Regarding both of the above replies, it appears as though Chaka approached the man/ group and initiated the confrontation by getting in his face. What happened prior to what we see on video, and how it impacted his decision to approach the man/ group will matter.
It appears Chaka knew the man/ group could be violent, and they were. What will matter is how the story is told and what is emphasized. This one could go either way, but if i'm Chaka i'm not liking my chances. If Chaka didn't leave the safety of the venue it could be argued this wouldn't have happened. If Chaka didn't have a gun, it could be argued, Chaka could have been beaten to death (certainly what his legal team will allege).
Chaka could've walked away after he got jumped, however he has the right to stand his ground (correct me if i'm wrong). Chaka was shot in the back... something, for whatever reason even give that he just shot someone, I have a problem with (not sure why this is bothering me but it is).
Chaka was in the parking lot walking back to the restaurant. Dude in the yellow blocked his path back to the club, his place of business. At this point the verbal dispute is whats going to make or break this case. No one is talking about big dude who shot Chaka and if legally was able to possess and fire that weapon.