Jump to content

Talk:Trial of George Zimmerman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:State v. Zimmerman)


Zimmerman defense team announced it would use a Stand Your Ground defense

[edit]

A couple of editors have been removing the following statement: 

The defense team announced that it would seek a "stand your ground" hearing because case evidence showed "clear support for a strong claim of self-defense."

One edit summary for the deletion says, "Removed a statement stating the defense had used "stand your ground" in the defense of George Zimmerman. The sources cited sources did not exist, such as the Orlando Sentinel citing a blog post that was never made, verified by checking O'Mara's blog". The second edit summary says, "Florida law requires stand your ground hearings. Self defense is just one defense in a FL SYG hearing, as is SYG. IF ruled SYG, no charge, no trial!"

The Orlando Sentinel article of August 9, 2012 that is cited for the statement being removed says, "Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, on Thursday formally announced that he would defend Zimmerman using Florida's now much-debated 'stand your ground' law."[1] NPR reported on that same date, "George Zimmerman, the man charged with second-degree murder in the death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, is going to ask for a 'stand your ground' court hearing in an attempt to have the case against him dismissed without ever going to trial. Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's attorney, confirmed the news this morning in an announcement on his client's legal defense website."[2] This was also reported by the Associated Press,[3] Reuters,[4] the Miami Herald,[5] and a number of other news media.

The claim that "The sources cited sources did not exist, such as the Orlando Sentinel citing a blog post that was never made, verified by checking O'Mara's blog" is original research. Dezastru (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is valid debate as to if the SYG did or did not have an effect on the case. There is no debate as to if there is a notable linkage in the public mind between the case and SYG, and there is also no debate as to if O'Mara had previously said he was going to have an SYG hearing (but later did not). (However, that statement is ambiguous as "SYG hearing" is really "SD immunity hearing" and has not much to do with the actual SYG provisions except that they were created in the same law. The content should be restored, but perhaps clarified and expanded to be as clear and correct as possible. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under Florida law, a Stand Your Ground hearing only determines whether SYG is used as an immunity. If it is SYG, then there is no charge and no trial. Self defense is another outcome, besides SYG immunity. "Self defense" was actually what was used to defend Zimmerman, not SYG. Have removed claim that was invalid that SYG was being used for the defense. (It wasn't planned to be and it wasn't.) Having a SYG immunity hearing is not using a SYG defense. After all, there were charges filed and a trial. Had SYG actually been affirmed, neither would have occurred. FL law is confusing to those outside Florida on SYG. We should not claim SYG was invoked when it wasn't. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 15 March 2014

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, so by default the page is not moved.
This is the second move discussion about this page in only 4 months; the most recent was in November 2013, also closed as "no consensus". If any editor is inclined to consider a further move request, please support your proposal with evidence of how it conforms with policy on article titles. If the proposal is based on WP:COMMONNAME, then provide evidence of common usage (as set out in that policy), rather than one cherry-picked example. If the proposal is based on a naming convention, then provide evidence that such a convention exists. This proposal did neither, so it is unsurprising that it failed to reach consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


State of Florida v. George Zimmerman → Florida v. Zimmerman – The short names of all court cases in the United States consist only of the parties' last names, never their full names. This is also the consensus with regard to naming American case articles throughout Wikipedia without exception. Plus, a book by Zimmerman's father, Robert Sr., used it. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)71.59.58.63 (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

Per MOS:LEGAL: articles on cases should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case. I don't know what that name is in this case, but that's the convention. ENeville (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

juror names and details

[edit]

The names of the jurors are getting published now. per WP:BLPNAME and others, I think its clear we should not include their names in these articles, nor any identifying information. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Word "Profiling" in the 2nd Sentence

[edit]

On April 11, 2012, George Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. In support of the charges, the State filed an affidavit of probable cause, stating that Zimmerman profiled and confronted Martin and shot him to death while Martin was committing no crimes.[1]

I object to the use of the word "profile" in the head of the article, due to the fact that it conveys heavy bias that Zimmerman somehow did something wrong or illegal. Throughout the media, the allegation of "profiling" is used to cast aspersions on a person's character, the idea being that they are somehow racist, despite the fact that there is no evidence of racism. This is certainly true here, in this article, and the word should be deleted, particularly since we now see the entirety of the State's case and there has been no evidence of any racial aspects to the charges. If the allegation of a racial component to this situation is going to be introduced this early in the article, a statement that there was no evidence of any racism on the part of Zimmerman was offered by the State. Underlying the overt charge of murder is the covert charge of "racism" that has been affixed to Zimmerman by the media and those political activists seeking to use the situation to further their own political objectives, and this bias has no place in the beginning of the article, however if one argues in favor it keeping these allegations of racism this early in the article, those allegations should be balanced by the fact that no evidence of racism was ever submitted by the State to support this charge.

