CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
George Zimmerman Vs Trayvon Martin CASE
Is George Zimmerman guilty of anything? Did Trayvon Martin defend himself against a pouncing George Zimmerman?
Look up the case yourselves, though I will give a summary of the unfortunate situation.
Basically, a hispanic adult male (George) thought a black teenager (Trayvon) was up to no good and confronted Trayvon, resulting in a scuffle, George had a gun on him (Legal), fired his weapon, killing Trayvon. Trayvon went to a local store to get some food and drink, was walking back to his families house that he was staying at, and George was hanging around the area where Trayvons family lived, happen to see Trayvon, called 911, approached Trayvon, scuffle happened, Trayvon died of gunshot wounds from George Zimmermans gun.
Zimmerman screwed up and should not have killed Trayvon. He could have easily avoided the situation, and caused it to escalate in such a way that he needed to defend himself.
Unfortunately, though he didn't actually break the law, so he should be found not guilty by the court.
I believe that he wrongfully killed someone. I think Trayvon was defending himself, and Zimmerman defended himself from Trayvon defending himself. So, I feel Zimmerman is guilty, but according to law he is not.
I'm not so sure. They found Zimmerman with a beaten up face, grass strains up the entire back of Zimmerman's clothing and only grass stains on Martin's knees. This means that Martin was almost undoubtedly straddeling Zimmerman and beating him up. I dont see anywhere in this scenario where Zimmerman posed a threat to Treyvon. I dont thing what Zimmerman did was totally called for, but still.
A "scuffle"? In a scuffle both parties are attacking equally and not that intensely. In this case Treyvon was on top of Zimmerman pounding him in the chest and face!! That isnt a scuffle! And if you feel threatened, you should run away or call the police, not engage the assailant.
Which one of the 2 called the police before he intentionally confronted and killed the other? Zimmerman was completely safe when he called the police. He had no injuries. Then he ignored what the dispatcher said and went after Treyvon. We have no idea what Zimmerman did to cause Treyvon to beat him so badly, but I am operating on the assumption that Treyvon was provoked.
It is clear Zimmerman approached Martin first. How do I know this? Zimmerman called 911 to let them know that he's been watching Martin. Almost simultaneously, Martin tells a girl on the phone "I think someone is watching me." (The girl says this as proof while Martin is walking he is on the phone with this person) Zimmerman says "I'm going to follow him", the dispatcher tells Zimmerman "You do not need to that." < - - This is obvious proof that Zimmerman acted on his own, without the consent of 911 dispatcher; following Martin, Martin was not following Zimmerman. Sure, this is not a crime. Moving on...
No one knows who started the fight. However, in this case, I believe the evidence points to Zimmermans' approaching of Martin makes Zimmerman the one "who started this whole mess", that Zimmerman was the instigator. No following, no approach, no death.
You keep pointing out that Martin was "on top" of Zimmerman, which means Zimmerman bit off more than he could chew, probably started the fight, then was getting his ass beat by Martin. During this scuffle, yes a fucking scuffle, Martin probably felt the gun on Zimmerman, and that's when Martin probably got scared and "reached" for the gun, prompting Zimmerman to open fire on him. Had Zimmerman not had a gun, I bet Martin would have given Zimmerman more of a beating, but I digress, that hindsight.
Martin probably didn't call the police because he was already on the phone, and things escalated quickly I imagine.
Martin probably didn't run away because he wanted to "stand his ground" (Florida self defense comes into play, obviously) against the approaching Zimmerman.
Zimmerman might have gotten beat up, but Martin received a fatal gunshot wound, this is lopsided.
Zimmerman did not have to approach Martin in such a way he did. I bet if Zimmerman had from afar said, "Hey, man, what are you doing? I'm the neighborhood watch, just making sure everything's okay.", the situation would have been a lot different. I bet Zimmerman barely IDed himself, approached Martin, Martin felt threatened, and the rest is history.
The whole situation is fucked up and Zimmerman had a responsibility and he fucked up by A. Not listening to 911 dispatchers. B. Approaching Martin in an aggressive manner (Why else would Martin feel threatened?) and C. Not properly identifying himself as a Neighborhood Watchmen/Wannabe Cop.
Not to me. I am not the one who punishes him. I can decide whether I think he is guilty independently.
I think we are violating Trayvon's right to self defense. I don't see how Trayvon could have possible started beating Zimmerman without being prompted by Zimmerman. Trayvon was acting in self defense.
