George Zimmerman "testified" in his Second Degree Murder trial today. He won't have to again.

[dpibel]

83. You're fading a bit

It's late and you've been hard at work. You're now resorting to diversionary tactics.

Let's walk through this:

In #50, you said: "but they would still have needed to prove it wasn't self defense and do it beyond a reasonable doubt."

In #55, I pointed out that there is no requirement for the prosecution to prove a negative BRD.

In #61, you defined (more or less correctly) the meaning of "preponderance." Then you reasserted your erroneous claim: "Then the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense."

In #74, I pointed out again that the quantum of proof required by both parties is a preponderance.

Now, in #78, you state what seems enough to you.

As a first matter, what seems enough to you sounds more like a preponderance. But, more to the point, you have tried to slip away from the fact that, as is so frequently the case, you state with confidence a legal standard that simply doesn't exist. You said there is a requirement that the prosecution prove lack of self defense BRD. Now you simply say that the evidence you've seen is pretty darned good, as far as you're concerned.

The simple fact is, you inaccurately stated the legal requirement for defeating a self-defense claim.