So I shouldn't defend myself because I should assume the other person has a gun, therefore if I defend myself I should assume I'm going to get shot and it's my fault when I get shot...yeah, my view is the mumped up one.
Have someone chase one your family members through their neighboorhood at night, then tell me when they get killed because they fought back rather than called the cops their killing was justified. Jesus rough ridin' christ.
Fighting back from what? Defending from what? Here's where the paranoia part comes in. FOLLOWING IS NOT ASSAULTING. I don't know how to make it more clear than that. If someone is following you, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSAULT THEM.
Yet GZ has the right to chase TM through the dark streets, to the point that TM is running and GZ is keeping up, then kill him when TM assaults him for chasing him...tell me what part of this law structure isn't mumped up. Also, you said that since GZ was chasing TM, TM should have assumed that GZ had a gun. So going even further down how you are trying to justify this, TM shouldn't have the right to assult a man chasing him with a gun at night, but when the person chasing with the gun gets assulted, they have the right to kill the person they were chasing.
Also, I like how you keep falsing using the term "following" instead of "chasing", which is exactly was GZ did even after the 911 dispatcher told him to stop.