audience's interests and inclinations. This is an encyclopaedia with an article called Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Nothing beyond the scope of that title should be included. I don't care whether he scrunches or folds his toilet paper (nor what he bought that night). HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The community decides what the scope should be. The RS deemed the purchase relevant for whatever reason, and it is tangently related to the article itself.  Its not even controversial.  So what else is there left to discuss?  I'd hate to ask for an RfC for something as trivial as this, but we can go that route if you continue with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The RS deemed it relevant to its content policy, not ours. HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please cite the WP:Policy you are referring too. Id prefer to try and get some agreement here before caving in and calling others.Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


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


 * What makes it "evidence"? That's what police gather, not what the rabid media tells us about. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you didn't click on any links. It's in at least one crime scene photo. And the article may need to mention it. Here it says: "Additionally, bags of Skittles candy and cans of Arizona Iced Tea were used as protest symbols. Martin was returning from a 7-Eleven convenience store with these items when he was shot." Psalm84 (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. You'll probably need to explain to me (and the rest of the world) how "bags of Skittles candy and cans of Arizona Iced Tea were used as protest symbols". — Preceding unsigned comment added by  HiLo48  (talk • contribs)   03:51, 27 May 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more clear. The Wikipedia article on Trayvon Martin's shooting says that. Psalm84 (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC) It's under the "Public Response" section. Psalm84 (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything wrong with naming the items he bought at the store, especially if they were later used as protest symbols. Cla68 (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be the only thing that would make them worth mentioning. And it would need to be done exclusively in that context. HiLo48 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we include the information beause the sources include it. It is certianly ok to include it as a protest symbol, but there is no reason to exclude it elsewehere.Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. It's irrelevant. This article is about someone being shot. What he bought some time earlier has absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. HiLo48 (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this article is not merely "about someone being shot". It's about the media lynching too, and the tea-and-skittles meme is very much part of that story. Andyvphil (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Detailed Timeline with Geographic Data
It should be possible to provide more detailed timeline. Indicate when Zimmerman made his various statements. Once the case file is released it should be possible to cross-reference this timeline with more details from the cell phone conversation with Trayon Martin.

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

It would be a fair amount of work to put this together, but useful. The detailed data should be available shortly. ITBlair (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the location data from the cell phone: I haven't finished reading the entirety of the reports. I'm about halfway through them. I've seen a few officers note that they were unable to get into the cell phone because they did not have the code. They asked T-Mobile if they could bypass the lock and were told they could if they obtained some code in reference to the account (read: seek permission). The police asked Mr. Martin for the code that was needed, and he said he would have to talk to his lawyer. I haven't read anything beyond that yet, but again I'm only about halfway through the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsfj50pa (talk • contribs) 18:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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

The police report states that Trayvon Martin's body was between 1231 Twin Trees Lane and 2821 Retrient View Circle (page 14). We have a location for the map. His father stated (TV interview) he was 70 yards from his girlfriend's (Brandi Green) house. So this should be able to locate her house. I will try to and see if the records indicate where George Zimmerman's car/truck was parked. ITBlair (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This blog article, which was mentioned in a Chicago Tribune column, has links to pictures of Zimmerman's truck from Fox that night and a crime scene photographer the next day. Psalm84 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

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

** 7:25:00+ Zimmerman is treated for his injuries while in detention in the back of a police car ** Zimmerman provides SPD with a crime scene walk-through (no legal counsel) ITBlair (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC) I noted in BOLD some proposed updates to the timeline. The source is below. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html?pagewanted=1 If I hear no screams, I will make the updates. ITBlair (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC) I finished this round of updates to the Timeline, where possible I note Geographic locations. I am still trying to determine when TM left the townhome. He left the 7-11 around 6:24. ITBlair (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * February 26, 2012
 * 7:09:34 PM – Zimmerman's call to Sanford police begins (see transcript)
 * 7:12 - 7:12:59 PM – Trayvon's girlfriend calls him
 * 7:11:33 PM   George Zimmerman states that Trayon Martin is running (see transcript).
 * 7:11:59 PM   George Zimmerman states that he (left his car and) is following Trayvon Martin (see transript)
 * 7:12:00 PM   Sanford Police Dispatcher states you do not need to do that [follow TM - see transcript]
 * 7:12:02 PM   George Zimmerman says OK (stops following Trayvon Martin - see transcript)
 * 7:13:10 PM    George Zimmerman states he cannot see, does not know where Trayvon Martin is located (see transcript)
 * 7:13:41 PM   Zimmerman's call to Sanford police ends (see transcript)
 * 7:16 PM      Trayvon call to girlfriend goes dead;
 * 7:16:11 PM    First calls from witness about a fight [at location of body]  See:  http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Lawyer-Trayvon-Martin-s-girlfriend-heard-altercation/-/1637132/9613958/-/57edqqz/-/index.html
 * 7:16:55 PM   Shot Fired [at location of body]    See:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a58plIcrdo&feature=player_embedded#!
 * 7:18+ PM First officer arrives at the crime scene
 * 7:30 PM – Martin pronounced dead at the scene by paramedic
 * 7:52 PM – Zimmerman's arrival at police station recorded on video
 * February 27
 * Approximately 1:00 am – Zimmerman released (duration described as "five hours")
 * 3:07 am – Timestamp on Sanford Police Department (SPD) Initial Report
 * Martin reported missing by father
 * SPD informs father of Trayvon's death before 8 am
 * SPD publicly identifies Zimmerman and Martin


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Edit request on 23 May 2012


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

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

Johnpen1 (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Request declined. Specific description not provided. Andyvphil (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If anything, fox is about the only news station that covered this case responsibly, without jumping in half-cocked on every little half truth the other media organizations exaggerated instead of vetting.Whatzinaname (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This talkpage needs less of people spouting off their personal opinions like that, and more serious discussion of questions like this edit request. Would anyone else like to take a shot at answering it? I'm interested to hear serious rationales for/against this proposed edit, rather than further re-statements of editors' personal opinions. MastCell Talk 20:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The guy who accuses anyone of not agreeing with him as being "right wing bloggers", now sees himself suddenly as some sort of fair arbiter of what is or is not a valid rational opinion on the talk page. You do know the talk page is all about editor's opinions, right? 21:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs)

If a RS is reporting on the media coverage surrounding this case, I think it should be considered for inclusion. I support including this aspect about Fox news, simply because I had previously inserted a quote from this same article above: "between Feb. 26 and March 19, CNN had devoted 41 segments to Trayvon Martin, with MSNBC airing 13 and Fox News one", only to have it promptly deleted by an editor whose reason was because they had seen more than one report on Fox news. Here are a couple more links about their reporting, However, when it comes to those columnists who like to pontificate about this case, like Sowell and Steele, I think they should be vetted a little more closely for relevance and if any RS have reported their opinions. -- Isaidnoway (talk)  21:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I had previously inserted a quote from this same article..." Seriously? You inserted the claim but not the rebuttal? Andyvphil (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When did blogs in the dailybeast become "RS"?Whatzinaname (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You've previously cited the Daily Caller and a right-wing WordPress personal blog as sources, so I welcome your newfound dedication to high sourcing standards. In any case: The Pew Center and Tampa Bay Times are clearly appropriate sources. Thinkprogress and MediaMatters are partisan sources, and are better off avoided, in my view. The Daily Beast is sort of in-between; it amply passes the rather low bar for sourcing adopted by the talk-page regulars here, but it's not ideal. I do think there's enough for a well-sourced couple of sentences, based on the sources provided by Isaidnoway. MastCell Talk 22:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does the tampa bay times and the pew center come into any of this related to this blog/op ed of some random nobody from the leftist daily beast?23:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatzinaname (talk • contribs)
 * They're among the 4 links provided by Isaidnoway, two posts up. For reference: Pew Center, Tampa Bay Times. The other two links provided by Isaidnoway are MediaMatters and Thinkprogress, which I think are better avoided here given their partisan nature. MastCell Talk 00:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So the guy whining about any amount of nonsense in this wiki finds it notable that "MSNBC gave more caverage than FOX". Gee that's such a shock! That deifnitely belongs in the lede!Whatzinaname (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the Daily Beast is a left-wing blog and not a RS, and I have never heard of this author. Does he have some notoriety? The jouralism.org seems like it might be a good source. Emeraldflames (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to take a stand for quality sourcing and exclude partisan blogs, I'm behind you 100%, and I'm fine with not using the Daily Beast on those grounds. I'm sure I can expect your support for the removal of other partisan blogs as well, in the interest of consistency. MastCell Talk 05:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There may be exceptions, but generally, I would not accept quoting from partisan blogs on either side(unless the author has notoriety or established expertise of some kind.) Emeraldflames (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