In fact, I think there should be some attention paid to the whole notion of racial "profiling" as it is frequently misused by the public, and unless it has direct and meaningful bearing on the specific situation being described by a Wikipedia article, the use of the word should be scrubbed. "Profiling" is a word that only applies to person's acting in a professional capacity, such as law enforcement. Average citizens cannot "profile" someone as a part of their normal, day-to-day activities.Jonny Quick (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago

[edit]
Consensus is to merge, and comments show that Speeches of Barack Obama#Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago is an acceptable target. The content has already been merged and the title redirected, so there is nothing further to do. If editors want to merge some of the content to other relevant articles, they remain at a liberty to do so whenever appropriate. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This stand-alone article on an Obama speech no one remembers can be telescoped easily into the Zimmerman trial reaction section without any measurable loss of content. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Veggies (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Speech is not notable on its own; had no impact outside of Martin shooting.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Speech has no apparent notability. I see no coverage indicating this is more notable than any other speech. The trial is notable. Obama is notable. Speech? Not so much. The main discussion on it was a) This is more points against Zimmerman (Appeal to authority but oh well). and b) Should a president take sides in an on-going trial?. Neither of these ever led to policy changes, and existed solely as political commentary. It can go here instead of getting a separate article which will never have a defined name. ― Padenton|✉   15:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Looks quite obvious to me. Banedon (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but to a more relevant article Since I created this article, I know this is going to make some people have a total "WTF" moment, but I would support merging Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago, but definitely not to the trial page - although obviously some of the content can be included there. This was a major address President Obama made about race relations in the United States. It was inspired by, but not exclusively about the trial. And with all due respect, I believe people do remember it. If consensus is to merge, here is where most of the content should go: Speeches of Barack Obama. George Ho (or Veggies, as that is strangely vague here) I would hope you find my proposal a good alternative. I am taking a Wikibreak (unrelated to this good faith discussion) for most of the summer. I'll support whatever consensus is here. Have a great summer, everyone! (For those of you in the Northern Hemisphere, that is! for everyone else, stay warm...) Juneau Mike (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Trayvon Martin. This clearly doesn't need an article of its own, but the trial page is not the proper page with which to merge it. Moonboy54 (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Follow-up: No objection here to merging it to Trayvon Martin article. I have some reservations about merging it with Speeches of Barack Obama. Obama's spoken many times, (as do many presidents) This seems to have been one of his more minor ones. Unfortunately, the Speeches of Barack Obama article is quite small, and including this would give undue weight to it over far more significant speeches (e.g. inauguration, state of the union). Speeches of Barack Obama could use a fair bit of improvement and then maybe it could be a target for merge, but I can't support more than a few sentences on this speech in there with the relative size of the other sections. ― Padenton|✉   06:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up to Padenton I'm on a Wiki-break, as said, but have been following this discussion when I can. In reply to Padenton's comment, there are very notable speeches made by President Obama that contain a very short listing on Speeches of Barack Obama, with the only other content of the paragraph being a Wikilink to the main article page, where applicable. I understand Padenton's comment, but I find a sort of circular logic in stating that the Speeches of Barack Obama needs an expansion, but then say that this is not the article to be merged with it, and/or redirected to it. While inspired by the conclusion of the Zimmerman trial, this Obama speech went well beyond that into the broader issue of race relations in America, and most importantly President Obama's own experiences with it in graphic terms. This was not a minor or "non-notable" speech. If the consensus is to merge Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago (TMCHBM35YA), I'll respect that. But I strongly maintain that the proper place to merge it is with Speeches of Barack Obama, to include the quote of his own experiences with racism, and then redirect TMCHBM35YA to that page. Thank you. Juneau Mike (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, to a relevant article A merge seems apt, but not a merge to this article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Serialjoepsycho: Can you explain which destination the article must merge into? --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trayvon Martin article seems a good choice. Though there could perhaps be a better choice.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up - I have moved what I believe are the most pertinent details, including President Obama's quote from the speech, to Speeches of Barack Obama. I'm not jumping the gun here, but no matter how this discussion ends, what I have moved there belongs there in any case. I have kept it short so as not to give it undue weight in the article. I believe Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago is now ready to become a redirect to Speeches of Barack Obama. I don't say this lightly, I created and have heavily defended the original article. But if consensus means anything, and I strongly believe it does, then this is truly where the article should be redirected to. Thanks for everyones participation.Juneau Mike (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere, or possibly just put it up for deletion. Not sure that this is the appropriate place, and it's likely the speech is already covered in the places where it's relevant; I'm not sure we really need it as a redirect, although it's not a big deal either way. Even for a president, not every speech they give needs its own article, and this one only seems to have attracted attention and commentary right after it occurred. --Aquillion (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has already been proposed for merging twice on the main article talk page. So this kind of looks like forum shopping here. In any case, I think a more appropriate place to merge is the Trayvon Martin article or Speeches of Barack Obama article, but not this one, as it had little to do with the case trial. Also note that much of the individual speeches on the Speeches of Barack Obama article also have their own articles too. I'd say that Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago should be put through a request for deletion to see if it deserves its own article. Keiiri (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirected Speaking as the original articles creator, since I have already moved the most pertinent parts of Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago to Speeches of Barack Obama some time ago, keeping it short so as to not give undue weight in the article (but keeping the most important quote about President Obama's own experiences with racism intact), I went ahead and redirected the speech article. This does NOT close the merge discussion here, but it makes it simpler. Anyone wishing to merge the original articles content into articles about Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman or the trial of George Zimmerman may still do so in good faith. I have enjoyed this discussion, sincerely. Thanks to everyone who participated.Juneau Mike (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-trial donations need a mention

