In addition to being a rider I'm also a parent and understand protecting my family is job #1. I'm also an avid 2nd Amendment supporter, firearms enthusiast, concealed carry permit holder & practitioner. I have coverage from US Law Shield (warning, blatant commercial follows) and I'd recommend everyone who owns a firearm, if you carry, if you only have it at home, whatever - attend one of their seminars and consider signing up. One of the things they are very good at is helping you become very familiar, very clear on when you can and cannot legally use deadly force, and where the gray areas are.
I would put this whole situation in one of those gray areas. Yes, putting on my biker's helmet I can see how a car blowing through their group (because that's probably how they saw it) would anger them. I've been on group rides multiple times, some as big as 100+ bikes. (*) Yes, there is very definitely a pack mentality. I guarantee you in any group over about 8 - 10 bikes there's going to be at least one guy who gets mad at the car driver that cuts through their group. Right or wrong, that's just how it is. The fact that the riders were being jerks, breaking traffic laws is inconsequential. That's no excuse for driving at them in your vehicle. If you saw teenagers spray painting a wall, you wouldn't drive up on the sidewalk and try to scatter them.
Now, putting on my safety glasses and hearing pro and slipping into 2nd Amendment defender mode, I have a couple of concerns. One is, we have to be extremely careful in these gray areas not to give the "anti-gun" crowd any ammunition. When we use deadly force there should be no question it is justified, else we give them an opportunity to set a little precedent, move a little of that gray area towards their side. Here, and as US Law Shield's experts will tell you, that means reasonable fear for your life. Is it reasonable to fear for your life when surrounded by 20 bikers pounding on your car? Maybe. Then again, it is nearly impossible to punch through a window (in spite of what Hollywood would have us believe). If anyone wants to try it, I'd recommend you don't use the hand you write with, brush your teeth with, etc. 'cause you're probably going to hurt yourself and fail. Inside a vehicle you are reasonably safe and secure from simple punches and kicks. Seems to me rolling down your window or opening your door and firing is an escalation. Consider, if you were home and someone, even a dozen someones, was/were pounding on your door threatening a home invasion, what would you do? You can't "blast through the door" or "step outside and let off two blasts" - that's Joe Biden level advice and patently illegal. In CO we have no duty to retreat, but we cannot resort to deadly force to protect property. People pounding on your house door or your car window - not good enough. As US Law Shield's people will tell you, they have to be in your house, advancing on you/threatening you. If they're stealing your TV, you can't shoot them. If they're carrying your TV towards the door, and you're between them and the door, well...
Yes it's stupid that we have to jump through these legal hoops to ensure we don't go to jail, but that's where we are. In this case, my 2nd Amendment fear is that the local prosecutor may be "anti-gun" and decide to use this case to set an example, set a little precedent. Suppose he approaches the teenager that got shot, offers him a deal. Classic carrot/stick. We'll overlook or drastically reduce the the traffic violations, the vandalism, property damage, wrongful/false imprisonment...he'll rattle off a laundry list of potential charges. In exchange kid, you testify that you were just riding with your buddies, yes you were all breaking a few traffic laws, and yes they were damaging his car - but you were just sitting there on your bike waiting for the group to ride on when he rolled down his window and shot you for no reason. Now the driver/shooter is going to claim self defense, but how can he prove the kid was threatening his life? If there's no traffic cam footage, no dash cam footage from the car behind him, it's just driver's word vs biker's word, and the biker has the bullet wound to prove it. The prosecutor is going to say the driver is dangerous, he attempted vehicular homicide on the bikers, then negligently discharged his firearm at them, wounding one.
That's my fear of this "gray area" - it is ready made to hand an "anti-gun" prosecutor a win, and put firearms enthusiasts back just that much more, give us yet another reason to pause, make sure there's no question... We're already at the point, literally, where we cannot use common sense, we have to consult with legal experts and take out insurance just so we can reasonably defend ourselves and not be in fear of going to jail, losing our home in a lawsuit, etc. I really like US Law Shield, but I'm extremely sad that they are a necessity.
Deadly force is increasingly more often decided as being justified against perceived *attempts* to attack occupants of vehicles, thanks to increasingly frequent and tricky carjackings and random, violent crimes committed on the roads by drug addicts (so-called road rage).
US Law Shield is alright for people who can come up with a big bond when needed. USCCA might be better for others.