This story has been a train wreck for the assertion that the MSM are "reliable sources" with deserved reputations for editorial oversight. Pew's Journalism.org also fails the test. Consider the determined ignorance that went into the following sentence: "In the mainstream media... the primary discussion has focused on two politically oriented issues-gun control laws and the Florida Stand Your Ground statute, which gives citizens the right to use deadly force when they believe they are being threatened.(emphasis added)" That should be, of course "reasonably believed" and "threatened with death or grievous bodily harm, and it doesn't depend on "the Florida Stand Your Ground statute", but is ordinary deadly force self defence law in 50 states. Andyvphil (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're seriously dismissing the Pew Center as a reliable source, I'll make yet another trip outside this bizarre bubble to the reliable sources noticeboard, for input from people who may suffer a bit less from tunnel vision. MastCell Talk 06:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good argument.(/sarc) Who should we believe? The reliable sources noticeboard or our own lying eyes? | Your edit makes the same "point" -- we can see Geraldo Rivera saying what he said on the embedded video from Fox, but unless one of your preferred sources quotes him, here in WikiWorld it never happened. You wish. Andyvphil (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that particular sentence from Pew Research re: SYG law is flawed, but the nature of the SYG law was beyond the scope of their article. It seems to me that they provided a quick, incomplete summary of SYG, but again, one would never cite that article for that particular line.  Emeraldflames (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "a quick, incomplete summary of SYG", it was an complete misstatement and conflation of SYG with ordinary self-defence. And note that Pew reports that Gun control/SYG/FL self-defense law was the reported to be the dominant subject on one of the three channels Pew examined. How determinedly ignorant do you have to be to review all that material and still end up knowing less than nothing? And, yes, it is quite common for Wikipedia editors to insist that garbage just like that remain planted like a turd in article text because there is a "reliable source" for it. Andyvphil (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and I want to emphasize that the mistake is in no way trivial, and is in fact evidence for severe bias in the source, which is on this evidence fully embedded in an anti-gun rights blue partisan echochamber where no one points out or is aware or even seems capable of taking cognizance when it is pointed out, that the SYG element of the 2005 changes to Fla law has no bearing on the M-Z case. Andyvphil (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Malarkey. Pew Research says the SYG was a big part of the discussion, varying by medium and by demographic. Surely you don't disagree that people were discussing SYG in relation to the case. The SYG law was supposed by observers to have allowed Zimmerman to move forward unnecessarily with deadly violence, in contrast to the generally accepted concept of self-defense. SYG has every bearing on the case. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Malarkey cubed. Your determined ignorance is showing. SYG wasn't so much "discussed" as routinely misrepresented by what Pew calls "liberal talkers". Since Zimmerman was on his back when he shot Martin the exemption that Fla SYG provided from the common law requirement that someone not use defensive deadly force without first exhausting all safe means of retreat was completely irrelevant since Zimmerman could not retreat at that point. What part of this simple fact are you incapable of comprehending? Andyvphil (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What specifically does someone wish to insert from the Pew article? Emeraldflames (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Pew article discusses the differential handling of the incident by MSNBC, CNN, and FoxNews, which seems relevant enough for brief inclusion. There are other sources which could be added to expand the subject, but I'm not willing to invest a lot of effort unless I get at least some marginal support for this site's sourcing guidelines and policies. MastCell Talk 19:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


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

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


 * Reliability should be evaluated at a more granular level than the site, but the politics of this case are inadequately covered in the article and I have no objection to including Pew's observations. I do wonder what technology they used to evaluate the "subject": results of, e.g., "millions of tweets", but I'm not convinced on that basis that they're just smelling their own farts. I've previously provided two polls of the extreme differences in the impressions of this case along lines of racial identification (Reuters/Ipsos],Today/Gallup) and that material should go in as well. Andyvphil (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just read it and the Pew Center report looks like an excellent, neutral summary of the media coverage of this incident. I think it should be included in the article.  By the way, I have seen a demonstration of software that collects, analyzes, and reports on trends/issues in tweets and other social media.  I would assume that the Pew Center would use something like this since it is their job to watch this kind of stuff.  Of course, I could be wrong. Cla68 (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An important thing to keep in mind is that the Pew article is dated March 30, 2012, and its parts only pertain to the periods before each part of their analysis was respectively completed. The available evidence, tone of the media coverage, and the public perception of the case and participants may have changed significantly since then.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Zimmerman 9911 Call History was released as a PDF created 3/20/2012 and is readily available. The Call Event Number: 20120571656 is listed as Connected 02/26/2012 19:09:34 The dispatchers log was Created 02/26/2012 19:11:12 by snoffke on terminal TM21 when the first dispatcher comment was logged. --Naaman Brown (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This recent NY Times article used 7:09. Psalm84 (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As usual, the "reliable sources" aren't. But you may find this useful. Andyvphil (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't even go there. The reliable sources are The New York Times and such, not your linked blog by some anonymous writer. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was addressing ITBlair. Since he is actually engaged in thinking I'm confident he will understand the usefulness of analysis that parallels his own, and understand the difference between a "resource" and a "source". You, not so much. Andyvphil (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this detailed timeline again? It looks like it just a reiteration of everything that is already included in the article. Is this a Reader's Digest condensed version?-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Recordings of interviews with witnesses #1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 were released on with the first batch of discovery documents on May 17, 2012. Axiomamnesia (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the link to the original source of the info? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * These files were obtained directly from the Florida State Attorney's Office via their release of discovery documents associated with the case. Axiomamnesia (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the Florida State Attorney's release directly accessible from them over the internet? If so, can you give their link to their discovery documents? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The release is not directly accessible from them over the Internet. Media access is available via a web portal. In other words, there's no way to simply post a link to these files here. They are accessible only to those who have media accounts with the Florida State Attorney's Office.NoamZinn (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Axioamnesia has been blocked because of their username. On the main issue, see Moonriddengirl's comments at which boil down to tricky copyright issues, serious WP:RS so we can't use them as sources. I agree. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The NY Times has posted the recordings of at least 4 of the investigator interviews with witnesses on their site. The names and identifying details about the witnesses have been redacted by investigators. Since the NY Times is considered a RS, couldn't we link to them for any quotes from those 4 interviews we may include in the article.-- Isaidnoway  (talk)  18:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look further up the page... "... We went through a small uproar a few years ago with the State of Florida when I took their word for their copyright assertions on their website, but in spite of their assertions, their own high court had said that their constitution does not allow state government produced materials to be copyrighted. This could be a similar case, where an employee is not himself really familiar with the governing law. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)"
 * Florida law also required that this discovery material be publicly released 15 days after the defense requested it, subject to court orderered redaction, "confession" exceptions, etc., none of which is relevant to these recordings. The prosecution, you may recall, agreed with the defence to hold it more than 15 days, and this was the subject of a suit. The subscription-site-for-media that the courthouse has set up is, I suppose, akin to the copying charges you face whenever you want to do more than see a public document. It's pretty clear there's no more copyright for this material than the 911 calls. Andyvphil (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did Zimmerman know the background information on Martin (recent facebook posings, gangsta tweets, shool suspensions) at the time of their encounter? No. Did Martin know that 7 years ago Zimmerman had shoved a plainclothes alcohol control officer who had Zimmerman's drinking buddy pinned against a wall and Zimmerman and ex-fiancee had swapped restraining orders and claims? No. What will matter to a jury under competent rules of evidence is what those two strangers knew about each other that night, and the only evidence there is Zimmerman's call to the police dispatcher (recorded) and what DeeDee remembers of her phone call to Martin.--Naaman Brown (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Sanford Police Department
I'm wondering if a picture of the police department should be included here. I've read that it's a new building, which I added to the Sanford Police Department page. It seems to be a part of the case, with the videos from there, and there's a room for voice stress analysis, which Zimmerman was given. And it also is a little bit involved in the racial controversies in the city. It was located, I believe, between the white and black sections of town. Psalm84 (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC) There's a picture of it on the Sanford city home page. Psalm84 (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's relevant enough to the case to include. People can click on the SPD page link if they want to see it Emeraldflames (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't a picture of it on the Wikipedia SPD page, if that's what you were referring to. What I should have said is that I added a section on it being a new building on the SPD page. I wasn't sure, though, if that picture from Sanford.gov is allowed and I'm not familiar with adding images here. The reason I thought of putting a photo here was because of different things that have come up, such as there being some talk the other day that Zimmerman might have a close relationship with police because there's a video of him walking unescorted in the station. But it may be just a public access area in a newer and bigger building like that. Psalm84 (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "...there's a video of him walking unescorted in the station"? News to me. Link? Andyvphil (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's on this page. I did already add it to the article under external links. Psalm84 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Zimmerman voluntarily cooperated with police after his release; date and time stamp would also be useful.--Naaman Brown (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

