George Zimmerman acted in self defense against Trayvon Martin.

"At the outset, let's establish that the central question herein, is not whether George Zimmerman acted in self defense, but whether or not George Zimmerman's reckless and unwarranted aggressive actions were in fact what caused and provoked the incident to begin with." I want to take note of the phrase 'Unwarranted aggressive action.' Martin spoke to Zimmerman first, with Zimmerman replying with a question before the fight starts. You seem to act as though Zimmerman reacted with unneeded aggression, even though all the evidence and injuries (excluding the bullet wound) claim Zimmerman was the one assaulted. a) http://gzlegalcase.com... b) http://www.hlntv.com... c) http://www.theatlanticwire.com... --------------------------------------------- "The last I checked no one hired George Zimmerman as an "investigator" nor is there any evidence to support the concept that he was at all qualified to conduct any sort of "investigation"." Again, this isn't about whether or not investigating was smart or advisable. This is about whether he had reason to, and given the prior crime spree, he certainty wasn't acting on racial profiling (As my prior argument made, none of Zimmerman's neighbors feel he was racist, and have never heard him make racial remarks.) In fact, a black friend even defended that Zimmerman was not racist. a) http://www.reuters.com... b) http://www.cnn.com... --------------------------------------------- "In fact it would be "reasonable" for Mr. Zimmerman to keep an eye on such a person and watch him from a distance while waiting for the police to arrive. However, it is and was patently "unreasonable" for Mr. Zimmerman to take this matter into his own hands and confront the person he was watching with a gun," You seem to have done little research regarding the situation. A call Trayvon Martin made prior shown Martin was the first to approach and speak to Zimmerman. Zimmerman's reply was "What are you doing here?" This is a reasonable question. Zimmerman, like any man, has reason to carry a gun on them when confronting someone suspicious at night. He broke no laws doing so. --------------------------------------------- "If we want to ask about "reasonableness" I will ask the question whether or not it is reasonable for a 17 year old male minding his own business to protect himself when confronted for no reason whatsoever" Again, you're ignoring the evidence I gave. If the evidence is correct, Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman. Martin shown no signs of being assaulted, meaning he was most likely the one who started the fight. This is far different from your phrase 'protect himself when confronted'... That phrase leads to more issues. Martin assaulting Zimmerman is not a 'reasonable' way to handle being confronted. If Zimmerman had assaulted Martin first, then it would be self defense. If someone confronts you with the question "what are you doing here?" and you begin attacking him, you're not reasonably 'protecting' yourself. If the evidence and injuries are right, it was Zimmerman who had to protect himself. a) b) http://abcnews.go.com... b) http://abcnews.go.com... ---------------------------------------- "To address your second point "Did George Zimmerman break any laws when carrying a gun?" - Well carrying the gun didn't break any laws, but using it recklessly to murder someone did." The law says you may carry a gun and defend yourself with it. If Martin did attack Zimmerman (and injuries show he did) then Zimmerman's use of the gun would not have been 'reckless.' It would have been appropriate, ESPECIALLY since Martin was reaching for Zimmerman's gun (to use against him.) a) http://global.christianpost.com... b) http://abcnews.go.com... I feel your argument was more based on Gun-Control bias than actual reasoning. ---------------------------------------- "Point 3. "Who was the man crying for help" No one except the 2 involved will ever know this for sure. There are people testifying on both sides. The scientific experts that were not allowed in the trial actually stated that it was most likely a teenage boy" Actually, most people asked said it was Zimmerman, including co-workers and Tracy Martin. The experts said they couldn't determine who it was. All their tests kept going back in forth. They were undecided, with different Audio Specialists offering different conclusions. "Though Sybrina Fulton, Mr. Martin"s mother, has said she believes that the voice crying for help on 911 tapes was that of her son, the victim"s father, Tracy, is shown in the reports to have a different opinion." New York Times a) http://abcnews.go.com... b) http://www.nytimes.com... ---------------------------------------- "It was unnecessary. It was started by Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was killed." Again ignoring the injuries and the eyewitness accounts. You blatantly shout who you think did it, but offer little reasoning or sources. ---------------------------------------- "Point 4: "What do the injuries say?" - They say that Trayvon is dead and Zimmerman had some MINOR bruises. They say that two guys were in a fistfight and one (who started the confrontation) elected to use deadly force." Trayvon's death (gunshot wound) is not an injury that proves whom started the fight. Minor bruises still claim he was assaulted. You say that the people saw two guys in a fistfight, but the evidence and eyewitnesses say only one was on top doing the fighting while the other was being assaulted. You continue to say Zimmerman started the fight, but you only back this accusation up with what appears to be a genuine dislike of the person and not much else. According to the evidence, Trayvon Martin started the fight. Zimmerman elected to appropriately use deadly force against a young adult physically assault him, especially after Trayvon tried to reach for Zimmerman's gun first. (17 years old is considered a young adult) a) Evidence for assault still at top. b) http://global.christianpost.com... ----------------------------------------- "It is unfortunate that the big man Zimmerman was not as tough as he pretended to be when he confronted an innocent kid. It is tragic that anyone thinks it is justifiable for him to shoot that young man." Confronting a suspicious character is not inappropriate. You refer to Trayvon as an 'innocent kid', then as a 'young man.' He has to be one or the other. At the age of 17, he was not a kid, and the injuries on Zimmerman's face and Martin's knuckles show he wasn't innocent either. It is in fact justifiable to use a gun in self-defense when someone is on top beating you, and reaching for your gun. ---------------------------------------- Now answer these questions... 1) Did Zimmerman have reasonable cause to keep an eye on Martin? (I'll answer Yes for you because you've already said he did in your prior argument.) And... 2) Did Zimmerman have a License to carry a gun? Now ask this... 3) Does Martin show injuries or signs of being assaulted PRIOR to being shot? And finally ask yourself this... 4) Does Zimmerman show injuries or signs of being assaulted? Once you answer all these questions, I think you'll find Zimmerman acted in reasonable self-defense.