They weren’t parked when he shot at them. From what I can tell from their stories: he got in front of the car with his gun (not good), the kids most likely panicked and hit the accelerator, the guy got out of the way of the approaching vehicle, and the guy fired his gun at the car as they fled.

It adds up for me, given that the kids most likely weren’t trying to hit him as much as run away from that guy with the gun (plus, it probably wasn’t a super crazy speed car). He shouldn’t have shot at the car as it was fleeing, though. That’s not self-defense, that’s anger.

I believe his story on how the events unfolded, not that he’s as pure as driven snow. He shouldn’t have fired on the vehicle.

You win.

Yeah, I’ve said the same thing multiple times. It’s not surprising, really.

Definitely. He should have called the police to investigate, not intervened himself.

Did I say the tire world have exploded? In Mythbusters (awesome science there, dude), the tire was completely flat within a mile, after being shot. That’s hard to miss.

But a property owner is also allowed to ask people to leave, especially if they’re doing something suspicious (like just idling the car outside a person’s house at 1:30am). The kids didn’t didn’t mean any harm but that IS suspicious behavior. The man should have called the cops, not confronted them. (However, after…

I never said he was “in the right”, I said he felt like he was in the right. That’s a huge difference.

People can be asked to move, if parked in front of a private residence. If you feel that they’re acting suspicious, you are able to investigate and ask them to leave (which is what the man should have done). It’s pretty obvious that he felt like his life/property was in danger (especially given the time that this…

Haha, oops! That’s what I get for trying to respond with my phone.

The car is also a weapon. I believe that the kids saw a gun pointed at them, panicked, hit the accelerator (which moved the car towards the man, who then felt his life was in danger), and then the man opened fire on the fleeing vehicle (which isn’t ok). You can confront people sitting in front of your house if you’re…

And I responded in a logical way, based on the evidence and stories of both parties involved. I believe that the kids saw a gun, freaked out, hit the accelerator (which then went towards the man), and the man moved out of the way and opened fire on the vehicle (not ok). The panic seems to be with the kids and their…

I’m not saying that the guy was right to attempt to shoot the fleeing vehicle, I’m just saying I believe his version of the events more. It’s much more likely that the kids saw a gun pointed at them, tried to flee (which meant hitting the accelerator, towards the man), and the man opened fire as they were fleeing (not…

I would also so he’s in the wrong because he fired at a fleeing vehicle... that’s not self defense. If he felt his life was in danger that’s one thing (which he most likely would have as a car was going towards him) but that’s not when he fired on the vehicle.

The man sounds relatively calm up until they tried to flee and almost ran him over. He then opened fire as they were fleeing... which isn’t ok.

This is true, but I’m also skeptical that they’d completely miss things even after “checking the car”. A punctured tire can be pretty noisy.

Definitely. You don’t fire at a car moving away from you in self defense, you fire at it in anger.

He was definitely in the wrong but he couldn’t have known they were “kids”. Without knowing who they were or their intent, he has a right to protect himself and his property if he felt his life was in danger. Of course, you don’t fire at a car moving away in self-defense, you fire at it in anger. He inappropriately…

I’d say they’re both in the wrong, but the man definitely inappropriately discharged his firearm. Depending on the car (I’m going to make a guess and say probably not a muscle-beast speed machine), its acceleration would most likely not be enough to make it impossible to hit... of course, there’s also amount of…