From the Miami Herald:

[MH1]

88. Ok, but that is still different than how some people here seem to be saying it.

"if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."

is different than saying that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ was NOT* "defending" himself.

"justified in the use of deadly force" is the key phrase here, to me. I don't find any reasonable doubt that he had other options than the use of deadly force. So therefore he was not justified in using it and I must find him guilty.

Maybe that's just how I'm seeing it. What matters is how the jury sees it.

But in real life, a large part of the world knows that George Zimmerman is a murderer who stalked and murdered a child. If the jury lets him walk, we'll just have to be content to know that his reputation is shot (literally) with all decent people of the world. And of course, if one of us were to encounter him and feel stalked by him, we'd be justified in gunning him down, because we know that he might pull a gun and kill us, since he has already done exactly that.


* added NOT on edit after response pointed out the typo.