Then you don't know or understand how self defense works. If Martin thought that he was being attacked he could have run, he could have called 911 himself or he could have knocked on a door for help. There is no way that Zimmerman could have caught up with him unless he wanted him to. It's clear that he thought he could pull Zimmerman's punk card and he got himself killed instead.
Ok, so what you are saying is that it is self defense when the latino defends himself, but if a black guy defends himself he had other options. Just kidding, unless you actually do feel that way.
I don't think you know how self defense works. Because it works both ways. We know for a fact that Zimmerman knew Trayvon was there. We don't know how Trayvon was able to position himself in such a way that he was able to start beating up Zimmerman, but we do know for a fact the Zimmerman could have avoided Trayvon. What if Trayvon was literally being attacked, not just thought he was being attacked? Let's say Zimmerman shoved him from behind. If he gets a good punch in, he can defend himself. Or should he run away and call the police. Just remember, the only one of them who did call the police refused to back down and run away.
The evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked before he fired his weapon in self defense. The evidence does not show Zimmerman attacked first. Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend and said some guy was following him. That shows that Martin had the time to call 911, to run away from the confrontation or to knock on a door for help.
He made the choice to confront or to be confronted and it cost him his life.
Why are you defending Zimmerman? He killed an innocent kid. Now you are disparaging the victim to make this guy look better, Is it just because you feel that Zimmerman has a right to self defense, or is it that you believe that Trayvon is not a great person and Zimmerman is a better person to support on a personal level?
Zimmerman doesn't need my defense, the evidence and testimony so far shows that he acted in self defense. I thought that you agreed with me that he is innocent until proven guilty. Character counts but I'm not attacking Martins character when I give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and agree that it looks like Martin attacked first. Zimmerman's injuries seem to support that claim.
Character counts but I'm not attacking Martins character when I give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and agree that it looks like Martin attacked first.
You were giving him the benefit of the doubt. Then you moved into attacking Trayvon saying that he knew that Zimmerman was neighborhood watch. That's all.
You misread what I wrote. Martin didn't like being followed period. It happened to be the neighborhood crime watch. I didn't intend for you to take that to mean that he "knew" it was the neighborhood crime watch.
There is a point of contention about who started the fight first, with no clear or definate evidence supporting one side or another. However, the police told george to let them handle trayvon, which he chose to ignore and instead confronted him. That stupid "neighborhood watch patrol" attitude of his played a large part in what happened next. He should have left if for the cops to handle.
If the cops showed up and picked up where Zimmerman left off and the cop got jumped by Martin and then killed him during the struggle would the cop have been justified in shooting Martin? If you say yes then why wouldn't Zimmerman be justified in doing the same?
Cops identify themselves when they have time to do so but criminals get the jump on cops all the time and cops do too follow suspected criminals to see what they might be up to. Sometimes the cops are off duty and are not wearing a uniform. The more we debate this the more it's obvious to me that Martin jumped Zimmerman. The time it took to make a call shows that he could have ran away or run for help if he wanted to.
Zimmerman is the only one who had time to make a phone call. Trayvon was on the phone when Zimmerman attacked him. That would require him to hang up and dial a new number, which would take even more time than you suggest.
If a cop attacked someone without declaring that he was a cop, then it would be bad.
There is absolutely no motive. A kid coming back from buying snacks is not going to just randomly attack Zimmerman. Zimmerman had to have started the conflict because we know that Zimmerman saw Trayvon first.
You have provided no proof that Trayvon reached for Zimmerman's gun, which was the justification for shooting him.
Martin told his girlfriend he was being followed. He had drugs in his system. He had been expelled from school for trouble there. He didn't need a motive to attack Zimmerman. He could have been mad at the world and was mad at being followed. This is not much different than a road rage situation where one guy thinks he can teach the other a lesson and ends up dead.
I don't need to prove Martin went for the gun because Zimmerman's injuries alone are enough to justify his use of deadly force.
If Zimmerman knocked Martin to the ground and got on top of him and started beating Martins head against the ground, martin would be justified. Oh wait. That's what happened to Zimmerman isn't it.
So, what you are saying is that Trayvon would be allowed to beat up Zimmerman if Zimmerman was on top of him beating him like Trayvon actually did. Which means you are also saying that Zimmerman was only justified in beating up Trayvon, and not allowed to shoot him. You are now saying that it was more than self defense. You just described second degree murder.