[edit]

The article says he received donations from fans/supporters to the tune of around $135,000, but this was before and during the trial, right? Hasn't he received a LOT more since then? (As has the cop who shot Michael Brown) --RThompson82 (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, if you have some reliable sources that talk about it, add it to the article, if it has relevance to the trial itself (which I doubt). It would be more likely to be appropriate for Zimmerman's own article, rather than here. GregJackP Boomer! 04:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move according to convention.

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Trial of George Zimmerman Proposed title was clearly opposed due to lack of recognisability, but a consensus appeared o emerge around the title being moved to. Number 57 13:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

State of Florida v. George Zimmerman → State v. Zimmerman – The short names of all court cases in the United States consist only of the parties' last names, never their full names. Since it is not a federal case, the prosecution is referred to as 'State', not 'Florida'. This is also the consensus with regard to naming American case articles throughout Wikipedia without exception. All previous discussions resulted in "no consensus" lacking quorum. The style guideline Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal#Article_titles is clear (and is the result of consensus), we follow Bluebook format. And the Bluebook formatted name is 'State v. Zimmerman'. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC) ― Padenton|✉   05:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey2

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion2

[edit]
Any additional comments:
  • It's important to comply with the style guideline, but perhaps a more identifiable name would be more appropriate, such as Trial of George Zimmerman. State v. Zimmerman won't necessarily be easily recognized as the George Zimmerman case.Moonboy54 (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could live with the recommendation of Moonboy54. GregJackP Boomer! 05:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Moonboy54, especially using just the word State which isn't really helpful for anyone. Zarcadia (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect of Trial of George Zimmerman, but State v. Zimmerman is the correct name according to Bluebook and therefore MOS guidelines. ― Padenton|✉   18:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zarcadia: officialnames is an essay (and is not an explicit reason to not use the correct name) and recognized name shows nothing, as there is nothing showing that State of Florida v. George Zimmerman is more recognizable. The google search results you linked show 22 results for the current name and 18 for the name of the proposed name. WP:GOOGLETEST is only ever valid when there are orders of magnitude in favor of one phrasing. Furthermore, no one is saying not to leave a redirect so that is all moot. ― Padenton|✉   18:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Padenton: Of course State of Florida is more recognizable than State, State is an ambiguous word, why should we not include the name of the state? To quote WP:NAMINGCRITERIA verbatim The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize, so including Florida in the title satisfies that. In regards to WP:GOOGLETEST, the results I posted were from Google News, so reliable sources, not random web pages. Zarcadia (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zarcadia: Once again, I have yet to see anyone suggest not leaving a redirect behind after the move, no one will have trouble finding it. That's why we have redirects, for alternate names people will likely use trying to find an article on something. 'State of Florida' is inaccurate. Specifying 'Florida' implies that it's a federal case. This debate has already been had multiple times on several state trial articles. This is why the MOS:LEGAL guidelines follow the conventions of the legal profession. Not everything appearing in Google News is a WP:RS and again, the difference in search results doesn't support your argument. The only time WP:GOOGLETEST is anywhere close to valid is when the number of search results differs by a high factor (i.e. 10), this doesn't even differ by a factor of 2. It's meaningless, and not even close to statistical significance. See WP:HITS for more information. ― Padenton|✉   19:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both refer to content of articles, not article names. The name is also not jargon or overly technical itself. This is the proper name for the case, and if it was jargon, the part of MOS:LEGAL that applies here couldn't exist. ― Padenton|✉   19:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 'proper name' is irrelevant, please read WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Zarcadia (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problems with WP:OFFICIALNAMES are:
