Mentally disabled man shot & killed, shooter walks free

[aerius]

Foxnew link, since it has the most detail.

Taco Bell Shooting Victim was Holding Leash, Not Weapon
Victim's sister calling for shooter's arrest

Updated: Wednesday, 04 Apr 2012, 5:12 PM MST
Published : Wednesday, 04 Apr 2012, 3:38 PM MST

LAVEEN - Police are saying more about a shooting at a Taco Bell Tuesday night in which one man died.

They're also identifying the victim as 29-year-old Daniel Adkins.

About 7:30 p.m., a 22-year-old man and his girlfriend ordered food at the Taco Bell drive-thru and were told to pull up while their order was prepared.

At the same time, Adkins stepped around a corner into the path of the vehicle and angry words were exchanged between he and the driver.

They got into an altercation and Adkins was shot once by the driver. He died at the scene.

The driver, a 22-year-old black male, called police but has not been arrested.

At first, the couple claimed that Adkins had a metal pipe that he swung at them -- but it turns out he was holding a dog leash with his yellow lab on the other end.

Family members want that driver arrested, but he's claiming self-defense.

"He needs to be behind bars. I'll never see my brother again," says sister Marina Reyes. "If he felt that my brother was threatening him, he could have easily just rolled up the window and called the cops."

A metal pipe or bat was never located. An independent witness did say Adkins swung his fists in the driver's direction.

“He swung his fist towards the driver window, and at some point the driver shot him,” says Phoenix Police Sgt. Tommy Thompson. “Just because we don’t book a person immediately does not mean we don’t charge a person at a later date.”

The dog, Lady, stayed by Adkins' side until the Humane Society came. Adkins lived with his mom and dad. He's 29, but his family says he's mentally disabled and has the mental capacity of a 12-year-old. He didn't drive, and walked wherever he went.

"This person is still on the loose and I don't agree with that. So he's saying self defense, then where's the weapon? Where's the pipe? They didn't find anything on my brother," says Reyes. "He was just too aggressive, you don't need to go that far."

The shooter's name has not been released. The investigation is still ongoing.

Now if you think FoxNews is full of shit and making the whole thing up, we also have a link from CBS and ABC
http://www.kpho.com/story/17347547/fami ... e-arrested
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_ph ... -taco-bell


Now, here's the fun part. Can any of you come up with a plausible reason, even if it's a stretch of the laws for why the 22 year old black guy wasn't arrested?

[Broomstick]

With the notion that this is STRICTLY hypothetical and probably has no relation to the incident in the OP:

I could see a situation where a person who is "mentally disabled" in an "altercation" with a man in a car with his girlfriend begins to act in a manner that might be perceived as frightening, such as pounding on the car/window, making threats (perhaps threatening to set the dog on the other two, as an example), and doing so in a manner that leads the other person, the one with the gun, to think is about to be physically assaulted and/or attacked by a dog that may be vicious. If there is a significant size difference between the two that might also be a factor - if you have someone five and half feet tall (a bit on the short side for a man, but plausible) vs. someone seven feet tall (again, on the extreme but plausible) sympathies might lean toward the short guy who in a "fair" fight would be at a disadvantage. In addition, if the black man is well dressed, articulate, and clearly middle class or better it is possible that he might be given more credence than a white man badly dressed with poor physical hygiene who is "acting weird", inarticulate, or otherwise looking disreputable because the US has class prejudice as well as race prejudice. There is also prejudice by some against the disabled that might lead to a situation where the able-bodied/mentally normal wind up being favored.

Again - this is strictly hypothetical and may or may not have any bearing on any particular incident in real life.

[TheFeniX]

Now, here's the fun part. Can any of you come up with a plausible reason, even if it's a stretch of the laws for why the 22 year old black guy wasn't arrested?