Now you have resorted to twisting my words and trying to be manipulative. You've ignored the fact that there were no injuries to Martin other than the gunshot. That means that Zimmerman was the one taking the beating. Why would he willingly do that if he had a gun? He wouldn't. Martin surprised him.
If everything else stayed the same except their roles were reversed and Martin was being straddled by Zimmerman and Martin shot Zimmerman he would be justified too and I personally wouldn't care if Martin used a stolen gun and was a gang member.
Now you have resorted to twisting my words and trying to be manipulative.
You resorted to being an asshole that dodges questions. You should have spent more time coming up with a better scenario that couldn't be twisted.
Martin surprised him.
Zimmerman knew that Martin was there. If he was surprised it was his own damn fault. Should he really be allowed to kill someone because he was so dumb that he got surprised by someone he was sneaking up on?
If everything else stayed the same except their roles were reversed and Martin was being straddled by Zimmerman and Martin shot Zimmerman he would be justified too and I personally wouldn't care if Martin used a stolen gun and was a gang member.
It would be a different case all together if it was a cop that involved instead. Cops have the authority to detain suspects, citizens don't. Zimmerman was stepping out of line doing what he did.
Zimmerman also thought that Martin was "on drugs or something" which would be public intox. I agree that it would be foolish for Zimmerman to detain someone for that reason alone. I'm only trying to refute your claim that ordinary citizens can't do that.
The truth is both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin are guilty of making horrible choices that ultimately got one of them killed. Had each decided to respect each other rather than play Ultimate Fighter both would be alive today and neither would be in court!
These kinds of tragedies can be totally avoided if people would just start being nicer!
I don't see how this is a defense. Isn't that saying that softer hits will look more ferocious because Zimmerman is incompetent. Think about it. If you are attacking an MMA fighter and you are really getting him good, then you must be doing A LOT. But if it is just some wimpy guy, slight punches would look like really powerful blows.
They are not looking at what the thrown punches look like, they are looking at the damage created by thrown punch. The fat around Zimmerman's knuckles protected Trayvon's body from much of the potential damage. Plus, there's not much force behind a punch thrown from the ground while getting your head pounded ;)
He will not be convicted. Trayvon was a known, i repeat a KNOWN, criminal. Zimmerman made the mistake of following him but when the scuffle happened Trayvon bashed Zimmermans head into the ground. When he turned to protect himself his gun came into view of Trayvon. Trayvon then reached for the gun but Zimmerman beat him to it and shot him. The shot happened to be fatal and killed the boy. If Zimmerman had shot more then once then he would be guilty but the only shot made makes it self defense. He will not be found guilty of anything and this is not a hate crime just a accident.
Trayvon was never convicted of a criminal offense. Your assertion that he was a "KNOWN, criminal" is simply in your head. Zimmerman claims he didn't follow Martin, you say he did. Apparently you don't agree with Zimmerman's account, which is understandable because he lied to the police over 10 times in his initial interviews. He also says he couldn't remember over 12 vital pieces of information.
George Zimmerman had two scrapes on the back of his head. The wounds measured 2cm's and required nothing to stop the bleeding. George Zimmerman claims his head was bashed on concrete more than 25 times for what seemed like "hours" to him.
You have zero evidence that Martin ever saw Zimmerman's gun, so this is nothing more than your fantasy.
Zimmerman told his friend Trayvon actually grabbed the gun. But DNA indicates this is a lie. Zimmerman told the police that he reached for it, and later that he thought he was going to reach for it. He doesn't even have a consistent claim, yet you claim to know Martin reached for it with zero evidence.
The theory that 1 shot indicates self defense and more than one indicates non-self defense has zero bearing on reality and is not in any way supported by any facts. After his single shot Zimmerman claims Martin fell to the ground and spoke. Something that is most likely not possible after being shot in the heart. But Zimmerman lies a lot, so this is consistent with his modus operandi.
You claim Martin attacked him and Zimmerman shot him in self defense, then you end your statement saying it was an accident.
You don't even have a consistent position.
You've done nothing to address whether or not it was a hate crime and simply asserted it at the end of you inconsistent "argument".
Zimmerman did say that he followed him in his police phone call even though it was suggested that he don't. On the accounts of his wounds he also had a broken nose. DNA will not indicate the Trayvon reached for the gun only fingerprints would and since he never touched the gun how could fingerprints be there. In the law books it say that if you are facing an attacker with possibility of you getting injured you may fire a weapon or fight back with no penalties because the scuffle broke out first Zimmerman had every right to do what he did but if he shot Trayvon through the heart then stood up and continued to shoot him it would have been murder. The death of Trayvon was not intended so therefore it was an accident. THIS WAS NOT A HATE CRIME BEACUSE TRAYVON MARTIN WAS NOT AFRICAN AMERICAN LIKE MANY BELEIVED HIM TO BE?.
