When partisan politics threatens the Bill of Rights, progressives especially need to get their priorities straight: The Bill of Rights must prevail. Those who disagree do a disservice to the word "progressive." Their backwards thinking is just the opposite.
Under Florida jurisprudence (cases assembled here), once a defendant has introduced any evidence of self-defense, no matter how flimsy, even if it's just his own testimony, he has the right to have the jury instructed on his theory of self-defense. At every trial in every state in America, the burden of proof for the charged crime always rests on the state and never shifts to the defendant. In Florida, the state must not only prove the charged crime or a lesser included offense, but also disprove self-defense.
A killing that occurs through the justifiable use of force is not unlawful. It is not a crime. The defendant does not have to produce any evidence or testify. The state's must prove the charge and disprove self-defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt can arise from the evidence presented or the lack of evidence presented. (See the jury instructions.)
The defense did not argue Stand Your Ground. Prosecutor John Guy told the jury in his closing argument, "Let me suggest to you, in the end, this case is not about standing your ground."
In order for the aggressor statute to apply, the state must introduce evidence that the defendant provoked the use of physical force. It is not enough if he provoked fear. The state argued and the court ruled against the state's request to have the jury instructed on the aggressor provision. It failed to produce evidence that Zimmerman used physical force against Martin or threatened to use physical force.
This was a case of self-defense. The state failed to prove Zimmerman had the mental state of ill-will, hatred, spite or evil intent necessary for second degree murder. Goodbye Murder 2. It failed to disprove Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Goodbye manslaughter.
Trials are conducted in courtrooms, not living rooms. The public has a right to view the proceedings. It does not have a right to inject its opinions into the proceedings or affect the outcome. The jury must base its decision only on the testimony and evidence produced at trial and the law as instructed by the judge. Morality has nothing to do with it.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to a fair trial by a impartial jury. The jury is composed of the six people selected in court after a rigorous process designed to exclude those who cannot be fair. The public is not a member of the jury. It has no vote. Which is a good thing because the vast majority of the public commenting on this and every other high profile trial are all too willing to take an eraser to the Constitution and condemn a person, without having observed the proceedings from start to finish, viewed the exhibits admitted or read the jury instructions.
Those who are willing to throw the Constitution out the window because they don't like a particular defendant, or because of their moral or political objections to what they subjectively believe was going through his mind, or because they like a particular victim, can be called a lot of things. Progressive is not one of them.
