Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
We don't know that Zimmerman approached Martin or got anyhwere close to him. Your filling in the facts. If Zimmerman does not get close to Martin or threaten him overtly, then the threat is not imminent. Zimmerman would also have to approach Martin in a way that did not offer reasonable escape.
No. In a case where the state is attempting to take away a citizen's liberty and basic human rights, the state should always have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That principle cannot be compromised merely because it's convenient to your own sense of morality.
|
And you're not filling in the facts? Nobody knows the truth of what happened in that time period but Zimmerman.
Burden's shift all the time, even in criminal cases, so this is not unprecedented. And I'm sorry, if you want to carry a concealed weapon I think that having an increased burden of proof placed upon you in the event that you kill someone with that weapon is a completely legitimate stance. If that gives you pause, perhaps leave the gun at home. This has nothing to do with proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt, it's about where the burden is placed on the use self defense as a legal defense.