He did follow him. He admitted it, like you state. But then his supporters and his lawyers argued that never happened. He did not have a broken nose. You can see photos of his nose from the same night at the police station.
The swelling was gone, no blood, nothing but two pinholes that looked more like scratches. He lied to the police and said his face was ground and pound punched over 25 times and that his head was smashed against concrete for "what felt like hours". He had two scratches on the back of his head measuring less than 2 cm's each. He's a liar. He was never treated for a broken nose.
He just bleeds easily like some people do. In fact, if you compare the photos at the police station after the swelling went down, again, from the same night, you'll see that it's about as damaged as Shellie Zimmerman's father after George allegedly punched him in the nose. Neither of them suffered a broken nose. As far as reaching for the gun, which lie of Zimmerman's are you going with here? He told one of his best friends, who later wrote a book, that Trayvon actually grabbed the gun.
Then Zimmerman told police that Martin saw the gun and that he thought he was going to reach for it. In court, his lawyers argued that Martin saw it, and did reach for it. I would be embarrassed if I were pedaling such obvious lies as my argument. The law doesn't say what you are saying it says. What law are you referring to? Please source it. I think you are confusing there not being enough evidence to convict Zimmerman with the law saying he was innocent. There is a big difference. That you think a direct shot to the heart is not murder, but that more shots would be murder demonstrates nothing but that you have no understanding of what murder is.
How do you know whether or not the death of Martin was intended? Zimmerman admitted to an EMT that he was on an amphetamine and a tranquilizer at the same time that night. His wife wasn't even at home because she said Zimmerman as emotionally abusing her and they fought the night before. She was at her dads place the night he killed Trayvon.
This man got in his car with his loaded gun, high off his medications, pissed that his wife walked out on him again, angry because these "fucking punks always get away" (even though he was caught in another lie during his police interview because a "punk" had been arrested in his neighborhood 1 week previous), he claimed he was innocently heading towards a Walmart, but the facts appear to be that he was sitting in his car looking for punks and when he decided he saw one, he followed him in his car, then sat in his car staring at him, then got out and followed him.
Do you even have a clue what that would appear like to Trayvon Martin? The kid ran from Zimmerman because he was scared. Zimmerman would tell the police dispatcher that he thought Martin was trying to look tough and intimidate him by reaching for a cigarette. Did you know this? Do you have any idea how insane this sounds?
I don't understand the "question" you put in bold. It literally makes no sense.
Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty and I can't find any proof that he was guilty of anything more than trying to assist the police by observing and by reporting a suspicious person in his neighborhood.
Correct, Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the state. Zimmerman was likely defending his life, liberty or property. Local crime watchers don't look to kill people.
Riiight...but you think that Trayvon Martin decided on a trip back from 7-11 that he was going to go on a murderous rampage in his fathers neighborhood and just kill a random neighbor. That makes a lot of sense (this is Zimmerman's defense by the way).
Defending his property? From what... a kid with a bag of skittles and a soda? He called the police saying there was a suspicious person walking around outside, rather than wait for the police to show up, he decided to confront Martin himself. Maybe he flashed his gun or he kept following the kid, but I have a feeling that Zimmerman provoked Martin.
He was a teenager, I doubt he thought any one would care.
Why would Zimmerman provoke a teenage kid? That sounds absurd.
But it does happen. It happened to me when I was a teen. You're assuming Zimmerman thinks like you or me. We wouldn't provoke a teenage kid, but there are adults out there who will.
Are you accusing Zimmerman of being a vigilante? No basis for that. Eye witness seen Zimmerman with bloody nose. He was attacked.
I assume that Zimmerman was following the kid and that spooked Martin. Neither of them made the right decision that night. Zimmerman should have waited for the police and Martin should have taken another route.
Being oblivious of property rights is not an excuse. Honestly, as teenager, I didn't just disrespect property even without knowing property owners or the law.
Why does Zimmerman come off as someone who would do that? He was a local crime watchdog. Adults have better things to do than provoke teenagers into confrontations even with a propensity.
My guess is that Zimmerman caught him trespassing, and he confronted Martin, Martin left, and Zimmerman followed where Martin retaliated, and Zimmerman defended himself.
