He was killed after attacking someone else.
The substantial crime here is premeditated murder, not the childish prank.
Again you refuse to acknowledge the intitating event, a crime, set forth the unfolded events. There are consenquences to our actions. This kid deliberately provoked an incident.
I resent your empty accusation and your excusing and attempting to white wash deliberate murder.
White wash? What the hell have you been doing for this delinquent on this thread? You absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the guy in the suv has the right to travel down the road without somebodys brat attacking them. What the hell is so hard for you to understand about that? If you are too stupid to understand that intentionally starting trouble with random people can have bad concenquences tough. You get what you get.
He was killed for throwing eggs at a car. He attacked no one.
" Again you refuse to acknowledge the intitating event, a crime, set forth the unfolded events."
The initiating event may have been a crime. The prank is by it's very nature simply a negligent act and it was done by a minor. The boy was throwing eggs, not bricks.
"You absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the guy in the suv has the right to travel down the road without somebodys brat attacking them."
He was not attacked. A boy threw and egg at his car and he murdered the boy for it. That's not allowed. He had the right to call the police, or hold the boy, but not murder him. Do you understand that? He had no right to murder the boy, or to use deadly force in any way.
Tell you what! I hate tough guys with guns that murder 14 y/o boys. I hate their supporters and apologists just as much. Got it?
I'm afraid that I have to agree with spunkets. Based on what I learned in law school (oh so long ago) and consistent with my B.A. degree in Criminal Justice and my experience as a law enforcement officer, the crime of which you speak...doesn't rise to the level of standard needed to precipitate a self defense shooting. There was no specific intent to cause "harm" (self evident by the circumstances) and there was no "attack." You can't attack an SUV! Had the egg struck the driver and it could be shown that the kid meant to strike the driver; meant to cause a catastrophic accident...there would be grounds for an arrest but no justification to shoot the kid in the aftermath of having a vehicle struck!
Here's a hypothetical to illustrate the point: You and your significant other are exiting the side door of the theater into an alley when you are accosted by a doper needing a fix who decides to mug you. He has a weapon. Fearing for your life you draw your own legally permitted concealed weapon for a presentation to the perp. The bad guy immediately breaks off his "attack" and sprints away. You are no longer in danger.
However you decide such clearly antisocial behavior should be discouraged so you pop a round right into the FLEEING Felon's back. He dies at the scene. YOU get arrested for FIRST DEGREE MURDER. Why? The instant the bad guy broke off his attack and fled and you fired your weapon, you switched roles. He became the victim and you became the aggressor. This is what happened in the incident we are discussing.