Fine, Having not been present I can only speculate, but if someone basically try's to run me down with my own vehicle, and I perceive that the passenger may be armed as well, I cannot justify just standing there with a cell phone in my hand dialing the magic number while waiting to see if I will be plowed down, shot, or both.
If your true intent is self preservation, and you honestly believe them to be armed, it seems like finding cover is your best option.
Even if you intend to return fire. Standing in front of the vehicle? Not so much.
Now, I'll admit I wasn't there. I do have this handy news story, though, which seems to cite his own affidavit as to at least
some details of what went down.
According to the affidavit, Jones heard his Toyota Land Cruiser, parked in the barn at his orange grove, start up before daylight Tuesday. Jones told police he grabbed his gun, a 9mm that he keeps with him while working at the grove. He said he could see two people in the SUV as it backed out of the barn, according to the affidavit. He said he saw the passenger's arm reach outside the vehicle, and believed that person might be holding a gun.
The Land Cruiser stopped directly in front of him, Jones said in the affidavit. He said he raised his gun and pointed it at the occupants, shouting "Stop," but the vehicle appeared to be moving directly toward him.
Those two paragraphs suggest his primary intent was preventing the theft, not self-defense. In attempting to prevent the theft, he
placed himself in a situation where self-defense was required.
It's not like he was just standing around smoking a pipe in the middle of the road/trail/driveway/whereverthishappened, only to suddenly find himself being run down by his own Land Cruiser with no other option. He claims he thought they might have a weapon, yet his first instinct was to
place himself in front of the vehicle, and stand out in the open even giving them the
opportunity to either shoot him, run him down, or both.
If his intent was self-defense, it sounds to me (again, given details from his own affidavit) like he was
incredibly stupid and is alive only because he was
incredibly lucky. Or because the perpetrators never intended to kill him in the first place. Either way.
If his intent was to prevent the theft of his vehicle, by deadly force if necessary, then he seems to have chosen somewhat wisely. Though I'd still call him foolish because it sounds like he put himself in more danger than necessary to do so. Basically assuming these thieves were ever willing to kill him (or seriously injure him), he is lucky they didn't manage it.
Though the skeptic in me might suggest that he did so not only because he never truly believed they intended to use deadly force against him, but because he
also knew that placing himself in a situation where they
could would give him the justification to shoot.
The only difference we have is that you feel that because a man, working on his farm, was confronted with the theft of his property, and during that theft was required by the circumstances to shoot a criminal to protect his own life, that he is somehow a "Rambo" Yet in the same breath you call it a good shoot? Then proceed to postulate about the Karmic consequences?
I believe he referred to it as a "good shoot" in a legal sense. Which it seems to have been.
And he was required
by circumstances he played a significant role in creating to shoot a criminal to protect his own life. Again, see the above. Had his primary intent been the preservation of his own life, rather than his property, he'd never have found himself in front of the SUV to begin with.