The Instigator
Fictional_Truths1
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Rayze
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Zimmerman verdict was just.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Fictional_Truths1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 991 times Debate No: 35688
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Fictional_Truths1

Pro

First round is for acceptance only. Pro will argue that the verdict that the jury reached in the case of Florida vs. George Zimmerman was just under Florida State law. Con will be arguing the opposite.
Rayze

Con

I accept this debate, and may the better debater win.
Debate Round No. 1
Fictional_Truths1

Pro

Okay, let's begin. I'm going to go through each aspect of the case one by one.

1. Self Defense

The witness that the prosecution brought onto the stand testified that it looked like Trayvon was on top, as seen here (http://www.lasvegassun.com...)

Zimmerman had multiple injuries to the back of his head as well as a hurt nose, as seen in these pictures:

(http://abcnews.go.com...)
(http://www.theblaze.com...)


The injuries on the back the head are especially important. The only way these injuries could have occuried was if Trayvon attacked him from behind, or if George Zimmerman was thrown towards the ground. The latter theory is much more likely and substantiated by the previously given witness testimony.

In Florida, Stand your Ground indicate that you have no duty to retreat, and that you can use lethal force if necessary. Even normal self defense laws only say that you must retreat only if it is safe for you to do so. Since Trayvon was on top of him, and was actively attacking George Zimmerman while he screamed for help, it was more than reasonable for George Zimmerman to use his gun not only to protect himself, but to protect other individuals in his neighborhood from a child willing to pummel a man for 45 seconds while he screamed for help.

2. Lack of Evidence
There is a lack of evidence. Constitutionally, George Zimmerman must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Their is plenty of reasonable doubt in this case. Nobody know's when George shot him. The only eyewittness besides the accused indicated that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. Their is no evidence that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin when he followed him, and following somebody is not a crime. BOP must be on Con in this case because George Zimmerman is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt according to the U.S constitution.

3. Empathy

What would the jurors have done in Zimmermans shoes? You are the neighborhood watch captain, their is a tall boy in a hoodie wondering around in the rain, and you are concerned about your community. You decide to follow him and ask him what he is doing. He doesn't respond and walks away from you, which makes him look suspicious. All of a sudden, he punches you in the nose. You fistfight, and he has you down on the ground, pummeling you. You are yelling for help, but nobody answers. You are still getting your head pounded, and feel yourself bleeding. Adreniline runs through your veins. You have a Fight or Flight response, but cannot Flight because you are held on the ground. Would you shoot him? It's important to note that Trayvon was shot once. This means that George, in all likeihood, did not intend to kill him, and did not realize that he was dying.
Rayze

Con

Opening Statements

Before I begin, I would like to state that despite media portrayal of the Florida vs George Zimmerman trial as a gun control, racial profiling incident, the trial was an issue of voluntary manslaughter (due to Sanford Police Department's botched handling of the the case). However, if the Sanford Police Department handled the case better, then the Prosecution would have been correct to follow through with Second Degree murder.

Also the Burden of Proof lies on Pro to prove that the Zimmerman's Juror's decision of not guilty was just.


1. Why Manslaughter?
Manslaughter, according to Florida statutes 782.07 section 1 is
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.775.084. (http://www.leg.state.fl.us...)

Zimmerman's actions on the night of Trayvon Martin's death is an act of culpable negligence.
According to the Legal Dictionary: culpable negligence - (law) recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences) (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)
He disregarded Sanford Police Dispatch's order not to pursue Trayvon Martin,(http://www.documentcloud.org...)
Confronted Trayvon Martin and entered a scuffle that neither the prosecution nor the defense can say for certain who instigated the scuffle. Zimmerman knows, but he shredded his credibility during a bond hearing where a Florida Judge said Zimmerman lied about his finances to obtain a bond (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). End result of said scuffle was Martin's death, and several minor injuries to Zimmerman.

Zimmerman attempts to justify his murder of Trayvon Martin through Florida Statutes 776.013 section 3 which states, "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." (http://www.leg.state.fl.us...)

