Seems you think the guy who did the shootings is a crazy man
and a murdering nut job. But, what if he was shot at first?

If he was shot at first:
The guy crossed the line after the original firefight where he killed a couple
of folks.
The surviving hunters fled, and if one account is accurate one guy (who
probably peed himself) was running down a trail calling "help, help!" when the
nut job chased him down and shot him in the back. Not exactly self defense.

We had a similar case up this way a couple of years ago. Some kid stole a car
out of a guy's driveway. The guy woke up in time to see the kid take off down
the road, so he grabbed a pistol, jumped into his other car, and gave chase.
After tracking his stolen car for a few miles, the auto owner pulled up along
side and shot the car thief through the side of the head.
There was a lot of discussion that the auto owner was "defending his property"
and therefore justified in murdering the thieving juvenile. Makes about as much
sense, to me, as declaring "self defense" when the attacker is running away and
you have to chase him down in order to kill him.



What would
you do if a group of people with guns were around you and one took
a pot shot at your feet or something? Would you just run hoping
they didn't shoot you? 'cause if they did shoot you, who would tell
your side to the cops? Or would you fire back?


I don't think anybody can accurately say what they would do in a hypothetical
situation where other people are shooting, but I'd like to think that if I dove
for cover, fired back, ran like hell, or otherwise kept my butt intact I
wouldn't chase people down to shoot them in the back.