George Zimmerman Acted In Self-Defense Against Trayvon Martin
Debate Rounds (3)
The prosecution did not go for manslaughter because they wanted a heavier punishment and ultimately failed their gamble.
The facts are simple. He created the situation in which Trayvon Martin was killed. Any degree of escalation of the situation that lead to Trayvon Martin's death was ultimately his responsibility and fault. Trayvon Martin was the one acting in self defense, not George Zimmerman.
It's a situation where the police are on their way and the suspicious person is leaving the neighborhood. There had been no crime committed. There was no reason to follow him. The moment Zimmerman left his car was the moment when Zimmerman was creating a dangerous situation: a confrontation between two scared strangers in the middle of the night. Let me repeat, there was no reason to follow him. This is what makes him responsible, because it was his conscious decision to leave his car and create a dangerous situation. To not understand that a person would be scared from a stranger following him in the middle of the night is an act of extreme stupidity. It's reasonable to expect that a conflict would emerge from this vigilantism. To not is a mistake, a mistake that turned out to be deadly. A mistake that was Zimmerman's
Also, during this encounter, George Zimmerman failed to run away. If he was trailing Martin from a long distance, then how did he not see him coming and run away? Even brandishing the weapon in warning would've been better than letting him attack you until you had the claim of self-defense.
In a court of law, once someone has admitted to using violence in self-defense, the burden of proof falls upon the defense to establish self-defense. Trayvon clearly attacked Zimmerman. However, that act was in self-defense, which means that it must be proven to be self-defense. That's where the case was lost. How was the prosecution supposed to prove Trayvon's self-defense without his testimony?
There was no conclusive evidence that Zimmerman directly confronted Martin, and the jury decided that was enough to let him go. But the act of stalking someone in the middle of the night with a gun in a clumsy enough manner to get noticed, and then failing to run away is reason enough for manslaughter.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Travyon initiated the confrentation, and Con gave little information showing that Zimmerman initiated it, beat himself, killed Travyon out of hatred, etc. following Travyon wasn't by any means a crime and Zimmerman had the right to defend himself although I think if he was older, stronger, more mature, etc. he may have been able to think the gun wasn't needed while he was being assaulted "ground and pound style" or "mma style".
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.