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.
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.
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.
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.
What do you mean? He broke no law. Of cource he didn't need to follow him! He made a mistake, but he didn't murder Trayvon. Trayvon Martin didn't deserve to die. No one won!
Yeah that's all she can do. She doesn't have ANY good arguement against Zimmerman. George is not racist, he didn't do anything illegal, he just is a victim of the media.
True, but you are talking about slavery and the minority on trial was not responsible for slavery. Isn't it ethnocentric to only be interested in this case because Trayvon is black? Bringing up that he is black would also be ethnocentric. But, if you are like me and outraged that Trayvon was a kid with skittles and soda, it isn't ethnocentric. So, the media is ethnocentric, not the courts.
There is no proveable racism! In fact there is evidents George was not a racist, he had black friends and once got mad at a cop for being racist! A Hispanic killed a black kid and somehow he is a racist white guy, it doesn't make sence! You pulled the race card!
Race is not a card. I do not even use the term racism because my religion teaches that we are all one human race. I use the term ethnocentrism. If you must accuse me of playing a card, accuse me of playing the ethnicity card, thanks.
Race Card. What embarrasses me as a Libertarian is that at one time you considered yourself a Libertarian. Some things that you have said scares me if that were true.
In other words, I say it as it is. You, Ma'am, are using the race card to call George Zimmerman a racist.
Ethnocentrist, and it is not ethnocentrist to point out obvious ethnocentrism. Alinsky would be so proud of you using his tactics from rules for radicals. Do me a favor and stop wasting my time. I will never stop fighting for equality.
What kind of arguement is that? You can't just accept you've for the most part loss this debate! Just give up. Try again when you have GOOD evidents and see what I have to say.
You might have cowardly ban me from your debates (like you have done for many others), but I WILL debate you on other debates since you obviously have something stuck up your....
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.
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.
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.
Based on evidence gathered, yes. The man was unarmed, and Zimmerman was. Zimmerman was the one posing the threat to the other guy, killed him. But oh wait, what's this? The guy who killed the unarmed civilian actually did nothing wrong..! Amazing how the law works isn't it. I could walk down the street, kill some old bloke in a tall coat ( who would not pose a threat at all) and say " I thought he was hiding a bomb in his coat so I killed him to stop him." You think that would be acceptable.
Lets also think for a second, as the blatantly obvious has not yet occurred to you it seems. This man is a racist. He sees a black man and thinks " I fucking hate him." Gets out of the car, kills him based on his prejudices, then tells people that there was a reason for doing so. He tells people there was a reason for doing so, so that he avoids going to jail. That would be the obvious thing to say. But you're arguing on that little sliver of " Maybe the unarmed civilian was going to kill people..."
I am saying, if you murder someone in cold blood, that is a crime. Now as of yet you have yet to actually argue otherwise, but from the looks of things, you're arguing that murdering someone in cold blood is not a crime.
Again, I am not saying this is what you feel, but you are arguing against me, so I am obliged to assume this.
Saying this, and then asserting that Travon wasn't a threat isn't an argument. Please give me examples of the evidence that support your claim that "there was no reason to defend himself, as the man posed no threat".
You seem to like asking questions but have failed to answer any. Answer these and I will get right back to you as fast as I can. And stop quoting me, it's not very productive; it looks like you can't think of anything to argue back, so you waste time dwelling in the past. Which works sometimes, but doesn't always.
I never claimed he is innocent, I simply don't think the state had enough evidence to support Zimmerman's guilt. You on the other hand are asserting to know that Zimmerman is guilty, I'm just asking you to support your assertion.
And stop quoting me, it's not very productive
Every productive discussion I've had on here has involved quoting the other party. Quoting is important so you know exactly what I'm referring to, this is important to reduce confusion. You don't have to, but I think it is useful.
I think the law is flawed and simply wrong. But, for people need to follow it. According to the law, and by definition in various law books, he should be guilty for what he did. Yet he is not. And this confuses me. You ignored about 80% of everything else I said too. Don't just quote the bits you feel you can argue, and leave the rest out of it, that shows weakness.
I think the law is flawed and simply wrong. But, for people need to follow it. According to the law, and by definition in various law books, he should be guilty for what he did. Yet he is not. And this confuses me.