However, Section 3 of 776.013 does not justify Zimmerman's actions for one reason. Excessive force was used the night of Trayvon Martin's death when Martin was found dead with a bag of Skittles and Iced Tea. Martin was not found with any weapons that could end Zimmerman's life nor were there any indications that Martin attempted to strangle Zimmerman. (Lack of articles or evidence thereof suggesting Martin attempted to strangle Zimmerman as well as lack of testimony during Court Proceedings)

2. Regarding Lack of Evidence
We can thank Sanford Police Department for its hurried investigation and botched handling of the case for lack of evidence regarding second degree murder.(http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)

3. Juror B37
Juror B37, the only one among the 6 jurors of the Florida vs. George Zimmerman case to speak publicly of the case said, "I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into, I think they both could have walked away." (http://www.cbsnews.com...)

While Juror B37 placed more blame on Trayvon Martin than George Zimmerman, she still acknowledges that Zimmerman went too far.

Opening Conclusions

The implications of this trial is simple, you will not be found guilty of murder or manslaughter because of poor judgement. The news of this trial should be a relief to the thousands of idiots, reckless drivers, drunks, addicts, and emotionally unstable people that their fatal mistakes won't lead to jail time. (This is sarcasm)

Zimmerman's acquittal is actually nothing more than another case where Florida Statute 776.013 is turned into a complicated law that can harbor criminals.
Debate Round No. 2
Fictional_Truths1

Pro

1. Manslaughter
"Zimmermans actions the night of Trayvon Martin's death is an act of culpable negligence... He disregarded Sanford Police Dispatch's order not to pursue Trayvon Martin"

The police dispatcher is a civilian, with no actual authority, other than to call in an ambulance/police car/ firetruck. It was a recommendation. Reasonable caution was enacted. Arg

"Confronted Trayvon Martin and entered a scuffle that neither the prosecution nor the defense can say for certain who instigated the scuffle. "

He confronted him by asking questions, because their had been a string of robberies in the neighborhood, and a suspicious character (Trayvon himself) was walking through the neighborhood. Since nobody knows who instigated the scuffle, and George Zimmerman must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we must assume that George did not start it, because the prosecution did not prove that George did start it beyond a reasonable doubt. For those of you who do not reside in the U.S, according to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, the prosecution must prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.



"However, Section 3 of 776.013 does not justify Zimmerman's action for reason. Excessive foe was used the night of Trayvon Martin's death when Martin was found dead with a bag of Skittles and Iced Tea. Martin was not found with any weapons that could end Zimmerman's life nor were there any indications that Martin attempted to strangle Zimmerman."

George Zimmerman had already been injured multiple times in the back of the head, and had a seriously injured nose. The law does not say that the aggresser has to be armed. The law simply states that "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." This means that George Zimmerman only needed to be in the mental state of Fight or Flight, in a state where he was being harmed and legitamately believed his life or physical health was being threatened. Voice analysis is unclear, but somebody was yelling for help (http://www.washingtontimes.com...-/). Coupled with the testimony provided previously, at some point Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. We don't have a lot of evidence, but the evidence provided is in favor of Zimmerman. Remember, the threat need not have been real, it only had to be legitimately percieved by Zimmerman.


2. Reguarding lack of evidence

"We can thank Sanford Police Department for its hurried investigation and botched handling of the case for lack of evidence regarding second degree murder."

Ah, but you forget that the governor got involved and hired a special prosecuter to take over the case. The prosecution didn't provide enough evidence either at the local or state level. No matter why their wasn't any evidence, at the end of the day, their was not enough to convict, and the jury agrees.

3. Juror B37
"While Juror B37 placed more blame on Trayvon Martin than George Zimmerman, she still acknowledges that Zimmerman went too far."

This is a fallacy. You bring in the juror's opinion as support for your arguments, yet ignore the not guilty verdict unanimously reached.

Opening conclusions:

"Zimmerman's acquittal is actually nothing more than another case where Florida Statute 776.013 is turned into a complicated law that can harbor criminals."

