[endthematrix]

Then he would have been hit by the car. As in the article, he shot to the SIDE...in the door.

Also, like the article says the driver may have felt compelled to use his car in self-defense.

[D-fendr]

Looks like the lawyer should shut up too:

But Loudon's lawyer, Fred Mercurio, says… Loudon got out of the way, drew his gun and fired.

If this is true, I don't see a self defense defense making it.

[Smokin' Joe]

For one thing, if Vavrik felt threatened by the approaching Loudon, maybe he was entitled to use his car as a self-defense weapon.

I doubt it. Only in the event Vavrik HAD to pass Loudon to leave the area. Vavrik had no compelling interest in remaining at the scene. Loudon was there to change a tire, with the vehicles owner who was a relative, and whom he had given a ride.

Indirectly, (given that he suspected Vavrik had slashed the tire), he was defending property by not leaving.

From the story, there was nothing to prevent Vavrik from using the vehicle to escape, which (imho) would have been the wiser course of action.

If corroborative testimony is tight and indicates that Vavrik was using the vehicle to threaten Loudon, it should be ruled a good shoot.

Daddy should learn when to shut up, though.