Hi clo,
I agree re slang. But it seems the prosecution holds Z to a different standard. Indeed, purported racial profiling leading to and explaining a "murder" was the reason for such a public brouhaha. Now that it turns out that M talked the talk and there is no evidence for Z's racism, it seems not to matter so much. So double standards?
I agree that to begin with, Z was following M. I think in the end they may have run into one another by accident as there was clearly a period that M and Z could not see one another.
But for me, this is neither here nor there. One person may follow another he suspects or communicate with a stranger.
There is no pre-emptive motive to kill someone in doing so. Such an interaction does not need to end in someone being shot.
The question is, since we know that Z suffered a battering in a one-sided fight, for which there is considerable evidence, why should he not resort to defending himself in the way that Florida law allows?
I may think the law sucks. I may think it is tragic that this boy died. But this is the trial of Z and his actions. I don't see how a person who conforms with the law is committing a crime.
For me, this is just the kind of terrible outcome that occurs when you permit people to be armed.
This is the same old second amendment causing its problems.
| 
