DITTO. Freepers need to understand that, and many do not catch this fine point. Premise of the DA charge is if GZ did not follow TM, a whole chain of events would not happen resulting in gunplay. GZ only defense is he followed TM partly, and while returning to his SUV was confronted by an angry TM who turned, followed GZ back to his vehicle. Even at this point what GZ said back to an angry TM is important. If GZ did not answer TM angry confrontation with escalating words or manner he will be innocent. Why is the burden still on GZ? According to the DA GZ initiated the chain of events. If GZ can prove he broke the escalating chain of events that led to the fight and shooting, he will be innocent. Retreating back to the SUV is the first good step, responding to TM in a manner that indicated retreat and attempt to calm the situation will be the next step. Problem is only GZ survived to tell that portion of the story. MAJOR LESSON OF THE TM INCIDENT - If you want to carry a gun and play policeman, know the rules. Cops have a lower threshold they can shoot you. Even if they screw up, their buddies will cover it up. CCW do not have this luxury. Even if GZ wins he will face civil suits or the US gov can put him thru another trial on Civil Rights violations. Even if GZ wins the two trials, he will be financially bankrupt.
Very good summation, and I think all good points.