I'm torn between thinking he talked too much, and that in talking he said exactly the right things--feared for life, reaching as though for a weapon. I wonder, which is better: no talking, or say only the exact things that cover the elements of justified self-defense?
Of course, a gun being found on the bad guy helps.
I think not talking is probably best. Who knows whether the press will repeat your words exactly, or twist them in some way. You can always give the interview after the jury no-bills you.
Note to self: decline all press interviews until after the prosecutor publicly states it was justified self-defense or the grand jury says no true bill.