And while I wrote the earlier post from the perspective of the shooter and his wife, since this is a gun forum, it is also hard to fault the young men past a point based only on what is in this video.
The guy who is probably twice the size of the driver chooses to come start an argument and then punch him while he is in his vehicle.
One could assume that the young man being attacked could have been hurt.
If a larger man came along and started attacking my friend I would feel obligated to come to his aid by attacking that larger man and putting the odds back on my friend's side. I would not sit by as another larger presumably stronger individual pummels a friend that was not provoking a fight.
However for the same reason I avoid macho environments, bars, clubs, and friends that initiate conflict or can't walk away from some insults.
I grew up in an environment where you always confronted any disrespect head on, so I understand the whole macho thing.
Now I am a wiser adult and choose to surround myself with cool headed people. Otherwise they will get you into serious situations that can quickly and unexpectedly become life altering, which could have been avoided.
People that can handle themselves in a serious situation and come to your aid, but will do all they can to avoid creating a bad situation, are the best to be in a bad situation with. A balance only some attain.
In this situation the young men could have been more at fault than is apparent. From the perspective of the shooter they could have posed a lethal threat attacking him as a team. He was clearly incapable of even doing some moderate damage in the fight he initiated against the two of them.
He was helpless and at thier mercy.
However since he started it by throwing a punch at another man sitting in his truck he is a mutual combatant, or the aggressor.
Using a gun as a mutual combatant often ends poorly.
Gang members that really were defending themselves go to prison all the time over it even when they would have been killed had they not chosen to use or threaten with lethal force.
By creating a violent confrontation where you actually throw an initial blow that then results in a need for a firearm on your behalf you are not going to be determined justified in court.
Yes I know the law actually says otherwise in some places, but those are really rare circumstances when it actually is applied.
In California if you try to stop fighting and voice that you can regain your right to self defense, under the wording of the law.
But in reality how the law is applied by those with discretion, you never really do.
Unless you ran down the street, tried to get away, and they kept chasing you, or you put a door between you and they forced it open or broke it down, or otherwise make a clear effort to come after you while you are doing all you can to avoid them or get away, it rarely comes into play in reality.
If you are being stomped on or go unconscious someone else may make a valid claim of defending a third party on your behalf, but not you defending yourself.
Once a mutual combatant it is very difficult to avoid the consequences of being a mutual combatant if you then pull a weapon to defend yourself irregardless of what the law technically says.
Because the shooter is the aggressor or a mutual combatant even if he did face a potentially lethal threat he is in trouble.
