[WS:] I do not follow this logic. First of all, there were no eyewitnesses there, people reported what they overheard and thought was going on. I do see how concealed weapon figures in your argument. You can make a threat without a weapon, no? If anything, had M known Z had a concealed weapon, chances are he would have retreated. Accosting someone at night is pretty threatening just as much as trespassing is.
As to your argument about prosecutors not making these arguments - someone else on this list who apparently has some legal expertise, pointed out that prosecutors did not do a good job in this case, and I am willing to go with this argument. In which case, I do not buy you argument implying that prosecutors did what was best for the case. I think a more competent handling of this case - including framing, venue and jury selection would likely results in a conviction.
But all of it is, as you said, an sandbox dispute. The case is over and all that is water under the bridge. The only remaining question is whether justice has been served in this case, and I believe it has not, even though the letter of the law was followed. You may of course believe otherwise.
I am perfectly happy to leave it at this, since debates about principles tend to be futile and I do not believe that trading barbs about semantics serves any useful purpose.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."