You seriously don't get it.
A road rage incident where dark sedan pulls in front of a white pickup, stops and the driver exits the sedan with gun in hand, approaches white pickup in threatening manner. Whammo, boom boom....A perfectly legitimate shoot!
“...approaches white pickup in threatening manner...”
You were right up to this point. You’re assuming he was thinking of using the gun, which he did not nor the evidence says now made any offer to shoot his gun. He had it, he tapped the truck with it, he changed hands with it, and he lowered it. The weapon was neer discharged nor wa an effort to do so observed. If he had carried a baseball bat or a rock with him, is that a threat? Legally, just as much. Don’t assume by guessing what might have happened. You can only work with what you did observe. So unless you, without seeing or hearing it, get the gun pointed at the driver or the vehicle and/or hear him say he is going to use it, you have only assumption and that’s not fact. And remember, this is not a criminal trial which requiires beyond a shadow of a doubt but requires a preponderence of the evidence with a civil suit. It is not cut and dry. Remember OJ, same type of undertaking.
wy69