Don’t know how many times I can write that I saw that video already (while most posting did not watch that).
Yes, he came back, why I don’t know. He probably threatened them as he did before, at least holding the gun at them. Apparently (though it’s hard to tell) Mom shot at him first.
THEN, the perp apparently disappears from the store again, and she continues firing. No idea what is actually happening off screen - he may be turning tail, he may be firing at them, but it’s not on there. It is at this point, though, that Mom is firing presumably at someone going away, although we don’t know (again, I emphasize this) what he is doing exactly.
It’s my understanding it doesn’t matter at which point in the action you were firing at a “retreating” person. It only matters if they are firing at you/aiming at you at the same time.
Of course, we need to know 2 things:
-what is the exact law in this jurisdiction?
-what was the perp doing when she fired at him off camera?
I don’t mind that they shoot. It’s the law that often does. All the protestations that this is “conservative country” makes little difference that the law could still be ninny liberal stuff.
No. Dude, that video shows him coming back to the counter before any shots were fired and mama shooting him in the chest. If you watch both videos, the one posted with the article does not show that shot, as though it has been edited out.
Watch them both again, you’ll see mama shooting at him while he’s off screen in both, only in the video in post 23 you get the whole sequence of events.