What an amazingly information free article. It tells nothing about why the clerk was indicted. Was he just defending himself and the prosecutor has gone rogue? Or did the clerk put a couple of extra rounds into the robber after he was down and he’s lucky to not be up on a first degree murder charge? We’ll never know from this article.
I was thinking the same thing, until the article mentioned that the prosecutor declined to describe what was done that was alleged to be not self-defense.
So the article only has half the story. What makes it even odder is that the article says both that the clerk was shot, and that he was lucky because he was not shot, or something like that.