That's a would've/could've/should've thing... When you've got a barking dog facing you down you're not concerned about who it belongs to, where it came from. It's the 'MOMENT' that's your immediate concern none of the rest matters... The dog by nature has every right to defend itself from what it perceives as a threat just the same as the man does.
'Reality is a funny thing' this is what can be taken from that. If I had left the house one minute earlier I could have avoided that car accident. It's the way of life weird things happen and 5 seconds here or there can change a world. A whole host of things fell into place that evening in Sanford in such a way that it cultivated into the tragedy we are speaking of today... I'm in no way blaming Martin or Zimmerman for anything in their past.
Fear not for it's no such thing... It's just critical thinking something I too hope a jury would utilize.
I think the major thing to consider is the concept that "laying blame is of no material importance". So, let's use instead the phrase "accepting responsibility", since I, too, agree blame serves no one. Who is responsible and therefore accountable?
IF the man had climbed over a private fence and encountered an attacking dog, he is liable for any injury he does the dog, and the property for that matter, because he made a conscious choice to commit an illegal action. If the dog encountered the man on the man's property, the dog owner is liable for injury to the man or his property because he committed an illegal action.
I feel that leading people to believe that situations like this just happen as a matter of coincidence and that the factors LEADING UP TO the event causing injury is of no importance, even in that moment at hand, is advocating a sense of irresponsibility. It is a sure thing that the factors leading up to and the conscious choices made by people involved have EVERYTHING to do with who MUST accept responsibility after the fact. It's just the way life is. And if we want to use the word "blame" synonymously, it really only makes a difference in that "blame" is more inflammatory from a neurolinguistic perspective than "holding responsibility for" or "holding accountable for" the outcome.
If the outcome caused great harm, who is responsible and accountable, and to what extent? Bring on the investigation.