> I am not arguing that Z was not entitled to self-defense.
Ok, because you did earlier when you quoted the circumstances under which the right to claim self-defense can be revoked.
> I am arguing that M was entitled to self-defense just as well
> as Z was, which you seem to downplay if not ignore.
M was not on trial for a crime, thus needs no defense in this context. You're in the Court of Wojtek, not a court of law in the US.
> 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.
I know it bothers you, but it's the cornerstone of the concept. It's like you were bothered that when team A wins the Super Bowl that the team they beat doesn't also get some kind of a ring, you know, maybe smaller or something, it doesn't have to be on TV, because you know, they played pretty well, and they did make it all the way to the Super Bowl and all.
The cornerstone of a sporting event is that if there's a winner, there is also a loser. So you and NPR (and countless other media outlets, I'm sure; that Atlantic piece pointed to here was a particularly glaring piece of work) are bothered by the theory of self defense.
Fine. Head in that direction, see where it takes you. Maybe you can come up with a new theory of when self-defense is applicable. Or some new reasons to revoke it, like for being an idiot or something.
In the mean time, the question was not: who is a good guy? The question was: under the circumstances here, do we as a society have rules about whether the killing of another human being, which morally is never excusable, can be excused by the law. We have developed over the years an IMHO very clear mechanism for making such a determination, in open court, by a jury. It includes things like: the State must prove that the defendant commited a crime.
> 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.
Like I said: M was not on trial.
Two men know exactly what happened that night; one of them is dead.
What is to be done?
The normal avenue is to look at the circumstances. I think that has been done here. Frankly I thought at the beginning that Z would be convicted, but now that I've seen the evidence and watched the trial, I'm satisfied that the trial accomplished what it set out to do. I initially thought (and said as much here, last March) that not charging him was a mistake, but now that we've seen everything that was seen that night -- and not much has changed in the facts of the case, only in the reporting of the facts -- it looks to me like we should have never even heard about it, and the cop on the scene made the 'correct' initial decision.
> Stated differently, both men were entitled to self-defense.
Yeah, I see what you mean, but it's missing an anchor to reality. You're off in the bushes making up your own legal theories.
> Based on facts, Z started the confrontation by stalking M ...
Which might hold some weight in resolving a sandbox dispute, but isn't relevant in a criminal case of murder and self-defense. What Z did, while stupid and inadvisable, does not meet the standard that you quoted earlier to remove his right to claim self-defense later.
/jordan