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

Yes, it should be included. It is relevant, and there is not a single mainstream RS that has not reported it that I'm aware of. The New York Times, BBC, Chicago Tribune, etc. Every one of them. Unfortunately, there are a group of editors here that substitute their own personal judgment and thereby censor WP. Emeraldflames (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Emeraldflames, please refrain from assigning motives to other editors. Accusations of censorship are incorrect and offensive. Tvoz / talk 17:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Virtually every major media outlet- even the most respected ones- made the editorial decision to report this information to its readers. Just about any public discussion re: this case involves references to this information.  It is a fact that has been universally reported and it is well-known to virtually anyone who has followed the case.


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


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


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


 * The fact that newspapers have reported a factoid does not mandate that we include it, because this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Particularly in the case of private figures notable only for a single event, WP:BLP indicates that some details, while reliably sourced and reported by news outlets, do not belong in our article. It would be helpful to have more editors experienced with WP:BLP issues active here, because this is a matter of basic site policy and good editing, not a matter of "censorship". Of course, #1 on this list also pertains. MastCell Talk 00:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What actually pertains is the observation in the header: Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies. POV warriors whose motivations are obvious but who duplicitously hide behind AGF are a cancer in Wikipedia. Andyvphil (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to see what the WP:BLP experts say, too. My understand of BLP is that the emphasis is not on excluding information but on being exceptionally careful to abide by the core principles of Wikipedia when adding it. How do we summon them?  Emeraldflames (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please visit the WP:HD and describe your problem there. Someone will point you in the right direction.Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is something that the mainstream media has covered, and it makes sense that it will be part of the case. This is Florida law which is a National Review article quotes: "(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY. — Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except: 2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor." Zimmerman's legal site also mentions it here: "While certain details regarding Trayvon Martin may become part of trial, they will never be a part of our online discussion, and we will aggressively moderate comments on our page on Facebook, and discourage others from making disparaging comments." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalm84 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a quote of parts of the National Review quote, which is a quote of parts of the relevant law. I thought the actual law was more informative and dependable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * This article about the shooting of a person. (See the title.) To suggest that the victim's marijuana use some weeks earlier has any connection at all with his shooting is just plain laughable. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No one has made that assertion. The proposal was to include Martins supsension,  which according to the RS is why he was visiting his father in Central Florida.   Is there an issue with this? Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Why he was there is irrelevant to the fact that someone shot him dead. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is unfair to Trayvon Martin not to include this information. Because if you don't know that he was suspended for marijuana some days before people may automatically assume he was smoking marijuana on the night of the shooting (which hasn't been established as far as I know.)  Emeraldflames (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Section 1.1 lists him as a high school juniorThe RS states he was suspended. The marijuana reference need not be included. Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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

I could see the usefulness of another Wiki article where a more complete overview of the background and character of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman would be presented. For example, why George Zimmerman had a depraved mind, committed domestic violence, and beat-on police officers or why Trayvon Martin was a drug-user who regularly got into into fights and followed a gang-banger ethos. Or why GZ was a saint protecting his community and why TM was an innocent kid. However there appears to be desire to construct such an article. It would also be very difficult to edit. I could see it in the context of summarizing what other RSs were saying about GZ and TM. Again, I have not seen a desire among editors to create this article. Also, I the work involved would be too large for me. I would love for some others to do this. ITBlair (talk)
 * This sentence from a May 17 NY Times article seemed to sum it up well.
 * "Mr. Martin had been taken by his father to Sanford from his home in Miami Gardens after he was suspended from high school when traces of marijuana were found in an empty baggie in his book bag."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, that explains why he was there, but it doesn't explain why it belongs in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it is information relevant to the topic of this article, in that it tells the circumstances that led to Martin being in Sanford on the night of the shooting. So there's my explanation of why it should be in the article; what's your explanation of why it shouldn't? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's NOT relevant. This article is about someone being shot. The shooter would not have known why that someone was there. His reasons for shooting this person have NOTHING to do with why he was there. IT'S IRRELEVANT!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's commonly reported because it is likely to be relevant. Zimmerman also didn't know that Trayvon had been at 7-Eleven, but that's also commonly reported and in the article. Psalm84 (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's commonly reported because the mass media has column inches and air-time minutes to fill. We don't. They've also told us about Martin's parents, and all sorts of other stuff that doesn't need to be here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The article isn't just about the shooter's reason for shooting. This specific info contributes to the topic by showing why Martin was in Sanford, hundreds of miles from home on the night before he would normally go to school. Now you may think it is not sufficiently important to be included, which is a reasonable position to take, but it's clearly relevant. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does anybody need to know WHY he was there? IT'S IRRELEVANT!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This issue appears to be one of the most contentious content debates currently with this article. I suggest doing a straw poll to see what the prevailing opinion is among participants about including the information. Cla68 (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been done several times before. Most editors have found some of the suspensions to be relevant, reliably sourced, and have supported their inclusion.  There are a handful of editors that are consistently- and uncompromisingly- opposed to its inclusion.  They further argue that since "there is not a consensus" that the information, by default, should be removed from the article.


 * The quality and reliability of the sources that have reported it does not matter to them. The number of editors that *do* find it relevant does not matter to them.  *They* find it irrelevant and oppose the inclusion of this information, period (regardless of how carefully, balanced, and fairly it is presented). In other words, consensus building with them has gone nowhere (in part because they cite a "lack of consensus" as their justification for removing the information.  That's my take on it, anyway.  Emeraldflames (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevance of the information is subjective. It is similar in relevance to the particular items he bought from the store; i.e., subjective. However, if it is repeatedly mentioned in reliable sources, then consider the possibility that it ought to be included here. Note that I'm not saying that I agree or disagree. But it enters tricky territory when we start deciding for ourselves what is "relevant" and what is not, rather than looking at the tenor of the reporting by reliable sources. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll on Martin's suspension

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

Yes (sign below)

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

Neutral/reserving judgement

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

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

*Comment It is unlikely that a poll will lead to consensus on the inclusion of Martins suspension and the reason for the suspension, but it does give us an opportunity to assess where we stand and then continue futher discussion and reach out to those editor's who oppose this information being included and address those concerns civilly and rationally in order to achieve a compromise.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  21:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Andyvphil said about the impact the revelation of these suspensions had on undermining the initial, one-sided media "narrative" about the participants in the event. If not for that initial, public perception being so overwhelmingly favorable to Trayvon Martin, I don't believe that the NY Times, BBC, etc. would have covered it. So I agree that it should be presented in that context.  (And if RS are available, include commentary about the impact their revelation had on altering the public's perception and media coverage up until that point.) Emeraldflames (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think if Martin's suspension is included something about negatives in Zimmerman's history should also be, just to be balanced. Even the autopsy result wouldn't be mentioned if Zimmerman had just been shooting random people. Psalm84 (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not think the third suspension is mentioned because it is a TM negative trait, it just explains why TM was in Stanford, why GZ did not recognize him, and why he had THC in his system. It is directly relevant to the shooting, if he had not been suspended he would not have been in Stanford, and would not have had the resulting autopsy (with THC). If GZ had not gotten into a fight with his ex or had not been arrested by an undercover officer, he would still be in Stanford. This GZ background is much less relevant to the shooting.

