The Instigator
sungod97
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Letsdebate24
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

George Zimmerman is innocent.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,007 times Debate No: 43101
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

sungod97

Pro

First round is for acceptance. Second is for opening arguments. Third is for attacks. Fourth is for rebuttals and final words.
Letsdebate24

Con

I accept the challenge
Debate Round No. 1
sungod97

Pro

I thank the con for accepting this debate.
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.

Sources:
http://www.capitalisminstitute.org...
http://www.dlas.org...
Letsdebate24

Con

Martin did indeed run as can be heard by Zimmerman in his call to the police and he proceeded to pursue martin. Zimmerman had not right to chase down Martin when he had not been caught committing and crimes and the dispatcher had told him "we don't need you to do that" but he clearly did not heed the dispatchers advice because he continued to follow Martin as stated in your first argument. 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.
Debate Round No. 2
sungod97

Pro

"Zimmerman had not right to chase down Martin when he had not been caught committing and crimes"
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.

Sources:
http://www.capitalisminstitute.org...
http://www.dlas.org...
Letsdebate24

Con

Not in those words exactly but by stating the Martin conversation. Martin had attempted to lose him only to be followed hence "why are you following me?" moving on. Did he break a law in following Martin no, but did he instigate the conflict that resulted in an innocent boy losing his life, yes! He had not caught Martin in any crime so therefore he should not have pursued 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.
Debate Round No. 3
sungod97

Pro

Your first argument:"did he instigate the conflict that resulted in an innocent boy losing his life, yes! He had not caught Martin in any crime so therefore he should not have pursued him. "
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.
Letsdebate24

Con

1. Apologies I meant his statements made to the police upon questioning. There were no witnesses that saw who instigated the fight, they only saw the two fighting.
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.

http://youtu.be...
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by sungod97 3 years ago
sungod97
Yes but not George Zimmerman because of the reasons I have stated in the debate and others which I could not fit into the space. You can look at my sources if you want. @Tactician
Posted by Tactician 3 years ago
Tactician
@sungod, do you think OJ was guilty? What about Cassey Anthony?
Posted by sungod97 3 years ago
sungod97
I wonder if anyone will accept.
Posted by sungod97 3 years ago
sungod97
I've practically won every debate on this because no one gives solid evidence as to how George Zimmerman didn't defend himself. Most people have just called me racist and left. It's hilarious.
Posted by CHS7777 3 years ago
CHS7777
This is definitely going to be an interesting topic to debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.