Why does Zimmerman come off as someone who would do that? He was a local crime watchdog. Adults have better things to do than provoke teenagers into confrontations even with a propensity.
Zimmerman has a violent background. His ex put a restraining order on him for domestic violence and he had to attend a violent offenders course after he pushed a police officer. He's not your typical friendly neighborhood watchdog. He was a wannabe. He felt like he had authority.
My guess is that Zimmerman caught him trespassing, and he confronted Martin, Martin left, and Zimmerman followed where Martin retaliated, and Zimmerman defended himself.
Does that mean you agree that Zimmerman was provoking Martin?
NO, why would I agree with now if I didn't before. Zimmerman confronted Martin about trespassing, so Martin laughed it off, so he followed given the police didn't do anything, and Martin probably sucker punched him, and he started the fight.
Provoking doesn't just mean starting a fight. It's causing an annoyance. Zimmerman probably continually followed Martin until Martin just had enough. If you listen to the 911 call (or read the transcript), Martin was aware that Zimmerman was watching him during the call. Zimmerman gets nervous as Martin walks toward him with something in his hand (which we later find out is either his snacks or his phone) and then Martin just passes by Zimmerman. So Zimmerman turns and follows him. Then Martin starts running towards the entrance on the other side of the neighborhood (I should note that it was raining at the time). So, it sounds like Zimmerman caught up to Martin before he could leave the neighborhood. Zimmerman watched the kid the enire time he was there and didn't witness any crimes other than trespassing... but is trespassing really that big of a deal if the kid is using it as a shortcut during a rain storm?
Private property is private property, and trespassing violents ownership. No different than theft of a car, no excuses someone stealing a car because of a storm.
I learned something about the case that I didn't know before. Martin's father's fiancee lived in the gated community where the incident occured. During the shooting, his father was over at her house. I spoke to someone who has been following the trial and apparently the three of them (Martin, his father, and his father's fiancee) were supposed to be watching a movie at her house. Martin decided to go pick up snacks from the 7-11 down the street. He was on his way back to her house when the incident took place.
Defending his property? From what... a kid with a bag of skittles and a soda? He called the police saying there was a suspicious person walking around outside, rather than wait for the police to show up, he decided to confront Martin himself. Maybe he flashed his gun or he kept following the kid, but I have a feeling that Zimmerman provoked Martin. You rock!
I see, and so you believe that Zimmerman, if anything, was guilty of approaching (without the consent of an "authority") a "suspicious person" (a black male with a hood on) in his (Trayvons) neighborhood?
We aren't required by law to get permission before approaching someone on the streets and it was Zimmerman's neighborhood too. he was the leader of the local crime watch there.
That's not true. He was only told by the dispatcher that there was no need for him to follow the suspect. There wasn't a legal obligation to do what the dispatcher says.
I didn't mean it as a legal obligation. But, now we have to allow a guy to use the self defense explanation when he went to hunt the victim down. That used to be premeditated murder.
If Zimmerman was hunting the victim down like you said he would not have let Martin get any shots in that could have got himself knocked out and his gun taken away by Martin and used against him. I don't see how he hunted down Martin. He only followed him and possibly confronted him and those are not crimes. You could say the gun made him feel brave and maybe even stupid but that doesn't make him a murderer.
Zimmerman approached a person with intent to "provide safety to the 'neighborhood'", with intent to "protect", this is certain. Trayvon, as we know, did not approach anything, nor anybody, with intent to defend anybody but himself (when Zimmerman came to him). And so, since Zimmerman, voluntarily came to Trayvon with a gun, it is not self defense, since Zimmerman had a gun (it's not what you know it's what you can prove), and Trayvon had nothing. And so, either way, Zimmerman approached an unarmed teen, who was not causing trouble, thus making Trayvon he victim, not Zimmerman. Zimmerman sought trouble, even though he claimed he was trying to stop trouble, this is certain in hindsight. Trayvon did nothing wrong. Zimmerman killed a teenager for no reason.
That's not right. Zimmerman couldn't have known that Martin was unarmed and Martin had no way of knowing that Zimmerman had a gun. If Zimmerman had backed off when the dispatcher said to he would have prevented his part in it but what if someone else with a gun picked it up where he left off and got jumped? They would have been justified too.
Zimmerman deserves to be in jail for being beaten up. Yeah, I said it. Zimmerman knew that Treyvon was there. Zimmerman approached someone who did not know that he was there. So, if Zimmerman gets ambushed by a guy who he is trying to ambush, he deserved the beating he was getting. Zimmerman refused to accept the beating that he absolutely deserved, throw him in jail.
