The Stand Your Ground statute DOES NOT require the shooter to prove self-defense; rather the burden shifts to the state to prove that it wasn't. That's a huge hurdle ... especially when the only other direct witness is dead.

It seems hard to believe that the law would be applied in such a way.

Basically what self defense laws like Florida's say is that in self defense cases, you're to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. That's no more a difficult burden for the police in cases like this than it is in any normal case, because there's a lot more to investigation than just he said/he said of two people.

this Zimmerman guy was not in a situation of exercising a "self defense" argument.

Some of this evidence is his own recorded words where he admits to stalking the victim.

Additional evidence is questionably "hearsay" testimony which might be thrown out on technical grounds: the testimony of the girlfriend who was provably on the phone with the victim at the time of the stalking, but who cannot assert her testimony because of the technicalities of the hearsay law.

Further evidence is recorded calls to 911 from other auditory witnesses which verifies a scuffle of some sort, between an unarmed victim and the final fatal shot.

Logical inference, (as seeing snow on the ground when you wake up infers it snowed overnight), can piece together racial animus, motive, and lack of threat to Zimmerman without his stalking behaviors, which were advised against by police in the 911 call from Zimmerman.

Without Zimmerman's clearly documented actions, this event would never have taken place, as there was no threat to any person in the residential complex. Zimmerman invited this exchange, as we now know, and Zimmerman acted without legal justification for shooting the victim.

Couldn't have formulated it in such a precise manner though.

There are several logical trails to follow to arrive at reasonable conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt.

The TRICK here will be to introduce reasonable evidence in proper sequence to assert MY belief, (and probably the closest think to the truth), that Zimmerman, on alcohol or drugs, racially biased, and set upon an agenda to take on a target, stalked, and harassed and challenged Trayvon, to the point where a few blows or fisticuffs took place between the two men, and Zimmerman shot Trayvon to stop the fight.

The evidence, (as little as it is), collected improperly by police, and cell phone calls and 911 calls and other means, shows this to be the most logical stream of events. Some of this evidence (for motive) is in Zimmerman's own words on the 911 call.

Right now, Zimmerman should be in jail awaiting trial. THAT is the worst part of this tragic series of events for us, the remaining living. We want bullies who kill to be held accountable, but, for some reason, in that part of our nation, with that incompetent police force, with that incompetent state attorney's office, this has not yet happened. THAT is the WORST tragedy of the justice system!

NO, of course the tragedy of Trayvon's murder is the worst part, but, honestly, several black young men and several other young men die almost every day in the USA. That is a tragedy, but most of those vicitms have an authentic investigation of their murder, in an attempt to hold the perpetrator to a system of justice. Here, in Trayvon's case, no one is being held accountable, legally or morally, not even the homicide investigators, nor the state nor the US Atty Gen's office. THAT is the bigger tragedy, on top of this young man's death for no reason at all.

would you agree that the statute does not require the shooter to prove self-defense; and that, disproving self-defense is far more difficult than having to prove it was self-defense?

I think this matter will turn on the 2(?) witnesses that actually saw the struggle.

Oh how I was this teenager had been doing what teenagers do ... texting his girlfriend rather than talking to her. The texts would likely survive any hearsay challenge.

A valid claim of self defense (under any state statute) needs to have credible evidence that supports it.
Claims of self-defense in homicides, police shootings, etc., MUST BE VALIDATED BY EVIDENCE!

We ALREADY HAVE verbal recorded evidence that contradicts it!!! From Zimmerman's voice alone!

Sadly, there may be SOME evidence in Zimmerman's favor, (bloody nose?), but a bloody nose is not justification to shoot the assailant, more of a justification for punching the other guy in the nose!.

The Florida Statute, as well as jurisdictions with Castle Doctrine rules, creates the presumption that the use of deadly force while standing one's ground is a justified use of the deadly force.

This presumption shifts the burden from proving self-defense to proving that the use of force was not justified.

credible, in the minds of the jury.

A lack of credible evidence in the prosecution's case, true, can enable a defendant to "walk".

But under this law, and in this circumstance, the assertion of a a defense becomes the object of credibility. Much like Alice through the looking glass, now the defense is required to prove a homicide conforms to the dimensions of the law.

The simple facts: an unarmed teenager of considerably smaller stature, documented to be on his way to his temporary home for the night, with nothing but candy and iced tea as weapons, does nothing to provoke fear in the defendant. The defendant, by contrast, asserts his "rights" and powers to kill the teen for no provable reason, perhaps having to do with a bloody nose, after the defendant stalks and confronts the victim.

This law is absurd, on first glance, but is in place in that state, through what seem to be lawful channels. The law reverses the burden of proof, placing it upon the defendant, not upon the state, and is in many ways laughable. Nonetheless, it is on the FL books, and it forces the defendant to prove reasonable justification, rather than forcing the state to prove lack of justification. Lack of justification is obvious from the circumstances I described above, (teen no weapon nor felonious intent, unauthorized adult, unsanctioned intent to apprehend).

But you keep saying that the burden is shifted to the defendant ... It is not! In Florida, the use of deadly force is PRESUMED JUSTIFIED; it is on the state to prove otherwise.

That is the specific intent of these SYG/Castle Doctrine laws.

We agree that the assertion of self-defense is/would ultimately [be] determined by a jury.

