[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wrong, wrong, wrong wroooong. Wrong wrong wrong wrooooong. [Y'all know the clip].

I already covered this once, so let's review:



So, to be sure, I looked it up. As I assumed, Florida law is essentially the same:

"In a criminal prosecution the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State and, as a result, when self-defense is properly at issue, the state effectively has the burden to prove that defendant was not acting in self-defense during the commission of the criminal act."



Again, ignoring your assumptions of facts not proven and your speculative characterizations ...

ZIMMERMAN DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. THE STATE MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE DID NOT . Innocent until proven guilty - beyond a reasonable doubt. Lordy, how many times do I have to restate this simple, fundamental principal of our legal system.

By the way, and to preempt any silly assertions that "Well, GZ's self-defense isn't 'properly at issue' because he hasn't proved it" remark from saden or someone else - if the State thought that a prima facia claim of self-defense claim wasn't generated by the evidence, they would have brought a murder 1 charge against GZ. By bringing the murder 2 charge instead, the State acknowledges that the evidence has generated a self-defense claim but they assert it was not valid. As such, they must now prove its invalidity BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Sorry for "yelling" but the wilfull ignorance being exhibited in this thread is getting me testy.



Again, you're assertion that GZ "create[d] a situation" glosses over the key issues of the case that are in dispute. Further, the claim of self-defense is not "peripheral" - what an idiotic statement. It is central to the events of that evening and sufficiently in dispute so as to be acknowledged by the State's indictment.

All you are doing is restating your initial bias and speculation and throwing in an extra helping of ignorance ... but, hey, that's sounds like an excellent basis to put people in jail.

Prove might have been the wrong word to use, perhaps show would be more appropriate. I am saying a self-defense claim is an extraordinary claim and as such there is a greater burden on the defense than in a typical criminal trial. The prosecutor has 5 angles of attack that the defense must show there is a reasonable cause to doubt each point of attack.

As for murder 1 we don't need to go there because it doesn't apply in this case.