That is ridiculous. The main reason for crime watch organizations is to do exactly what Zimmerman was doing. He was observing and reporting and if martin thought that Zimmerman was out of line, he should have called 911 instead of his girlfriend.
No, the main reason for crime watch is to do what Zimmerman initially did. He is supposed to be on the look out, then report to police. If he does more than that he is a vigilante. Is vigilantism legal?
Citizen's are allowed to make citizen's arrests but that's not what Zimmerman was trying to do. He was following Martin until the cops arrived because he was tired of them always getting away. If he was intent on killing Martin, he would not have ran the risk of getting killed or knocked out himself and he wouldn't have involved the cops.
I agree with this because Florida law says you aren't supposed to be arrested at all when acting in self defense. BUT, wasn't Trayvon innocent until shot dead. Zimmerman killed someone. At least if he is found innocent in court we can close the case and justice will be insured.
If Zimmerman was hunting the victim down like you said he would not have let Martin get any shots in that could have got himself knocked out and his gun taken away by Martin and used against him.
Here is the timeline: Zimmerman calls police and is told to stay put, Zimmerman goes after Trayvon any way, Trayvon starts hitting Zimmerman, Zimmerman shoots and kills Trayvon in "self defense".
So, we know Zimmerman went after Trayvon, so we know for sure that Zimmerman did let Trayvon hit him even though he knew that Trayvon was there.
He only followed him and possibly confronted him and those are not crimes.
He followed Trayvon when he wasn't supposed to. So, if they came in contact with each other it is because he hunted Trayvon.
You could say the gun made him feel brave and maybe even stupid but that doesn't make him a murderer.
The fact that he killed someone makes me want to call him a murderer. I do believe that Zimmerman was in danger when he shot Trayvon, but I don't believe Trayvon is responsible for putting Zimmerman in that dangerous position.
You have part of the timeline wrong. Zimmerman was not told to stay put. he was told that it wasn't necessary for him to follow. The dispatcher was not there so he or she could not possibly determine that for their self. We also don't know that Zimmerman "let" Martin hit him. It looks a lot more like he was jumped. If he was "hunting" Martin why would his gun be in his holster? You contradicted yourself again by calling him a murderer after you said he didn't break any laws.
I was trying to be serious until you tried to say that a dispatcher saying not to go after a guy was different than the dispatcher saying stay put. You started it.
Then you are naïve and you just came across as stupid. The dispatcher was not there and because he wasn't there he could not have known for sure whether it was necessary for Zimmerman to follow or not. Things could have gone completely different in ways that would have made Zimmerman a hero and the dispatcher couldn't have known the difference. Zimmerman doesn't relinquish his right to make decisions for himself just because the dispatcher said that they "don't need" for him to follow.
Then you are naïve and you just came across as stupid. The dispatcher was not there and because he wasn't there he could not have known for sure whether it was necessary for Zimmerman to follow or not.
Zimmerman is not a cop. And because of people like you who think that if he had been acting like a cop (gun out, making himself noticeable) that would show his guilt, an innocent person was killed.
Things could have gone completely different in ways that would have made Zimmerman a hero and the dispatcher couldn't have known the difference.
There is no way that in this instance that Zimmerman could have been a hero. Trayvon was not doing anything wrong, and would have continued doing nothing wrong all the way home.
Zimmerman doesn't relinquish his right to make decisions for himself just because the dispatcher said that they "don't need" for him to follow.
If Zimmerman wanted to kill Trayvon, would he listen to the dispatcher or not?
Ok, now you are back to being stupid. You have no way to prove Martin was completely innocent when Zimmerman had the injuries that he had. And it is stupid to believe that Zimmerman would have taken the beating that he did with a plan to use that as a reason to shoot Martin in an act of self defense.
Let's say that no one got shot. Let's say that Trayvon beat up Zimmerman, knocked him out, then police showed up and arrested Trayvon. Now, Trayvon is on trial for assault, and he claims self defense. Is there any evidence to suggest that Trayvon would not be found innocent?
Just say no dude. Trayvon is innocent until proven guilty. The phone call Zimmerman made to police shows that Zimmerman saw him first and confronted him. Zimmerman would probably lie no matter what and Trayvon would be innocent because there is no evidence.
