The Zimmerman verdict was just.

I'm a bit puzzled here. The verdict reached was not guilty of manslaughter or murder. "Innocence" equates to the Not Guilty verdict being just. Also, if the prosecution did not prove their case, then that means that a Not Guilty verdict would have to be reached. 1. Manslaughter"Regardless of the Dispatch's position as a civilian, it is extremely doubtful that reasonable caution was enacted, since Zimmerman's actions followed the legal definition of culpable negligence."This is a fallacy. The definition of culpable negligence that Con provided says "Recklessly acting without reasonable caution". Therefore, we cannot assume he did not enact reasonable caution based on the definition of culpable negligence. If we did, this is what it would look like:P1: He did not use reasonable caution.C: He did not use reasonable caution.You see where we run into trouble? This is a circular logic fallacy (forgive me for not knowing the latin words for this kind of fallacy), in which P1 is the same as C."Presumption of innocence is not explicitly cited in the US constitution"I have read the transcript and you are right, Con. However, Article 11 paragraph 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the U.S (http://en.wikipedia.org...), states that "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense." (http://www.pbs.org...ile) "Also, the inclusion of the US consitution into this debate is irrelevant since there are no consitutional amendments that can justify poor judgement"It is not irrelevant. Manslaughter is a second degree felony, which, in Florida, carries a minimum 9 1/4 years in prison. It is a criminal offense, which is tried in criminal court. Any and all protections in the constitution must apply in this case. You are correct in that there are no constitutional amendments that can justify poor judgement, however, the amendments guarantee a fair trial, which was met."I am stating that the verdict of not guilty should have been replaced with manslaughter. The fact remains that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. With hindsight we have seen that Zimmerman acted with culpable negligence displaying his poor judgement in his pursuit of Martin, showing reckless disregard for his and Trayvon Martin's life. He could have, if he had shown better judgement, monitored Martin until the police arrived and then confronted Martin."Just because Zimmerman killed Martin doesn't automatically make him guilty, because of self defense laws. He did not show reckless disreguard for his and Martins life by following Martin. He was simply doing his job, protecting his neighborhood from a stranger in a time when the neighborhood was being attacked by a string of robberies. He was not intending to get into a physical confrontation, nor was he endangering anyones life simply by watching Trayvon. The fact of the matter is, the fault lays on whoever actually started the fight. That, we'll never know. "The consequences of Zimmerman's actions that night is proof of poor judgement."Poor judgement? Zimmerman judged that Trayvon was a thug, a potential criminal, and he was right. He followed Martin on foot so that he could make sure that their wasn't a threat to his neighborhood and so that the police could find him without Zimmerman losing track. "True, the law does not state that the aggressor must be armed, but it is extremely difficult to note who the aggressor was on the night of Trayvon Martin's death. Thus Section 3 does not apply to Zimmerman unless he could prove that he was not the aggressor. "Not so. According the Universal Declaration of Human Rights mentioned above, signed by the United States of America, Zimmerman must be innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the burden of proof lies on the prosecutor to show that Zimmerman was not acting in accordance with law."In hindsight, Section 3 of Florida Statute 776.013 does not apply because of excessive force (Fist v Gun)."One defensive shot to keep himself from being injured further is not excessive force if Zimmerman legitimately believed it was necessary. This is in accordance with the very same statute. I'll just drop the juror point.Conclusion: Zimmerman was rightly found to be not guilty in accordance with law. Con wants me to focus on the Not Guilty verdict being just and not on the innocence of Zimmerman, but that is impossible because they are one and the same.