LOL! (On the hand grenade)
I think it's a stretch to say the victim showed any indication he was going for his firearm. The sequence shows nothing of the kind that I can see before the victim was shot (#874) but the defense may try to use it but it wouldn't be advisable, it's conjecture, not fact and can be easily refuted by the photo sequence. One could use the same conjecture and say that the shooter was supposed to be unarmed but armed himself intending to shoot someone. Both are conjectures with no credible evidence to support them when applied to what actually transpired.
But that's what lawyers are paid to do, to give the best defense for their client or convict the guilty, depending on which side of the courtroom one sits. I don't have a problem with that, as long as everyone involved stays in fair territory.