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.
It was a prank. A misdemeanor for which you can be arrested. A risky practice that can have fatal effects which would elevate the potential penalties. But at the base level, nonetheless a property crime of a very low level that never merits a response in force. That's common law and generally applicable across jurisdictions.
egging a car is commonly known to do damage.
In this case, harm and specific intent is used to create a standard of measure in terms of physical violence against a person that would necessitate deadly force as a response. So if the kids actions could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have the specific intent to cause physical harm (death or great bodily injury) then perhaps a response of deadly force could be raised as an affirmative defense. I thought the kid was trying to KILL me so I shot him dead. NOT: The little creep dented my SUV and might have caused an accident (but didn't) so I shot him dead.
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.
I was making the link to the use of deadly force by the driver not the egging by the kid. You are mixing the "bars" when they don't apply to each other.
"fight or flight". If the jurisdiction has no duty to retreat statute, first degree murder is a distant memory.
Not so. Fight or Flight does indeed apply in this case, even where the modified castle doctrine statutes have been applied. Those laws apply ONLY to a direct attack where there is specific intent to do great bodily harm or cause death. They would not apply in this case where the SUV "victim" of vandalism became the secondary aggressor in pursuing vigilante justice of a deadly nature.