George Zimmerman is innocent.
Debate Rounds (4)
Argument 1: Trayvon Martin was the instigator of the fight.
Sequence of events according to Rachel Jeantel:
After Trayvon told her a man was watching him she told Trayvon he should run.
She could hear that he started running.
The phone then disconnected.
Trayvon then called her back after 20 seconds or so and said he was "by the back of his father's fiancee's house" (where Trayvon was staying).
He was breathing hard at that point and it was clear that he had been running.
Trayvon then started talking to her in a low voice, "almost like a whisper".
Trayvon continued talking to her in a low voice for a couple of minutes and then told her he saw the man again.
Trayvon then went up to the man and said "Why you following me for?" and the man replied "What are you doing around here?"
Argument 2: The police dispatcher did not tell Zimmerman to stay in his car.
From the audio recording, it's clear Zimmerman had already started on foot in the direction Martin had run. After about 10 seconds when he tells this to the dispatcher, the dispatcher simply says, "we don't need you to do that" and Zimmerman says "OK". After a few more seconds, the pace of his breathing slows to normal and it seems clear that he is walking (no longer running or jogging).
He and the dispatcher then start to discuss where he should meet with the police and Zimmerman tells the dispatcher he doesn't know where Martin went. Zimmerman later told the police he had stopped trying to find Martin by that point, but there is no way to tell what he did after hanging up.
Argument 3: Eyewitness account is similar to Zimmerman's.
Jonathon Good was a neighbor who ended up seeing the fight between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Immediately after the conflict, he told police that there was a "darker-skinned guy on top pretty much throwing down blows."
Argument 4: Zimmerman was told by police officers that that whole video was caught on tape and he was relieved.
Zimmerman had every right as a concerned citizen to follow an individual who he deemed suspicious.
""He clearly did not heed the dispatchers advice because he continued to follow Martin as stated in your first argument"
First of all, my first argument doesn't state Zimmerman continued to follow Zimmerman. Second, even if he did continue to search, he broke no law because a police dispatcher has no authority and it isn't a crime to follow someone.
"After failing to loose his assailant Martin confronted Zimmerman.Martin did not show aggression when obviously being followed instead he tried to avoid a conflict. Zimmerman persisted creating the situation that was about to unfold"
Martin didn't fail to loose his assailant. Martin traversed about 70 yards to confront Zimmerman. Sounds more like Zimmerman lost Martin. This is true because the incident happened 70 yards away from where Trayvon Martin was staying. There is no clear evidence whether Zimmerman was walking back to his car or kept searching Trayvon, but there is clear evidence that Trayvon traveled 70 yards to confront Zimmerman and assault him.
As you stated in your first argument Martin noticed he was being watched and that he had ran. Then he was "by the back of his father's fianc"e's house" Zimmerman followed Martin there (by his own admission in court) and then Martin confronted him. Martin had made it back to his destination only to have Zimmerman right behind him. Now if you were being followed by someone you never met would you lead him back to the house you were heading back to? No you would not bring someone back like that. Martin had no idea what Zimmermans intentions might be. For all he know he could have shot up the house when he got inside involving other people.
Zimmerman's father is a retired magistrate judge for he supreme court. Now a person in that position has the power to pull some strings hence Zimmerman making it known upon his arrest who his father was.
Zimmerman was in trouble with the law twice shortly after his trial ended. One of the times he assaulted his wife and threatened her family. Now is it too far fetched to think that having failed to get into the police academy he was eager to wield authority and he thought a young kid was the perfect person to bully around.
1) Zimmerman instigated a confrontation but he didn't instigate the illegal assault Trayvon committed on Zimmerman. Martin's assault was unwarranted for such a situation. 2)Again, by following Trayvon, Zimmerman did not commit therefore he did not do anything wrong and this should not be the basis for deciding whether he was innocent or not.
Your second argument: "Zimmerman followed Martin there(by his own admission in court)"
1) Now stop right there because there is one big problem. That problem is that Zimmerman never testified in court. So he could have never said that. 2) All my sources contradict what you just said involving Zimmerman chasing Trayvon to the point of the incident. And you have not provided any source that supports your claim.
Your third argument:"Zimmerman's father is a retired magistrate judge..."
Now the rest of this is pure speculation. No solid evidence shows that Zimmerman did this for the purposes that you stated.
Now, you have still failed to show that Zimmerman started the fight. You haven't contradicted that Trayvon travelled 70 yards to brutally assault Zimmerman with proper sources. Also my third and fourth arguments remain untouched while all my attacked arguments still stand.
2. You were the one that stated Martins conversation saying that he was being followed, then he was outside his fathers fianc"e's house. Zimmerman himself had said that he followed Martin. And its rather difficult to provide hard evidence when no one saw the incident start and the only other witness was killed.
According to Zimmerman, Martin walked back out from the houses and around his vehicle and back the way he came when Zimmerman followed him.
The only evidence there is to go off that Martin instigated the attack Zimmermans word alone. In a typical trial that is not solid evidence! You have provided no evidence to support that Martin attacked first other than Zimmermans account so that should not be viable as evidence.
These are the only solid facts
1. Martin had not been caught committing a crime by Zimmermans own account
2. No one saw who started the fight
3. If Zimmerman had not followed him this would never have happened.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.