There likely wasn't enough evidence or cause to arrest him at the scene. The fact that he called police, waited on the scene, and had a plausible story doesn't hurt his case either. There's a couple of things of note:

1. A gun is not a trump card in every situation. There was an old bombed out "car" (or what was left of it) at a shooting range we used to frequent. Using airsoft pistols, a couple of guys ran "carjacker scenarios." To make a long story short, a driver armed with a gun could not clear his weapon while fighting off an attacker (window assumed to be down, but doors assumed to be locked) and fire without being shot, stabbed multiple times, or punched (baby slaps for purpose of the scenario) numerous times in the head.

2. Mentally disabled != physically disabled. In a situation like this, you don't have time nor should you be expected to make judgements on someone's mental fitness. You might just barely have time to figure out if they're likely to be violent before the shit hits the fan. The deceased may have the mind of a 12 year-old, but he has the body of a 30 year-old. We also don't trust 12 year-olds to make decent judgement. Why did the family let this guy out at night alone? Correct me if I'm wrong about the time, the camera shows nighttime.

3. Being unarmed doesn't mean you can't use deadly force and shooting an unarmed person doesn't immediately mean you weren't acting in self-defense.

4. Both actors had options in this situation. Both chose poorly. Situations like this are why when an altercation happens, you give someone a rude gesture, and walk the fuck away.

[Techno_Union]

3. Being unarmed doesn't mean you can't use deadly force and shooting an unarmed person doesn't immediately mean you weren't acting in self-defense.

Just to briefly note, self-defense generally requires (1) threat of imminent unlawful force, (2) a proportional response, (3) objective/subject reasonableness, and (4) a duty to retreat (in jurisdictions without a stand your ground law, which AZ doesn't have, IIRC, and in situations that do not fall under the Castle Doctrine).

You cannot respond to a non-deadly threat with deadly force. Also, in those jurisdictions without a stand your ground law, you have the duty to retreat from the situation if you can do so in a safe manner. This duty is greater when deadly force is used.

With the facts at hand, which may admittedly be incomplete, the driver would have had the ability to retreat and/or respond with non-deadly force, i.e. drive away or even punching the other guy.

[Gaidin]

I never thought level of force would be so explicitly defined as most stories I hear only consider whether it's reasonable that it could be perceived as such, whether it is or not.

[TheHammer]

I don't see what relevance the man being "mentally disabled" to this incident. At a 12 year old functional level that is still high enough functioning for him to be allowed out by himself and in a brief encounter might well appear perfectly normal. It also doesn't fucking matter that the shooter was black.

Now, the only justifiable scenario I can possibly see is this: As a frequent patron of Taco Bell, their drive throughs tend to be very narrow with a high curb on the side. Once you are in line with a car in front or behind your ass isn't getting out. If that's how this particular Taco Bell was constructed that could be the reason why he did not simply "drive off". In a situation where you are trapped in your car and someone had in fact attacked them with a pipe I could see a justifiable self defense. However, given that no pipe or pipe like object was ever found I find that scenario to be unlikely.

Unless there is some physical damage to the car indicating some sort of violent assault I would expect the shooter to be charged at some point. But then again, this happened in Arizona and given their bat shit insane laws I have no idea...

[Techno_Union]

I never thought level of force would be so explicitly defined as most stories I hear only consider whether it's reasonable that it could be perceived as such, whether it is or not.

That's part of the objective/subjective reasonableness and proportionality. Would a theoretical/reasonable/objective person respond in the same way? Then, would that same theoretical person, put directly in your shoes with all surrounding circumstances, react in the same way (this is where things like battered woman's syndrome comes in).

If you're in a vehicle and someone beats on your hood with a bat or rod, there is very little reasonable chance that you would be killed (based on those actions alone - leaving aside the attacker moving closer and beating through your window and actually hitting you). This is different than the attacker pulling a gun and pointing it at you or your co-occupant (most jurisdictions allow self-defense if you're acting to prevent a felony against someone else). To a reasonable person, this would threaten your life and likely justify the use of deadly force.

But again, there is also a duty to retreat if you can safely do so. I'm finding it hard to understand why the driver could not have simply driven away once the man became belligerent. Then again, he could have been blocked in by cars, walls, etc. More facts are definitely needed.

[TheFeniX]

3. Being unarmed doesn't mean you can't use deadly force and shooting an unarmed person doesn't immediately mean you weren't acting in self-defense.

Just to briefly note, self-defense generally requires (1) threat of imminent unlawful force, (2) a proportional response, (3) objective/subject reasonableness, and (4) a duty to retreat (in jurisdictions without a stand your ground law, which AZ doesn't have, IIRC, and in situations that do not fall under the Castle Doctrine).

Proportional response means different things under different circumstances and there's also the issue of reasonable belief (rush an officer with a butter knife and see what happens). There are many situations in which an "unarmed" attacker can use deadly force. Punching someone in the head while they are buckled into the seat of a car is one of them, at least in Texas. Believing someone has a blunt object in their hand in the same situation definitely qualifies.

You cannot respond to a non-deadly threat with deadly force.

I never said you could.

Also, in those jurisdictions without a stand your ground law, you have the duty to retreat from the situation if you can do so in a safe manner. This duty is greater when deadly force is used.

This case, as in many, suffers from a lack of information. For all we know, the only way for the man to retreat was to run the attacker over (which is deadly force).

You can't really ignore the fact that the man who was shot turned a verbal incident into a physical one. Normal people don't do shit like that. We walk away. When people don't walk away, shit goes south fast. Now this in of itself doesn't justify the force used against him, but it goes a long way to setting up the situation.

[Techno_Union]

Proportional response means different things under different circumstances and there's also the issue of reasonable belief (rush an officer with a butter knife and see what happens).

First, rushing an officer with a butter knife is an inherently different scenario than defending yourself against a civilian (mainly because rushing an officer with a butter knife is not self-defense; it would be assault then battery if contact is made). Also, even Texas does allow you to defend yourself against an police officer that is using excessive force in arresting/searching you provided there is a reasonable belief that the force is immediately necessary to protect yourself.

Second, proportional is meant to be a reasonable standard: punch to punch, knife to knife (or potentially to gun), etc. A man, even a verbally abusive man, hitting your car with a blunt object, like a baseball bat or rod, in no way puts you in immediate danger of death because there is no way that object could kill you unless the attacker is close enough to the window to break through it (as I noted in my first response, this changes if the attacker then moved to the driver's window or passenger window and began hammering away at the occupants).

Interesting note: Texas requires more than verbal provocation to warrant self-defense of any kind. I'm noting TX because you bring it up in your post, not because this situation arose there.

There are many situations in which an "unarmed" attacker can use deadly force. Punching someone in the head while they are buckled into the seat of a car is one of them, at least in Texas. Believing someone has a blunt object in their hand in the same situation definitely qualifies.

Yes and no. Yes it is possible for an unarmed attacker to use deadly force against you and for you to respond in kind. No, the reasonable likelihood that a punch would kill you, even when buckled in a car, is so very low unless the attacker is much larger than you. This prompts the objective/subjective reasonableness factor that I previously mentioned.

Note: There is a different set of factors if an attacker assaults a person with an inherent medical issue that would make such a punch immediately deadly.

Also, I'd be very interested in what case/law you're referring to when you bring up the punching a buckled in person. I'm not doubting you, I just can't recall such a case off the top of my head.

I never said you could.

Right, I just brought that up as a general point.

This case, as in many, suffers from a lack of information. For all we know, the only way for the man to retreat was to run the attacker over (which is deadly force).

Exactly. It will be interesting to see what additional details come out over the next couple of weeks.

You can't really ignore the fact that the man who was shot turned a verbal incident into a physical one. Normal people don't do shit like that. We walk away. When people don't walk away, shit goes south fast. Now this in of itself doesn't justify the force used against him, but it goes a long way to setting up the situation.

