[WS:] I am not arguing that Z was not entitled to self-defense. I am arguing that M was entitled to self-defense just as well as Z was, which you seem to downplay if not ignore. What bothers me is that Z's right to self defense trumped that of M, because - as one juror put it (according to a recent NPR report) - Z was essentially a good guy who made a bad judgement. Equally well, M could have been judged that way - as a good guy who made a bad judgment to fight Z - but he was not. I wonder why. My guess is that the skin color - or rather racial profiling of M that Z's defense did rather well - had something to do with this perception.
Stated differently, both men were entitled to self-defense. Based on facts, Z started the confrontation by stalking M (his reasons are irrelevant since he was not in imminent danger when he started stalking M) so he is clearly the aggressor here. Based on racial profiling, Z was a "good guy making a bad decision" while M was good for nothing hoodlum who liked to fight. Racial profiling trumped the facts in judging whose right to self defense should prevail.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."