And that was my main point in bringing this about to begin with. The culpability to use lethal force should be a burden of proof placed on the one who used lethal force to justify why it was necessary. Otherwise, it is literally a license to kill as long as you can lie convincingly enough to a jury. Even if things change to shift the burden of proof, it can still come down to a well-concocted lie, but it is harder to continue a lie under cross-examination. I understand that many states have laws against requiring a defendant in a criminal case from being forced to testify, but in the case where justifiable homicide is involved, I think the homicide should be justified by the one who pulled the trigger and not unjustified by the state.
So again, what specifically do you believe this law should say? If it makes it easier you can just paste the law and use strikethrough for negations and red text for additions. However if you can't do that, then you need to drop this 'the law is flawed' rhetoric.
I am not in the practice of writing laws, so I will not use your strike and red font legend. Where I will say the law should be changed, without relating specifically to this case, is that the term "aggressor" needs to be more legally defined to accommodate a situation where someone pursues another with no legal justification to do so. Consider that the code (not law that I am aware of) for community security officers such as Zimmerman requires them to stand and observe, not engage and detain. It also requires them to phone police (which he did) to report suspicious activity. By pursuing then accosting Martin, Zimmerman tried to play the hero. This portion of the law should be adjusted and/or created (if it does not exist) to create a legal framework around which a security guard cannot engage a suspect unless an actual crime is in progress. Again, referring to the case you don't want to talk about, there was no crime in progress, and Martin's only objective was to go home. Any person wanting to walk home safely from the store should be allowed to do so without fear for their lives.
And the other place I would change the law is as I said above, placing the burden of proof for lethal force on the shooter, and not having the state disprove the justification. The current state of affairs gives more rights to the shooter simply because not only are they not required to testify at their own defense, but they only have to claim self-defense and it is up to the state to prove they have no claim. This reduces a life and death situation to "he said-she said" and should not be a part of a proceeding in which someone has been killed through the willful or not actions of the defendant. Going back to this particular case, it is my opinion that there is not enough physical evidence to justify the shooting and we are left having to judge the law based on someone who is known to habitually lie and deceive. Again, I understand that lying about a crime is yet another time-honoured tradition even older than modern society, but the person who is accused of the crime should be required to justify their actions.
