Theoretically, a jury could determine that the shooting was not in self-defense, but did not have all of the required elements of Murder 2 (requires malice or a "depraved mind"). In that case, they could convict on manslaughter. But first, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was not in self-defense - basically to prove that GZ had no reason to fear for his life when he shot TM.
>> Theoretically, a jury could determine that the shooting was not in self-defense, but did not have all of the required elements of Murder 2... In that case, they could convict on manslaughter.
OK, that makes sense too.
The flaw in your argument is that jury will be instructed that it cannot convict on lesser charges. Only in cases where the defendent is not claiming self defense can the jury consider the lesser charge. If the state fails to prove murder two, then it doesn’t get another chance to try you for a lesser charge. It’s double jeopardy otherwise.