Your poll question and answers are really confusing. You ask: Will he get charged?" and then, I think, offer confusing choices:
YES , He was Justified in trying to shoot out tires - (Yes seems to indicate yes they will charge him. Why charge him if he was justified?)
NO, He was not Justified in trying to shoot out tires (N seems to indicate no they will not charge him. If not justified why wouldn't they charge him?)
As for whether or not he was actually legally justified to use deadly force when he intervened, based upon the info supplied in the article I definitely believe that he was legally justified. As to whether or not that was a shoot or don't shoot situation it is hardto second guess with as little information as was supplied. As to whether he should have attempted to shoot the tires, I think that was a poor judgemnent call on his part probably from watching too many movies where they shoot out tires. Bear in mind that poor judgement about what he shot at does not, in a case as described, lessen his justification to use deadly force in the firct place.
Regarding that picture in the article: His appearance in the photograph says absolutely nothing about: the facts surrounding this shooting, whether or not he was justified to shoot, his frame of mind at the time or, his level of responsibility. To bring up such utter nonsense is only to push the weakest of arguments like grasping at straws. In my opinion, anyone who is suggesting, implying or even thinking that said photo reveals something of merit with regard to the shooting is really stretching things. Sure it would LOOK better if he had been drerssed in a nice three piece Armani suit with a really expensive necktie, or even if had had been wearing a button down shirt BUT; my guess is the media was on him like stink on manure once he was released by the police. He was probably pretty frazzled after such an event, and maybe did not think to grab his shirt before they started snapping away.
His real sign of poor judgement was regarding at what he shot. Poor choice of target. As for his judgement on if it was a situation that justified deadly force, I would gladly testify that in my professional and personal opinion I believe it was justified.
One thing about what the policen said and what they usually say in situations like this. I am referring to their comments that Mr. Briggs and the store employees should not have been involved in this. Isn't it amazing how they throw blame on the victims and on the person who attempted to help without saying: you know the bad guy should have tried to steal this stuff. Think about it. Do you own a firearm, do you carry a firearm, so that when someone threatens your life or the life of another innocent you will just not get involved other than to comply with the bad guy and, then you will call 911? Not me if I can help it.
All the best,
Glenn B