George Zimmerman acted in self defense against Trayvon Martin.

"It is unfortunate that the Florida stand Your Ground Law was not followed in this case." I'll just examine all 4 of your paragraphs here, since they are repetitive. The Con's argument is based on the idea that Zimmerman had provoked the fight, and that Zimmerman's life was not in imminent danger. To start, let's review that law... (2)Q95;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a)Q95;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm AND that he or she has EXHAUSTED EVERY reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;" a) http://floridastandyourground.org... Confronting someone does not equal provoking. By 'provoking,' we can assume it means 'start the fight.' One does not start a fight by confronting a person. It says he may use deadly force against the opponent if he believes his life is in danger, and has exhausted every means to escape. The 6' 7" Zimmerman could not reasonably escape when the 6' 11" Martin was on top of him. Now ask yourselves if you were in Zimmerman's position, and the guy on top was assaulting you with punches to the head, and THEN the person reached for your gun, would you have reason to believe you were in imminent danger? Zimmerman claimed Trayvon had reached for his gun. With this, we must conclude that Zimmerman (pinned to the ground) had no means of escape, and was in imminent danger. b) http://tampa.cbslocal.com... c) http://www.calgaryherald.com... Trayvon would have continued assaulting Zimmerman. Those minor wounds would have become major injuries, and possibly fatal. Trayvon may have even killed Zimmerman. If Trayvon had successfully grabbed the gun (and he likely would have continued reaching for it until he did) then Zimmerman would most definitely had been dead. "He started a fight and then immediately reverted to the most extreme use of deadly force possible." That is not an argument, it is an opinion of what you think happened. One that is not supported by the evidence. ------------------------------------------------------ "1. Did Zimmerman have reasonable cause to keep an eye on Martin? You seem to want me to answer yes. He was clearly profiling but if he wants to WATCH people in his neighborhood as opposed to confront and shoot, I have no problem." It's not that I want you to. It's that you already did. Let me pull a quote from your prior argument. "...In fact it would be "reasonable" for Mr. Zimmerman to keep an eye on such a person and watch him..." The Con believes that Zimmerman was profiling Martin. On the call to police, Zimmerman didn't profile Martin until the police asked for a race. If you recall in a prior source of mine, even Trayvon's Stepmother did not feel it had anything to do with race. Zimmerman's community agreed, as did Joe Oliver, a black friend of Zimmerman's. a) http://www.breitbart.com...? b) http://www.inquisitr.com... c) http://www.theblaze.com... d) http://latino.foxnews.com... The Con has made wild claims like this since the beginning, but never backs them up. I should note that Source B lists multiple cases where Zimmerman helped the black community, and even requested the NAACP's help with homeless black kids. e) http://dailycaller.com... Zimmerman also pushed to discipline cops after they beat a black homeless man. f) http://dailycaller.com... Zimmerman even had black relatives, and a mother who was Latino. The Con simply has no case proving Zimmerman to be racist. Irrationally pulling the Race Card is offensive to the very nature of Justice, Reasoning, and the Gathering of Evidence. g) http://www.washingtonpost.com... ------------------------------------------------------ "Apparently. That also implies an obligation to carry it responsibly which he did not." The Con has agreed that Zimmerman had a license to carry a firearm. But the Con also feels that Zimmerman had been irresponsible by carrying the gun when confronting a stranger, who was nearly half a foot taller than Zimmerman, at night. Any reasonable man would, when confronting a suspicious 5' 11" stranger at night, keep his gun on him. If the evidence stands, and Martin did assault Zimmerman (and the evidence stands very well,) then Zimmerman was right to carry the gun. If he had not, the assault would have continued until Zimmerman was dead or dangerous wounded. a) http://www.latimes.com... ------------------------------------------------------ "Apparently not and that my friend is definitive proof that George Zimmerman violated the law and is guilty as he did NOT exhaust every reasonable means possible OTHER than the use of deadly force as he was REQUIRED to under the plain language of the Florida statute." The Con has again misread the Statute. It says Zimmerman must exhaust all possible means of escape. He held none, and after Martin reached for his gun, Zimmerman had to apply deadly force to survive. "EXHAUSTED EVERY reasonable means to escape" The Con has accepted that Martin shown no sign of being assaulted. a) http://floridastandyourground.org... ------------------------------------------------------ "In the words of the medical examiner "minor injuries". If his injuries were minor, does that really mean his life was in danger?" The question wasn't whether or not they were minor, but whether or not he had them, and you accept that he did. The Con feels that minor injuries mean Zimmerman wasn't in danger. If Zimmerman had not shot, those minor wounds would have became fatal injuries. Zimmerman may have even been dead. In fact, we know they would be fatal because Martin reached for the gun. Zimmerman did NOT reach for his gun until Martin had reached for it. If Zimmerman had not grabbed the gun, Martin would have had it. Knowing that Martin only failed to get the gun because Zimmerman grabbed it first, we can assume Martin would have fatally wounded Zimmerman if he had had the chance to. The evidence stands to say Martin started the fight after being confronted, so Zimmerman was within the law when he shot. a) http://www.latimes.com... b) http://www.examiner.com... c) http://www.miamiherald.com... --------------------------------------------------- The Con has agreed to the following. 1- Zimmerman had reason to keep an eye on Trayvon. 2- Zimmerman had a license to carry a gun. 3- Martin shown no signs of being assaulted. 4- Zimmerman shown signs of being assaulted. By agreeing to these resolutions, the Con has basically agreed to the Resolution of the debate, that Zimmerman had broke no laws up until the fight, and had acted in self-defense. The Con continues to argue, however, using only the unsupported claim that a racist Zimmerman walked up and started fighting Trayvon Martin. With this, I conclude my case that Zimmerman acted in self-defense against Trayvon Martin. I enjoyed debating, and hope to debate with you again.