Free Will and Conclusion
In the shooting case of Trayvor Martin, George Zimmerman should not go to prison. A significant amount of speculation exists around the shootings circumstances. There lacks an indisputable, completely factual account of the shooting and its preceding events. Without the support of concrete evidence murder can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I intend to show the conclusion, that George Zimmerman should not go to jail, is true because the argument is sound. I think my argument is valid because of the premises that support it.
The first premise being that the Stand Your Ground Law in Florida permits the use of a fire arm in self defense. There is no definite proof that George Zimmerman killed for any reason other then his personal protection. He therefore did not break the law. The second premise shows that during the altercation between Trayvor Martin and George Zimmerman, Zimmerman sustained injuries to the back of the head and nose. There severity could not be accounted for but their presence is undeniable insinuating the shooting was in fact an act of self defense. The third premise is based on the phone call to the police station moments before the murder.
A struggle can be heard along with a voice screaming for help. The voice can not be identified without uncertainty to be that of Martin or Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s defense can argue is was him calling for help and there is no way to prove or disprove that claim. The last premise illustrates that it is still unknown if Martin aggressively approached Zimmerman from behind while he was retreating to his S. U. V.. Zimmerman admitted to initially following Martin suspecting he was a hoodlum up to no good, but claims to have given up after losing track of the teenager.
According to Zimmerman their next encounter consisted of Martin approaching him from behind and asking him his what his problem, Zimmerman denied having a problem, and claims Martin then reacted by punching him in the nose. Witnesses reported seeing the two fighting in the distance, while others recount hearing whining followed by a gun shot. Consequently since no spectator observed the incident up close or in entirety, Zimmerman’s version which states Martin approached and attacked him can not be disproven with total certainty.
These premises support that my argument is sound and help prove my conclusion is true. George Zimmerman should not go to prison for the shooting of Trayvor Martin because of the problems of free will. The problems of free will has two premises that lead to the conclusion that no action is free. The first premise states that if an action must occur it is not free. The second premise is based on determinism and the idea that every event occurs because of antecedent events, dating back to before birth even, ensured the occurrence. Hard determinism believes both of these premises and therefore accepts the conclusion.
They do not feel we are responsible for our actions because they are not free. Soft determinism believes only the second premise, that a there is a past chain of events effecting present actions however they think our own free will is included in the chain. Therefore soft determinism do not accept the conclusion and in assuming we have some free will declare we can be held responsible for our free actions. Libertarianism supports the first premise saying that if an action must occur it is not free but denies the second premise concerning the idea of determinism. They reject the conclusion.
They feel you have chance to change a decision in the early stages of deliberation, that being the case they feel we can be held responsible for our actions only when we had the opportunity to do otherwise. The position holding the most merit is soft determinism. It can be used to view the Zimmerman case. George Zimmerman could not control the events leading up to final fatal action. We have no proof denying that Martin aggressively approached him from behind and initiated the violence. Based on the only known information we have Zimmerman had no control over this prior event.
His next action was in self defense something he could not control therefore can not be held responsible for. If he had shot Martin before the physical clash occurred he would have demonstrated using free will. Since he could not control the fights progression he is not accountable for his actions. This further proves he should not go to jail for the shooting. Morally killing in self defense is a justified action. We previously conveyed the lack of concrete evidence refuting Zimmerman’s recollection of the shooting as an act of self defense.
Based on this we can determine Zimmerman’s killing is morally justified because as far as we know it was an act of self defense. If he had shot Martin before being physically attacked his actions would not be justified and in turn considered immoral. Morally his actions were justified as far as we can prove, adding to the reasons why he should not go to jail. In the shooting case of Trayvor Martin, George Zimmerman should not go to jail. It can not be proven without reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. Disputes over the shootings circumstances provide uncertainty in the case.
The arguments presented are sound and prove the conclusion, that George Zimmerman should not go to prison, is true.
Bibliography
- http://topics. nytimes. com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/trayvon_martin/index. html http://www. nytimes. com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin. html
- http://www. nytimes. com/2012/04/12/us/zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-shooting. html? pagewanted=all
- http://www. nytimes. com/2012/04/24/us/george-zimmerman-released-after-posting-bail-in-trayvon-martin-case. html? gwh=7C04C601D11A47D31E9BF5FF98E24EF4