Again, all you are doing is asserting your position without demonstrating it.
You ignored about 80% of everything else I said too. Don't just quote the bits you feel you can argue, and leave the rest out of it, that shows weakness
I will if you give me evidence saying:
What proves he is innocent
What proves that he was right to kill Travon
What proves Travon was a threat.
You seem to like asking questions but have failed to answer any. Answer these and I will get right back to you as fast as I can.
I never claimed he was innocent, so all of this was irrelevant. Because disputing "What proves he is innocent", negate the rest, It was simpler to address the main flaw.
And stop quoting me, it's not very productive; it looks like you can't think of anything to argue back, so you waste time dwelling in the past. Which works sometimes, but doesn't always.
And what of my previous arguments? You know this is pointless. So let me ask, do you think he is guilty or innocent. And don't drone on like Ben Stein for eight hours on why you think "he is innocent but by conventional judicial practices, one could say that......." blah blah blah.
If you have a problem with the way I addressed an argument you should have brought that up at the time, feel free to point to a specific one and I will be happy to address it, I think I addressed all the relevant parts of your arguments, but I welcome your input.
You have made the claim that Zimmerman is guilty. So far you have only asserted this to be true, you have not presented an argument that demonstrates it. A perfect place for you to post your unsupported personal opinions would be Facebook, people who know you might be interested.
My position is I don't know. I don't think the state presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate his guilt, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to changing my mind. That is why I'm on a debate website, asking a person who is participating in a debate about Zimmerman's guilt, what evidence they have to believe he is guilty. That is the point of this website.
We know for a fact that Zimmerman killed Martin. We also know Martin was unarmed. It is said Zimmerman has said racist things and hinted to racial stereotypes in the past and during the trial too. We know Zimmerman was armed with a gun. We also know he violently abused his ex-fiancee in the past. These all point to guilty. What we don't know is, whether Martin was a real threat or not, whether Zimmerman thought he was doing right or wrong.
However, what we don't know about what happened does not go towards him being innocent.
What we don't know is, whether Martin was a real threat or not
This is the only relevant part, if you don't know if Martin was a threat or not, then you can't determine if it was self defense. If you are just going to say you don't know that is fine, but stop asserting that he is guilty as more than personal opinion.
However, what we don't know about what happened does not go towards him being innocent.
I'm not interested in determining if he is innocent, only determining his guilt.
He's suppose to be proven guilty withous a reasonable boubt, not proven innocent with reasonable dobut you shlong hoffer (Made up insult) What proves it wasn't self defence? He has soem scratches and bruises as proof he was attacked. There is plenty of good evidents that it was self defence and I believe it's beter for a guilty man to go free then for a innocent man to be sent to prison!
I am arguing Zimmerman is guilty. And that no, you can't claim self defense if you're the attacker with the gun. You ask me he should have 20 years+ in Jail.
Not at all, I say for people who use the law as an example should follow the law. I mean i follow the law as I have no alternative, but it's still flawed. I and every time you said " If you say that..." Well no, that's not what I'm saying, so don't bend my words.
And besides, if I did fluctuate between promoting and criticising the law, that wouldn't be stubbornness.
The man shot a teenager and pleaded self defense. In Britain, you would be sent to jail for that, as we cannot just take your word for it, as you don't just kill unarmed civilians here.
That is my damned argument now argue against that for fucks sake, not these petty little girls issues we seem to be forever squallering in.
In Britain you are guilty before proven innocent? Sounds like you guys have it backwards. In America we live in the 21st century where people are innocent until proven guilty.
No, it's called the law. You're still innocent until proven guilty, just here in Britain, if you do commit a crime, and there is evidence to support this, normally you're found guilty. Seems in America, you're innocent regardless.
ANYWAY, Zimmerman I think should be sent to jail because the evidence to prove his innocence is less than that of which proves him guilty. If you think what he did was not bad, then you have every right to say he is innocent. I just disagree.
Your evidence that he committed a crime is that he fired a bullet and it killed someone. You have ignored all context and laws and said that he is guilty because you don't like the law. You have a problem. You refuse to admit that it is possible that he did not commit a crime.