The complexity of the law is irrelevant, the fact is, the aquittal is in compliance with the law.




Rayze

Con

I am confused that you would attempt to refute a conclusion based on juror B37 and an ending remark, but the matter is of little consequence the resolution.


Rebuttals

1. "The police dispatcher is a civilian, with no actual authority, other than to call in an ambulance/police car/ fire truck. It was a recommendation. Reasonable caution was enacted."

Regardless of the Dispatch's position as a civilian, it is extremely doubtful that reasonable caution was enacted, since Zimmerman's actions followed the legal definition of culpable negligence.


2. "George Zimmerman must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we must assume that George did not start it, because the prosecution did not prove that George did start it beyond a reasonable doubt. For those of you who do not reside in the U.S, according to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, the prosecution must prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Presumption of innocence is not explicitly cited in the US constitution, and I am not arguing for 2nd degree murder like the Prosecution. Also the inclusion of the US constitution into this debate is irrelevant since there are no constitutional amendments that can justify poor judgement. I am stating that the verdict of not guilty should have been replaced with manslaughter. The fact remains that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. With hindsight we have seen that Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence displaying his poor judgement in his pursuit of Martin, showing reckless disregard for his and Trayvon Martin's life. He could have, if he had shown better judgement, monitored Martin until the police arrived and then confronted Martin. The consequences of Zimmerman's actions that night is proof of poor judgement.


3. The law does not say that the aggressor has to be armed.

True, the law does not state that the aggressor must be armed, but it is extremely difficult to note who the aggressor was on the night of Trayvon Martin's death. Thus Section 3 does not apply to Zimmerman unless he could prove that he was not the aggressor. Zimmerman's injuries sustained during the fight is not proof that Martin was the aggressor, nor is Martin's death proof that Zimmerman was the aggressor. In hindsight, Section 3 of Florida Statute 776.013 does not apply because of excessive force (Fist v Gun).

4. "While Juror B37 placed more blame on Trayvon Martin than George Zimmerman, she still acknowledges that Zimmerman went too far."This is a fallacy. You bring in the juror's opinion as support for your arguments, yet ignore the not guilty verdict unanimously reached.


I have not ignored the not guilty verdict presented by the jury as I have already made an implicit reference to the verdict by stating "placed more blame on Trayvon Martin than George Zimmerman." Perhaps I should have rephrased it as; George Zimmerman's acquittal shows that the jurors placed more fault on the deceased Trayvon Martin than Zimmerman. However, the juror has acknowledged that Zimmerman went too far during the scuffle.

Closing for round

I would like to request that Pro state his contentions on why the verdict was just instead of focus on what the prosecution was trying to prove, because the Prosecution and I have different objectives. I am placing this request because in the past 2 rounds Pro is intent on proving Zimmerman's innocence than why the verdict was just. Whereas I have placed an alternative sentence (manslaughter), and defended the alternative sentence. With the current progression of this debate, I fear that the debate will devolve into an argument on Zimmerman's innocence rather than a debate on whether or not the Zimmerman verdict was just. With that request I return the debate to Pro.

Debate Round No. 3
Fictional_Truths1

Pro

I'm a bit puzzled here. The verdict reached was not guilty of manslaughter or murder. "Innocence" equates to the Not Guilty verdict being just. Also, if the prosecution did not prove their case, then that means that a Not Guilty verdict would have to be reached.




1. Manslaughter

"Regardless of the Dispatch's position as a civilian, it is extremely doubtful that reasonable caution was enacted, since Zimmerman's actions followed the legal definition of culpable negligence."

This is a fallacy. The definition of culpable negligence that Con provided says "Recklessly acting without reasonable caution". Therefore, we cannot assume he did not enact reasonable caution based on the definition of culpable negligence. If we did, this is what it would look like:

P1: He did not use reasonable caution.
C: He did not use reasonable caution.

You see where we run into trouble? This is a circular logic fallacy (forgive me for not knowing the latin words for this kind of fallacy), in which P1 is the same as C.

