gbaji, although there are many untrue statements in your last post, let me only focus on the following:
Running into a garage with no exit is not an escape.
You're doing the same thing BD was doing though. You're mixing up moving around with conflict. Those are two different things. Whether she is able to leave the house directly from the garage isn't the point from a self defense point of view. Whether she was continuing to be physically assaulted *is*. At the moment she was in the garage and he wasn't, she ceased to be in "imminent threat of loss of life or grave bodily harm". Period. From the laws perspective, that's what matters here.
Whatever happened as she attempted to leave the house is a second confrontation, and must be considered separately. You're muddling multiple things. Hell, it's the same thing people did/do with the Zimmerman case. They want to treat the following Martin through the complex and shooting him as though it's one event. But it's not. One event is following Martin. Another event is encountering Martin. Yet another event is choosing to shoot Martin. Each of those is separate. Each of those has its own potentials and legal ramifications. You have to look at just the confrontation that is occurring at the moment a self defense claim is being made, not one that happened previously.
That is why Zimmerman choosing to follow Martin has no bearing on the legality of his firing his weapon later in self defense. It's also why the altercation between Gray and Alexander which lead to her going into the garage has no legal bearing on her firing her weapon later either. What matters is what she intended to do when she got her gun out of her car, and what she did after that point. Did she deliberately create a conflict which she could have avoided (at that point)? Or was she unable to do so?
Now, when asking that question, if there was no way out of the house except through Gray, you might have a point. However, this is where accounts get really sketchy, vague, and inconsistent
. Obviously, I don't have a map of the house in front of me. I'm going to guess that the layout of said house was shown to the jury though. I'm going to guess that the key question was whether the location she was standing and the direction she fired was something she had no choice but to do, or whether she choose to do it. And based on the jury's result, it looks like they didn't buy her story.
By all means though, show me a map of the house showing that there was no other door from the garage (most have the garage door and a side door, but I have no clue in this case).. Show me that there was no route from the door from the garage into the house that would have allowed her to leave without confronting Gray. Then show me that the accounts that she came out of the garage, walked into the living room, said something like "I've got something for you!" and fired at him were false. There are lots of different accounts of this case floating around. I've read at least three completely inconsistent accounts just in the 3 or 4 web pages I've checked. I can't possibly know what actually happened.
But a jury decided that her actions did not constitute self defense, and a judge decided that her actions did not meet the requirements for stand your ground. And in this case, I simply do not have enough facts to show differently. Nothing I've read so far, and nothing anyone has posted about this is sufficient.
I also want to add that Zimmerman called the police on a suspicious character then decided to pursue and confront said suspicious character with a gun.
Irrelevant. It's a concealed weapon. He's not allowed to brandish it or even reveal to anyone on the street that he has it on him. From a legal standpoint, the fact that he's armed has no meaning. His action is no more or less legal than if he had not been carrying it. It's not like he was waving it around chasing Martin through the complex yelling "I'm gonna get you sucka!". Martin (kinda obviously) had absolutely no clue Zimmerman was armed. So the fact of the weapons presence has zero legal weight with regard to Zimmerman's choice to follow Martin.
And the fact is that he had every freaking legal right to do so. Period. He broke no laws doing so. He has just as much right to pursue Martin as Martin had to walk through the complex. Those actions are irrelevant. What matters is what happened from the moment a physical confrontation occurred to the moment the shot was fired. Period.
This isn't that different from what Alexander did.
It's radically different from what Alexander did. If you can't see that, then I just can't help you here. It's a night and day difference. Again, the equivalent action would have been Zimmerman going to his car *after* being attacked by Martin, getting his gun, and then going over, weapon out, and confronting Martin. Because that's exactly what she did.
And she managed not to KILL anyone.
Which is also irrelevant when considering whether the weapon was fired in self defense or not. Guess what? If Zimmerman's shooting is ruled to not be self defense then he'll also get hit with the same stiff sentencing. Um... Which kinda brings up another key difference. She has actually already been through a jury trial. Two, I believe. He has not yet. You have no idea whether his case will come out differently, but you're willing to speculate that it might, and that this would be some kind of travesty of justice.