I think the overall situation Zimmerman did something wrong and should go to jail. But, he was defending himself at the time of the gunshot, so he gets to go free.
Obviously he is not guilty though, the jury said so.
At this point I don't know if your "Obviously he is not guilty though, the jury said so" is intense sarcasm or something you actually believe. I will go with sarcasm. Well yes, you have a bunch of nobodies deciding the fate of a rather important case. Anyone would think they were the fucking pope with their supposed infallibility.
Wasn't sarcasm. In America once you are found not guilty, you are not guilty.
I understand your point, but you are a little late to the party. We have already been talking about this for weeks.
There is clear evidence that Zimmerman was being attacked by Trayvon (pretty violently, too). Zimmerman shot Trayvon. There is nothing to suggest that Zimmerman did not shoot Trayvon while being attacked by Trayvon. If we only look at those facts, I am sorry but the only conclusion we can make is that it was self defense and Zimmerman should go free. You are saying that given just those facts you believe that Zimmerman is guilty, then you are wrong.
Manslaughter was only going to happen if the jury really felt they needed to punish him. It probably should be manslaughter because he went to investigate what was going on and through the course of actions "accidentally" killed Martin. He didn't intend to do it, so being forced to kill because he was being attacked is like an accident.
As a matter of fact I do. Why let yourself get your ass kicked when you have a gun? No he should have told him to "freeze!" or at least just shoot him in the leg but, he didn't have much time to thing and shot him. He could of had ill will in mind but, there is too little proof for this. You would have prisoned a innocent man.
Even if he didn't threaten him he was sat on his chest (eye witness reports) hitting him in the face. The law of self defence (at least in English law) is subjective. Did he believe he was at risk of being assault? Second question is objective: given the extent of the threat he believed himself to be under, was the force he used reasonable?
It seems a pretty clear case of self defence according to the law. The only reason it got to court is because of the media attention.
"There was a man walking down a street. There was also another man, who decided to kill him with no acceptable reason", that right there shows ignorant on the details on the events, laws, and reasonable actions. That's why many people found Zimmerman guilty. Pure ignorant.
* Ignorance. If you're going to pick apart what I have said then I will be more than happy to return the favour. And by the way, saying that I think self defense, given the circumstances, was not a good enough reason to kill someone, is not ignorance. You may say I was ignoring the fact Zimmerman had bruises and scratches on his face, and that he was being sat on by him, yes I left that out. But it's still no excuse to shoot someone. He should have lied and pleaded insanity, then he would have had a half way decent excuse.
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.
Well anyway you can defend yourself otherwise there would be no question wether Zimmerman was guilty. The 2nd amendment says you have the right to bare arms. Anyone who says "You can't take another life just to save your own!" Is A complete dumbass unless they mean that you murdered someone just to get one of their kidneys to save your life. It is perfectly legal to kill someone in self defence and there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt that George wasn't acting in self defence. What would you do if you had a gun and someone was on top of you beating you senceless and you are in fear of your life.
Zimmermans word which really isn't much, uh eye witnesses said Trayvon was on top. Alright say you where in that situation, you don't have much time to think and you aren't sure of anything. You have a gun and your panicing. What would you do? Don't be so critical.
Yes and he was in fear that it would get wourse, Trayvon WAS attacking him and the prosicution doesn't have enough proof to say he murdered Trayvon. He killed Trayvon but, he didn't murder him.
And you know for a fact he didn't murder him huh? Based on what? What if they said he was guilty, would you then think " Oh actually, yes there was enough evidence to find him guilty, how about that..."
Besides, do we know who started the whole thing, maybe Travon was acting in self defense to start with and Zimmerman shot him. Do you have solid proof to say this isn't true?
I thought he was innocent months before the trial, asshole. There isn't enough proof to condem him. Yes, Trayvon could have been action in self defense and Zimmerman could be out in bloodlust but, there is so little proof it would probebly put a innocent man behind bars. I personaly believe he is innocent but, even if I thought there was a very good chance he did it. It wouldn't be wourth putting him behind bars.
From what I saw of the trial, how he acted, all the evidence considered ( for and against) I would have found him guilty, as would many, many people, hence the controversy. If you're so sure he is innocent, why do so many people say otherwise? And you're right I am extremely stubborn, which is why I find entertainment in debating. Schoner-tag to you too.
