Originally Posted by Chiefspants
We just will not have a grasp of the circumstances surrounding the confrontation know until the the trial unfolds. Z was told he didn't have to pursue, he did, and that was one of the main reasons this situation developed.
Look, first you said it was the main reason...then you backpeddle...now you are saying it again.
It has nothing more to do with this situation than skittles.
The reason this situation developed is because one of them assaulted the other....
The pursuit was fine and within his legal rights.
I know its a fine point (maybe nit picky?) but Z pursuing T is not any type of CAUSE (or reason) that this had to
happen....any more than any of the other events leading up to it....
If Trayvon's parents didnt let him out of the house or if he wasn't suspended from school that week this incident wouldn't have happened either. But those aren't thie things that will get blame or be relevant in a jury's mind(i don't think anyway).
The only things that matter are when someone crosses the line to physical contact, and if the response was warranted....and if the escalation was warranted....
Like if Z tackled T first and tried to apprehend him, then perhaps T is warranted in having beaten the shit out of Z....
But your comment in bold is misleading, IMO, and makes it out like simply because Z was pursuing T, that T ended up dying....when the real MAIN cause is somewhere between
those two events.