The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Habermas
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

zimmerman shouldnt be found guilty of murder

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
dairygirl4u2c
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 783 times Debate No: 35582
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

prosecution must show that zimmerman acted, beyond a reasonable doubt, wrongly.

in this case, zimmerman was shown to have a bloodied up nose and head. concrete was shown to have been used by martin, it wasn't as if he was truly unarmed. martin on the other hand showed none of these things.
the screams are too uncertain to tell who is who, and whatever the case, we can't prove who initiated deadly force, other than to note that zimmerman is the one who showed serious injury on his body.
also, there are credible witnessess who say martin was on top of zimmerman. martin only has his friend to say otherwise.

given zimmerman can't be show to have murdered martin beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution's case fails. sure, there are valid doubts about zimmerman, but nothing beyond a reaonable doubt, the standard used against the prosecution.
Habermas

Con

First off, murder is a general term. It can mean a lot of things. Ie: 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder, Manslaughter. Since this was not premeditated, it could not have been 1st degree murder however it was 2nd and 3rd and here is why.

To begin with when you say, "there are credible witnesses who say martin was on top of Zimmerman. martin only has his friend to say otherwise". That's not true, in the sense that, yes, Martin did have a friend as a witness however, so did Zimmerman. His witnesses, were all friends/neighbours. Same quality of witnesses in that regard.

The serious injury is another matter, one of the few convincing pieces of evidence. something. No blood was found on Trayvon Martin. (None of George Zimmerman's I mean)If he bloodied up Zimmerman like that wouldn't he have had blood on him?

Now let's start with the charge of Manslaughter. This one for me is the most obvious. Zimmerman initiated the conflict by following Trayvon Martin. And he was recorded saying: "Those ****ing punks, they always get away". Zimmerman said he was afraid as he got out of the car, but then instead of following Trayvon as a vigilante, call the police instead. But he didn't therefore if he had not gotten out of that car, a life would have been saved. A 17 year old's life I might add. In conclusion the charge of Manslaughter. Here is part of a legal definition of manslaughter:
"In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice." Link is here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

2nd degree murder, Trayvon was heard to have said by a friend on phone with him: "A Weird a**cracker is following me" Or something along those lines, Trayvon would have seen Zimmerman's gun. Opening up another defense: Even if Trayvon had a scuffle with Zimmerman, you could argue it was self defense on the part of Trayvon Martin. Another thing, why couldn't Zimmerman have shot for the leg or just wounded Trayvon? Why did he have to kill him? In short 2nd degree murder.

I want to point to the fact that TRAYVON MARTIN IS JUST A KID. He was just a kid eating skittles, just think about that as we move forward with this debate.

-Habermas
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"To begin with when you say, "there are credible witnesses who say martin was on top of Zimmerman. martin only has his friend to say otherwise". That's not true, in the sense that, yes, Martin did have a friend as a witness however, so did Zimmerman. His witnesses, were all friends/neighbours. Same quality of witnesses in that regard.

zimmerman has lots of witnesses, even if some of them might be bias. surely they aren't all going to lie. martin has a friend who could say anything.

"The serious injury is another matter, one of the few convincing pieces of evidence. something. No blood was found on Trayvon Martin. (None of George Zimmerman's I mean)If he bloodied up Zimmerman like that wouldn't he have had blood on him?

he has cuts on his head and face, blood on his body doesn't necessarily exist for it not to be serious. he was getting his head beat with concrete, and he was the one with the serious injuries. not Martin. ths is all erasonable doubt enough that he acted in self defense.

if you add to it that Martin had a tone to him as well "weird as$ cracka", and using racial undertones, not Zimmerman, and you see perhaps Martin was quick on the draw.

Zimmerman shouldnt have approached, and all the peices not only to Zimmerna's account being most probable, it is at least reasonable doubt.

You could argue it was self deefnse of Martin, but you could also argue a lot of stuff. it can't stick to zimmerman cause tehre's too many realistic scenarios, and the evidence mostly helps zimmerman. it's not the defendant's burden of proof here. it's teh prosecutions.

it doesn'[t matter if manlaughter or 2nd degree are 'heat of passion' or passion crimes, and that just because zimmerman was passioned doesn't mean it was a crime, if it was only passioned as self delfense. which we again have reasonable doubt to think happened.
Habermas

Con

Zimmerman has lots of witnesses" I would like evidence of those "lots of witnesses" that you describe.

"he has cuts on his head and face, blood on his body doesn't necessarily exist for it not to be serious. he was getting his head beat with concrete, and he was the one with the serious injuries. not Martin. this is all reasonable doubt enough that he acted in self defense." Yes but if Trayvon did seriously beat George Zimmerman, and with all those cuts, he must have at least some evidence of some kind of a scuffle on Trayvon. Blood or a scratch on Trayvon, something!

