User talk:NoamZinn

Barnstar "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" editing

Thanks, however I don't perceive any "pro-Zimmerman slant." Personally I am supportive of Zimmerman's right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. And I am supportive of all efforts to learn the truth about this tragic intersection of two young lives.

Mostly I have been appalled by the tendency of those who call themselves "pro-Martin" to rush to judgment, trash Zimmerman's rights, and even to threaten his life. When Al Sharpton publicly called Zimmerman a "murderer," I considered that the height of irresponsibility. Our system operates under the "assumption of innocence" principle, and I see too little respect for that in the black community.

I agree with you that Zimmerman's record should be public knowledge. I think it should also be public knowledge that Martin was suspended from school several times, attended a high school until 2011 where violence was rampant and had adopted a pseudo-gangsta personna that belies any attempt to represent him as an angel. Both young men were human, and both young men possessed virtues as well as faults. If it turns out that Zimmerman shot Martin for any other reason than justifiable self-defense, I will condemn his actions that fateful night. If it turns out that Martin attacked Zimmerman, beat him up, and threatened to kill him, then I think Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin, however sad it certainly is that he lost his life.Apostle12 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the omission of significant information? It makes sense that all pertinent information be public. Furthermore, the lack of certain information is an editorial in and of itself. That entire article lacks balance. If the character of Martin is called into question, then so should Zimmerman's. Why are his previous arrests not mentioned? Where is the rest of the pertinent information on the timeline? A balanced piece would state ALL of the facts available. "This person did this. That person said that." The personal opinions of the editors should not as apparent.NoamZinn (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Martin's character isn't called into question. I don't agree that the article lacks balance. You seem confused on several counts. Apostle12 (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]