One last thread before I bow out of World War Z

[grantcart]

24. I believe that your outrage is based on a major misconception on the burden of proof

Which is contained in this sentence:

Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was acting in anything other than self defense? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

It is the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed the act, which they did without question as the defense conceded that he shot Mr. Martin.

When the defense mounts an affirmative defense, i.e. "I shot him but I had a good reason" then the burden of proof shifts dramatically and it is no longer the prosecution's responsibility as described in boiler plate wiki article

Burden of proof[edit]

Affirmative defenses' burden of proof is on the defendant to prove its allegations either by the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to ordinary defenses (claim of right, alibi, infancy, necessity, and (in some jurisdictions, e.g., New York) self-defense (which is an affirmative defense at common law)), for which the prosecutor has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now exactly how that burden is split defers from state to state. As I understand it the defense had to prove that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of death. In this case it gets complicated because we have Mr. Martin's real, and very well founded fear of getting killed which in fact did happen. Zimmerman started a string of actions knowing that he had a gun. I think it is very reasonable for the jury to not accept the defenses' argument that Zimmerman had a real fear because he could have done any of the following:


a) not gotten out of his car
b) not pursued Mr. Martin
c) retreated from Mr. Martin
d) showed his weapon and not shot Mr. Martin.

So your premise on the burden of proof being wrong then your analysis is also faulty and your outrage completely misplaced.

There is every reason to believe that the case of the prosecution met the burden of proof that Zimmerman committed the act and that the various statements of Zimmerman could have been found to be completely self serving and not believable (i.e. he was looking for a street sign in a 3 street complex he was familiar with and walked away from the street to where no sign could possibly be).

I think you should reassess your position based on the fact that the defense had the burden in an affirmative defense and there is reasonable questions as to whether or not they met that burden.