Zimmerman has already been proved guilty, now it's just a question of punishment.

[last1standing]

83. I'm very much for real. Thanks.

I think it's only fair to provide a link when one has been provided for you. I didn't think it was a great deal to ask and I appreciate you doing so.

Now, the term guilty was only meant to convey that fact that it's not contested that Zimmerman did in fact kill Martin. While the prosecution still has to present the evidence, it is a fait acompli as the defense does not dispute this. If I had used a different term it would have been more confusing for everyone. If you want me to hang my head in shame for using the word, however, I will.

Other than that, nothing you've posted changes what I've written. Zimmerman has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence. The article you link to concerns the standard for receiving a jury instruction, not for actually establishing his culpability. Another poster had already brought up the case in question. Mind you, I could be reading it wrong. However, if I am then I claim a bias toward reasonable law. If a defendant must only show that they might have possibly been acting in self defense then the standard would be so low that any defendant with an attorney who's not bombed out of his skull could walk guilty or not.

On the other hand, this is Florida...