You have not provided any proof of your claim that Zimmerman confronted Martin. We only have what the witnesses and evidence shows and it supports Zimmerman's claims that Martin attacked him first.
Yes I did. Zimmerman saw Trayvon and called police. So we have established that Zimmerman knew about Trayvon. We also know that Zimmerman was far enough away that he could have avoided Trayvon. Trayvon came into contact with Zimmerman, therefore Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. We don't know if he got physical, but them coming into contact is absolutely Zimmerman's doing.
Zimmerman calls police and is told to stay put, Zimmerman goes after Trayvon any way, Trayvon starts hitting Zimmerman, Zimmerman shoots and kills Trayvon in "self defense".
this is the real timeline: Zimmerman sees a black hooded teenager who he knows to be a criminal and appears suspicious. Zimmerman calls the police like a good watchman. Zimmerman is told that he doesn't need to follow Martin. He does any way. Martin calls his girlfriend. He turn to confront Zimmerman causing a scuffle to break out. Martin get Zimmerman on the ground by breaking his nose. He then continues by hitting his head into the ground over and over again until Zimmerman rolls over just liitle. Trayvon sees the gun on Zimmermans hip and begins to reach out with his hand. Zimmerman realizes this and grabs the gun. He fires his weapon. the wound was fatal and killed Martin. THIS IS SELF DEFENSE because only one shot was fired.
Zimmerman sees a black hooded teenager who he knows to be a criminal and appears suspicious.
As it turned out, he was not a criminal, so Zimmerman did not know that.
Zimmerman calls the police like a good watchman. Zimmerman is told that he doesn't need to follow Martin. He does any way.
Good, good, vigilante justice.
Martin calls his girlfriend. He turn to confront Zimmerman causing a scuffle to break out. Martin get Zimmerman on the ground by breaking his nose. He then continues by hitting his head into the ground over and over again until Zimmerman rolls over just liitle.
We have no idea what happened after the phone call and before Treyvon starts attacking Zimmerman, Zimmerman may have provoked it.
Trayvon sees the gun on Zimmermans hip and begins to reach out with his hand.
No one knows this for sure. Zimmerman is the only one who witnessed this, and if he doesn't say that, no self defense case.
Zimmerman realizes this and grabs the gun. He fires his weapon. the wound was fatal and killed Martin. THIS IS SELF DEFENSE because only one shot was fired.
He should never have been in the position where he needed to fire his gun, and now someone is dead.
personally I would have shot the kid the second he started hitting me, but Zimmerman let the kid beat on him. I didn't say how the scuffle started but it started. Plus Martin was criminal and was known so Zimmerman saw him in the middle of the night. Just cause we know the facts now doesn't mean that he didn't look suspicious then.
Apparently, Zimmerman had a reputation for calling the police over every little thing. Martin was walking home from the store and I assume Zimmerman was making him feel a little uneasy following him around and watching him, so the kid probably confronted him; I would have done the same thing. Martin had a bag of skittles and a soda... Zimmerman had no right to shoot him.
Zimmerman had a broken nose and cuts to the back of his head. Martin had every right to confront Zimmerman and demand to know why he was following but when he went physical, he gave Zimmerman a legitimate reason to defend himself.
What makes you think Zimmerman didn't start the fight? Sure, he had scratches and a broken nose but maybe that's because Martin was just a better fighter. People seem to forget that Zimmerman also has a violent background. He had a restraining order on him for domestic violence and he even had to complete a program for violent offenders after he pushed a police officer.
I would like to see what evidence if any there is to support the claim that Zimmerman initiated the physical contact with Martin. Why would Zimmerman while carrying a gun physically provoke a fight with a guy who might also have a gun or knife? I sometimes carry a gun myself. I have a permit. I would never lay hands on someone and give them a chance to get my gun and use it against me and if I were Zimmerman, I wouldn't have assumed that Martin was unarmed either. Everything points to martin getting the jump on Zimmerman.
Did Zimmerman throw the first punch? Maybe not, but I do believe he brought it on himself. He's following a kid around who is carrying a bag of skittles and a soda. Did he really think the kid was going to go do a B&E;on his way home from the store? On top of all that, the kid was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time of the shooting. She heard Zimmerman say "what are you doing" and Martin ask him "why are you following me". The police dispatcher specifically told Zimmerman to stay in his vehicle but he ignored her and went after Martin himself. He provoked the fight, maybe not physically but he is still at fault for ignoring the dispatcher.
