[Atlas Sneezed]

"They mistake being made here is to assume that they were "fleeing"."

What? You think the scumbag "teens" (thanks, Mr. Reporter!) were running toward him backwards?

More likely, they were facing away from him because they were fleeing him after he pulled out the guns. Common sense.

That said, I think that the proper take on this is that such a shooting (direct immediate deadly revenge for deadly force on onesself) should be legal, is moral, but would leave an ordinary citizen in deep legal trouble.

[marktwain]

"They mistake being made here is to assume that they were "fleeing"."

What? You think the scumbag "teens" (thanks, Mr. Reporter!) were running toward him backwards?

The assumption is that just because they were moving away from him, they are no longer a threat. This is a bad assumption for any threat that is armed with a gun. I don't know how many cases that I have read of where people were shot by someone who was "fleeing them" but there have been several.

These people showed they had the ability to use deadly force, they continued to have the opportunity to use it as long as they were within gunshot, and the wounding of the CCW holder shows that he was reasonable to conclude that his life was in jeopardy because of it.

Those three things make the shooting justified.

[trussell]

It is possible that they were running away from him to get behind a wall or some other object so that they could fire at him while they were protected.