Lethal force is justified to prevent an imminent threat of deadly harm, not to punish someone for harm he’s already committed.
Shot in the back of front isn’t relevant. Shot after leaving is.
Did the guy who was shot pose an immediate threat?
Conner wasn’t shot after leaving, if I read it correctly. He was shot in the home, and bled out running away.
Prior to that, again according to the article, the dead perp was beating the drug dealer Perez, and it would seem only turned away when a gun was presented.
I could see where in the mind of the Perez, had he not shot, he would have been subject to great bodily harm or death. He made a decision to shoot and it could simply be a difference of reaction times that resulted in his shot, or shots, came during or after the attacker turning to scat.
Castle doctrine is pretty clear, but the case is complicated by both parties having been engaged in illegal activities, so I’d say no to murder, but yes to other possible charges.
The vile attacker may have been moving to attack but spun around to flee when he saw his victim had a gun and took a bullet in the back. The attacker invaded the victims’ home, assaulted him and his family and got what he deserved. Castle doctrine – not guilty.