If he had time to draw, aim and fire... he had time to assess the situation. This means he also had time to get out of the way and remove himself for the "threat". He had zero bodily harm done to him and the three brothers drove off. I don't care if they WERE trying to hit him, if he had that kind of time, he had options but he insisted on being a vigilante.
This is almost as bad as saying, "I stepped out into the road, saw vehicles heading my way, so I had a right to pop each driver of the first three cars I saw. Yeah, I knew the curb was only 12" behind me, so?"
It's rediculous.
I can't say I agree with you there, if we looked at every situation like that, you would never have a reason to defend yourself until it was too late.
If someone is trying to run you down, sure you may be able to jump out of the way, but what if they turn around and come again, then do you have the right to shoot, or should you just keep running until they succeed and run you over.
There comes a time when it is time to defend yourself with force, the problem is none of us really know the full story here and don't know if it was that time.
I agree there is a time to use (potentially) deadly force. Sure a second pass definately merits that possibly. Depending on "all the facts".
Granted the brothers could be lying. Heck for all we know at this point, perhaps they threatened him with a weapon prior to him doing anything. Who knows. I can see both sides of the unknown.
However, there is a significant difference between pulling out a pistol & aiming it at you and starting a car & trying to run you over (assuming that is what they did). That difference is the speed and ease at which death can be delivered. This doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to defend himself. Rather I'm just trying to show that a bullet at speed, that you cannot see, is not the same as a car, that you
can see, trying to get fast enough in a small area to make it impossible for you to get out of the way.
So how long of a run did this car have to build speed in it's attempt to hit this guy? I mean how big is this impound yard anyway? Where was this guy in relation to the car when they "stole" it back? If he was right there, it would be easy to avoid the relatively slow moving car and amazingly easy to get a nice clean shot off. If he was yards away, was he really in much danger of being run over while the car built speed? Could he have run for cover? How did the magic bullet prevent the car from hitting him even after the shot was fired? Wouldn't he still have had to avoid the car in the same manner as if he hadn't fire the shot?
Did the brothers get scared by the shot, 180 the car, and race off to a convenience store. Only to have 911 called by a bystander? That seems like a huge risk for 3 guys who are (drinking and) driving a car they stole back from the impound, after attempting to run a guy over, and got shot at... doesn't it?
In addition, why wouldn't the tow truck driver have called the police? I mean, his life was threatened by three guys whom he shot at. If they were drunk, wouldn't he have been able to call the police, explain the situation, give a plate & description, and report the "drunk driver". Wouldn't that have been the next step any one of us would have taken? I think most, if not all, of us would have made that phone call, whether they were drunk or not.
What did this guy do? Argue with them, (almost get run over,) fire at them, and then pack it up and call it a night? That's how it seems. It's like the tow truck driver just shrugged off the near death experience he just had and shrugged off the possibility he may have just killed someone (which he did but it took more time than the instant kill it could have been).
That's where my suspicions kick in because something just doesn't add up.
