mark geragos said much the same thing on cnn last night. sorry. no link.
there's just no pathway to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that z wasn't acting in self-defense.
because there's so much evidence that he was.
his injuries make the case for him.
nobody can turn a likely broken nose and lumps on a head and numerous abrasions and bloody cuts into something less than a nasty and potentially dangerous fight, focussed on z's head.
and whether or not you think z might have acted disproportionately, might isn't the standard.
you have to know it beyond a reasonable doubt.
there's just no way to do that in justice based on the evidence.
at least m's parents have got their wish - to learn how their son died. he was probably afraid. who was this creepy guy following him? whoever started the fight, m was winning it. but he just didn't stop. he kept on beating z. on his head. a very dangerous place to hit him. he needed to stop. but he didn't.
and so it ended the other way.
| 
