I may be in the minority here, but I fail to see how GZ has proven his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
I can’t believe that statement. It indicates total lack of understanding, in fact ignorance.
He is not required to prove innocence at all. The proof must be provided by the state, proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
It’s a good thing you are not on the jury
innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
You are absolutely correct. He has not proven his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. But as other posters have pointed out, the burden of the case is on the prosecution, not the defense. GZ only has to create reasonable doubt win acquittal. And the prosecution has done that for him.
To: Moseley
“I may be in the minority here, but I fail to see how GZ has proven his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.”........
In the “old justice system” we all grew up with, Zimmerman’s defense DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE INNOCENCE, the prosecution has to prove GUILTY, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Did you miss all the “resonable doubts”? Then again, the media and some of society has officially helped change our law to read “Guilty until proven innocent”.
Forgot your sarcasm tag?
He doesn’t have to prove his innocence. They have to prove his guilt.
On this forum, you most certainly are the minority, since you don't seem to grasp the most basic concept of what is SUPPOSED to be our justice system.
Unfortunately, I believe you represent the vast MAJORITY of citizens who have been dumbed down to the point where they, too, believe the defendant has something to "prove."
Tell you what.....let me repeatedly slam your head into the concrete while you think what options are available to you in that scenario. Deal?
>I fail to see how GZ has proven his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.<
Since when must he do such a thing; in the USA???