Missorian and others who seem just beyond convinced of Zimmerman's innocence seem to continue claiming that Zimmerman can just give any cockamamie story and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove.
NOT the case.
THEIR burden is in proving that he shot the kid - A claim which is not refuted.
If it was self-defense, it's HIS burden to demonstrate such.
As I said many pages ago in this thread, by those standards, ANYONE who shot anyone could simply state "He was going to hit me!" and leave the State with a dead witness and an unprovable standard.
You know this stuff Ilar, don't you? Aren't you in the legal field? What makes this case different exactly, or is it just wishful thinking by gun nuts?
You are not listening.
Zimmerman will present his case for self defense.
It will sound something like this:
"I saw suspicious activity, a person unknown to me...the neighborhood watch captain...walking in the dark, in the rain...who seemed to be casing the nearby houses and backyards.
I phoned the police while I kept an eye on this person to make sure he engaged in no criminal activity before the police arrived.
When the person noticed that I was watching their activities, they fled and I lost contact with them.
At that time the police dispatcher, concerned for my safety, informed me that they did not need for me to continue following the person, and that I should move to meet the officers when they arrived.
They asked my address, but as I didn't know the whereabouts of the person I had been following, I didn't want to give that information where it was possible the person I was following could hear my conversation, so I told the dispatcher I would meet the officers near the mailboxes.
On my way to the mailboxes, I walked a circuitous route, inspecting windows and doors of the houses nearby for evidence of damage.
Suddenly a man stepped out of an alley and began shouting at me.
He was angry, questioning why I was following him.
I tried to explain that I was a member of the neighborhood watch when the man sucker punched me in the face.
I fell backwards trying to escape the man, but he was on top of me punching my face and body, he grabbed my head and was slamming the back of my head into something hard...I could feel blood...
At this point, I was afraid he was going to kill me. I felt like I was going to lose consciousness and he was going to keep bashing my head and there was going to be nothing I could do...I was absolutely in fear for my life. I was screaming for help but no one came...
So I took the only course of action available...it was him or me.
I never wanted to kill him, I'm truly sorry that he is dead, but like I said, it was my last resort, I honestly believe he was going to kill me."
And the evidence backs him up.
He called the police...who calls the police first when they intend to kill someone?
Zimmerman had blunt force injuries, Martin did not.
Two witnesses place Zimmerman on the ground, one places Martin on top of him "raining down blows like MMA"
Zimmerman cooperated with the police, and was not arrested until the story became political and racial.
I believe him...the local police believed...the first prosecutor believed him...and the jury will believe him.
Where is the evidence that refutes his account?