"Presumption of innocence is not explicitly cited in the US constitution"

I have read the transcript and you are right, Con. However, Article 11 paragraph 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the U.S (http://en.wikipedia.org...), states that "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense." (http://www.pbs.org...ile)

"Also, the inclusion of the US consitution into this debate is irrelevant since there are no consitutional amendments that can justify poor judgement"

It is not irrelevant. Manslaughter is a second degree felony, which, in Florida, carries a minimum 9 1/4 years in prison. It is a criminal offense, which is tried in criminal court. Any and all protections in the constitution must apply in this case. You are correct in that there are no constitutional amendments that can justify poor judgement, however, the amendments guarantee a fair trial, which was met.



"I am stating that the verdict of not guilty should have been replaced with manslaughter. The fact remains that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. With hindsight we have seen that Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence displaying his poor judgement in his pursuit of Martin, showing reckless disregard for his and Trayvon Martin's life. He could have, if he had shown better judgement, monitored Martin until the police arrived and then confronted Martin."


Just because Zimmerman killed Martin doesn't automatically make him guilty, because of self defense laws. He did not show reckless disreguard for his and Martins life by following Martin. He was simply doing his job, protecting his neighborhood from a stranger in a time when the neighborhood was being attacked by a string of robberies. He was not intending to get into a physical confrontation, nor was he endangering anyones life simply by watching Trayvon. The fact of the matter is, the fault lays on whoever actually started the fight. That, we'll never know.

"The consequences of Zimmerman's actions that night is proof of poor judgement."

Poor judgement? Zimmerman judged that Trayvon was a thug, a potential criminal, and he was right. He followed Martin on foot so that he could make sure that their wasn't a threat to his neighborhood and so that the police could find him without Zimmerman losing track.

"True, the law does not state that the aggressor must be armed, but it is extremely difficult to note who the aggressor was on the night of Trayvon Martin's death. Thus Section 3 does not apply to Zimmerman unless he could prove that he was not the aggressor. "

Not so. According the Universal Declaration of Human Rights mentioned above, signed by the United States of America, Zimmerman must be innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor to show that Zimmerman was not acting in accordance with law.

"In hindsight, Section 3 of Florida Statute 776.013 does not apply because of excessive force (Fist v Gun)."

One defensive shot to keep himself from being injured further is not excessive force if Zimmerman legitimately believed it was necessary. This is in accordance with the very same statute.

I'll just drop the juror point.

Conclusion:
Zimmerman was rightly found to be not guilty in accordance with law. Con wants me to focus on the Not Guilty verdict being just and not on the innocence of Zimmerman, but that is impossible because they are one and the same.










Rayze

Con

Thank you Fictional Truth, for clarifying in your response that this is a debate about Zimmerman's innocence rather than protecting the verdict. Thus, I now know what I must do in this debate. Which is to continue to defend the proposed alternative verdict and systematically attack Zimmerman's credibility unstead of the Juror's decision of not guilty.

On the offense

1. False accusation of Circular Logic

Pro accuses me of circular logic when I exclaimed that George Zimmerman's actions the night of Trayvon Martin fit the definition of culpable negligence. Instead of enquiring why I would dare accuse Zimmerman of culpable negligence, Pro instead resorted to a straw man of my counterremark with the Dispatch. Thus I am compelled to disclose the source that led me to that conclusion. The source is Melbourne, Florida's Neighborhood Watch Handbook. While the Handbook is not from Sanford, Florida's Neighborhood watch manuals generally provide the same information regarding the responsibilities of the Neighborhood watch.

According to the Neighborhood Watch Handbook, the Neighborhood watch is a joint effort to reduce crime in one's neighborhood. It also states on Page 4 that, "You should never attempt to apprehend a suspect. This is the law enforcement officer's job." (http://www.flgov.com...)

