CreateDebate


Debate Info

109
170
Yes No
Debate Score:279
Arguments:233
Total Votes:309
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (88)
 
 No (118)

Debate Creator

addltd(5108) pic



George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?

George Zimmerman was just acquitted in the death of Travon Martin was he guilty?

What is your reaction?

Yes

Side Score: 109
VS.

No

Side Score: 170

There was not enough conclusive evidence in this trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty. The investigators failed to collect enough evidence before arresting Zimmerman. This is why we should not allow media speculation to get in the way of due process.

Side: Yes
Jc41218(1560) Clarified
1 point

There was not enough conclusive evidence in this trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty. The investigators failed to collect enough evidence before arresting Zimmerman. This is why we should not allow media speculation to get in the way of due process.

Your on the wrong side :)

Side: Yes
wardogninja(1789) Clarified
0 points

I don't see what the question was, so i just assumed i was saying "yes" to it was the right call to make for the verdict.

Side: Yes
1 point

He was told to stay in the car and he disobeyed. Hell yes, he is guilty. Slavery is alive and well.

Side: Yes
5 points

I am kinda tired of people claiming that zimmerman would not have gotten the same verdict if he was a black man accused of killing a white person. Does no-one else remember the OJ simpson trial. That trial was much better put together and he still got off.

Side: No
2 points

Exactly! That's what I told people and people got pissed because I had a reasonable argument.

Side: No
3 points

He didn't disobey. He was advised to stay in the car. Advised! He didn't go out there and have in his heart that he was going to kill Trayvon! He wasn't racist! Your word deeply frustrate me and it's hard for me to talk to you calmly. Do you not understand that this was just a self defence case that was mangled with by the media? The prosicution used the only thing they could use, emotion. Not Law and evidents, emotion.

Side: No
GuitarGuy(6095) Clarified
2 points

Actually, he was told that he didn't need to follow Martin. I had also thought he was told to stay in the car, until I read the 911 call transcripts.

Side: Yes
Atrag(5448) Disputed
1 point

Sorry. Who is the slave in this case?

Side: No
Sitara(11088) Clarified
1 point

Trayvon. .

Side: Yes
DevinSeay(1120) Disputed
1 point

So if I told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? He was told by dispatch he didn't need to follow Martin. They never said he couldn't.

Side: No
Sitara(11088) Disputed
1 point

Ha ha, okay Mom. .

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes he killed someone!

Side: Yes
Atrag(5448) Disputed
2 points

This fact was never in contention.

Side: No
1 point

It was in self defense. Self defense is legal in the US, if you disagree with it start a campaign against defending yourself.

Side: No
DevinSeay(1120) Disputed
1 point

People have been killing each other since the beginning of time.

Side: No
1 point

Like what gives him the right to kill people? "Self defense" you say. Self defense against what?

Side: Yes

Self defense against Trayvon Martin, who was beating the crap out of him.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yeah, self defense from a 140 pounds skinny black boy with a bottle of Arizona and skittles. Zimmerman had a gun and a 200 pound ass to squish him like a bug.

Ha. Self defense. Seriously?

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes, if the law says killing people is illegal, then what's to question?! He killed someone with no motive..!

If I were to kill the queen, then profess that " I felt threatened by her.." Then by the logic used in that trial, I should be let off totally with no charge. I mean what the actual FUCK is with people saying " he has the right to defend his liberty and defend himself..."

Oh so I suppose I can defend my liberty by killing small children, because it's a free country and I have the right to defend my liberty, ci? Nein, if you want a law that works, you have to stand by it, you can't go around shooting unarmed civilians and claim " I felt threatened" because that is so not an excuse to kill someone. In actual fact, I rarely find an excuse for killing someone, but Florida law says otherwise...

Fact of the matter was, what has it come to if you can go around shooting unarmed teenagers for no reason and consequently be found innocent. Is that a functional judicial system? I think not.

Side: Yes
Stryker(849) Disputed
2 points

He killed someone with no motive.

Please provide an argument in support of your assertion.

Side: No
Jungelson(3929) Disputed
0 points

There was a man walking down a street. There was also another man, who decided to kill him with no acceptable reason. This, according to the law is wrong. Yet he is not found guilty of a crime everyone, even he admits doing.

What proof have we that the man he killed threatened him. His word? Are we supposed to just take his word for it. I suppose you could say Bin laden was angry with the west for what they were doing to his land, so he was totally right to plan out 9/11. Yes? You can't possibly argue not, because he felt threatened by the west, and feeling threatened by someone is enough to retaliate with lethal force, yes?

You know, it's pretty damned scary to see people openly defending a man who has killed someone out of 'self defense'. Although there was no reason to defend himself, as the man posed no threat. But you don't see that.

