So, this was my first close encounter with a defensive shooting situation, I was at work yesterday afternoon and heard a commotion outside, someone yelling stop, myself and a few others went to the door of the store, which is one of a dozen or so in this shopping center, seeing a man being chased by an older man with a firearm. The man being chased approaches a car where a woman is getting out and assaults her with a can of pepper spray in attempt to steal her car, as she runs out of the way the older man fires several shots at the one attempting the car and he runs away. Unknown whether any were hits (by that point I and others had locked the door and retreated inside) but at least there seemed to be no casualties left in the parking lot. Story goes from someone who was in the other store at the time that the older man (the shooter) is the owner of the shop, and the one running had just moments prior assaulted his wife (also working there, it is a jewelry store by the way) and grabbed something from her hand running out of the store, when the owner gave chase. This part is what leads me to believe it is not justified, you don't go running after a thief who has already left with your firearm waving about yelling for him to stop, that and apparently said thief's only weapon was a can of pepper spray, regardless of a prior assault he might have made to the owner's wife. Though I suppose it could be argued at THAT point the car itself could have been a weapon had he managed to steal it, however it seemed clear said thief was trying to get away and no longer a direct threat to life or bodily injury, at least to the shop owner doing the shooting.
Edit: Not long after the shooting the police arrived at the store in question to take statements from people there, the owner was not arrested at that time however I suspect he might be later, at the very least for negligent discharge of a firearm if not something more severe, it clearly wouldn't fall under stand your ground though castle doctrine does extend to vehicles in this state and I'm sure he can argue he was defending the woman in the car, but quite a stretch.
Edit: Not long after the shooting the police arrived at the store in question to take statements from people there, the owner was not arrested at that time however I suspect he might be later, at the very least for negligent discharge of a firearm if not something more severe, it clearly wouldn't fall under stand your ground though castle doctrine does extend to vehicles in this state and I'm sure he can argue he was defending the woman in the car, but quite a stretch.
