I know I've posted on this before, but I think I can work my way around the laws present in this case. Can someone with a little more knowledge in American laws answer this for me?:
- The two conditions for manslaughter are that 1) Person A kills Person B and 2) Person A didn't commit a justified homicide or reasonable homicide (where justified and reasonable homicide are defined elsewhere)
- Part 1 is obvious. Zimmerman killed Martin. However, is the burden of proof of proving that Zimmerman had no other due course of action, since he claimed it was in self-defence, in the prosecution's hands?
If the above is required, then I understand and agree with the verdict. It's always been my assumption that a self-defence claim required burden of proof to stand.
__________________
|