  1. It is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Anyone can write an essay. That does not mean they are unimportant, that does not mean they are invalid. Their general purpose is to provide guidance in cases that are not explicitly covered by guidelines and policy, and to otherwise supplement guidelines and policy. This case is covered by a guideline as shown above. Guidelines are created if and only when consensus is supportive of them. Consensus therefore supports MOS:LEGAL, and I don't see how this is a better name than the official name. As I have said, I am not opposed to leaving behind a redirect which should satisfy any concerns about people being unable to find it.
  2. Please look again at Wikipedia:Official_names#Rationale. It mentions 3 possible rationales for not using official names, all of which fail as I explain below:
    • Obscurity: This one fails because it is not obscure. As I stated above, a googletest is only a valid indication of names that are/aren't obscure when there is a significant difference in the number of hits by a large multiplicative factor.
    • Competing Authorities: This one fails because there is complete agreement in all authorities. The court record uses the name State v. Zimmerman. You can see that here: [8] and as explained above, fits with Bluebook case naming guidelines (and therefore MOS:LEGAL)
    • Changes to Names: As the case is over, no additional parties can be added and the case's name will never change.
WP:COMMONNAME is for when there is a highly significant difference in the prevalence of a common name over the official name. That page lists a few examples, such as using Caffeine over its chemical name (that's where jargon would come into play, I suppose), or using peoples' stage names or preferred names over their birth name. Or in the case of FIFA, or in the case of this absurd redirect I came across the other day which is a redirect already but it helps to illustrate the point here. ― Padenton|✉   21:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME is for when there is a highly significant difference in the prevalence of a common name over the official name. No, it doesn't say that at all. It says we should use the most common name and you have provided no evidence to support your proposed move. Zarcadia (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And so "most common name" to you is 4 more hits on google? ― Padenton|✉   01:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Law has been notified on their talk page here. ― Padenton|✉   23:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Does Anybody want to augment this article with the evidence on Brittany Diamond Eugene?

[edit]

Do you think that a good case has been made that that Brittany Diamond Eugene was the actual girlfriend of Trayvon Martin and that her half-sister, Rachel Jeantel pretended to be the girlfriend in court? (PeacePeace (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

George Zimmerman Murdered Trayvon Martin

[edit]

The 911 Dispatcher basically told George Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon, help was on the way. Instead, Zimmerman kept following Trayvon and murdered him. My opinion , Trayvon was dead; therefore, Zimmerman could CLAIM ANYthing including the fact that Trayvon attacked him (which I don't believe) including he shot the boy in self defense then put marks on himself so he could GET AWAY WITH MURDER! By the way, I Am a White Lady and I believe Zimmerman is GUILTY!!! 2603:9001:7D7F:8EAE:E4E2:A214:DBBF:8516 (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to that opinion, but Wikipedia tries to maintain a neutral point of view. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Crime and Violence

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nathanfielder (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hudson1521.

— Assignment last updated by Ruby2017 (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trial_of_George_Zimmerman&oldid=1242884879"