Who was really guilty: George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin?

Who actually broke the law: George Zimmerman, or Trayvon Martin?

  • George Zimmerman

  • Trayvon Martin

36% 16 votes
64% 28 votes
  • He attacked Travyon Martin first

  • He was guilty. His innocence was only declared by a rule of law. Conventional Morality: Stage four according to Kohlberg, but that is about the level most people operate.

    Posted by: 54Hugo
  • George Zimmer claimed he used the weapon on Trayvon for protection, which is false because he left the perimeters of his protection when he decided to pursue Trayvon after being instructed by the laws not to. Nor was any deadly force used by Trayvon. If both of them were fighting and as a result of the fight a death was caused then it would be manslaughter. It's manslaughter when you have no intention of causing the death of a person but it happened as a result of fighting. When you pull out a gun and aim it at someone and pulling the trigger you had intentions on killing that person which takes it out of the range of manslaughter. George Zimmerman was the one who introduced deadly force to the situation and had deadly force on him while pursuing Trayvon therefore making him guilty

    Posted by: Oshun
  • If George Zimmerman just stayed back like he was told by the police, Trayvon Martin would still be alive. I don't care if Martin punched Zimmerman. I might do the same if I'm approached by a big guy who is following me. Sure, if Martin had started the fight then Zimmerman would have the right to use his gun. However, Zimmerman caused the whole problem in the first place.

    Posted by: bkjk
  • the second you jump on top of someone, no matter how the provocation was initiated, you lose the ability to claim self defense. when Mr. Martin started bashing Zimmerman's head into the ground, its reasonable to assume Zimmerman feared for his life and was thusly justified in firing the fatal round into his heart.

  • nothing anyone did until the fight was illegal. Both people have a reason to be suspicious of the other. Ether Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, missed, then Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, bashing his head into the sidewalk, and THEN Zimmerman shot Trayvon. Or Trayvon started it and his head bashing was all offense, not self defense. In one, Zimmerman is guilty and Trayvon attacked in self defense; in the other, Trayvon is guilty and Zimmerman acted in self defense, and I'm not even talking about stand your ground. We have NO evidence regarding who attacked first, and neither side would win a civil case much less a criminal one. but based of character evidence (size, constant use of the n word, gold tooth), Trayvon most certainly is the aggressor. Justice prevailed.

  • I think there is a lot more than meets the eye with Trayvon. He was suspended from school three times and had a history of bad behavior. I do not believe he was not violent with Mr. Zimmerman.

  • There was no evidence that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. See, if a man attacked me like on the level Martin did I would kill him without remorse. When someone breaks a law like that they forfeit their right to life. When you deny someone a mercy you will have that same mercy denied. Additionally, for those of you that make the argument that it was Zimmerman's fault because he followed Martin... well... you see, you don't kill people for following you if you are a decent human being.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Reefresocotias says2015-03-25T21:10:45.5643852-05:00
It doesn't matter that Zimmerman didn't stay back. This was no tragedy. It was the death of a killer. Martin had it coming.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.