The problem is that Zimmerman's account of things doesn't make any sense and doesn't completely coincide with witness accounts.
I believe some of the witness testimony provide reasonable evidence that Zimmerman's story isn't entirely true. That, and the fact that Zimmerman's story about being attacked from behind doesn't really make any sense.
And you don't let a person go because of what you don't know either.
What's important is what we do know. We do know that Zimmerman shot Martin. We do know that Zimmerman engaged in behaviors that would cause a reasonable person to feel threatened. We also know that Zimmerman did have ill-will directed at Martin. Zimmerman's own words damn him in this regard. He had already tried and convicted Martin of wrongdoing in his mind.
He stated quite clearly that he considered Martin an Asshole and he felt that Martin was going to "get away with it". The fact that Zimmerman had ill-will for martin is very important because such things would have shown up in Zimmerman's body language and non-verbal communication with Martin. When someone who does mean you ill-will is following you, you will certainly feel threatened. And people instinctively pick up on this body language. It's all part of our biological wiring. This is very important because it establishes ground to argue that any aggression Martin displayed towards Zimmerman was actually based on Martin's right to stand his ground.
The facts are what we should be looking at, not speculation, and certainly not the unsupported claims of the defendant. The facts don't help Zimmerman's case at all.
This is a little different than that. He is guilty of killing Martin. That much is known. What needs to be ascertained is whether or not Zimmerman has a legitimate claim to the stand your ground defense. That doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's an affirmative defense which places some degree of the burden of proof on the defense. His word is certainly not enough. If it was, anyone could get away with murder provided that they claim self-defense. That claim would always create a reasonable doubt if we always assume the claim is true without requiring any evidence that it is true.
Zimmerman must provide reasonable evidence of a few different things:
1. that he killed Martin it in self-defense (this could mean that he has to prove that he did not provoke Martin into defending himself) AND
2. He needs to establish that Martin was not the person who was in a position to stand his ground from the threat to Martin posed by Zimmerman.
The second one is where Zimmerman will have trouble. This is because even is 1 is true, 2 being false would mean that Zimmerman didn't have any right to stand his ground. Martin would have had that right. Zimmerman would have essentially waived his right to self-defense if he made himself enough of a threat to martin. The very act of following Martin means that Zimmerman was already very, very close to waiving his right to a stand-your-ground defense before the altercation even began.
Like I said, if we operate under the assumption that everything the shooter says is always true until proven false, we set a precedent that would allow murder to happen so long as the murderer claims self-defense.
You have some points there, I admit, but you're putting too much burden of proof on the defense.
There is no way Zimmerman can prove he didn't provoke Martin because there are no eyewitnesses to the beginning of the physical fight.
#2 is also dubious because it involves the mental state and thought processes of a man who is dead, as well as because there are no eyewitnesses to the moment things went physical. All we know is Z told 911 he was trying to keep watch on M so he didn't get away after acting in a manner Z thought suspicious enough to call 911 about.
If you held every self-defense case to the same sort of burden of proof, a lot of innocent people would be convicted.
The only provocation we KNOW Zimmerman made to Martin was following him. Following someone doesn't give the followed person the right to physically assault them absent other signs of threat.
What are the requirements for self-defense? I know 'em by heart....
1. You must be without legal fault in provoking the incident. (IE you weren't doing anything illegal.)
2. You must have believed yourself to be in imminent danger of bodily harm.
3. A reasonable man in the same situation would also believe #2.
Further, the reasonable-man standard of believing yourself in danger of bodily harm is that three elements must be present: Opportunity, Ability, and Jeopardy/Intent.
-The subject must have the Ability to do you harm.... okay, both Z and M qualify in that regard.
-The subject must have the Opportunity to do you harm right NOW.... if Z was walking away from Martin, this puts Martin's supposed SD claim in serious jeopardy. Contrariwise, we have an eyewitness that Martin was on top of Z, and Z had injuries of some kind.
-The subject must demonstrate Jeopardy behaviors or Intent.... the subject must
do things indicating that an attack is imminent, like cocking a fist and moving towards you, or verbally threatening and reaching for a weapon, that sort of thing. Again, we have eyewitnesses saying Martin was beating Zimmerman, but we have no eyewitnesses that say Zimmerman exhibited Jeopardy behavior towards Martin.... unless you count following him and keeping him under observation, and if that is ALL then we're REALLY opening a can of worms for people to make spurious SD claims!
Available info indicates that Martin moved to confront Z and backed off when he saw he was on the phone (to 911). Do we have any evidence that Zimmerman directly confronted (provoked) Martin? Not that I know of, other than following him, and that isn't a crime in itself, unless we start making
assumptions about Z's body language or facial expression.
IMHO both Treyvon Martin and George Zimmerman are (were) a pair of overly-aggressive dipsticks who BOTH turned a misunderstanding into a homicide by their poor choices.... but I can't see convicting Z of Murder-2 simply for following someone he deemed suspicious.
We don't have to assume that what the shooter said was true.... but we DO have to have some kind of evidence that it ISN'T.