You’re very late to the party.
Z lost visual contact with T. That’s what he said, that he had visually lost him. If you know the layout of the area and that T was walking near houses and Z was in a truck on the street, you see how that makes sense.
There has been evidence presented that T had actually made it to the back of the apt. in which he was living, and that Z was returning to his truck after the dispatcher said “we don’t need for you to do that” (re-establish visual contact), when out of the dark appeared T and sucker punched him. There was almost the length of a football field from where T had made it back to and where he sucker punched Z. Reasonable conclusion, he circled back and attacked instead of going inside the safety of the apt.
However, none of that, racehorse, none of that has any bearing whatsoever on the florida self-defense law. In that law, at any point in an encounter or altercation if you reasonably believe you are in danger of being killed or seriously injured, you have the right to defend yourself by necessary means.
You can ignore that truth all you want, it’s still the law and this jury is obligated to follow the law when they decide this.
If they have reasonable doubt as to Z’s guilt from the prosecution’s case, they are obligated to render “not guilty”.
when n where is evidence that T went home first. i mentioned this fact to insane apparently racist coworker and she went nuts