That being said I have no objection to a background section were we summarize all the good and bad things that RSs say about TM and GZ. Previously I had suggested a separate wiki page about these character/background/history issues and how the RSs state they relate to the facts of this case. It would be difficult to sort all this out and require a lot of work and large number of editor wars. Most editors wanted to stay away from these topics and did not want a separate Wiki page. ITBlair (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC) WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles on WP. I suggest that you strike or delete your comments about Zimmerman and refrain from making these type of allegations about Zimmerman and/or Martin in the future.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  03:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think these comments were deleted, I was writing about the range of allegation that other RSs and some social media have made about both TM and GZ. I included the good and the bad as examples of events and judgements about these events that we might want to summarize. ITBlair (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Both the suspension and the autopsy result, though, give some support to Zimmerman's claim of self-defense, so they aren't neutral. On Zimmerman's arrest and fight with his ex-fiancee, they could still be relevant since we're talking about his judgment in this situation, and they were also very widely covered in RS. I don't know about setting aside an actual page for discussing their characters. It might violate some BLP rule to do that. But there might be different ways to make it a separate section here, or include it in the sections already there. Psalm84 (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

*Comment * I'm conflicted about adding this sort of historical information about either person, and prefer waiting to see what the court allows. The problem I have with school suspensions is the process. It's basically a couple of adult school employees unilaterally handing down judgement on a juvenile ill equipped to muster a proper defense, and without the protections afforded defendants within the justice system. I know it's all been RSd to death, but that alone doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedic article. How can we possibly even begin to give a fair description of either of these people's character? We can't. I think we should tread lightly, and wait for the court's judgement in these matters. ArishiaNishi (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, school suspensions are a form of administrative law aren't they? Access to public schooling is a fundamental right of US citizens, but school officials have, by law, been given the authority to suspend that privilege under certain circumstances.  Anyway, since the straw poll is clear majority to include something about the suspension, I suggest we make some suggestions as to how to word it. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how mentioning the suspension violates any Wikipedia policy or how it is not relevant to the TM shooting. For example, referring to the above comment, it is not our job to judge how well a school system disciplines it students. We only have to report on the act(s) of discipline, assuming it has RSs. If there are other RSs that state the school system is somehow unfair we can include these as well. We simply have to summarize the judgements of others about TM's or GZ's past behavior and what implications they have, if any, about the subject's character. Our job is not to do original research. Currently, this TM shooting article is kind of like doing a write-up of local strip club and failing to mention that most performers are female and naked. :) It would be very useful if those who object explicitly outline their objections.  Perhaps then we can then craft new wording to address these concerns. ITBlair (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Added suspension per consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree that WP is not a democracy and decisions made about article content are not based on majority rule, but rather discussion and consensus. I suggest leaving the reason for Martin being suspended out of the article as it is not relevant to why he was in Sanford or relevant as to why he was shot. It is sufficient to say that he was taken to Sanford because he was serving a 10-day suspension.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  19:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "It is sufficient to say that he was taken to Sanford because he was serving a 10-day suspension." — I considered that and thought the reader might get the impression that the suspension was for something worse without looking at the ref; and it is relevant to the toxicology report. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "Added suspension per consensus", Per the above discussion, a consensus has not been reached to include the reason behind the suspension, straw polls are not binding and shouldn't be used to silence those with opposing views. This issue has also been taken to the BLP board  where no community consensus was reached.
 * Re: "it is relevant to the toxicology report". The toxicology report doesn't mention Martin's reason for being suspended, so can you explain how Martin's suspension is relevant to the report? The report didn't link those results from the screen with his suspension.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  23:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of a straw poll being binding, it's a matter of the reasons and comments expressed by a consensus of editors  in this section for including the material.
 * Re "The toxicology report doesn't mention Martin's reason for being suspended, so can you explain how Martin's suspension is relevant to the report?" — They both involve THC. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This issue of whether to add the reason behind Martin's suspension has been discussed now for two months with varying editors and the community has never reached a consensus on whether to include it or not, the reasons and comments expressed in this section reflect that there are still editors who disagree with including it, so a consensus has not been reached.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  07:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your remarks that we don't presently have a consensus are simply not true. Please note that consensus does not mean unanimity. Also, I have tried to address your concerns but you seem to be ignoring  my comments in that regard. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do still think that since it really can't be determined right now from the evidence we've heard what happened, that to be balanced some of the negative information on Zimmerman that is from RS should also be included. Looking at the situation, there is negative RS information about both of them that seems likely to be relevant. One thing at this point that could be added about Zimmerman is to mention in the section about his neighborhood watch role is that he didn't follow neighborhood watch guidelines by getting out of his car. Right now there is only mention that he wasn't legally required to take the dispatcher's suggestion. Psalm84 (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Balance is not required, per WP:UNDUE. Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But it is a matter of giving due weight. There isn't a clear answer about what happened, and there is a lot of information from RS which is negative to both of them. To start to bring in Martin's without doing so for Zimmerman would be to favor one side. Psalm84 (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Due weight depends on the weight given in the RS's. After the bond hearing where the judge essentially said the Zimmerman info was too minor to be considered in his ruling, the RS's seem to have lost interest in that info. The marijuana info however has gained interest because of the toxicology report. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But since there was so much reporting in RS on his background it is something that's just well-known. And the media hasn't been talking about the case like it did before Zimmerman was charged either. It could come up more again in the future. I know the judge did seem to reject the idea that Zimmerman's past problems meant he was a violent person, but the prosecution could still want to use his background during any trial. Psalm84 (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you feel the Zimmerman info should be included, I would encourage you to start a new talk section to see whether there is consensus for it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will think about that, but my concern with it is that it seems something should be added about both together, or not at all. Psalm84 (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be an eye for an eye. He was on this suspension while the event took place, so there is some relevance. Besides there are already some jabs to Zimmerman being a vigilante in the article; his prior calls to the police, his training to be a cop and, oh yeah, he shot a kid in the chest. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any information that is that negative to Zimmerman. Even that he shot Martin may not be negative if his self-defense story is believed, and on the other things you mention, the article usually seems to defend him on them. The one knock comes from a quote by Wendy Dorival of the SPD - "I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’  ‘Observe from a safe location.'" The background of Martin does seem to be treated more negatively in the article right now. Since it isn't clear what happened, that's why it seems that talking about their backgrounds should be balanced. It could turn out that Zimmerman was defending himself, but it's also true that he did leave his car with a gun to follow Martin, which was against neighborhood watch instructions for how to handle someone suspicious. Things like that, which have also been widely reported, should be mentioned too. Psalm84 (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Guys, please don't edit war. In my opinion, it doesn't make much sense to say in the article that Martin was suspended, without saying what he was suspended for.  Thoughts? Cla68 (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course readers will want to know what he was suspended for. Also, it helps explain why he might have had THC in his system- as opposed to being high that night.


 * Also, I don't oppose the inclusion of 'negative' information about Zimmerman, so long as it is WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. WP:BLP doesn't advocate censorship/withholding reliably sourced information.  It basically says to do so in strict adherence with the core principles of Wikipedia.


 * That Martin's suspensions- and the reason for them- is irrelevant is a valid point of view, and it is one that can be included in the article by including a quote from Crump about them being irrelevant. Emeraldflames (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason behind the suspension is not relevant as to why he was in Sanford. Martin was taken to Sanford because of the suspension, not the reason for it. Martin also has relatives still living that should be taken into consideration, WP:BLP when they have repeatedly stated that the reason for the suspension is not relevant as to why their son was shot. Both parents, along with their attorneys have said that by the media reporting this information, they are disrespecting their son and they're trying to kill his reputation. It's understandable that this is what the media does in high-profile cases like this, but not once has the media explained why this suspension is relevant to the altercation which ended up with Martin being fatally shot. It's nothing short of character assassination, which some editor's think is OK, simply because it dispels the "good student" image of Martin that was initially reported in the media. The reason for any of Martin's suspensions is not relevant as to what took place on the night of February 26 which resulted in a young man being fatally shot. Experts have said that the THC levels are not relevant to Martin's behavior that night and does not reflect anything about his character. We should confine ourselves to summarizing the more relevant details of the event around which this article is about, a fatal shooting, and stay away from the tabloid like reporting and speculation that the media focuses on.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  16:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've supported presenting negative information about both of them because RS support that. And the point about including at least one of the suspensions and the reasons for them does make sense. There was a story that was promoted to the media from the Martin family that was one-sided and since the national media started covering it they've also been one-sided. Atthis link is a Chicago Tribune column by Eric Zorn that questions the original story, which is still the media's version, due to the "actual timeline" and the distances involved. It says:


 * The yawning gaps in the timeline strongly suggest that this is not a simple story of predator and prey, or of a noble neighborhood hero demonized and facing second-degree murder charges simply for doing the right thing.


