I would be in the camp that favors there be no trial of Z to begin with. Since there is a Z trial, I would argue that something is missing from society-- a model to tell us what is acceptable behavior when carrying concealed during an incident. Had there been such a model, society could simply refer to the model and not prejudge someone like Z to begin with. In the Z case, society is clearly conflating SYG with vigilante-ism and coming up with wrong answers. What should be happening-- that Z be free to go-- is not happening-- Z is on trial.
model + no Z trial > no model + Z trial
I agree with you on that.
Since there is a Z trial, I would argue that something is missing from society-- a model to tell us what is acceptable behavior when carrying concealed during an incident.
And here I disagree.
We HAVE such a model.
It's a very simple model. It's the model that says: "If someone has you on the ground and is pummeling you with his fists, breaking your nose and smashing your head against the concrete, threatening your very life, you are well within your rights to pull a firearm and thoroughly perforate his sorry @$$."
That model EXISTS. And it is understood by almost everyone.
It did NOT stop the prosecution of George Zimmerman, because there were political concerns that outweighed it.
Those same political concerns would also have outweighed any OTHER, more complicated model that you could possibly propose.