Ok, point taken. The self-defense claim. My opinion is that GZ better hope TM's fingerprints/handprints are somewhere on that gun. Here's why:
If TM was attacking GZ and beating him like he says - and GZ manages to pull the gun without TM getting a hand on it. Once a gun is pulled - human reaction is to stop - actually most people would probably put their hands up with palms turned outward. IF that is what happened - now GZ has the upper hand. He's got the gun, its out and pointed at TM. If TM doesn't lunge for it or try to grab it and you have enough distance (even a few feet is enough) between you - you step back one, two, three or even more steps to keep that attacker from grabbing it. The attacker NOW is certainly not going to lunge at you or that gun - you'll simply pull the trigger and it'll be over.
So, if GZ got that gun out and TM didn't even manage to get a hand on it - then GZ had TM at gunpoint. RIGHT THERE - its over. The fight, the altercation, everything - its over. GZ knew LE were on their way. The first officer was there in less than a minute after the shot. So, why wouldn't GZ just continue to hold TM at gunpoint? Order him to the ground, face down - arms out to side? C'mon. Like I just keep saying.....
He pulled the trigger.
If TM's prints fail to show up on that gun - then once that gun is pulled - GZ then immediately had the upper hand and simply could have backed up and held TM at gunpoint.
When GZ re-holstered that gun - he could have wiped off critical, crucial, important evidence that would help prove self-defense (TM's prints).
It's just not fittin' for me - that's all.
JMHO