If you could show how a Crime Watch member's investigating a curiosity and observing and reporting to police is the same thing as "provoking" someone, then go ahead and make your case. Zimmerman didn't break any laws by disregarding the dispatchers wishes and by following someone who he thought might be "on drugs" and up to no good.
If you could show how a Crime Watch member's investigating a curiosity and observing and reporting to police is the same thing as "provoking" someone, then go ahead and make your case.
He's a member of the neighborhood watch; not a police officer. He didn't just "observe and report", he actually confronted Martin despite the fact that the police dispatcher told him to remain in his vehicle. He may not have broke any laws by going against the dispatchers orders, but as a result he ended up killing a 17 year old. However you look at it, Zimmerman provoked Martin. Martin didn't approach Zimmerman; it was the other way around.
You have some things wrong. The dispatcher only told Zimmerman that he didn't "need" for him to follow Martin and Zimmerman was already out of his car at that point. He ended up killing Martin in an act of self defense. That is true but you have not proved that Zimmerman actually "provoked" Martin.
You have some things wrong. The dispatcher only told Zimmerman that he didn't "need" for him to follow Martin and Zimmerman was already out of his car at that point.
You're right. The dispatcher DID say that he didn't need to follow Martin, but anyone with common sense would know that she was telling him to back off.
He ended up killing Martin in an act of self defense. That is true but you have not proved that Zimmerman actually "provoked" Martin.
He provoked Martin by following him and confronting him. He should have stayed back and let the police handle it. The kid was walking home. What crime did George witness?
Whatever happened after Martin asked him "why are you following me" is under speculation, but I think Zimmerman spooked Martin and got a strong reaction out of him.
The dispatcher was not in a position to evaluate the situation so when she says she doesn't need for Zimmerman to follow the suspect it's only from her own perspective. Zimmerman was concerned that Martin was going to get away so the dispatcher's "need" was at least in Zimmerman's view.
If you think Zimmerman "provoked" Martin then I wonder if you think Martin also provoke Zimmerman when he was circling Zimmerman's car while he was stopped and on the phone with the dispatcher.
Everything still supports Zimmerman's claim that he was only following and reporting and that Martin initiated the physical contact.
I'm assuming your opinion of "a suspicious person" is the same as Zimmerman's. In that sense, you and Zimmerman both deserve the death penalty for inhumanity more so than a 17 year old unarmed minor did.
No, there's no way he will be convicted of anything, not even manslaughter. They dont have nearly enough evidence and the prosecution's only on-scene witness gave a SHIT testimony full of dishonesty and stupidity that completely fucked them over.
Oh you mean the honest testimony of the teen that was on the phone with Trayvon moments before he was killed? You mean the one that said Trayvon said "This dude is coming at me". Does that sound like Trayvon was approaching Zimmerman? NO!
Regardless, Zimmerman approached Trayvon thinking he (Trayvon) was a threat, when obviously he was not (this is proven).
The only threat at that time was mother nature, and Zimmerman. Zimmerman made a poor choice to follow the Trayvon. Trayvon showed no suspicion. Zimmerman made a poor choice as a wannabe vigilante.
It was a miss understanding gone horribly wrong Zimmerman saw Trayvon and thought he looked like he was up to no good, started. Making trouble in his neighborhood. he got i one little fight and his mom got scared and...okay ill stop but seriously how can you expect me to resist making that joke? but any way Zimmerman called 911 then confronted him. Trayvon having been approached by a strange man at night probably thought the man meant him ill will and attacked him. Zimmerman now being attacked by a boy whom he already thought was up to no good now pulls his gun and shoots killing Trayvon in self defense. What's the moral of this story? Guns are great for personal defense but if you see suspicious behavior (and provided no one is in immediate danger) it's best to report it and let the professionals Handel it.
Considering all the evidence I know about so far, it doesn't seem likely that Zimmerman did anything but defend himself. I think Martin could have even gotten away if he'd had a mind to, but instead he decided to confront Zimmerman... perhaps if Martin had known Zimmerman had a gun, he would have bailed. Or perhaps he'd be the one on trial instead. Who knows.
Due to a lack of convincing evidence I'd have to acquit Zimmerman. Do I like what happened? No. But there's no sense crying over it.
If you want to see my original argument it is at the very top of the page but I have to say this is anybody else remembering the black version of the KKK putting a 500,ooo dollar award for Zimmerman's death. Zimmerman was not found guilty of anything the night it happened and it should have stayed that way but with people protesting in the streets they took Zimmerman in for trail to suppress the people of America.
