In the end if this guy gets a good lawyer, he can beat it. IMO
19 and not exactly the high-rent district. If he did shoot because he was scared or startled (kinda hard to keep a clear head in a situation like that), then I sympathize and wish I could help (no idea who he is).
Some time ago, I did some research on "the right of self defense" and discovered that, under common law, there traditionally wasn't any. At first I was surprised, but after thinking about it, this did not surprise me, and it should not surprise the rest of you. In most feudal countries, the use of force is reserved STRICTLY for the monarch and his/her agents (police, military, etc).
This is why in Asian countries, weapon-less martial arts were invented. The monks had absolutely no other means to defend themselves.
I am aware of cases in some countries of people being executed for killing someone in a fight that seemed to have escalated evenly (what we would call "manslaughter"). Killing in self-defense is not a legal defense in a few countries still. There are also references to accidental killings being punishable by death in one of the stories of the
Thousand and One Arabian Nights. And a foreign contractor who shot and killed a (possibly mentally disturbed) Mongolian attacking him while doing some work there found himself arrested under potentially capital charges, although his release was eventually negotiated, probably through the US Consulate.
A limited right to self-defense first showed up in common-law jurisdictions quite late, around the 19th century or so. There was some limited self-defense available under Civil Law since Roman times--a man had some right to defend his house and occupants (not sure of the terms).
I think that historically, the USA has been relatively generous in this regard, because for a long time it was relatively sparsely-populated and lawless. As we have become more crowded, our institutions more entrenched, and as we become increasingly "neofuedalistic", the idea of self-defense is going to come under attack. Defense of property is already a no-no...I am guessing you could get into trouble for tackling a thief.
The problem with the concept of "social contract", is that you can't negotiate the terms! The police don't really come and rescue you from bandits/rapists/killers. More likely they will come cordon off the scene of the crime, fill out the paperwork, and leave the rest to next of kin and the insurance agencies.
We have seen that a lot here. It is practically impossible to get them to do anything for private property crimes unless you're a VIP, and they don't even necessarily come after assaults (depends on who you are), burglaries, arson (especially if someone torches your car, they definitely won't come unless you're a VIP), and similar crimes.
So, in theory, you have
abrogated your rights to defend life and property to the police, who refuse to do it.
