The difference between "his ground" is whether he should have been there or did he arrive at the place because he was pursuing TM. According to his own Neighborhood Watch Program GZ had no right to pursue. Had he followed both the NWP instructions and those of LE he would have stayed in his truck and observed only. Chasing someone is an act of engagement. Obviously if GZ admits TM was running GZ had to have been chasing him to catch up. TM's gf said TM was trying to get away and felt he had lost him. Pictures of the scene show no bushes, large trees, etc. where TM could have hidden to jump out at GZ. GZ confronted TM in the open, on a sidewalk right outside the condo porches. GZ was not in his truck as he was instructed by LE to wait until a patrol car got there.
If you call in an incident and LE tells you they will meet you at certain place you better be there. Once GZ moved his truck, or left it, and did not advise LE he was hindering their investigation. How would they know where to go? GZ took off and did not tell them where he was going. If GZ were truly concerned about LE not letting "this one get away" he would have been on the phone with dispatch to let them know where he was located so they could easily find him. He did not do that because GZ decided it was a matter that he, himself needed to handle because this one was NOT getting away. jmo
The issues keeps getting muddied.
It's a moot point to say that GZ was only following Tray and he had no ill intent. And then say that anyone can follow anyone and it's not against the law. Then turn around and say that Trayvon would have had no right to defend himself, with Trayvon, it's always an "attack".
We already heard what GZ said. His own words showed his intent. His own words showed his motive. That can't just be ignored and dismissed. We already know that he got out of the car with his loaded gun, to follow Trayvon, after being told by 911 that they didn't need him to do that. Just because 911 didn't use the exact words, we demand that you immediately cease and desist, doesn't mean it's all ok that GZ ignored what they said. It still showed his intent.
Then Trayvon's girlfriend corroborates what happened, she even corroborates GZ's account that Tray was trying to get away from GZ. Trayvon was trying to get away from this strange adult man. There have been some inferences that Trayvon's girlfriend was lying, she was being coached. But the phone records corroborate her statement, that Trayvon was on the phone with her, when GZ came up on him.
We can't just make things up out of whole cloth. There's not one shred of evidence that Tray was hiding behind bushes or lurking around corners waiting to attack GZ. GZ came up on Trayvon.
The reason that the vast majority of experts are saying that the SYG law doesn't apply, even from those that supported it, is because they take the totality of it all. GZ's intent when he decided all on his own to go after Trayvon who was walking down the street.
Frankly, I'm fed up with reading how GZ has a right to follow an innocent kid. Yet this innocent kid had zero rights. Fed up that we need to just make things up, like Trayvon was hiding his face, so he can be made to look more suspicious. When we know that GZ is the one with past aggression issues, when we know that Trayvon was a good kid, an AB student, never in trouble. But we should believe that suddenly GZ became meek and mild and this nasty teenager had him so fearful for his life that he had no altternative but to shoot. It doesn't pass the smell test and never did.
If a mugger decided to go after someone, with a loaded weapon, and when they come upon the person, the person gets a pop in, the mugger then shoots the person because he's suddenly on the losing end, his intent still was to mug this person, he can't cry he was afraid so it was SYG or self defense.
JMHO
