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.
You don't seem to agree with spunketts. He defends the egging as just a prank.
There was no specific intent to cause "harm"
Whether or not the kid knew the possible level of damage that could be caused by his actions is debatable but egging a car is commonly known to do damage.
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
Your bar is much too high, Vandalism is an arrestable crime where a juvenile is concerned. If the property damaged is valued high enough it could, but not likely bring felony charges.
Sure the shooter in this case could be charged with first degree murder. It would sound all nice and pat in the prosecutors office and in front of the judge. Then a little guy called a defense lawyer shows up and starts yammering, bringing up issues like "first harmful act, eventually mentioning something along the lines of "fight or flight". If the jurisdiction has no duty to retreat statute, first degree murder is a distant memory.