2. Culpable Negligence
Now that you know that the Neighborhood Watch is a joint effort between community and law enforcement, and that one should never attempt to apprehend a suspect. We can note how Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence in seven simple points.
i. George Zimmerman spots Trayvon Martin
ii. Zimmerman calls 911
iii. Dispatcher requests that Zimmerman not follow Martin and says that a law enforcement officer is already enroute.
iv. Zimmerman pursues Martin after ending call
v. Zimmerman confronts Martin and then gets engaged in a scuffle.
v. At one point during the scuffle Martin inflicts several injuries on Zimmerman's head
vi. Zimmerman then pulls out and shoots Martin with his Kel-Tec 9mm pistol at point blank range.
vii. Martin bleeds to death before law enforcement personnel arrive on scene.
Points iv and v reflect Zimmerman's disregard for his own life, while point vi shows Zimmerman's disregard for Martin's life.

3. One Shot
"One defensive shot to keep himself from being injured further is not excessive force if Zimmerman legitimately believed it was necessary. This is in accordance with the very same statute. "
One shot to the chest is sufficient to kill someone in a span of a few minutes due to excessive blood loss. Since Zimmerman qualified for a concealed weapons permit it is natural to assume that Zimmerman understood the consequences and responsibilities of owning a sidearm.

Conclusion

Zimmerman acted with Culpable negligence the night of Martin's death and is guilty of manslaughter.
Debate Round No. 4
Fictional_Truths1

Pro

You are very welcome Rayne. Now I will rebutt your points. No new arguments in the last round, just like any other debate.

1. False accustion of circular logic.

With what I had to work with, which was this, it was not a false accusation.
"Regardless of the Dispatch's position as a civilian, it is extremely doubtful that reasonable caution was enacted, since Zimmerman's actions followed the legal definition of culpable negligence."

The definition of culpable negligence is not using reasonable caution.

The only reasoning you gave was that reasonable caution was not enacted because his actions fit the definition of culpable negligence. Now that you have clarified further, it is obvious that you are not committing a fallacy. Thank you for further explaining.

As for the neighborhood watch handbook, it says don't attempt to apprehend the suspect. It says nothing about following the suspect to keep track of him for law enforcement.

2. Culpable Negligence
By the way, these are 8 points. There are two "v" points.

i. George Zimmerman spots Trayvon Martin

Nothing unusual here, I'm sure my opponent agrees

ii. Zimmerman calls 911

Again, nothing out of the ordinary. he is part of the neighborhood watch, and their was a string of robberies, and Trayvon was a stranger.

iii. Dispatcher requests that Zimmerman not follow Martin and says that a law enforcement officer is already enroute.

Nothing out of the ordinary here.

iv. Zimmerman pursues Martin after ending call

He was trying to keep track of Martin so that he didn't get away. He was not attempting to engage physically. He did not anticipate a violent confrontation. This was not showing disreguard for his own life because he was not trying to pick a fight. All we know for sure is that Zimmerman was trying to keep track of Martin. We also know, from the 911 tape, that Trayvon started running as soon as he saw somebody in a car on a phone. Zimmerman was showing caution for the residents of the neighborhoods life by making sure he knew where the stranger was at all times. Trayvon was being paranoid and running away even before Zimmerman got out of the stationary car.

v. Zimmerman confronts Martin and then gets engaged in a scuffle

This only shows disreguard for his own life if he hit first. We do not know who hit first, so we cannot assume George did. If Trayvon hit first, then George was showing reasonable caution for his own life. We just don't know, and thus, this point is irrelevant.

vi. At one point during the scuffle Martin inlicts several injuries on Zimmermans head

This means that Zimmerman acted with reasonable concern for his own life because the scuffle was well under way before Zimmerman resorted to using a gun.

vii. Zimmerman pulls out and shoots Martin with his Kel-Tec 9mm pistol at point blank range

This does not show that Zimmerman acted without reasonable caution for Trayvons life for one simple reason: He was showing reasonable caution for his own life. He legitimately believed that his life was in danger, and thus had the right under Florida state law to get rid of the threat. Zimmerman only shot Trayvon once, and did not realize that Trayvon was dead until he was told.

