The guy’s attorney actually made that argument, that the girls in the car should be charged. But they don’t seem to have ever found the girls in the car, or charged them with anything.
There also was no evidence found of other shots fired, although the judge seems to have accepted that at least the father THOUGHT there were shots fired.
Reading from other articles, it APPEARS that by the time the father went outside with his gun, the SUV with the girls in it was gone, and all that was there was this parked car with the victim.
Yup. That's why the term "innocent bystander" is so misleading here. Saying that he was an innocent bystander suggests that the shooter shot at the SUV, missed, and hit this guy instead. But, based on other articles, it seems that the shooter intentionally shot at the victim, thinking that the shot came from the victim's car.
"Innocent bystander" doesn't capture that - "mistaken identity" seems more accurate, and paints a whole different picture. It's one thing to say that self-defense/SYG should apply where you are justifiably defending yourself and accidentally kill someone who got in the way; it's another thing to say that it should apply where you intentionally kill the wrong person.