Trayvon Martin Case

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Let me get this...you are saying I can follow RedskinRat into an elevator...shoot him dead after intiating an altercation then claim self-defense...and that the state has to prove that it was not self defense? And if it doesnt I get to walk?

I am calling Bullshit! Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This means the defendant's statements must be sufficient to warrant relief from the court.




Zimmerman must prove, show or whatever the **** you want to call it that he acted in self-defense.


p.s. It's not too hard to get a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and I believe there is sufficent evidence in the Zimmerman case...see:

Renton teen gets almost 70 years for fatal shooting | Local News | The Seattle Times

There is no evidence that Zimmerman started anything. Following a person is not against the law. That's the problem with their case. If there was evidence that Zim. started an altercation then he should be convicted.