 * It's a reminder that there's a lot we still don't know about the five minutes between "he's running" and the horrible sound of gunfire. … It indicates that the victim as well as the accused made some terrible choices that night.


 * There's also a transcript now from the girl who was talking to Martin, which I added to the article, and she herself says that there were a couple of minutes between Martin losing Zimmerman and him showing up again. But the media continues to ignore that. Those minutes that Martin didn't leave the area put his actions in serious doubt, and they mean his suspensions can be seen to be relevant to support Zimmerman's claim of being attacked. Psalm84 (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Those minutes that Martin didn't leave the area put his actions in serious doubt, and they mean his suspensions can be seen to be relevant to support Zimmerman's claim of being attacked." — The last part about suspensions isn't obvious to me. Could you explain it more? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be more clear by looking at what the editor I was responding to said:


 * "It's understandable that this is what the media does in high-profile cases like this, but not once has the media explained why this suspension is relevant to the altercation which ended up with Martin being fatally shot. It's nothing short of character assassination, which some editor's think is OK, simply because it dispels the "good student" image of Martin that was initially reported in the media. The reason for any of Martin's suspensions is not relevant as to what took place on the night of February 26 which resulted in a young man being fatally shot."


 * The reason is that those couple of minutes are part of what happened that night and they put Martin's actions seriously in question. As Eric Zorn wrote about the timeline issue, "It indicates that the victim as well as the accused made some terrible choices that night." At that point, there's reason to look at other actions of the victim, to see if it seems like he could have attacked Zimmerman. Three suspensions in one year, and he was currently serving one, might support that. Psalm84 (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article that Eric Zorn wrote doesn't mention any of the suspensions. And he says that we still don't know what happened in those five minutes. Then he goes on to speculate about what he thinks happened in those five minutes. He also says that even if Martin picked the fight, that didn't necessarily give Zimmerman the right to shoot him. You then speculate that there's reason to look at other actions of the victim to see if it seems like he could have attacked Zimmerman, and then you say that three suspensions in one year might support that, so in order to make the three suspensions relevant to that night, you offer speculation which is clearly WP:OR. This is exactly what I'm talking about, speculation and assumptions that don't belong in this article. I think we should leave the theories of what happened that night to the defense and the prosecution as that is what will be presented to the court and/or jury, not what you or I think is relevant to what happened that night.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  15:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Deciding that the suspensions are irrelevant to that night and that mentioning them is character assassination is also speculating and assuming. So far no court has decided to exclude the information about his suspensions either, and courts do frequently consider information like that. The information on the suspensions also has also been very widely reported in RS. Keeping it out as well as any negative information about Zimmerman is suppressing information that's widely available in RS and widely known known by the public. That could be legitimate, but there are many legitimate reasons for including it that need to be considered too. And in this case someone is being accused of murder. He has a reasonable claim to self-defense according to the evidence that we know of. It didn't turn out that it was a distant shot. And it isn't the case, as the media story says, that Zimmerman got out of his truck and just chased Martin down. For at least two minutes he and Martin were separated, which Martin's friend has confirmed. Those two minutes call Martin's actions into question, and Zimmerman's can be questioned too, so information shouldn't be excluded just because either side would consider it character assassination. Psalm84 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Re "Both parents, along with their attorneys have said that by the media reporting this information, they are disrespecting their son and they're trying to kill his reputation." — That was before the toxicology report was made public which said Martin had THC in his system; and the toxicology report seems to have been accepted for the article. So the toxicology report is already "disrespecting their son" and is "trying to kill his reputation".  --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Those comments were made when the media first reported about the suspensions. As far as I know the only comments they made after the toxicology report were released through Crump, who said "The experts have all said that trace marijuana in Trayvon Martin's system is completely insignificant. In fact, we believe it's an attempt to attack the character of Trayvon Martin, as the media has already done” and that "This was avoidable if George Zimmerman had not gotten out of his car and profiled and pursued and shot Trayvon Martin in the heart". We could include those comments as well as the earlier ones if you wanted to.-- Isaidnoway  (talk)  23:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First, could you give a link to the article you were quoting? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's one: http://cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/5/18/family_of_trayvon_ma.html ArishiaNishi (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ArishiaNishi, Thanks.
 * Isaidnoway, Regarding Crump's comment, "The experts have all said that trace marijuana in Trayvon Martin's system is completely insignificant." — That is essentially already in the article with the statement, "Larry Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science stated that the THC amount was so low that it may have been ingested days earlier and played no role in Martin's behavior. 'This kind of level can be seen days after somebody smokes'."  --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you don't have any more concerns, could you restore the marijuana reason for suspension? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I restored the reason for the suspension. I used a source that referenced the family making a statement about it. Seems appropriate coming from them.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  22:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And thanks again. As I recall, the family only disclosed the suspension for marijuana after it was reported in the press. However, I included their comment regarding relevance in this simplification. Does this work for you? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks fine. Actually, Tracy Martin told Serino that his son had been suspended and the reason for the suspension early on. Being that it really isn't relevant to the case, there was no reason for the family to divulge that information to the media.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * Part of the SYG law is quoted. Andyvphil (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * It wasn't up to Sereno or the SPD to press charges. That was a decision for the State's Attorney. Andyvphil (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, I think it was premature to archive this section, over the next six weeks I expect RSs to start to publish different conclusions on the relevance of the Injury patterns on G. Zimmerman and the injury patterns on Travon Martin. I think we need to keep this Section open for awhile to outline a good summary of what these RSs are saying. ITBlair (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Any threads on the talk page with no replies in 5 days may be automatically archived by a ClueBot. It's archived so any editor can access it at any time they wish to review any past discussions. It's also recommended that new editor's to an article review the archives to see what has previously been discussed.
 * Koblinsky also went on to say that he doubts the judge will even let it be used by the defense if they try to introduce it at trial. "If it comes up in the case, I would be surprised. It wouldn't benefit the defense, it wouldn't benefit the prosecution, and if the defense tried to bring it up, the judge would keep it out". The autopsy results are admissible, but if the defense tries to read anything into the results about Martin's use, it would be speculative at best, and be prejudicial to Martin if they tried to make an argument about his behavior that night based on trace amounts of THC. I don't think the defense will try to bring "behavioral implications of THC big time" into this trial. The references about additional data you provided don't specifically mention Martin or this case, so how are they relevant to this article?
 * The crux of this case is Zimmerman's claim of self defense and whether the prosecution can prove the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The point I am proposing to make here is that the THC levels are consistent with a chronic user and/or a single recent use and that most experts think that THC at these levels would have minimal or no affect on TM's behavior. Currently, we are only stating use many days ago and not including the broader perspective of Dr. Drew. ITBlair (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a RS saying that Martin was a chronic user? Is there a RS saying that Martin used that day of the shooting? Dr. Drew's perspective about the levels of THC seem to indicate that it had no relevance and doesn't in any way suggest that somebody should have been the object of lethal force because they have low level pot in their blood. We don't know what the defense will argue and speculating about it is WP:OR.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  05:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, doctor drew infered that if he was going through a withdrawl period it would indeed be relevat. He also gave a window of time for th the useage in question much more accurately than "could have been days", to instead more along the lines of "several hours to several days"Whatzinaname (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that how each side will use this evidence is currently speculative. I said nothing about justifying the use or non-use of lethal force (although my guess is that the defense will take this position). This THC evidence is in keeping with a chronic (i.e., a frequent user) user (smoking days ago) or an infrequent user who smoked within the past 2-4 hours. Both experts think that it is doubtful these levels of THC had any impact on Trayon Martin's behavior (e.g., being aggressive). In particular, Dr. Drew thinks it would be hard to make a case for TM being paranoid because of withdrawal. Ideally, we would include a few pointers into the literature on the affects of marijuna and then the reader can make up his own mind. This is just a more complete picture of what these THC levels mean from a couple of RSs. ITBlair (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dr. Drew made the comments about lethal force. I don't see how we can include the sourced literature without them making a specific and relevant connection to the THC level in Martin. They don't talk about this case specifically, which is what would be needed to make it relevant to this article.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  21:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But these accounts are reported by journalists only in the context of this incident, right? That would seem to add to the relevance here. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dr. Drew and Koblinsky specifically reference Martin when giving their opinions about the THC levels, so it is in context to this incident. But I was talking about this statement above that ITBlair made ..."they are drawing on this background research data to make statements about (generalize) what the THC levels say about Trayvon Martin's non-recent or recent use of marijuna". and this statement as well, "They are generalizing about Trayvon Martin's time of usage and behavior from these research results".(see links above in the comment by ITBlair) Neither Drew or Koblinsky say they are using that specific background data when voicing their opinions about the THC levels. Without a RS reporting that Drew and/or Koblinsky relied on those specific research results, or them saying that was the data they used in their opinions, how can we include a reference to that research data without it being WP:OR.-- Isaidnoway  (talk)  15:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, fair point. Explained very well. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - Trayvon Martin's Height and Weight @ time of death
Change "According to the Sanford police incident report of Trayvon Martin's death, he was 6'0" tall and weighed 160 pounds; however, his family believed he was 6-foot-3 and weighed at most 150 pounds.[34] The autopsy report says he was 5 feet 11 inches and 158 pounds.[35]" to "According to the autopsy report, Trayvon Martin was 5 feet 11 inches and 158 pounds at the time of his death.[35]" The section 'People Involved/ Trayvon Martin' should contain facts. Height and weight can be measured. The coroner measured, so the coroner's data would be the most accurate and should be used in this section. The other statements don't belong in the physical description portion. ArishiaNishi (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

