Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

Scrapes on the back of the head is not justification to shoot anyone dead.

Here is another link from Florida lawyer web page/blog on the burden of proof issue in self defense cases.

http://www.jacksonvillecriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2012/04/jacksonville-criminal-defense-11.html

Instead, Mr. Zimmerman has a very low burden of proof in order to show self-defense. He must show enough evidence for a reasonable juror the simply possibility of believing Mr. Zimmerman acted in self-defense. As one court stated, if a defendant on trial for Murder in the Second Degree can raise enough evidence that a reasonable juror could believe he acted in justifiable self-defense, "the state had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." This language comes from Mosansky v. Florida, a case decided only two years ago in 2010.

In other words, Mr. Zimmerman must produce this minimal level of evidence to support a reasonable juror's belief in his defense. Once that is done, the state will have the burden to show that Mr. Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.

You might be thinking this sounds like a pretty low burden for Mr. Zimmerman to show self-defense, and you're right. The state will likely have a difficult time securing a conviction in this case.

The state will likely have a difficult time securing a conviction in this case.

The next time that u r having your brain beaten
against the cement, just let them do it ALL THAY WANT.

Let them have fun; its OK with me, C.I.

once more it is the state repeat the state burden prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman version of self defense is not true.

Two years ago, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that anyone claiming "stand your ground" immunity in a death, battery or assault case can request a hearing on the evidence.

The hearing allows the prosecution and defense to argue all the elements of self-defense in the case evidence. To get charges dismissed, the accused must convince the judge that a reasonable person would believe that using deadly force or the threat of deadly force was the only way to protect his or her life, court records show....

In its Dec. 16, 2010, ruling, the state Supreme Court stated that defendants claiming self-defense are entitled to evidentiary hearings to argue that the evidence in their cases proves they had the right to protect themselves.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-11/news/os-george-zimmerman-stand-your-ground-hearings-20120411_1_eric-sandhaus-craig-sandhaus-milton-torres

Sorry this case was created out of political pressure and will not go beyond the self defense hearing.

No, you don't have that correct either. You are confusing what the state must prove at trial with what goes on at an immunity hearing.

A defendant charged with a crime who wants to raise Stand your Ground files a motion to dismiss claiming stand your ground immunizes him from prosecution. Here is a typical motion, filed in another case in December, 2011. Here's another filed in January, 2012.

A hearing is held before trial. The burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that stand your ground immunity applies.

The judge weighs the facts. If the judge agrees the defendant has shown stand your ground immunity applies by a preponderance of evidence, the charges are dismissed. The defendant can't be prosecuted.

If the judge finds the defendant hasn't met his burden, (including if the disputed evidence is so equal on both sides the judge can't decide one way or the other) the case goes to trial to be decided by the jury. At trial, the defendant can still argue both self-defense and stand your ground immunity -- he only has to establish some evidence of his theory, which can be just his own testimony, that he acted in self-defense.

The prosecution must prove his guilt at the jury trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Which means, if the defendant raises self-defense or stand your ground at trial and gets the jury instruction, the state, which has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, must disprove self-defense. If the jury has a doubt, the defendant must be acquitted

George Zimmerman's attorney has launched an all-out social media campaign on behalf of his client, accused of second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin.

That social media effort includes a Facebook page, a website and a Twitter account on behalf of Zimmerman.

"We understand that it is unusual for a legal defense to maintain a social media presence on behalf of a defendant, but we also acknowledge that this is a very unusual case," says Zimmerman attorney Mark O'Mara on the new site, George Zimmerman Legal Case.

The American Bar Association's standards of professional conduct does not deal with social media, a spokesman for the ABA told msnbc.com, but "it's certainly going to be on everyone's radar screen" now.

Stephen A. Saltzburg, a member of the ABA's governing body, the House of Delegates, and former chairman of the ABA's criminal justice section, said "generally speaking, lawyers are not supposed to be making public statements that could compromise a fair trial."

Whether the Zimmerman social media effort will do that would be up to a judge, Saltzburg said.

"Social media is kind of a new thing. I suspect judges in highly publicized cases are going to think about trying to order lawyers and defendants to stay away from social media in order not to taint the jury pool.

Who's brain was beaten? Do you have proof of that? Or is that just your imagination working?

OK, as long as u keep your nocturnal ordnance within reach