"if you add to it that Martin had a tone to him as well "weird as$ cracka", and using racial undertones, not Zimmerman, and you see perhaps Martin was quick on the draw." Granted, I don't like the racial undertones about that either but since Zimmerman was following him, and the history of violence against Blacks/Racial Profiling/This is Florida, would suggest that Martin would be right to be quick on the draw. Also think about this, Martin may have seen the gun on Zimmerman as well.

"You could argue it was self defense of Martin, but you could also argue a lot of stuff. it can't stick to Zimmerman cause there's too many realistic scenarios, and the evidence mostly helps Zimmerman. it's not the defendant's burden of proof here. it's the prosecutions."
True, however what I am saying in this section of the debate and the previous round is that I am not just arguing but giving substantial evidence in favor of that.

"it doesn'[t matter if manslaughter or 2nd degree are 'heat of passion' or passion crimes, and that just because Zimmerman was passioned doesn't mean it was a crime, if it was only passioned as self delfense. which we again have reasonable doubt to think happened."First off a claim that manslaughter or 2nd degree murders are heat of passion doesn't matter is absurd. It does matter simply because that is one of the options that can be charged as Manslaughter, or 2nd degree murder. Also when you say passioned as self defense, first off little confused on what you mean by that but also, Zimmerman was following Trayvon with a gun! I don't see how that constitutes as self defence.

I'd like to end this round of debating with another thing to think about. Trayvon Martin, saw and was freaked out by a white man following him with a gun. Now when I say that remember the history of violence towards Black's, and the racism Trayvon almost certainly experienced. Again think about that as we move forward.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

zimmerman had marks on his body. and all witnesses on both sides say there was a scuffle, and the recording showed a scuffle. martin's body doesn't need to show anything for a scuffle to be established. and hs lack fo marks doesn't indicate anythign else, except that zimmerman was being seriously injured.
why should being quick on the draw be justified just because he was being followed if that's what happened? it doesn't justify it, if that means initiating a fight. and seeing a gun doesn't justify it if that's what happened. and, we shou7ldnt have assumed he saw anything, it's again the prosecutios burden. tehre is a lot of things that could have happened, jut as many helping zimmerman.

all i'm saying is i dont know why you think a passioned crime without self defense existed... it may have been passioned, but there was too much reasonabel doubt and factors making it look like self defense. if that exists, that's an absolute defense.
following Martin with a gun eosnt constitute self deefnse.... i enver said that. but teh reasonable doubt that Martni attacked Zimmerman exists, with lots of evidence. proseuction didnt meet its burden of proof.

if at the end of the day all we can get zimmerman on is that he shouldnt have followed martin, that's not enough to get murder or anything else, especially when there's so much evidence in zimmerman's favor.
Habermas

Con

To begin with, lets say there was a scuffle and there is evidence there was one. And there was fight. And Martin was the aggressor. (I'm not saying he is, and there is not enough evidence either way). Even then, did Zimmerman have to shoot to kill? He couldn't fight back? He is a grown man for gods sake. He did not have to shoot an unarmed teenager! Doesn't matter if it was a more violent fight, he could have shot him in the leg or something.

You said this: "you see perhaps Martin was quick on the draw."
Then later you said this: "why should being quick on the draw be justified just because he was being followed". Feels a little Contradictory, just wanted to point that out but to awnser, that you didn't respond to the part of the violence. If I was a black kid being followed by a white man and I saw him with a gun, I would be quick on the draw. Besides, my point is I think Zimmerman above anyone else was quick on the draw. He sees a kid and starts following him with a gun? Oh wait it makes sense now, that kid was black.

I disagree yes a lot could have happened but, lets look at what we know: A white man says "Those F***ing punks, they always get away." And gets out of a car and starts following a unarmed black kid just eating skittles. He then comes near him a scuffle starts, Zimmerman gets hurt and then a kid gets shot and killed. That's what we know. From what we know 100%, it seems like manslaughter. From the simple fact that if he had not gone out of the car, a life would have been saved. I'm not saying it was passionate or not but what I am saying is that, if he had not gone out of that car, Trayvon Martin would still be alive. If he had called the police instead of following him, Trayvon Martin would still be alive. "In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing." From my earlier quote, aditonal circumstances, let's say, seeing a black kid thinking he is up to something following him with a gun? That does not excuse a killing. By the way, you never awnsered my challenge to name the witnesses. There was only a few last I checked.

In Conclusion, I think Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter and maybe 2nd degree murder.

Thanks for debating with me, I enjoyed it I hope we do another debate eventually.!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
Hey, don't look at me, I'm so not in this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
dairygirl4u2cHabermasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: While I don't think pro did a fantastic job, it is almost impossible to prove Zimmerman's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. BTW con, Zimmerman did have blood on his face and on the back of his head, there are pictures. Grammar goes to con because pro didn't capitalize the first letter of most of their sentences.