The Zimmerman verdict was just.

I am confused that you would attempt to refute a conclusion based on juror B37 and an ending remark, but the matter is of little consequence the resolution.Rebuttals1. "The police dispatcher is a civilian, with no actual authority, other than to call in an ambulance/police car/ fire truck. It was a recommendation. Reasonable caution was enacted."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.2. "George Zimmerman must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we must assume that George did not start it, because the prosecution did not prove that George did start it beyond a reasonable doubt. For those of you who do not reside in the U.S, according to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, the prosecution must prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."Presumption of innocence is not explicitly cited in the US constitution, and I am not arguing for 2nd degree murder like the Prosecution. Also the inclusion of the US constitution into this debate is irrelevant since there are no constitutional amendments that can justify poor judgement. 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. The consequences of Zimmerman's actions that night is proof of poor judgement. 3. The law does not say that the aggressor has to be armed. 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. Zimmerman's injuries sustained during the fight is not proof that Martin was the aggressor, nor is Martin's death proof that Zimmerman was the aggressor. In hindsight, Section 3 of Florida Statute 776.013 does not apply because of excessive force (Fist v Gun).4. "While Juror B37 placed more blame on Trayvon Martin than George Zimmerman, she still acknowledges that Zimmerman went too far."This is a fallacy. You bring in the juror's opinion as support for your arguments, yet ignore the not guilty verdict unanimously reached. I have not ignored the not guilty verdict presented by the jury as I have already made an implicit reference to the verdict by stating "placed more blame on Trayvon Martin than George Zimmerman." Perhaps I should have rephrased it as; George Zimmerman's acquittal shows that the jurors placed more fault on the deceased Trayvon Martin than Zimmerman. However, the juror has acknowledged that Zimmerman went too far during the scuffle. Closing for roundI would like to request that Pro state his contentions on why the verdict was just instead of focus on what the prosecution was trying to prove, because the Prosecution and I have different objectives. I am placing this request because in the past 2 rounds Pro is intent on proving Zimmerman's innocence than why the verdict was just. Whereas I have placed an alternative sentence (manslaughter), and defended the alternative sentence. With the current progression of this debate, I fear that the debate will devolve into an argument on Zimmerman's innocence rather than a debate on whether or not the Zimmerman verdict was just. With that request I return the debate to Pro.