Side: Yes
1 point

No it doesn't. You can kill people in this nation and not be breaking the law. It's called "self defence" now what do you think the 2nd amendment is for other then for sport? You can kill people if you are being attacked by them the question is though "Is it exeptable is this case?" Well, there is way more then a reasonable doubt this wasn't a murder so he is not guilty.

I would have done the same if I was being attacked. Only hopefully I would think fast enough to shoot him in a non fatal area. You have the right to defend your life and liberty.

Side: No
Jungelson(3929) Disputed
1 point

Don't use the second amendment in your argument if you don't know what it is. It clearly states, " A well run militia..."

I'm not sure, but I don't think this includes neighborhood watch.

Side: Yes
1 point

This man killed another human being. Not out of self defense, not for the greater good of mankind, not to protect others. He did it because he says he felt threatened. Anywhere else in the world, that is by no means an acceptable argument for killing someone. Except in this place:

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/write.ign.com/133742/2013/07/Meanwhile+in+Murica+_062f93860376eea9654d7c1a8db8eb13.jpg

Side: Yes
2 points

Yes he felt threatened of his life and he WAS beingg attacked. So he shot the guy, he didn't have much time to think pointed the gun up and shot him in the chest. This was just a case started by the media that made blacks angry and became something it wasn't.

Side: No

Although the death of T. Martin is tragic, and nobody wants to see the death of a young man, but Zimmerman has the right to defend his life and liberty, and he should not be ashamed for using brute force to keep his right.

Side: No
1 point

but Zimmerman has the right to defend his life and liberty

So to protect his "life and liberty" he stole another? Doesnt sound like he is in favor of preserving it if he was willing to deprive another man of it. He didnt have to kill him at all.

Side: Yes
5 points

First, you can't prove that, so because he might be guilty, we send him to jail? No, it's beter let a guilty man free then a inocent man to prison.

Second, you don't know he wanted to kill Trayvon. He could of, but there's a strong reasonable doubt. Anyway, he has the right to defend himself. He was in the right. So you think he should have let himself get killed so he didn't kill another man? You have surprised and disapointed me.

Side: No
3 points

He didn't steal Martin's life, Zimmerman was defending himself from getting his face beat in.

Side: No
Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

You seem to believe he is innocent, I know that isn't the topic of this debate, but I would be interested to know why you believe this.

Side: Yes
2 points

Simple, man has an absolute right to defend his life, liberty and property where aggression threatens one of those three rights regardless. Also, the burden of proof was solely on the state, and the defense doesn't have to prove anything, and the state had a weak case at best.

Side: Yes
5 points

I still cannot fathom how this singular case became so ubiquitous. Aren't there more important issues like Obama killing innocent civilians overseas and mass surveillance in the US?

Side: No
Liam-Wittier(122) Clarified
0 points

For my part, I followed the case because I carry a gun myself and I would like to think that I know when I would be justified to use my gun and when I wouldn't. This case reinforced a lot of my thinking and justifications.

Side: Yes
sauh(1107) Disputed
0 points

You can't fathom why the government would want people concerned with this simple case; instead of talking about those other things?

Side: Yes
3 points

I never thought there was enough evidence for his guilt. Every time I shared this with anyone I was called horrible names and was dragged into unsupported and largely emotional debates for his guilt. The system worked today, despite the media's attempt to make him a villain, justice still held true, at least in this case.

Side: No
1 point

I agree, I kept my mouth shut when I saw it on my news feed on Facebook.

Side: No
1 point

I do agree with you 100%. I was looking at the evidence and try to line up the event closely, I cannot find a reason to jail Zimmerman. I just can't.

Side: No
2 points

But no I do not believe he was guilty and they made it into a race issue when it was clearly not.

Side: No
2 points

The verdict is sound but he was dumb to get out of the car and about the racism suggestion that George Zimmerman is a racist is with no proof.

Side: No

Personally, I agree that he should have stayed in his car. But that's because I'm anti-gun.

For those who support gun rights though, didn't he do the right thing? People don't buy guns to sit in their car; they buy them so they can resolve situations themselves. And that's exactly what he did.

Side: No
1 point

I think that's the only thing he did wrong. He got out of his car. But yeah, if he stayed there, things might be different.

Side: No
2 points

The verdict is sound but he was dumb to get out of the car and about the racism suggestion that George Zimmerman is a racist is with no proof. If Dumbness is guilty he gets life.

Side: No

No. The media made him out to be a racist wana be cop. The NAACP is wining civil rights violations, though it is not true. A sweet taste of justice.

Side: No

I support gun's, but Zimmerman should of stayed in the car. That was his only real mistake. He didn't break the law! He just tried to stop Trayvon himself which resulted in his death. A horrible tragity, but not a murder.

