The state of FL v. George Zimmerman

[Chris L]

The 2012 Florida StatutesGZ claims he felt his life was threatened, but the prosecutor proved he told self-serving lies about everything and his injuries weren't life threatening.

The prosecutor proved GZ profiled and followed TM.

The prosecutor proved the attack did not occur the way GZ claims, it was impossible GZ pulled the gun the way he claims. The gun had to be out sooner.

If he was afraid of Martin, he wouldn't have gone after him. His gun says he was not afraid. TM was shot on the grass not by the sidewalk so GZ could not have been having his head slammed on the cement at the time of the shot.

I fail to see how the jury is required to find reasonable doubt under those circumstances just because GZ claims he feared for his life when all the evidence proves by circumstances he did not.

Maybe someone who is a lawyer can clear this up, but doesn't the fact that GZ is making an affirmative defense (self-defense) mean that the burden of proof is really his in this case?

 

[Freddy]

Maybe someone who is a lawyer can clear this up, but doesn't the fact that GZ is making an affirmative defense (self-defense) mean that the burden of proof is really his in this case?

No, the burden of proof is on the state to prove BRD that it was not self defense. That is not unique to FL, by the way. That's how it works in 48 states. Some affirmative defenses do work the way you describe, but not self defense (except in Ohio and South Carolina).

 

[kmortis]

Well, it was a nice experiment, but it didn't pan put.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis