You realize that as soon as the driver of the truck showed his Glock he employed deadly force right?
Okay first of all let's establish where my comments have come from.
The OP did not give enough information in the initial post for me to make an assessment. I said so.
He asked what more information I wanted.
I listed some important factors that would effect decision making. Then I created two extreme examples from the original scenario using different criteria from my own list. I did this to show that without enough details two people could imagine two very different scenarios, and the resulting action/reaction to each could be very different.
And in one of those scenarios - the one where I depict the truck driver to be alone, in an isolated place, at night, where there are no passers-by and no cameras, and with two men positioning themselves tactically and looking at him as prey - I advocated that he "act aggressively".
What you and Kleanbore both have taken issue with has been your interpretations of that phrase, and/or comments I have made in response to views stemming from that hypothetical. Not from the actual situation the OPs friend found himself of in.
So just to be clear, I already made my position to the OPs situation clear. It's up thread, and it involves driving away quickly.
Regarding my stance on my own hypothetical version of the scenario: I have intentionally been vague because I try not to advocate for actions which are illegal. I have still not actually advocated for brandishing (even under the pretext of that hypothetical). So whilst your statement above is not in question by me, I never said I'd do it. Nor did I say anyone else should do it. Only that it has been done, and it could stop the escalation of a threat. And that this action, whilst illegal, could possibly, in certain circumstances, be a better course of action than doing nothing and letting the wolves circle closer where any advantage is lost.
So that's where all this has come from.