But here's the rub that makes this law so ridiculous/problematic ...

Florida Code indicates:

(2)?A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

different perspectives.

I will review your argument more in the future.

What I am basically asserting is that the 2005 law in FL shifts burdens for juries in courts from presumption of innocence of the defendant. In no case can that presumption be made without forced testimony from the defense, which, up until now, did not have to be asserted.

.

Don't get me wrong, I think we both agree on the facts, the guy is guilty!

We agree that zimmerman is toast; but again ... How do you get that the the Florida Law shifts the burden from presumption of innocence of the defendant, when this law specifically provides the assumption of justification of a defendant claiming SYG/self-defense?

SYG is ONLY about the duty to retreat. The governing statute says that the use of deadly force is only allowed when there is a reasonable fear of GBI or Death.

You are correct that SYG authorizes the use of deadly force. However, the statute creates the presumption that the use of deadly force while standing your ground is justified.

This shifts the burden from proving self-defense to proving that the use of deadly force was NOT justified.

But it's hard to imagine that a self-defense argument could work in this case. He pursued the victim and the victim was unarmed. If he could show that he reasonably believed that the victim was armed, then his case would improve, but short of that I don't see how he could prevail without serious jury stupidity.

he was in his car and had a gun. if he was scared of him why go after them, running after them.

It's feeling threatened at the time one uses the deadly force.

Stalking a suspicious individual is a function of police, not unauthorized citizens.

Police routinely advise against overt activity to stalk, follow, provoke, or otherwise pursue a suspect in the event of any crime.

Case law is replete with examples of this, wherein evidence of criminal activity has been thrown out because of "entrapment" or stalking, or other illegal activity on the part of one of the litigants. Some stalkers and "entrapment folks" have wound up in jail or fined themselves, for recording video, for recording phone calls, even for taking pictures. Citizens are legally barred from doing what police are legally authorized to do, especially what police are ONLY legally authorized to do after a court issuance of a warrant.

Too many TV shows have made common citizens people who think that they can do a better job than the police, and too often their "evidence" is thrown out of court for just that very reason, a citizen does not have the right to spy, entrap, or seduced or record private transactions of adults carrying on legal business or living lawful lives.

If you see your neighbor raping an 18 year old and record it with your video camera, you could wind up in prison. If you stalk a pedestrian on a street for walking (while black or while white), and shoot him after you start a fight with him, you could face the death penalty.

Please learn this.

Stalking a suspicious individual is a function of police, not unauthorized citizens; however, that wasn't the question. The commenter asked did the fact that zimmerman approached Martin show that zimmerman did not feel threatened by Martin.

My response stands ... the relevant factor is zimmerman's state of mind at the time he used the deadly force.

I do, however, agree with your last paragraph ... if Person A shoots Person B after starting a fight with Person B, Person A would likely to be prosecuted. However, under the Florida statute, Person B is presumed to have been justified in his/her use of the deadly force, while standing his/her ground.

It, then, becomes the job of the prosecutor to show/prove that Person B was the aggressor in the fight.

A jury would be asked if a reasonable person would feel their life was threatened at the time of the altercation. Anything outside of that would imply premeditation. The standard is similar for law enforcement, so you know it is much less rigid for civilians.

He needs to be arrested and/or indicted before we get to jury stupidity.

(assuming there is a case.)
There ARE witnesses, of various kinds, as we've heard; neighbors, girlfriend on the phone, text of 911 call, etc.

If they determine it's the boy yelling, then it's over for Zimmerman. And they have witnesses saying it was the boy. They also noticed how the cries stopped suddenly after the gunshots.

If it was Martin yelling for help, then there was no threat to Zimmerman, and no self defense.

law in Florida come up against the logical realities of this event.

We all now know that this was not a case of Trayvon threatening life, or property to Zimmerman.

But can we use the laws to prove this in a court?

Very good question. I hope we have some sharp attorneys in the FL or US DA or AG offices who can link the pieces of the recorded evidence together with the physical and forensic evidence to prove this case, and put Mr. Z away for many many years with lots of black killers as his jail mates.

Justice Department lawyers are some of the best around, except for maybe in the area of financial crimes.

Where do you practice law?

But no longer practice. My career took a Human Resources turn that doesn't require my to practice.

I'm not convinced anyone will be able to come up with the evidence necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The family may have to file a civil suit. The standards are much lower.

will not be allowed if Zimmerman is found innocent:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

That is fairly common with Castle or Stand Your Ground law and in GENERAL is a wise idea. I believe that in 99.9% of the cases, that if someone found innocent of a crime by a court of law, they should not be subject to a civil suit.

Also, see 776.032 Paragraph 2-1 in the above link, which states "but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful."

Also, proving that Zimmerman following Martin met the legal defintion of stalking, is probably going to be tough to prove:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=stalking&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html

My guess is that a lot of whether or not Zimmerman is found guilty of murder or the lesser charge of manslaughter will depend on forensic evidence, including the trajectory of the bullet through Martin, evidence of a contact wound or shot fired at a very short distance any of which would indicate the position both were in when the shot was fired, any other injuries suffered by Zimmerman and Martin and any offensive/defensive wounds that either may have.

Of course the skills of the lawyers involved will also play a part.

otherwise, this would be a slam dunk.