3. One Shot


"One shot to the chest is sufficient to kill someone in a span of a few minutes due to excessive blood loss. Since Zimmerman qualified for a concealed weapons permit it is natural to assume that Zimmerman understood the consequences and responsibilities of owning a sidearm."

Zimmerman was being violently attacked. He was in an adrenaline induced state of Fight or Flight. The fight was still going on. The scuffle went on for a while before Zimmerman pulled the gun out. He did not conscencely decide to shoot Martin in the chest. He was aiming for the torso to stop the threat. The chest happens to be a big target which is likely to get hit if someone shoots randomly. He was showing reasonable caution of his own life and the life of his neighbors. Think about it. If this stranger runs away when he sees someone calling 911, is willing to pummel a man, and is about to run off to do god-knows-what, Zimmerman was showing reasonable caution of his and his neighbors lives, which trumps Trayvons. Also, you are instructed only to use your firearms in self defense. Zimmerman did just that.

Conclusion:
Zimmermans actiong showed caution for his life and his neighbors. He was protecting his neighborhood from what he legitimately believed to be a threatening stranger and only pulled the trigger when there was simply no other option. Zimmerman's actions were done in the heat of the moment when adrenaline was pumping through his veins, and he showed great remorse after he realized that Trayvon was dead. Simply put, Zimmerman is not guilty of manslaughter because he was protecting himself from being a victim of the very same crime he was accused of.










Rayze

Con

Conclusion

In a fight where there is no clear aggressor one would assume that both combatants have the collective right to self defense. Which is in more simpler terms Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon Martin while Martin had the right to injure Zimmerman. Such a notion is complete rubbish and only justifies the poor judgement of both men. Zimmerman took an unnecessary risk when he pursued Trayvon Martin despite the Police Dispatch advising otherwise. That risk was further shown when he and Martin engaged in a scuffle. To make matters worse the media coverage of the case was separated along partisan lines with liberal and conservative media attempting to one up each other in a media circus messing up the facts. Zimmerman's recklessness warrants manslaughter charges since his poor judgement and certain misperceptions led to the death of Trayvon Martin. However, if Trayvon Martin were alive, we can surmise that he would have been placed under arrest on the charges of battery or assault.

Request
I would like to request that the voters judge not with their pre-set notions regarding the case, but with an open mind judging the content of the debate itself. Also when writing the reasons for decision please place constructive criticism to allow myself and Fictional Truth to improve on future debates. Otherwise you will be doing the two of us a grave disservice. Thank you and have a good time skimming the other debates.

Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Rayze 3 years ago
Rayze
Mikal, I had previously asked in the Final round not to inject pre-set notions or opinions when voting. I should have caught this voting error During the Voting Period last year.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I only skimmed this, thus shall not be voting (unless counter votes become needed).

Pro you really need to pick a higher font size, like standard 12pt. Con, you did a great conclusion; I liked how it wasn't trying to convert a (likely) violent man into an angel, while sticking to what Zimmerman did wrong (we don't need pathos appeals, for Zimmerman to have misbehaved).
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Arguments to Pro, simply due to the fact of how con was refuting his self defense argument. Con stated both had the right to self defense. This is not so much true as shown by pro. Zimmerman was following him to make sure he did not rob anyone while the cops came. When he approached him to ask him questions, this is not a viable reason for martin to act in self defense. This is merely a face to face confrontation. While we will never know who started, as shown in this debate all evidence points to the fact Trayvon did due to multiple injuries. Which gives Zimmerman the right to slay him if he believed his life was in danger under the Florida state statue. Con never really addressed this, and piled it up to lack of evidence. Essentially saying that because there was a lack of it, both had the right to defend themselves.

The example to this would have been in Trayvon hit Zimmerman, at that point Zimmerman is acting in self defense. Self defense is not acting in response to someone confronting you. By this logic, anything can be justified under stand your ground. You would need reasonable cause to kill someone, and Zimmerman did have the scars to show this as shown by both competitors. Due to the fact I think Con derailed this by saying lack of evidence does not justify stand your ground, arguments to pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Fictional_Truths1RayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RF in comments