Wrong time frame. You can't claim self-defense when the threat you're defending against is in the process of leaving your property.
Too damn many correct answers. I'm gonna run out of Tootsie Rolls. VERY gratifying to see how many informed, knowledgeable people there are on this Forum. Reassuring.
Laws vary from state to state but the basic idea that underlies "self defense" is that there has to be some perceived immediate threat. If that guy had spent more time reading Conservative Forums or Gun Rights Forums where people talk about this stuff, he would have known better. He did just about everything wrong from the first shot to the call to the cops to what he said to them when they showed up to do the investigation. Dunce cap should be sewn to his head.
The good news is that because he's a senior citizen the DA will probably try to give him probation with a very small amount of jail time. The bad news is that there will be a significant fine, he'll probably have to plead guilty to a felony and lose his guns permanently. Worst of all, he will probably be sued by the lowlifes and may have to pay them a lot of money in a civil judgment. His retirement will be less comfortable financially unless he is a wealthy man but he likely won't die in prison. Guns aren't toys.
Basic rule as I understand it from talking to LEOs , is that if you ever shoot someone, you SAY you saw a gun pointed at you even if you didn't unless you WANT to be arrested. It doesn't matter if they had one or not, you still SAY that a gun was pointed at you and that is why you shot them. You DON'T say, "I thought I saw a gun," because most of the time when someone believes they saw a gun, they don't answer a question like, "Why did you shoot them?" with the qualifier "I thought..." they say emphatically that they saw a gun. That's because in human behavior, the perception is the reality. To the observer who shoots a person because they believe he has a gun, in the shooter's PERCEPTION, HE HAD A GUN. They would subsequently be the most surprised, (yea skeptical) person on the planet when they learn that the cops found no gun. In his mind, THEY HAD A GUN AND IT WAS POINTED AT ME.
The point of perception works in the shooters favor, because the law generally makes no distinction whether a person merely believed there was a gun or there was in fact one in reality. All that a person needs to have to be legally entitled to shoot someone is the BELIEF that their life was in immediate danger.
Granted, the DA will try like Hell to prove that the principle is a lying sack of sh*t and only saying that there was a gun to get acquitted, but the DA doesn't vote on the jury. All that one needs to do is give a convincing performance to a jury that they BELIEVED WITH ALL THEIR HEART THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DIE IF THEY DIDN'T SHOOT THE BASTARD, to have a chance at acquittal.
Of course, the smarter thing to do would have been to let them drive away since they really weren't a threat and the owner of the property was no lighter in his possessions. He got his feelings hurt but so what? Now he's screwed.
Owning a gun is not enough for anyone who plans to use it. One must study and KNOW the laws about using it in your own state and take some training with an experienced professional in close-combat strategery (sic).
My own instructor called every shot I had off target in my novice stage a "lawsuit". I learned not to pull the trigger until I was damn sure I was going to hit what I was aiming at. We reviewed the applicable laws and ran through the basic scenarios that applied to any circumstance I was likely to encounter. I was blessed because he did this for free as my friend, but it was worth its weight in gold as advice and well worth paying for because now if I ever have to shoot someone, I know that there is a fairly good chance I won't go to jail for it.