Very right that this does set up the situation, but even if the attacker yelled and beat on the man's car - or made fists/punches towards the driver - it doesn't bring this situation up to one that requires deadly force. I'm failing to see the objective reason for shooting a man that is merely shouting and hitting your car (if that indeed happened).

I'm not denying the possibility of self-defense here, I'm just saying that with the given self-defense factors and the given details, it seems very unlikely that deadly force was required.

[Simon_Jester]

Proportional response means different things under different circumstances and there's also the issue of reasonable belief (rush an officer with a butter knife and see what happens).

First, rushing an officer with a butter knife is an inherently different scenario than defending yourself against a civilian (mainly because rushing an officer with a butter knife is not self-defense; it would be assault then battery if contact is made). Also, even Texas does allow you to defend yourself against an police officer that is using excessive force in arresting/searching you provided there is a reasonable belief that the force is immediately necessary to protect yourself.

Second, proportional is meant to be a reasonable standard: punch to punch, knife to knife (or potentially to gun), etc. A man, even a verbally abusive man, hitting your car with a blunt object, like a baseball bat or rod, in no way puts you in immediate danger of death because there is no way that object could kill you unless the attacker is close enough to the window to break through it (as I noted in my first response, this changes if the attacker then moved to the driver's window or passenger window and began hammering away at the occupants).

How many seconds does this take to happen? How fast do you expect people to reassess the situation: "Okay, now he's just putting dents in my car with a baseball bat while I'm inside it, I'm not in lethal danger, even if I can't move the car away, it's cool, I'll just wait for him to go away because there is no way he could hit me before I reacted..."

That does not sound like a reasonable standard for self-defense.

Yes and no. Yes it is possible for an unarmed attacker to use deadly force against you and for you to respond in kind. No, the reasonable likelihood that a punch would kill you, even when buckled in a car, is so very low unless the attacker is much larger than you. This prompts the objective/subjective reasonableness factor that I previously mentioned.

Note: There is a different set of factors if an attacker assaults a person with an inherent medical issue that would make such a punch immediately deadly.

Such as, say, having a neck that is able to be broken? Most people have breakable necks.

When you're physically restrained in an awkward position and cannot quickly move away, a lot of things become a risk of serious injury and/or death. You can, for example, lose an eye from being punched in the face- seriously, you really can. And the law does not (well, should not) require you to accept the loss of an eye without using lethal force to defend yourself.

[Techno_Union]

How many seconds does this take to happen? How fast do you expect people to reassess the situation: "Okay, now he's just putting dents in my car with a baseball bat while I'm inside it, I'm not in lethal danger, even if I can't move the car away, it's cool, I'll just wait for him to go away because there is no way he could hit me before I reacted..."

That does not sound like a reasonable standard for self-defense.

Are you arguing against my characterization of what's reasonable/proportional or that there's a proportional factor of self-defense?

If I'm in a vehicle that is unable to move, and someone is attacking my car with a baseball bat, then yes, that changes the calculus for what I am then allowed to do. Could I use a gun to shoot the person? Maybe I could. Could I run the person over (not necessarily hitting the gas, but bumping him down)? Probably, yes. It's a jury question that goes beyond that facts that we have. I'm saying that if you're in a vehicle that is able to move and a person is hitting your hood (a couple feet away from where you are physically sitting and out of striking distance), then it is not reasonable to take out a gun and kill the person. I would find it reasonable to drive away (going back to the duty to retreat, which would be nullified if the car is unable to move).

These self-defense factors (imminent threat of force, reasonableness, proportionality, duty to retreat) are statutory elements. During a trial a jury will decide what's what; I'm merely providing the law and a personal opinion.

When you're physically restrained in an awkward position and cannot quickly move away, a lot of things become a risk of serious injury and/or death. You can, for example, lose an eye from being punched in the face- seriously, you really can. And the law does not (well, should not) require you to accept the loss of an eye without using lethal force to defend yourself.

