"Confront" seems rather a tactical choice of words.  I'd say that
yelling "Where'd you learn to drive, you [Army Word] idiot?" and going
your own way is confronting somebody; what he did,  according to the
news report, could be more like an attack.

Now, what the DA's probably wondering is, what options did the kid have
besides going up to the driver and punching him out?  In many states
(well, probably everywhere as an informal matter) something called a
"reasonable man" test is applied in the aftermath of use of deadly
force.  They might be arguing that a reasonable man would have sought
refuge, perhaps by running someplace where a car couldn't follow.  You
can see where the physical circumstances of that final confrontation
would play into this.

That's just one part of the official Monday-morning quarterbacking
concerning how else one might have solved the problem, and whether the
threat (to which in most states, usually, you're allowed to react
proportionately) was still in effect or had dissipated, etc.

Though the deceased is not physically described in the article, the
fact that the teenager was a very large (6-foot-6, 300 pounds) athlete
a third his age will doubtless figure into this as well.

So will a lot of other things, many of which would not appear in
initial (or possibly any other) media reports, all of them filtered
through the ritualized artificial world of the justice system.  One of
them will be state of mind.

Another will be whether the guy really did purposely run him over.  So
will what he was doing in the moments leading up to the fatal punchout:
trying to get away?  trying to run him down again?  screaming
something provocative?  apologizing?  just sitting there with his mouth
hanging open?

Along with the drug states of both parties.

The real world is messier and more subtle than it sometimes seems in
the newspapers -- and definitely more so than when the lawyers and
spokesmen on either side are trying to spin it their way.  That's why
we have juries.   I must admit that there could be more to this than
presently meets the eye.

The one thing I can make a high-confidence guess about, based on the
WNBC story, is that the now deceased driver had three miles in which to
disengage at any time, and as a man in his 50s might even have used his
putative superior maturity to take advantage of them, but instead
followed his opponent home.  The defense may well focus on that,
arguing that it was his fight to start or not.  

--Joe

Monday morning quarterbacking at its finest. Only an a.shole DA would think
like that. Clearly, the kid feared for his life. That was his motivation,
not revenge.
And he didnt have the time to consider the fine points of vehicle maneuverability.
It was disable your opponent or be killed.

I'd assume that if the attacker was crazy enough to hit me with a car,
the next thing that the attacker might do is to attack me or someone
else with a knife or a gun.  If the car was not disabled, it could've
been used to hit another person or a house.

You're assuming that the other driver isn't a Sloth, doing stuff like
taking two lanes to turn or not accelerating at a green light.  There
are lots of ways to "cut off" Sloth drivers, but it is a crime to use a
car to hit a pedestrian who is attempting to flee.  It is also a crime
to use verbal intimidation while following a person to his residence.
Especially if there were innocent bystanders in the area, that driver
would've been out of the vehicle and on the ground very quickly.

Are you sure about that?

The 53 year old may have been another none-shall-pass passive aggressive
a.shole sloth. Ever cut it a bit close because they were intentionally
blocking passing? I am sure you have. Ever have one flip out on you? I
have.

Scott en Aztlán wrote: []

Are you trolling, Scottie?

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.  The rest of us,
especially those who either have accidentally cut off somebody or think
it might happen someday, are entitled to disagree.

Even somebody's cutting you off on purpose doesn't justify following
him home and trying to run him over when he's on foot.  That's my
opinion and you're entitled to it.  Fair warning: the badge-and-gun
club probably shares it.

For some philosophizing from a seemingly unlikely source, before "road
rage" came into the general vocabulary but still very apropos, look
about halfway down
http://www.joebobbriggs.com/mvtranscripts/guyver.html

Cheers,
--Joe

The idiot could have thrown the car into reverse and turned the wheel all the
way to the right.  He would have then hit the kid standing besides the car.
Who knows if the kid had an opportunity to run away from the car?  Under the
circumstances I can't see how you can blame the kid for his actions.  

You've never accidentally cut off another driver?  One could say the coward
tried to kill the kid and when he failed, the kid did what he could to keep
him from trying a second time.  
--------------
Alex

At 53, I'll bet he knew how to parallel park.  Sure, the kid probably
could have stayed out of the way for a while by staying inside the
car's turning radius, but the car isn't likely to get tired.

Even if so, that merely elevates it from justifiable homicide to
excusable.  Or do you think it's murder to respond to an assault with
a deadly weapon just because the guy who has just assaulted you isn't
actually going at you for a second time.

That ain't blood.