GZ had a gun.
TM did not.
Ergo, TM was deprived of equal protection when GZ shot him unarmed
Interesting thought. Since TM was a minor, I presume state (and federal?) laws prevent him from purchasing a handgun. Since it was clear that he was interested in getting one (cell phone pics and texts) and he definitely could have used one for self defense (cough, cough), could his family not sue the state and federal governments for their unreasonable denial of his right to protection and pursuit of etc. ?