✅: Emeraldflames (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - Picture footer misleading
Change: "Trayvon Martin in car and at 7-11 just before shooting" to: "Above - Trayvon Martin [date of photo here] Below - Trayvon Martin at 7-11 just before shooting" Because the way it reads now it seems Trayvon was 'in a car and at 7-11' just before the shooting, which he was not. ArishiaNishi (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

✅ Gaijin42 (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

nip this one in the bud before it gets started
alleged new photo of Martin starting to float around, not actually picture of Martin. http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/martin.asp#little Gaijin42 (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * dude, that's like months old "issues". And i think one of thos is actually trayvon, the one from the dailycaller I think. So Snopes lies at the top, claiming it's false when it should be "mixed".Whatzinaname (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The last picture in the snopes article is a new rumor circulating. I should have been clear on that. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite pathetic to think using 'pictures' to justify a killing. Please play with traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only 1nce (talk • contribs) 03:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman bond revoked
Zimmerman was accused of having misrepresented how much money he had when his bond was originally set in April. Prosecutors argued that Zimmerman "misrepresented, misled and deceived the court" during the April bond hearing not only about his family's financial circumstances but about whether he had a U.S. passport. http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/01/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 -- Isaidnoway (talk)  20:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Orlando Sentinel article on bond revocation. (Isaidnoway - you beat me to it.) ArishiaNishi (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely noteworthy. Added to article yet? (You people move fast.) I'm going to add a sentence or two now if that's OK? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence, but I'm not sure if it was optimally placed. I did not include the remarks by the prosecutors, merely what the court was reported as saying by CNN. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Added to lead and timeline as well. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you, or someone else, quickly rewrite the bond revocation entry so that it doesn't say that the judge accused Zimmerman? Judges don't accuse people. They make judgements, determinations, rulings, etc. I realize that wording appears in the CNN article, but I think it's wrong. Perhaps you can work from this article in the Orlando Sentinel: "Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester has revoked George Zimmerman's bond in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman now has 48 hours to turn himself in to authorities. The decision came after the revelation that Zimmerman and his wife may have conspired to lie about thousands of dollars in donations they'd collected before his bond hearing. In a new motion, prosecutors accused Zimmerman and his wife of lying to the judge during a bond hearing about money they collected for his defense. Prosecutors allege Zimmerman's wife knew about the donations her husband had collected through a PayPal account, but didn't mention the money at his bond hearing." Here is the motion that was approved by the judge: Motion to Revoke Bond ArishiaNishi (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC) ArishiaNishi (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would remove the reference to 48 hours, as that is time sensitive information.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  23:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I reworded the bond revocation entry. ArishiaNishi (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should include the language that he deceived the court. The judge used it, and it seems pretty relevant information. Thoughts? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

We could include something like this collapse title below, with a citation to Zimmerman back to jail, bond revoked I'll leave it up to you guys. “Mr. Zimmerman can’t sit back as, I use again the euphemism, a potted palm, and let his wife testify falsely before the court when he knew well in advance of that hearing the amounts of money in controversy. Nor can he allow his attorney to stand up and make misrepresentations, not by your fault whatsoever Mr. O’Mara. You were completely candid and honest with the court as you’ve always been, and he can’t sit back and obtain the benefit of a lower bond for circumstances based upon those material falsehoods. That’s what they were. So at this time, revoke his bond and place him on no bond status. I find that good cause exists based upon the material misrepresentations that the court relied upon. I order him to surrender himself in 48 hours to the sheriff of Seminole County.” ArishiaNishi (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the way the article reads today tells the story quite well:


 * On June 1, 2012, Judge Lester granted a Motion to Revoke Bond. The prosecution alleged that Zimmerman and his wife had intentionally misled the court by failing to reveal a large amount of money they had received through donations. Judge Lester agreed with the prosecution's allegation that the Zimmermans knew about the donated money prior to the April 20 bond hearing and that they had misrepresented material facts. According to the terms of the judge's order, Zimmerman had to surrender himself to the court and remain in custody until the next hearing.

For more, I think we need to let the story mature a bit. We don't know, for example, what the Zimmermans have to say for themselves. Perhaps they truly did not yet consider the donated money to be "theirs," since it was held in trust and earmarked to cover legal expenses. And they may have wished to keep the amount out of public view (hence speaking in code) to avoid being accused of profiting from Martin's death.

Has Zimmerman turned himself in yet to the Seminole County sheriff? When he does that, we should add that information, both here and in the lede. Apostle12 (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I too would like to hear what the Zimmerman's have to say. Zimmerman set up the website to collect donations and set up a paypal account in his name, and his lawyer went on AC360 and said that they had collected over 200,000 dollars in that account, so they didn't do a very good job of keeping the amount out of public view. They still had 135,000 dollars in the account at the bail hearing,  so why would his wife lie about it, why would they talk in code about it knowing their conversations were being recorded.-- Isaidnoway  (talk)  05:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The summary above is good. I also like the nesting of the judge's charges against Zimmerman (and I appreciate the blithely accusatory tone the judge adopts, like "can't sit back... as a potted palm...") I would also exploit such lexical freedom were I a judge. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed the article to remove the phrase that the judge agreed with the prosecutor, as the sources do not say anything of the sort. At best the judge wants an explanation from Zimmerman regarding the money. Fasttimes68 (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I had the same issue with Zimmerman's call to the SPD; that we should include it in it's entirety to avoid (un)intentional bias. The same goes for (important) rulings from judges. We might take a moment here to consider how we will handle important rulings throughout the article. What do the rest of you think. Put them in collapse boxes? Or paraphrase/summerize them? ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman back in jail: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57446205/george-zimmerman-back-in-fla-jail/ ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Now reflected in the lede, the section re: bond revocation and the timeline. Apostle12 (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous witness "John"
If I got it right (some links are dead), the witness "John" made his statements only 4 weeks after the incident and stayed anonymous? This has to be mentioned in the article. And why took it 4 weeks? And if he said he would call 911, then why didn't he? Or if he did, why isn't there any police information about it? Did he ever talk to the investigators about it or only with the media? --92.73.31.131 (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Umm, he did call 911. It is believed that "john" is the same guy who mentioned the "MMA punches". However we aren't really allowed to speculate on such things. A reasonable person would infer such with the information currently known, though. I'm not sure what your issue is with the whole anonymous thing. What is the relevance? Whatzinaname (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * His testimony is on You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUvBZicWPDE) and it is the same witness. I'm not quite sure of how to change the article to show that, though, if it should be changed right now. Maybe there's also a RS mentioning they're the same person? Psalm84 (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this part should be changed, this witness went from seeing 'everything' in pitch black night, to saying he wasn't sure who was on top and whether it was punches or wrestling occurred. Looks like Wikpedia hasn't reflect the '4 witnesses' who has since changed their story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only 1nce (talk • contribs) 03:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He still states it was Trayvon Martin on top. And he wasn't sure if it was punches or him pinning George Zimmerman down.  Emeraldflames (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't know if it's the same person for sure. Several of the other "media witness accounts" are similar in nature. We would either have to do away with all media witness accounts or leave them.Whatzinaname (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

For any changes in the article regarding the witness known as "John", we would have to have a reliable source for it, so a link to the reliable source(s) and the relevant excerpts would be welcomed here for discussion. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"dozens of break-ins"
In section "Zimmerman's role in the neighborhood watch" is the sentence
 * "Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death included eight burglaries, nine thefts, dozens of break-ins (at least one with a woman and infant upstairs) and one shooting."

