POINTS TO PONDER

Basically,  the point of law that the jury will be required to look at 
is the instant situation surrounding the time the shot was fired.

A) The prelude to the shot, while remarkable as it may be, can only
go so far to establish, who should reasonably have been in that area. 
To establish that it was proper for GZ to have been in that
area, it needs to be shown that there were no indications against
his presence there.  That is, no indications, of sufficient weight,
that a reasonable person would not have gone where GZ went.

B) This is why GZ’s claims become so important. He claims that his
only interest was in protecting the neighborhood from thugs who;
“always get away”.  That’s fine, but, without police powers, he
cannot claim the right to do, anything more than what the police
have instructed him to do. 

In his NW training the SPD has told him that he should not follow
people he suspects. They told him why, and how such conduct
could have very tragic results.  Then, that night, when the NEN
operator, discovers that GZ has left his vehicle, asks “are you
following?” 

This question is asked to ascertain whether further instruction
is needed. GZ replies that he is following, and the further instruction
he receives then is: “We do not need you to do that!”  Which should
have been enough of a reminder, that NW’ers who do not follow the
protocols of NW are vigilantes and therefore engaged in conduct
that is not approved.  Thus,  the area that a reported suspect has
moved through,  is an area prohibited to a NW'er engaged in NW
activities.

C) So then it derives that according to GZ’s story:  It's too late...
the unapproved conduct has already produced unwanted results!

At that point in time GZ is responsible for these unwanted results!

D) But, according to GZ, the unwanted events that occur at that
location -- which he describes as happening at the T -- were
claimed to be fearsome enough to induce a reasonable fear that he
might be seriously injured or killed there.

Yet,  although this claim may be true or untrue, it remains a fact that
no shot was fired there.

E)   At yet another location some distance away from the initial
encounter,  we find GZ in contact with the “suspect” again.

Witness testimony appears to indicate that the two arrived there
under their own power.  There is no mention that any force or
other compulsive measures resulted in this second encounter.
This is because what the witnesses tell us, appears to say that
both parties arrived at this second location, of their own volition.

They,  appear to have been free to move in whatever direction they
desired for a time.

F) One party had a fire arm, the other party had no weapon at all.

G) So, “F” sets the stage where the jury must decide, if a reasonable
armed person would have feared great injury or death at the hands of
the other unarmed party.

H)  GZ’s own story of this encounter, includes no action by TM, that
could possibly convince a reasonable person that TM could do great
injury or cause GZ’s death, with no weapon of any kind available to him.

I) It is for the reason given in “H”, that GZ supplies “he went for my gun”, 
as a reason for himself to fear great bodily harm or death.

J)  The problem for the jury is, there is only one gun!
Thus, at some point GZ gains total control of this weapon and he
takes aim.   At this point, no reasonable person would believe that
TM could somehow take the gun away from GZ and kill or injure
him with it. Nor would any reasonable person believe that TM could
greatly injure or kill GZ with only his bare hands.

K)  GZ fires an unnecessary shot into TM killing him, at a time when
he faced no serious threat of his own. Since a reasonable person
would expect that; any person being held at gunpoint, would cease
to resist,  unless they had a death wish.

L)  Even if TM did not cease resistance, GZ still had nothing, in the
way of great bodily harm or imminent death to fear, such that he
could not retreat and warn.  Instead he fired without warning, into
the body of an unarmed teen causing his death.

These are the critical points that will matter at trial. GZ cannot possibly
get a self defense instruction, against a weapon he carried to the
encounter.  There was no reason at all, for him to be at the place where
he was,  facing an unarmed youth, who had no control of the firearm.
There was only one firearm there, and only one person had control
of it.   Thus ended GZ’s right to reasonably fear for his life.

Add:  Not only did GZ not bother to warn and/or retreat,  the evidence
shows that he actually held TM close by the clothing when he took the
fatal shot.  Even if one believes that their opponent is a deadly threat
to themselves,  they do not continue to hold them close.