whats the burden of proof in a case like this 240?
we know that at the very least zimmerman was telling the truth on part of his story as his has witnessess to corroberate his story.
So youre saying that he lied about parts of it but not all of it then?
again whats the burden of proof in a case like this 240?
The burder of proof varies from jury to jury, dude. You know that. Defenses try all sorts of narratives of what happened. The prosecutor doesn't have to "disprove" anything. The prosecution will say "Zimm admitted he was chasing and Trayvon was running. Two blocks later, he caught him. We don't know who swung first, but we do know zimm took 1-3 injuries and trayvon took a bullet."
Then they will ask the jurors what they would do if they were 17, and an armed man had just chased them two blocks in the dark with a gun.
Then they'll remind jurors that when you're as scared as trayvon must have been, the instinct of any of us would be to first punch the armed man doing the chasing - trayvon was just standing his ground, unarmed against an armed attacker.
At this point, defense can try to tell jury that zimmerman was being chased by trayvon, but he sure won't take the stand to explain it
Jury will have to decide who they believe. Prosecutor will say "If you believe the armed man calling a teenager an asshole while chasing him 2 blocks in the dark despite police directive, vote not guilty".