Side: No
2 points

Oh sweet Jesus I'm just fucking thrilled the whole thing is over!

Side: No
Cartman(18192) Disputed
0 points

Not yet, the NAACP is trying to file charges, more Zimmerman news to come.

Side: Yes
1 point

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

Side: Yes

He was acquitted, how can he be guilty? ;)

Side: No
2 points

Not only was there "not enough evidence to prove Zimmerman was guilty of 2nd degree or manslaughter," but there was substantial evidence that he was only guilty of being assaulted, having his nose broken, and having his face bashed into the pavement by a 6 foot 2, 200 lb man. The media jumped on this case with the intention of turning it into a race issue where it was simply a case of a man defending himself from an assault. The picture aired on the media of george Zimmerman in 'county orange' and trayvon martin speaks volumes about how the media turned the case into race issue. The picture of trayvon was taken when he was 12 while in reality he would not appeared as a teen being so large. Forensics proved that his shirt was 2 to 4 inches from his body when he was shot making it clear he was on top of zimmerman and the bloody head and broken nose of zimmerman also helped the defense. This case never should have raised any alarms because it happens so often. 9,000 african americans are killed every year and 93% of those killings are by other african americans. Where is the media to cover those shootings????

Side: No
0 points

Travon martin was a'lookin for trouble. Well good God a'mighty he found it a'right. He was a thug and now he's six feet under. People like George Zimmerman are American Heros, taking dirty rotten thugs and coons off the street. Good riddance.

Side: No
Sitara(11088) Disputed
1 point

Travon martin was a'lookin for trouble. Well good God a'mighty he found it a'right. He was a thug and now he's six feet under. People like George Zimmerman are American Heros, taking dirty rotten thugs and coons off the street. Good riddance. Fuck off, you ethnocentrist fuck. We are all one human race, so deal with it.

Side: Yes
2 points

I don't think he was. His head was indeed banged up. I don't think he did that to himself.

The only ones that know what happen is Travon Martin and George Zimmerman.

Side: No

He defended himself against Trayvon, I already told you guys about how it was reasonable and that he WAS defending himself. Now the only arguement you guys have is "Well who gives him the right to defend himself against attack, you can't take someones life just to save your own!"

Actually, yes you can.

Side: No
2 points

I saw that and that is BS evidents. In a fight you are moving around he got an opertunity some where to shoot him, otherwise why would he let Trayvon punch him? Another Horrible arguement, that does not cover reasonable doubt.

Side: No
KrittMasta(19) Disputed
1 point

Fist fight moves your body a lot. So yeah, everything from hip to your feet are static when you fight. Sure. Whatever. Very stupid.

Side: No

For me it all depended on whether the prosecuter could prove Zimmerman provoked Martin with the intentions of shooting him and claiming it was self defense. As the details started coming out it was more and more obvious that Martin attacked first and got the upper hand. Zimmerman was innocent until proven guilty and the State failed to prove their case. The jury did the right thing.

Side: No
1 point

with the intentions of shooting him

If Zimmerman had started a fight with Martin, but never intended to shoot him, would you still feel he was innocent?

Side: No
Liam-Wittier(122) Clarified
1 point

That would depend on what you mean when you say started a fight. If Zimmerman was only trying to ask some questions about why Martin was in the neighborhood and why did he run? That's innocent enough. If he just tackled Martin and trid to subdue him that would be a lot less innocent unless he could show he had a good reason to do that.

Side: Yes
1 point

Prosecutors had to prove their case to the jury beyond reasonable doubt. They failed to do that. It doesn't matter whether or not Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon, it doesn't matter that he disobeyed police orders. All that matters is what happened in that court room. If you know anything about the way societies function then you should know that injustice for one means injustice for us all. Every high profile case like this sets a new legal precedent, that means it establishes a new rule that a court or other judicial body can adopt when deciding future cases under similar circumstances. That alone is a reason for people to be concerned.

Side: No
1 point

Why he is not guilty:

1) He is part of neighborhood watch. To question somebody that looks suspicious is normal.

2) Travon ambushed him and beat the crap out of Zimmerman.

3) Zimmerman had no choice in fear of getting deadly injured, ( I considered losing your teeth is deadly because you can't get them back ), shot the boy with bigger body.

I try to find ways to believe that he over did it till I heard that he made multiple radio reports, which to me seems like a very professional procedure.

Who to blame? Travon's family. They are at fault for not teaching their kids to behave themselves. I saw vids of him harassing homeless people. I didn't hear 1 word from where ever saying the Zimmerman was harassing people. Using certain word of choice on the phone talking to other African American female describing Zimmerman was another thing I find disturbing.

To sum it all up, Travon was collecting his bad karma and paid it on the day he got shot.

Side: No