This message was self-deleted by its author

[Tommy_Carcetti]

124. You are strawmaning like crazy, Mojo.

Here's the bottom line with regards to the law, because I don't think you really know the law, even though you act as you do.

Zimmerman killed Trayvon. That's never been disputed.

On its face, i.e. on a prima facie basis, that's illegal, for one person to kill another person.

In order for it not to be illegal, Zimmerman would have to raise an affirmative defense. In law, an affirmative defense is what I call a "Yes, but...." argument. Yes, I killed him, but it was justified self-defense.

With regards to the burden of proof, the state bears the ultimate burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, because the affirmative defense of self-defense is being raised, the defendant would have to put forward a plausible theory of self-defense (it need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt). (At this point, the state could still rebut such a theory by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that self-defense does not actually apply, for example, adequate provocation by the person claiming self-defense. However, the judge, out of fear of reversal, was too afraid to instruct the jury to this respect.)

I honestly believe that Zimmerman's defense team failed to put forward any plausible theory of self-defense. The statements by Zimmerman had too many logical flaws to even consider believing. Why would someone who was running (undisputed) from a strange man chasing him for reasons unknown to him, who then manages to lose that strange man, a minute later decide to double back and ambush the strange man that he had put so much effort into losing? It makes zero sense. And for people claiming it was Trayvon's "bravado" or that he "wanted to teach Zimmerman a lesson", that just is not plausible when it comes to natural human fight v. flight instinctual behavior.

You say: "Do you actually believe Zimmy was a person who was just hell bent on murdering a black kid and finally got the chance on the way home from the grocery store?" Very few people here, if any, have actually claimed that's what happened. That would be First Degree pre-meditated murder, which was never the charge in that case. Research 1st Degree vs. 2nd Degree murder.

And yes, I honestly believe it was Trayvon screaming and not Zimmerman. If a stranger is pointing a gun at me, and there are people in houses nearby that I want to alert, I would scream for help, too. Not to mention that in Zimmerman's story, he was supposedly having his mouth smothered yet we were supposed to believe the clear, consistent unmuffled screams for help were his. (And that story is further inconsistent with the physical evidence due to the lack of blood on Trayvon's hands despite Zimmerman apparently having a bloody nose.)

And I do believe race was an issue in this case. It's undisputed that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon ("It looks like he's up to no good.&quot And I believe that Trayvon's status as a young black male, and Zimmerman's history of calling police about young black males in his neighborhood he viewed as suspicious, raised this to the level of racial profiling.

I accept the verdict only as being a product of the American jury system. However, while I accept the jury's verdict, I still believe it was wrong, dead wrong.

I hope you are not PPR'd because I honestly would like to hear your response on these matters.