zimmerman shouldnt be found guilty of murder
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 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||1|
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.
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.