> If a burglar who enters my house and seeing me reaching for
> a weapon shoots me dead and then claims self defense, that
> claim would not be considered very plausible, would it?
Of course not, for the very reason you posted earlier: the burgular had given up his right to claim self-defense by instigating a violent felony. Burgulary is a violent felony. Z had done no such thing. If he had, this would have been a simple line of prosecution to follow. The fact that the prosecutor didn't follow this line says to me that the prosecution doesn't agree with you either.
> So the question is why the chain of events started not when Z
> decided to stalk and threaten M based on racial profiling, which
> is a crime ...
The evidence presented in the trial, including eyewitness testimony, does not support your charge here. Z had a concealed weapon, but M did not know this until it was much too late. What Z had was a cell phone. He was on public property. Testimony from M's friend indicated that M was not threatened by Z.
None of your ideas were supported in the actual trial.
> the defense used a more effective legal strategy than the
> prosecutors - as someone else argued on this list - and the
> jury bought it.
*shrug*
This is how the system works. Got a better idea?
> Contrary to what you feel about court trials, it is not about
> which team wins, but about justice being served.
I just knew that you'd take my football metaphor out of context and warp it into something that I don't believe. But you force me: I do not believe that criminal trials are "about which team wins" though I'm certainly aware that many prosecutors and defense lawyers do believe this.
> Over and out.
"over" is a proword which means "I'm done talking, now it's your turn to talk" ... "out" is a proword that means "I'm done talking, no response is necessary" ... "over and out" is thus gibberish.
Why am I unsurprised?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedure_word
/jordan