Let's begin with the Zimmerman and Martin case and stick with the concept of self defense and not worry about Stand Your Ground. Common sense tells me that in most parts of the civilized world, thde state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman actually committed the ACT of shooting Martin.
Now past that point is where I am confused and we know the law varies from region to region. Common sense would dictate that it should not be the state's responsibility and exclusive overwhelming burden to guess or figure out what is going on in the murderer's head.
My sense of fairness would hope for more of that burden of justifying that self defense should shift to the defendant. Now I wouldnt go far as to say that the defendant has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had to resort to self defense. I am not that extreme in my opinion. But some burden of proof has to shift to him at this stage of the trial. Let's go hypothetical to see what i mean. Let's assume Martin killed Zimmerman. Let's say Zimmerman took it one step further and just started waving a gun at Martin and started chasing him with that gun in front of witnesses, I wouldn't blame Martin if he shot back.That is obvious self defense for me. I wouldn't as a juror have to hear too much testimony to figure out what was going on in Martin's head to give him the benefit of doubt. Short of that,example's severity of provocatin, I would put the burden of proof on Martin. Let's say martin was spotted pounding Zimmerman to death and even if it appeared from the 911 call that Zimmerman was itching for a confrontation, I would still make Trayvon work really hard to prove that he had no choice and short of that he would go to jail with the severity of the sentencing being the discretionary tool used to judge the uncertainty in figuring out MArtin's state of mind.
But when you see the instructions interpreted by juror B29as they have to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Zimmerman did not have self defense in his mind , something is fucked up. So the state has a high burden not only to prove the act itself but to read Zimmerman's mind?
"I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said. "That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it. But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."It appears not that it was not enough for her to feel that what Zimmerman said wasn't fully credible with her(as B37 claimed Zimmerman was). She felt like she had to know BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that zimmerman did not really have a reasonable fear of dying.
She continued, "as much as we were trying to find this man guilty…they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it. I feel the verdict was already told."
OK this is not a perfect analogy. But I will mention it anyway. What if a state has a law whre the burden of proof that a defendant is NOT insane rests on the state instead of putting the burden on the defendant's legal team to show he is insane.
So legal experts weigh in. WHAT THE HELL IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN FLORIDA? And WHAT THE HELL IS THE BuRDEN OF PROOF IN OTHER STATES? Now I am not saying the defendant should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in self defense. But I would hope that in most states the majority of burden should fall on him to justify self defense once the state has proved beyond a doubt that he committed the act.
Once again, I am in no way saying that Zimmerman had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in self defense. But the way B29 explains it, she felt like the state had to do all the work not just for proving the act of the shooting was done by Zimmerman but also what was in Zimmerman's mind. I think it should just boil down to credibility. In which case juror B37 would still find Zimmerman is innocent(which I disagree with, but I can live with such an interpretation of the law) but B29 would find Zimmerman guilty because she obviously thinks Zimmerman got away with it and she is implying he was not credible.
My only request. Please preface your comment title with [LAWYER] or [LEGAL EXPERT] so we know which one is professional opinion and which one is not.
Oh, and Angela Corey must resign. She did bad things to both the left and the right in this one case. Amazing.
Oh and i was right about the person not part of the gang of four's statement being hispanic.
P.S.: In the" Dooley (crazy black guy) shooting an unarmed innocent white guy(iraq veteran) in front of his daughter" case, the jurors obviously had more common sense in rendering a sensible verdict. By the way, in that case, the white guy did have his hands on Dooley and the white guy was the stronger guy. The juror correctly saw past that.