I really don't have any evidence to refute the opinions you've displayed. Thank you for admitting the error about the 911 tapes, though. That's been widely mischaracterized in the media for some reason.
I want to address this last issue with you. It is my belief that if someone exercised a proper use of force in a clear self-defense scenario, they have every right to not be arrested. Let me give you this scenario (I am in no way comparing this to the case this thread is about, this is just an attempt to explain why the law is the way it is) -
Say John is a student at a local college, and has just stopped at a store to pick up some stuff for the night. Upon returning to his car, two males approach him at knifepoint and demand he hand over his keys. John pulls a gun of his own and shoots one individual in the head, killing him, and clips the second male. John has sustained injuries of his own during the conflict. Police are called to the scene. Given that John just fought for his life, and that he is clearly a victim in this scenario, do you think it would be morally or ethically right to mandate he gets arrested simply because he used deadly force? This man, a victim, should not have to lose time off from school and work because of a situation he was thrown into and in which he was forced to defend himself. That is the standpoint from which this law was written. It's not an attempt to protect anyone but a victim of a violent crime that was forced to ultimately defend themselves. The law makes clear exceptions for individuals that are suspected of actually using such force unlawfully; whether the police or prosecutor decides there's enough probable cause is an entirely different story.
JMO
Btw - that's a legitimate story that happened here in Atlanta, FWIW.