walking while black - Trayvon Martin

[SIXFOOTERsez]

That will be what the jury is asked to decide. Did T have the right to attack Z (and all we have is Z's version of the story)?

No the most important thing the jury will have to decide is IF the defence can convince the jury that T attacked Z did Z have the right to shoot and kill him in response?

Deciding whether a teenager had the right to break the nose of a guy who was following him is a far less important a question than deciding whether a grown man had the right to shoot and kill an unarmed teenager.

What the Jury will have to decide on is whether or not Z was inside the law or not as it applies to self defense and SYG. The SYG part of the law here is vague enough that Z can probably make the case that he is good to go.
There is nothing in the law preventing Z from following the kid, A case can be made that in context it was his duty to do so. There are plenty of things in there that proscribe the kid from attacking someone who is simply following him. Following is not assault, touching is. Z contends that T made the first physical move, the evidence can support that but we may never know for sure.
There is only 1 witness, he is a fool, but his story is the only one to tell.

All that said, T did have all kinds of rights too, he had the perfectly legitimate right to be on the street at whatever time he wanted, he had the right to go buy skittles and whatever he wanted, he had the right to be safe in doing so, no issues with any of that.

Then he crosses paths with Z and the whole thing runs off the rail and T is dead.
Z may have been Profiling, probably was, most people do one way or another. Z may have been a wannabe cop, evidence seems to support that. Don't know if Z was a "gun nut" or not, haven't seen anything except speculation one way or the other. Z may have been suffering to testosterone poisoning, he may not have listened to the 911 dispatcher. None of that is illegal, neither is stupidity.
At some point T&Z mixed it up and according to Z he ended up on the bottom with T trying to take his weapon.
Its pretty easy to see that at that point in time Z was afraid for his life.
You ever had a 180 lb hood rat trying to beat you down? I can see it. At that point. Z managed to free his weapon and fired one time, close range, kill shot.

I am not saying what Z did was right, he made Many mistakes, but he didn't break any laws up to the point where he pulled the trigger.
T didn't break any laws either up to the point that he allegedly hit Z. It was stupid of him to attack Z if thats what he did. It was stupid to run and hide, he was innocent up to that point.
That Point is where the trial will focus.
Doesn't matter at all that an attacker is armed or not, if the person being attacked believes he or she is imminent danger to life or limb, Deadly force is legal.