I would like to ask a question, and I'm being serious. From what I understand, these are the facts known independent of Z's statement:
T was walking down the street, wearing a hood up. Z was following him in his vehicle, and reported to the dispatcher that he was following a suspected gang member who appeared to be under the influence. T ducked between houses. Per his phone call, he tells his girlfriend that he's being followed by some guy, and he's nervous/scared. Z tells dispatcher that he's going to follow T on foot, and is told not to by the dispatcher. Witnesses describe seeing a fight between two males. Some describe the black subject on top, others the white subject. A shot is fired by Z. T died. No one saw the shot fired. Z was taken to the police station, has injuries documented (facial bruising, broken nose?, injury to back of head). Autopsy shows T had bruising on hands (consistent with punching), and trace amounts only of marihuana.
Is this accurate? I'm not going out of my way to keep up with the case. Too much of my own docket to worry about. But, before I make my next argument about something, I want to make sure I know the facts as well as I can (without having to read a bunch on-line).