> If safe to do so. Cars are faster than people and it’s hard to retreat if one was accelerating towards you.

He was chasing them. Which, if on the lookout for armed robbers, is certainly not retreat. It’s vigilante justice.

> It doesn’t appear that he fired until the car was already driving towards him. If he was firing at the car when it was initially driving away, I’d agree that his life wasn’t in danger at that time and the shots wouldn’t be lawful.

Did you even watch the video? He shot it after it went by. It’s clear as day in the video. And the holes are in the back of the SUV. Even without the video that’s beyond dispute. Unless they have boomerang bullets now. Do they have boomerang bullets?

> All parties involved seem to agree that the owner mistook the cop for a potential robber intent on robbing the gun store as had been done in multiple recent incidents. A ‘description of the vehicle and direction its is heading” isn’t immediately helpful if you think that vehicle is full of armed robbers intent on robbing you right now.

If you think a vehicle is full of armed robbers that’s the exact moment your duty to retreat begins. You can’t chase after a car you think is full of armed robbers, shoot at them, and claim self-defense. That, and the fact he shot after they had passed, is the exact reason he is in jail with no bond. Your views on the justice system aside. It’s crystal clear textbook first-degree assault.