And you'll hate me more for this, but throughout the course of these arguments, let it also be noted your spelling, punctuation, and grammar have all been bad. Which is why i find you to be rather uneducated.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
He killed him. Who takes the blame the gun? Trayvon? Trayvon didn't shoot himself and that gun most certainly didn't. He didn't have to kill him. He could have just shot him in a non fatal area. Instead he deliberately disobeyed police orders and took his gun with him.
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.
Really? This wouldn't have happened of he staued in the car like the police told him to do. Instead he follow Trayvon. That makes no sense. They told him to stay. He took his gun with him on purpose. It didn't follow him. Second he could have shot him anywhere else that would be nin fatal. Arm. Hands. Foot. Leg. Something. He had the right to defend himself and so did Trayvon since Zimmerman got out of his car and went after him. There is no excuse. If he stayed in the car this wouldn't have occured. You surprised me and disappointed me by completely missing the fact that if he just followed directions this wouldn't have happened.
I take back what I said about being disapointed, you see he was the neighborhood watchman. He wanted to be a cop and he wanted to do the things cops do. He came armed, so what? He had a right to! Anyway, this guy could be dangerous. I agree, no he shouldn't of shot him in the heart but, you don't have much time to think when you are being attack he just shot him. Saddly, it killed Trayvon Martin. Trayvon probebly thought George was a sexual preditor so he did what I would do. Punch him in the face. The problem it, he continued the attack. George paniced. He thought he was going to die, he pulled out his gun pointed up and shot trayvon. It was a tragic mishap that should of never happened. The media used this into some sort of racial civil rights outrage and now George will have to live with this for the rest of his life.
Well you killed an African American male when the entire situation could have been avoided. You didnt bring up the fact that he chose to step out of the car. This would have happen if he just took the policemans words.
He steped out of the car, but he did not break the law! This is almost a purely emotional baced case. A black guy was killed by a white guy. To me which race was which doesn't mater. That was stupid of Zimmerman, but not evil.
He was actually already out of the car when the dispatcher said that he didn't "need" to follow Martin. Earlier on the tape, the same dispatcher was asking for more information and was asking Zimmerman "what's he doing now" and "let me know if he does anything else." Everyone just assumes that Zimmerman was in his car when he wasn't.
You would have to ask Zimmerman "why." All I know is that he was within his rights to follow his suspect and to report what he was seeing to the dispatcher even if the dispatcher said he didn't need for Zimmerman to do that.
If I were Zimmerman and a crime watcher I would likely have followed for as long as I felt I could safely do so myself. That's what neighborhood crime watchers do.
Then dont follow him. That simple. Also if you are trained shoot him somewhere else. He didnt have to kill him thats the thing. Are you going to say he had to kill him? Thats just immoral if you do. There is no excuse.
Crime watches are set up for ordinary citizens to police their own neighborhoods by observing suspicious activity and reporting it to the cops. That's all Zimmerman was doing and as for the gun, most everyone I know who carries a gun will tell you the same thing I did earlier. If you have to use your gun to defend yourself you shoot to kill.
That still doesnt pardon him when he was advised to remain where he was. Thats where he messed up. In the end he still killed a boy and the entire situation could have been avoided. There is no excuse for it.
I would have done the same thing Zimmerman did to protect my neighborhood and if I was attacked under the same circumstances I would have done the very same thing. Maybe Martin should have assumed that Zimmerman was armed before he confronted him and maybe other kids running the streets now should do the same.
There are many kids who are younger than Martin who are doing time because they were charged as adults for their crimes. Martin might have been young in years but he was not just an innocent little kid and Zimmerman had no way of knowing Martin's age when he got jumped by him in the dark.
I was with you until you said that Zimmerman should not have shot to kill. I was always told that you should always shoot to kill if you are in that situation. Also, if Martin thought Zimmerman was a sexual predator he should have called the cops or put some distance between himself and Zimmerman. Sucker punching someone can get you killed.
If Zimmerman never woke up that morning none of this would have happened. If Zimmermann didn't go out on his watch none of this would have happened. If Zimmermann hadn't been in the same area of the neighborhood as Martin, none of this would have happened. The point is, he didn't really do anything more wrong by getting out of his car than any of those other things. It's what happened after that is important.
