Because of point A above, and because if I hypothetically approached someone and asked them a question, there could then be a physical altercation that I did not start and am not at fault for. That's a fringe possibility in this case, but it is one the existence of which cannot be denied, and which thus makes false the idea that approaching someone (JUST approaching them) makes you criminally responsible for ANYTHING that happens after. There's also the fact that disobeying what a civilian employee of the police department tells you is not a criminal act nor lends criminality to other acts. The police have enough power, so no need to change that in the future either.
You can accept this without feeling like you're betraying your opinion that he's guilty. I think he's guilty too, but I can admit that I can't say for sure.
There are moral kudos awarded for admitting that you don't know the case history 100%. Ignoring the facts you do know, because you choose to not know an irrelevant few, isn't honorable either. I can however see the facts that are present completely dwarfing the pure speculation of the teen starting the events that ended in his death. Even if that is the case, and there is a video of him curbing the shooter before he crawls to his weapon to distribute sweet floridian justice, the shooter without the benefit of a doubt, is a responsible party in the death. Even more so due to ignoring the police.
Your opinion of ignoring facts while seeking solace in the unknown is what is getting you the responses. There isn't a bandwagon, and its hardly a hate crime. The legal system will sort it out, in favor of the shooter, as it always happens in this case. Yes, there is anger around this subject that may be permeating through some responses, but the anger has a central focus of facts & experience that are being reduced by you and Kharvey.
You are asking what the girl was wearing that got raped.