But the part "dozens of break-ins (at least one with a woman and infant upstairs)" is not mentioned in the sources and was missing in earlier versions. So it must have been added later without giving a source. --188.101.15.87 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * source: Chris Francescani, "George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting", Reuters, 25 Apr 2012. --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And it's ALL irrelevant. None of it has anything to do with the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It explains the context in the neighborhood. That is connected with Zimmerman's perceptions. That is why Reuters reported it. It doesn't extend beyond that. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Its relevance goes to why Zimmerman decided to volunteer for Neighborhood Watch.  It also goes to why Zimmerman was so vigilant; if break-ins were occurring regularly, even when people were at home, it was only a matter of time before someone was going to get hurt.  There is another factor, which the article doesn't include but which was mentioned during an interview with one of the black residents of the Twin Lakes neighborhood:  all of the known burglary, theft and  break-in suspects were young black men.  And among young black "gangsta wannabees," the willingness to engage in this sort of "hunting" is seen as a kind of rite of passage.  Those who participate are admired for their bravado, and the spoils of their petty crime are much coveted, even as such activities work to the eventual detriment of those who participate, their families, and the black community in general.Apostle12 (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Even if Zimmerman's motivation is described by that premise we do not want to accidentally put the same motive on Martin. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course. It would be completely unfair for us to assume that Martin was actually intending any mischief.  Yet his behavior aroused Zimmerman's suspicions, specifically Martin's walking around in the rain and lingering between the houses, looking them over.  Zimmerman's suspicions may have been groundless, however they were aroused for legitimate reasons.  That is what makes the intersection of these two young men's lives so tragic. Apostle12 (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's all speculative bullshit. We have no idea what Zimmerman was thinking, let alone why he thought those hypothetical thoughts. None of this should be in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please moderate your language.  Constantly calling items that are being discussed bullshit isn't helpful.Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The facts are in the article, that's all. I would never propose we include ANY of the above discussion. Apostle12 (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * But WHY are the "facts" in the article? HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @HiLo48, it would be speculation to try to say what Trayvon or George was thinking, but it is not speculative to describe the number of criminal incidents. And those are relevant in the larger picture of why they started the neighborhood watch, why George got a gun, and why he would be patrolling. We can't say more about George's thoughts than what we hear on the tapes, but if you take it in context, it makes a lot more sense. -- Avanu (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually Zimmerman got a gun because of a dangerous pit bull running loose in the neighborhood. Though you are probably correct that the break-ins, burglaries and a shooting (before this one) likely influenced his decision to carry a firearm. Apostle12 (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Because, as TheSoundandTheFury noted, the facts provide context. As a small community whose residents have found it necessary to call the police a bit more than once a day during the past year ("402 times from January 1, 2011, to February 26, 2012"), the Retreat at Twin Lakes has a unique character.  And it's also important to note that Zimmerman placed only 11 of those calls; the vast majority were placed by other residents. Apostle12 (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It is relevant if you look at the prosecution's theory of what happened that night. They allege that Zimmerman profiled Martin as a criminal. They also allege that Zimmerman was tired of letting "these fucking assholes get away" and called Martin a "fucking punk". And because of the past break-ins where the other's got away, this time, Zimmerman wasn't going to let Martin get away, so he followed and confronted him and ended up shooting him. Read the prosecution's account of events, and you will see the relevance.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  05:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then the context needs to be made clear. We need to say why it's being included, i.e. that it's part of the prosecution's case. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, so far there is no proof that Zimmerman confronted Martin. That is merely an assertion made by the prosecution.  The prosecution also asserts that the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin before Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, which we know to be completely false.  (See transcript:  only after Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and tried to locate Martin on foot did the dispatcher say, "OK. We don't need you to be doing that." Apostle12 (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The probable cause affidavit also says Martin purchased a can of iced tea, which they also know isn't true. Psalm84 (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, although this is a trivial matter--it was a can of Arizona brand fruit drink, not a can of Arizona brand iced tea. The falsity of the other prosecution assertion, that the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin before Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, is significant; recordings of the exchange, which were easily available to the prosecution, prove that their assertion is absolutely untrue.Apostle12 (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is why I said look at the "prosecution's theory" and used the word "alleged" and said to read the "prosecution's account of events". This article isn't just about what Zimmerman claimed happened, the prosecution charged him with second degree murder and they have a theory as well of what happened that night. Just to be clear, Zimmerman's claim of self-defense is just an assertion as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  06:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely; at this point no one knows whether Zimmerman needed to defend himself, or not. Apostle12 (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The larger question, and it is an ongoing national debate, is "To what extent is profiling legitimate?" In my own community a pattern similar to that which prevailed at Twin Lakes has developed--a raft of burglaries and home invasion robberies, where the suspects are all "young black men."  Profiling based exclusively on "black" is obviously illegitimate, but how about black combined with demeanor, behavior and dress?  "Hoodies" in particular provide instant disguise for anyone who decides to commit theft or burglary--pull the hood up, and you're good to go, with little chance of being identified. Apostle12 (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it needs to be made clear that what you're describing does not mean that all young black men wearing hoodies are criminals. Where I live the young white men wear them. They want to look cool. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. Apostle12 (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Now a source has been added, but it is still wrong: It says "dozens of break-ins", but the Reuters source says "dozens of reports of attempted break-ins", and secondly the other data about burglaries and thefts is police data, the statement about the break-ins is what residents to the media said. This should not be mixed up in one sentence without further explanation ("eight burglaries, nine thefts, dozens of break-ins (....) and one shooting"). And even if one thinks that it is important that at one of them there was "a woman and infant upstairs", it is quite absurd to write "at least one with a woman and infant upstairs". How many other incidents with a woman and infant upstairs could there have been? --188.101.11.196 (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a bit difficult to paraphrase and also be minutely accurate; we may be quibbling here. I'll attempt to fix it....Done. Apostle12 (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with being "minutely accurate"! Reports by residents about attempted break-ins (which may include seeing "strange people" like Trayvon Martin) is something completely different than by police confirmed break-ins. Additionally, if dozens of residents tell about reports about attempted break-ins, this doesn't mean that there were dozens attempted break-ins, this can (in extreme case) also mean, that dozens of people refer to the same single attempted break-in they all have heard of. --188.101.11.196 (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)-- 188.101.11.196 check your talk page ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You make some good points. However it may be useful to reread the Reuters article http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425, which conveys that there were legitimate reasons for anxiety among Twin Lakes residents.  I trust the current revision, which is based partly on that article, faithfully summarizes the main points.Apostle12 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The information is relevant to Zimmerman's possible motivation to be suspicious of a stranger (which says nothing about Martin except he was a stranger). There is overlap between the Sanford police reports on RTL and the interviews by Reuters: neighbors told Reuters about a bicycle stolen from the Zimmermans and there was a police report on that theft. This reminds me of criminologists arguing whether to accept FBI UCR reports or NCVS projections; but, no one argues to add them together although some cite UCR but note that NCVS reports some crimes are not reported to police. For that matter a police report may be filed only after the citizen report has been investigated and evidence found. --Naaman Brown (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You know how this is meant to be settled? Looking at reliable sources. How do they use these facts? We are not constructing our own narrative, picking out which parts are important, which speculative, which legitimate and which not. We are looking at the assemblage of available reliable sources and doing our best to have the article reflect the kinds of facts they include (with the implicit assumptions that are inevitably embedded in any presentation of facts.) The Reuters article above is a prime example. Including information that seeks to explain part of Zimmerman's behavior and probable thought processes is perfectly legitimate as long as it is cited to an RS. And it's helpful to the reader. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Intermediate range in Trayvon Martin infobox
How far away is "intermediate range" in this case and are there sources that confirm the distance in relation to the term "intermediate"? Some sources say "close range". Is there a difference or is it the same, because testimony in the trial so far would suggest a much closer range than what I would consider "intermediate".-- JOJ Hutton  17:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is discussed in the section of "Martin's autopsy report". We probably could add those references to the infobox or put it in a note form. Would that help clarify for the reader what intermediate range is?-- Isaidnoway (talk)  19:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this the section? Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Just to make sure we are on the same page because you say "discussed" and I automatically assumed that you were referring to a talk page discussion, but there isn't a thread by that name.-- JOJ Hutton  20:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not clarifying. You are correct, that is the "discussion" I was referring to.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  20:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Took a look at the source for the autopsy and it refers to intermediate as 1 to 18 inches. Maybe say that in the infobox. Intermediate range (1-18 inches),-- JOJ Hutton  21:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

