If Zimmerman wins this, the NRA should start hiring people to shoot black kids.
Increased profits in the gun industry.
Thousands of new jobs.
Maybe even slightly increase America's Human Development Index.
Sounds like a win-win.

Draug, you're claiming Zimmerman is innocent because you allege that Martin is guilty, yet you provide no tangible evidence proving Martin's innocence. The truth could go either way in this instance; Zimmerman might well be innocent, but please don't start speculating that Trayvon deserved it because he was committing a crime when you know no such thing, and please at least pretend to not be racist by not saying things like that he was "somewhere he didn't belong."

Martin needs no proof of innocence. This is the US. Innocent until proven guilty. Remember?

But to back up GZ's claims...

http://www.businessinsider.com/eyewitness-testifies-in-zimmerman-trial-2013-6

The testimony of an eyewitness to the fight clearly indicates GZ was under attack from TM.

I meant Zimmerman needs no proof of innocence, obviously.

In this specific case, you have to prove that it was self-defense, or the only piece of evidence is that he killed the guy, and he is guilty.

Thanks ghug.

Doubt it will shake their beliefs, but that was one needed dose of 'reality check'.

"In this specific case, you have to prove that it was self-defense, or the only piece of evidence is that he killed the guy, and he is guilty. "

False. The prosecutor has to prove it *wasn't* self defense *and* that it meets the other criteria for Murder 2 in Florida. Otherwise it is dsomething less or quite possibly a homocide but not the defendants fault. You make the same mistake the typical American idiot makes which is that the defendant has to prove his innocence by proving it was self defense. All he needs do is say it was and the prosecutor has to prove it wasn't.

Weird, in Australia the burden of proof for self-defence lies with the defence, as they are the ones making the claim.

The only defense "curden of proof" per se in the US is insanity defense where the defendant has to be evaluated by a doctor to present it. after that, though, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove the doctor is incorrect or the defendant somehow is fooling everyone (if it is an active insanity plea,not a temporary one).

sorry, "burden of proof"

But it also varies by state here. Some states do put the burden on the defendant.

Florida's law is an arrfirmative self-defense, ewhich means he has to present some evidence to support his claim, but once the court accepts that, the burden to disprove it is on the prosecutor. By default, the jury is to assume it was self-defense and evaluate the prosecutors case.

affirmative... I guess I was channeling my inner puppy.

So I show a cooberatin witness and the relevant aspect of Florida's self defense law that shows, once the self-defense is accepted by the court, it is up to the prosecutor to prove it *wasn't* self defense and suddenly all the "TM was an innocent kid and GZ is guilty" crowd goes away? Draugnar for the WIN!

*corroborating Wow! That was one hell of a typo (missing the two "r"s and the "g") combined with a brain fart ("e" instead of an "o")!

Zimmerman is a murderer.

This witness, and two others, saw Zimmerman on top of Martin. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/28/trayvon-martin-witness-denies-aggressor

Interesting twist then. Which set of witnesses to believe? The one who saw it right oustide his window? Or the others whose testimony hasn't been fully heard? this will be an interesting case.

If it turns out the jury believes GZ was on top, then "the prosecution must convince all six jurors that Zimmerman acted with "ill will" or "hatred" and "an indifference to human life"." So even if he was on top, there is still more the prosecution must prove (the quote comes from *your* article, I might point out).

TM had recently moved to the neighborhood and was staying at a home there. Z was a self appointed neighborhood watch coordinator.

If you were walking home from a nearby store and someone was following you for several minutes, then the man following you pulls out a gun. What would you do?

You got three choices:
1. Run and hope even if he shoots that he misses hitting you.
2. Hope he doesn't shoot you and just wants to rob you. (There are enough people that pretend to be an authority figure to rob others.)
3. Attack and try to get the gun away from him before you get shot.

We know TM picked option number 3. If TM had lived and Z got shot he could have easily claimed self defense.

Either I have someone muted, or about half of this thread is Draug having a conversation with himself...

"If TM had lived and Z got shot he could have easily claimed self defense."

That's a double standard right there. Why isn't that sentence true if the initials are switched?

Please provide a source for TM having moved to the neighborhood. I have never seen nor heard that substantiated. I have seen where he was visitng his father's fiance but he lived with his mom somewhere else entirely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

This seems to be a pretty balanced wiki article that sticks to fact, not speculation on either part, and, for a wikipedia current events article, is pretty damned good.

@KA - do you have gavrilop muted by chance?

> the quote comes from *your* article, I might point out

You might, but I don't know why. In case you're losing track of who you're talking with: I've never said it would be easy to get the jury to return the correct verdict. Especially considering that juror B-37 is racist. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/20/meet-jurors-in-george-zimmerman-trial/

Excuses, excuses, gavrilop. When gavrilop doesn't agree with the world, the world must be wrong. OK.

Source about TM moving to neighborhood was in one of the early newspaper articles after the shooting. I can't find an online link because the recent news buries it.

Self defense usually goes to the less armed person or the second person to start a fight.

Are you drunk?

No, Draug, I don't have gavrilop muted, but I might pretty soon if he doesn't stop passing his opinions off as common sense...

Don't dawdle, asshole. Hit that mute button.

@Randomizer - I rmemebr the claim, but it was never confirmed and his address of record is his mom's place. He didn't live there. But the liberal media will make up facts to suit their story. They'll call a man who has a peruvian and black mother, "white". They'll lighten the color in the photos they print and put on the web to make him appear less Peruvian. And they will use 3 or 4 year old pictures of a 17 year old delinquent who was suspended from school to try and make him more sympathetic to the public and "rally the troops" around their cause.

If you stick with the facts, there is more to the 2nd degree murder charge than just "he shot an unarmed man" and TM is * not* the sympathetic little 14 year old the media would like us to believe.