If you think this argument means anything against you, it doesn't. I'm trying to impartially debate.
Zimmerman said that Martin was circling the car until he exited. This is never a good sign, usually it entails hostile intentions. I'm not trying to justify anything, but if Zimmermann was threatened while in the car, who is anyone to say that he was wrong to get out?
So she can give an argument, say I'm done and I'm not allowed to respond? Where's the logic in that? I wasn't being disrespectful so there's really no issue here, but thanks anyway man.
Nigga what the fuck? You were mean to other in other debates but now you wanna debate. Also I aint yo nigga so dont call me "man". I dont know you like that.
Answer me this.....Why did he not stay in his fucking car? They told him they dont need him to leave. He did so anyway. He brought this upon himself and he gets to kill a man with no charge. Thats fucked up. Was the nigga gonna beat him with Skittles or something? Thats so deadly. Why did he leave the car then? Why didn't he listen and follow instruction?
You don't know that! How do you make such a assumtion out of so little evidents? Yes he should of stayed in the car. He didn't. H e wanted to be a cop, spooked Trayvon and shot him in self defence. Now the NAACP is crying civil rights violations just because a black man dies, which is sad. Tell me, where they mad when OJ was aquited?
I know that but, the fact is he didn't break the law by leaveing his car. Yes, he should have stayed! He failed to address himself Trayvon attacked him probebly because he thought he was a rapist and George shot him in self defence. This was FAR beyond a reasonable doubt!
I dont give a fuck if there is a law about leaving or staying in the car its ust common sense. Dont go after the nigga. Creeping on him and shit. If the cop said dont do it and you do it anyways and you kill the nigga in "self defense" thats fucked up. His death could have been prevented. Thats my point.
Yes, it could have been prevented but, George didn't know his actions would result in the death of Trayvon. He was going over to most likely ask him why he was there. In went violent because both of them paniced, Trayvon attacked what he thought was some sort of stalker and Zimmerman shot him in self defence. Your arguement could of happened but, there is suck a huge chance my story and George's stroy is true! What should we so? Throw him in jail because he could have murdered Trayvon not in self defence?
Yes it is. He shot someone to death, no matter what, that is killing. But, there is justified killing, like this case, and unjustified called murder. But, no matter what, Zimmerman killed Martin.
Wrong, Zimmerman did not kill Martin, kill has the implication of violence or aggression, and Zimmerman defended himself as a counterpart to violence or aggression. Killing or murder are essential the same thing with varying defintions.
Kill means to extinguish a life. Zimmerman extinguished Martin's life. Therefore, Zimmerman killed Martin. If Zimmerman didn't kill Martin, what did kill him?
Murder implies wrongful doing. I agree there is no wrongful doing here, so not murder. But, Martin's life was ended by his killer, that's just the definition of kill.
Kill involves the initation of violence, and Zimmerman didn't start the violence, that was Martin. Self defense is not killing, it is an counter to violence. Nobody killed Martin.
But, you can't blame the gun, the person who used the gun is still responsible, right? Or is that only for murder? Sounds like a double standard. For murder the murderer killed the person. For self defense, it was the gun being used in a self defense situation that killed the person. That seems wrong.
Never claimed that the blame is on the gun(classic straw man), the person is still responsible for the death of the person, but it was not a killing, it was self defense. Killing is not a countermeasure, it is a act of initiation.
Definition of Self Defense: Self-defense or private defense is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property, or the well-being of another from harm.
You sort of did. At least your explanation seemed like it because you mentioned the gun:
It was a gun used in a confrontation by self defense to counteract a threat.
I was hit by surprise, so I was trying to figure out what you meant.
Nobody but you thinks that kill has anything to do with initiation. Since Zimmerman is still responsible for depriving Trayvon of his life, he killed in self defense.
Definition of kill: 1 a : to deprive of life : cause the death of
The gun was used as weapon or tool in self defense to prevent harm.
Well, I don't think like you group think.
Deprive of life or cause of death can only happen when someone is attacking a victim, if the victim defends himself from harm, he didn't kill. He didn't start the confrontation.
