He had backed up, created separation, and fired when not being pursued.
The fact that the victim reached for the gun isn't sufficient.
Having said that, the victim should have made a full on effort to take the gun, once he made the move. He was larger and should have prevailed.
I watched the video again.
Yes the victim was out of view BUT. When the image panned back over the blond guy (now shot) he was farther away than when the camera moved.
He not only wasn’t advancing I’m fairly sure he was backing up from the shooter.
He was thrown back by the shootee. They are in Texas. Castle doctrine (shooter was on his property, advising shootee to leave immediately multiple times). IIRC, it was legal to get his gun under the doctrine, and brandish it. The fact that he fired the first shot into the ground may complicate things, but then again, I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.
Personally, I think shooter was an idiot for introducing the gun in the first place, but from what I've read, it seems it may have been legal to do so under Texas law. I personally would have called the cops and had them remove shootee for trespassing or something along those lines, but as far as introducing a firearm and then killing dude, might be a little over the top, even under Texas law.
This. It looked to me like he wasn't really trying to get that weapon away. It was more like a "get that thing out of my face." kind of move.