Some of the people posting here need to watch the video a few times. I have read the entire thread and would like to add a few points.
1. The bg at first attacked with the crow bar towards the DRIVER SIDE WINDOW/DOOR. This is near the victim and would constitute a means.
2. The driver attempted to escape.
3. Contrary to what some on here may seem to believe, a crow bar is a deadly weapon; indeed, it just as dangerous or moreso than a bat or knife.
4. Go through the list of what constitutes a legal use of deadly force.
The defender in question must be innocent of provoking the occasion for the act of self defensive - check
The threat defended against must be deadly (intended or likely to cause death or grave bodily injury i.e. wielding crow bar into victim) - check
The threat defended against must be imminent or immediate - check
Ability on the part of the aggressor(s) to deliver on a threat of grave bodily harm (disparity of force, or a deadly weapon) - check
Opportunity to deliver on the threat (proximity in time or distance) - check
Jeopardy (evident intent to act upon the ability and opportunity that poses imminent jeopardy of death or grave bodily harm) - check
The circumstances would in my eyes elicit the use the deadly force. Two things to consider: the bg did not just go to the front bumper and start hitting it, he was attacking the victim on all sides (including the driver side). This is not just an attack on a vehicle, this was an attack on the victim when glass was broken, elevating the level of both means and intention of harm. Second, the escape route was attempted, the victim has then tried to retreat, and thus has his or her back against the wall. One way in which an imminent deadly threat might be otherwise avoidable and the defender's use of deadly force, therefore, not necessary would be in case the defender both had and saw an opportunity to retreat. The law on the duty to retreat holds, roughly, as follows. In virtually all American jurisdictions, a defender has no duty to retreat from her own premises (her home or business premises, or those of another where she's permitted to be). On the other hand, in public places, it is generally held that a defender has a duty to retreat, but only if she knows that she can escape with complete safety to herself and to others. This was extended. Summingly, the victim had all legal grounds to justify the use of deadly force. Indeed, would I have used deadly force, I don't know, but for the poor lady, or perhaps a family member of mine or yours for that matter, it would be very suprising and exasperating to see a DA pursue an unjust use of deadly force in these circumstances.
