With respect you are arguing a different point.
I merely said that you have no basis for a statement you made that was presented as fact, when it was anything but.
“When GZ decided to follow TM after the 911 operator told him it was not necessary he entered a legal no man’s land.”
There is NO evidence that this ever happened - this notion is nothing but race-baiter speculation repeated without respite. Saying something over and over again does not make it true.
As for the point you seem to be trying to make most recently, the state’s own witness testified that TM had reached home. For the two men to have encountered one another where they did, TM must has turned back; otherwise he would have spent the evening sharing Skittles and watching TV.
So who was following who here?
The forensic witnesses are next. They will shed light to where GZ SUV is located, where the two men laying on the grass was found by the arriving cops and the condo that TM was trying to get to. Jentel testify that TM told her on the phone he is almost at the condo, then there was a thud and the call ended. We can assume that he is near the condo and almost home, but the location is not firmly established. If GZ and TM is both found laying in a location far from the condo, then TM must have followed GZ as GZ walked back to his SUV. If forensic indicate that, then GZ would be off the hook for manslaughter. He can initiate the event by following TM but once he breaks the move and turns back to his SUV, no matter how TM feels about GZ initially following him, he cannot become angry and chase GZ down. He now becomes the aggressor in the situation.
If GZ never followed TM then the DA has no case. I think GZ said he was going back to his SUV when TM confronted him, and punched him. You do not go back to your SUV unless you left it to find out where TM went when he walked down the backyards of the condos. IAW GZ did attempt to follow. The DA is using this act as the initiating event that lead to the fighting and shooting.