✅-- Isaidnoway (talk)  21:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, the terminology is really unusual here, last I checked "near-contact" was another definition, but we have no actual distance? Endorse note for discrepancies in official documents versus court accounts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd opt for removing the range issue, because the definition of an "intermediate wound" is that it produces stippling - the range itself is unknown and disputed and providing any window advances a position that "intermediate" is defined as 1-18 inches, when it is not. If we want to be accurate, let's not interpret a range, but stick with the textbook definition. Also... intermediate ranges are often listed at 8 inches to 3.5 feet in some definitions:
 * "'Intermediate range (6-8 inches to 1.5-3.5 feet): This is too far for soot to travel so there is no fouling, but hot fragments of burning propellant (gunpowder) follow the bullet to the victim and produce stippling by causing pinpoint burns around the entrance wound. Of the two types of propellant, “ball” and “flake,” the former will produce stippling at a greater distance. ~ 'Forensic Investigation Handbook: An Introduction to the Collection, Preservation, Analysis, and Presentation of Evidence' Karagiozis and Sqaglio p. 139"
 * The definition here varies and that is why a note is needed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that the defense said that a difference in gun/sweatshirt range compared to gun/chest range could be explained by Martin's sweatshirt hanging down while he was  bending over and assaulting Zimmerman.  I think that was in the defense's opening remarks, but I'm not sure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall something like that, but our use of a defined range for "intermediate range" is speculative and OR, something which is not held in any defined textbook. The term applies to a wound that has stippling, but no scorching marks. That is the definition we should be defining in our note. The vast ranges given by the experts throw out the actual definition for a range which cannot be confirmed with any certainty. That's where my concern lies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What is currently in the infobox is from the autopsy according to a reliable source. For now it seems OK but we may want to reevaluate it after the trial is over so that both the prosecution and the defense views about the range, and the significance of the range, can be considered in how and what range info is presented. I agree that we shouldn't get into OR. One caution flag regarding OR is when reliable sources are brought in which aren't directly related to the topic of the article, e.g. books on range that don't mention this shooting case. (See WP:NOR.)--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A "Reliable source" which cannot define range and contradicts other reliable sources is itself reliable? That's bunk. We should go with the underlying definition and don't advance mere speculation as fact. That's like saying the platypus is a duck because of its bill. No one disagrees what the "intermediate range" is, but they cannot give the measurements for the "intermediate range". There is a big difference between 1 inch and almost 4 feet. If the court testimony alone proves this fact. So let's not introduce the min-maxima, mode or otherwise as that itself is a prohibited synthesis. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me what you're proposing. Here's the item in the info box.
 * "Single gunshot fired at intermediate range (1-18 inches)"
 * Specifically, what are you proposing that this should be changed to? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

- "Intermediate range" with a ref note describing the forensic definition of "Intermediate" without speculating on the range. Something like, "Intermediate range is defined as a wound that has stippling marks. Forensically, a "distant wound" does not have stippling marks and a "close/near contact" produces a scorching wound on." Reword the note as you must, but let's drop the speculative distance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The ME testified last week that it was between 0.4 inches to 4 feet. However, due the the sweatshirt having "contact" marks, obviously the maximum distance is going to be a few inches (However far TM's shirt could hang/stretch) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ChrisGualtieri, It appears that you want to keep the term "intermediate range" and add your original research that what the reliable source meant by intermediate range is given in a reliable source not directly related to the topic of this article. See WP:NOR. What would you think of  simply reducing  the part in the info box to "Single gunshot" and give any appropriate discussion of the range and other details in the main text, without OR of course?  --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gaijin42 - I know as much, but we don't know how far that is - no one does. We have 4 sets of measurements, all of them forensically defined as "intermediate" - I do not believe that it was 4 ft and I don't think it makes any sense to put a range in that is both misleading and inaccurate. That ME is an unreliable and unprofessional individual, one should not be taking personal notes into the court room and reading from them to present "new evidence" as was done. The entire process of evidence preservation was botched and the ME got even basic procedures wrong - something which the defense's expert pointed out. Honestly, much of Bao's assertions and outright reversal about Martin able to act and speak after being shot shows the "experience" of the ME. Maio's analysis is the one we want one here if anything - but I did not want to be "picky" about the assertion prior to the expert's conclusion. Maio's work conclusively limits the range - far better than this 1 inch to 18 inches or 4 feet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon's Right to Stand Your Ground Law
I have yet to see mention here or in the trial of Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground. [BLPvio redacted] Trayvon Martin would have had the right to fight, hurt, even kill George Zimmerman, [BLPvio redacted]. If he knew Zimmerman had a gun, he would have had the right to fight to get the gun away from Zimmerman and shoot Zimmerman with it. If Trayvon had been a girl that Zimmerman was raping, we would be seeing that even if the rape-victime fought back and tried to get the gun away from Zimmerman, that Zimmerman was the assailant and the girl had the right to the Stand Your Ground Law. Why is everyone ignoring Trayvon's right to stand his ground? -- Daviddaniel37  (talk)  9:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by  76.169.231.224  (talk • contribs)  16:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Everyone is "ignoring" it because we don't exist in the alternative universe where those events transpired.Whatzinaname (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Re "I have yet to see mention here or in the trial of Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground." — The stand your ground law protects someone from prosecution, so it isn't relevant to Martin since he isn't being prosecuted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with bob's conclusion. SYG is an affirmative defense. However, this has come up in the trial. BDLR has mentioned it several times. It is entirely feasible that TM was in reasonable fear of his life and fought on that basis - which in turn could give Z his own reasonable fear. Entire situation could be a feedback loop of fight/flight/fear/aggression/dominance. the assumption you are making is that if TM had a self defense justification, then Z could not have, is incorrect. Both could have a reasonable (but ultimately correct or incorrect) fear of the other.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since TM is not on trial he would not have a SYG defense in this case. From what I have seen and read, the SYG aspect is a defense against a homicide charge.  It would appear to be really a legalistic term which has no real application for TM in this case.  That said I don't think anyone is ignoring that TM would have had the right to claim a SYG defense if the situation were reversed.  Arzel (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUM but : The point is not that he would have SYG if things were reversed - they are arguing that he was actually defending himself from Z's hypothetical stalking and assault, and that any beating he gave Z was in self defense because of reasonable fear to his life or bodily injury. This is plausible. I am not arguing that the following is my POV, merely that it is one possibility that fits the hard known facts. Both participants could have been in reasonable fear of the other (given the limited info each knew about each other, and each others intentions). The entire tragedy is plausibly a cycle of escalating fear/aggression/dominance based on evolutionary basic reactions (flight/flight) etc. At each step each participants actions are a reasonable response to the previous actions by their opposite - and this led to a very bad place. The fact that there are MANY plausible scenarios that all fit the facts (including ones where TM is totally innocent and defending himself from a violent racist, and ones where TM is a horrible thug who decided to teach a lesson to a racist wanna-be cop) - is why this case should come down as reasonable doubt. there is just way too much unknown when you are trying to prove state of mind - especially when the defendant was on the phone with the cops shortly before, and has some signs of injury - proving his intent was malicious is gonna be real tough. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)