One last thread before I bow out of World War Z
REASONABLE DOUBT
I think Zimmerman's a coward, a sketchball, and an asshole who really fucked up and killed a kid. His narrative was full of inconsistencies and he should have gone down for murder II, manslaughter, or negligent homicide.
It was a massive failure on the part of the police department. They just took Zimmerman's story at face value. They didn't test Zimmerman for drugs or alcohol. Evidence was contaminated and destroyed and weeks went by before they talked to crucial witnesses. They didn't take the shooting death of this black kid seriously at all, and the DOJ should investigate them for evidence of racism in the handling of this case.
*HOWEVER*
The prosecution's case was terrible. The lead witness came off as a flake, they couldn't identify who was screaming on the 911 call, and they acknowledged that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot, among other problems. The only evidence that they presented that it was a fair fight and not a beatdown was eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. They failed to present a version of events that explained all the evidence in a cohesive way.
The defense, meanwhile, did present a cohesive narrative. They eviscerated the key witness for the prosecution, and packaged the forensic testimony together in a way that fit Zimmerman's account to the police.
The job of the prosecution was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense. The defense's job was to leave the door open for an alternative narrative in which Zimmerman was afraid for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger.
Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was acting in anything other than self defense? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I think it's entirely possible that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked and was afraid for his life when he pulled that trigger. Zimmerman's a coward and he probably took a few lumps and freaked out. Based on the testimony given in the trial, I think it's likely that Zimmerman was the one who was screaming on the 911 tape. Rachel Jeantel's letter to Mrs. Fulton, her testimony, and her statements after the trial paint a portrait of a kid who was not afraid of a fight. If this is how it went down, it doesn't make Trayvon a bad person or the villain in the situation, it makes him a normal kid. (IMHO, pretending that Trayvon was too good for this sinful earth is just another racist trope, and seeing him as a human being means seeing him in all his complexity: he was looking at colleges, he sent raunchy tweets, he bought candy for his dad's fiance's son, he smoked weed, and he did nothing wrong and did not deserve to die that night.)
I'm disappointed in the verdict, but I don't see how the jury could have found anything different considering the fact that the prosecution's case had giant holes in it. And again, it's not the job of the defense to PROVE anything, just demonstrate that the prosecution's case is flawed.
I'm also disappointed in DU for being so willing to throw away such concepts as "innocent until proven guilty," "burden of proof," "self defense," and "beyond reasonable doubt," just because we "know" that Zimmerman was a racist fucker who set out to kill an innocent black kid.
These legal concepts protect (or should protect) everyone, black and white, male and female. If anything, I think juries don't use these concepts enough and innocent people are victimized by a racist justice system that doesn't give black people any benefit of the doubt, either in life or death.
= new reply since forum marked as read
they make me SICK 
and the vast majority of the Democratic party. If you're looking to have your views on guns validated, you're in the wrong place.
But by all means, keep crying that right-wing views on guns aren't respected by progressives. Gunners love nothing more than to play the victim while tens of thousands of people die from the guns they worship. Poor you, someone doesn't love your fucking guns. Boo hooo. 
Trayvon Martin is dead, hundreds of children have been shot since Sandyhook, but as usual all that matters is gun owners incapable of thinking about anyone but themselves. 
How dare anyone think human life matters more than your guns? 
Show me.
Every poll I've ever seen on this site shows that a majority of DUers support the second amendment.
This is the minority position, on DU, and in the party.
You whined about how I "passed judgment" on gun owners, which isn't the case. I have gun owners in my family. What I don't respect is the views of those who think their guns are more important than everything else, including human life. I could care less if you don't like that. It is more important for me to do what is right than what you like. You bring in on yourself by pestering me. I don't run around after you telling you what I think. The only time I'm aware of your existence is when you reply to one of my posts to express outrage that I have the audacity to hold views you don't like.
This is a thread about the Zimmerman case and Trayvon Martin, yet you are compelled to make it about yourself. I've had my fill of boredom for the week.
Because she's black and comes from a disadvantaged background, it's totally fine that she's illiterate and sits there in court rolling her eyes and acting like she'd rather be anywhere else at all, instead of acting interested in bringing her friend's killer to justice?
I come from a disadvantaged background and I was involved in a court case when I was 16, and everyone involved told me to show up looking respectable, act like I was interested in what was going on, be polite, and don't give anyone any reason to doubt my character. The trenchcoat, the Nine Inch Nails shirt, and the Doc Martins stayed home.
Making excuses for her because she's black is as racist as profiling Trayvon in the first place.
Whether she wanted to be or not, she was there attesting to Trayvon's character, and she failed badly.
She was the star witness, and she totally sunk the case.
The defense has to establish that Zimmerman's actions were in self defense. Since Zimmerman did not take the stand the only evidence directly related to it were his various statements not taken under oath that were both self serving and in some cases strained credulity.
As to burden of proof I googled a single state IL and found this reference:
Thus, the state has the burden of showing beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) that (i) the elements of first degree murder are present, and (ii) that defendant's use of deadly force was not supportable by an objectively reasonable fear of serious bodily harm. If the state fails to do (ii), the defendant cannot be convicted of either first or second degree murder.
If the state succeeds in showing (ii) when self-defense has been raised, the defendant may then negate first degree murder (but not second-degree murder) by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he a subjectively genuine (but not objectively reasonable) fear of serious bodily harm (this is also known as "imperfect self-defense"
.
The defendant has the burden of production as to self-defense. That is, the prosecution does not need to negate it if it is not raised and supported by an appropriate quantum of evidence. What is that quantum? Well, it must be enough that, standing alone and before any rebuttal, raises at least a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not lawfully permitted to use deadly force in self-defense.
This evidentiary basis could be the defendant's testimony or other evidence. If the prosecution enters into evidence the video recording of the claimant's Mirandized police interrogation, and that video shows the defendant alleging self-defense, that could raise reasonable doubt without requiring the defendant to take the stand. If the prosecution only enters part of the recording, omitting the parts about self-defense, the defense may have it entered under F.R.E. 106 (or its state court analogue) ("If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part — or any other writing or recorded statement — that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time"
, without requiring the defendant to take the stand.
But even in a state with a low bar for self defense the defense still needs to assert that it was self defense and in this case there is a reasonable conclusion that Mr. Martin was the one acting in self defense and Zimmerman was the aggressor and made a fatal shot when he lost his advantage.
In any case I am not saying that the jury was in error but taking exception to the absolutist tone of the OP which is based on a misperception of the prosecutions' burden and comes to a conclusion that
Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was acting in anything other than self defense? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Was Zimmerman acting in self defense when he got out of the car?
And in each step he took towards Zimmerman was he acting in self defense?
The OP presents the case like it was an open and shut case for not guilty, which of course it was not.