The gun was used as weapon or tool in self defense to prevent harm.
This statement will be misinterpreted by everyone because you are leaving out the person who pulled the trigger.
Deprive of life or cause of death can only happen when someone is attacking a victim, if the victim defends himself from harm, he didn't kill. He didn't start the confrontation.
He didn't start the confrontation, but we are talking about who ended it, aren't we. Trayvon was living until Zimmerman pulled the trigger. If you believe that this is not depriving him of his life or the cause of his death, then you have problems.
Ok, Zimmerman pulled the trigger of the gun in self defense preventing harm onto himself.
Sure, Martin was living, but he was beating in Zimmerman's face in and hitting his head on the floor. That is not depriving Martin of his life because Martin was in the act of killing Zimmerman. Martin had intentions of harming Zimmerman.
Telling me I have problems doesnt make your arugment any stronger
How can killing have nothing to do with intention?
THE DEFINITION OF KILL DOES NOT MENTION INTENTION IN ANY WAY. Was that loud enough for you to hear?
Basically, in your opinion, killing is only then accidental.
See, this proves I am right. It has nothing to do with intention. That means if it was intentional, it is killing. It also means if it was not intentional, it is also killing.
Yeah, they do. If I was in the woods and ended the life of a bear that was attacking me, I would absolutely be telling people that I was able to survive because I killed the bear that was attacking me.
Self defense covers many possibilities. I could have hit the bear with a log and stunned it (probably have to be a baby bear) and say I escaped because I used self defense. What would you say if you extinguished the life of the bear? What would you say if you hit the bear and ran away? How would you describe it?
What definition says killing is the act of aggression. If life is taken from something, it is killed. An old woman dies of old age, she just died. If she was euthanized the doctor killed her medically. No one is saying it's wrong, but you're denying the term's meaning.
edit
In fact, the term "mercy killing" exists, because killing means to take the life of something (sentient at least). If a dog is dying of rabies, a mercy killing has no aggression in it, yet it's still a kill.
Well aside from the fact that some people still do shoot their own pets, effectively killing it with mercy, euthinization is defined as legal and painless killing of a patient. In this case the patient is the dog, but the fact remains it has been killed. You are mistaking the word "kill" for maybe the word "murder", or another word whose definition includes "Kill" and "aggression".
So if you have a gun, and someone is beating the crap out of you in the face and try to rape you, you would tell me you won't use your gun to defend that? Tell me that then I'll buy it. Else, you're a hypocrite.
If so a leg shot would be excellent. Or an arm shot. Not a shot directly to the chest where it would kill the guy. Majorly because its still killing they guy.
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.
The defense demonstrated his innocence with the stand your ground law, which I don't know in its entirety.
This is false, he had the options for a trial based on the stand your ground law, but he knew he would lose, so he was tried under the same self defense laws that govern most states.
Actually, my original argument still stands true where defending your property from offenses such as theft, burglary and trespass are legal under reasonable force.
Defending property is legally justified because the act of theft is an act of violence or aggression and should be defended in a reasonable fashion. Nobody can pose no threat to anyone by taking property without violence. The exchange is not voluntary, so it is forced.
What you have does not pertain to statutory law defining defense of property, it only covers bodily harm. Again, defense of property is justified under reasonable force.
Hey, you are the one that brought up defending property to me, even though it was never relevant to this case. My first reference to defending property was a general statement, not relevant to this case.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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????
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.
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.
No ethnocentrists. He accused Trayvon of being a thug, mean but, not ethnocentrist. You have been for all intents and purposes, proven wrong! Why do you argue so much for this?
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!"
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.
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.
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.
Let's say Zimmerman shoved Martin and called him the N word. Then Trayvon started to walk away and Zimmerman grabbed his arm to stop him and doesn't ask what he was doing there. Martin feels he is being threatened and just spins and punches Zimmerman in the nose and takes him to the ground. In that scenario would you say that Zimmerman is still innocent? Trayvon would not have any marks from this, so it could still fit.
This might be plausible meaning Zimmerman would have been guilty of assault but it wouldn't explain how Zimmerman was able to catch up with Martin. Remember Martin took off running and had a head start.
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.
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.