And unfortunately the law does not allow you to use lethal force unless lethal force is being used against you. Yes, you may lose and eye because of the punch, but unless that punch is going to kill you, then you cannot use lethal force. This is an element built in to most self-defense laws.

I admit that I've never been punched while buckled into a car, so I cannot speak to the pain or injuries suffered; it may very well cause a broken neck. If you're in reasonable fear of a broken neck (and an objective person would be, too), then you may use lethal force. In the OP story, though, I don't see how the driver or passenger were in imminent danger of lethal force being used against either of them. A person hitting your car with a rod, when you are out of striking distance (again, I've mentioned this analysis changes if the person if closer to you/your window), then you cannot use lethal force to defend yourself. That is not to say you cannot use force, but it is limited to non-deadly/lethal force.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't know- suffice to say that I can imagine a lot of situations where I would think that someone who is being punched would objectively fear for his life. Like being thrown down to the ground and kicked or beaten, or having your head bashed against an unyielding surface, or being pushed and shoved around in an environment where you might get killed by falling into traffic or machinery.

The line between "lethal" and "nonlethal" force can shift quickly if someone fighting unarmed decides to press the attack under the wrong conditions.

The one rule I'd think it's safe to bet on is that a person normally can't really make an unarmed attack that puts someone in fear of their life by accident. You have to be deliberately hitting someone when they're down, or when they're unable to defend themselves, or hitting them extremely hard or with exceptional skill: something you know you're doing, or ought to know you're doing, and that the unarmed assailant could choose not to do if they were being at all objective about matters themselves.

At least, I would think so.

[TheFeniX]

Second, proportional is meant to be a reasonable standard: punch to punch, knife to knife (or potentially to gun), etc. A man, even a verbally abusive man, hitting your car with a blunt object, like a baseball bat or rod, in no way puts you in immediate danger of death because there is no way that object could kill you unless the attacker is close enough to the window to break through it (as I noted in my first response, this changes if the attacker then moved to the driver's window or passenger window and began hammering away at the occupants).

Force to Force isn't part of self-defense. If a person is capable of using deadly force or is currently doing so ilegally, you can respond in kind no matter what weapon you have at your disposal. And god help you if your car has airbags and that crazy starts wailing on your bumper.

Interesting note: Texas requires more than verbal provocation to warrant self-defense of any kind. I'm noting TX because you bring it up in your post, not because this situation arose there.

How is that interesting? Verbal provocation is never grounds for physical attack. However, in certain situations it can force you to retreat before using deadly force if it does get physical.

Yes and no. Yes it is possible for an unarmed attacker to use deadly force against you and for you to respond in kind. No, the reasonable likelihood that a punch would kill you, even when buckled in a car, is so very low unless the attacker is much larger than you. This prompts the objective/subjective reasonableness factor that I previously mentioned.

I'm not talking about "a punch," I'm talking about "punching," something very easily done quickly even by someone who isn't trained. Anyways, you realize you don't have to be big to knock someone out with one punch? You don't even have to be that skilled. Part of boxing is keeping your chin tucked and protecting the sides of your face/chin from hooks. What do you think is left open when you're being attacked from the driver's side of your car? It's your profile and chin. This isn't even accounting for the whiplash that can occur. And a punch can easily turn into punches, eye gouges, or the guy grabbing hold of you and slamming your head into whatever is available. You're basically as vulnerable as if you were on the ground: the attacker has leverage and you have none. Your only advantage is that you can drive away if you hit the gas, unless you've put it in park and are now using your hands to defend yourself from blows. As for when punches can be deadly force, you can easily find more.

[Techno_Union]

Force to Force isn't part of self-defense. If a person is capable of using deadly force or is currently doing so ilegally, you can respond in kind no matter what weapon you have at your disposal. And god help you if your car has airbags and that crazy starts wailing on your bumper.

Yes, proportionality is a part of self-defense: non-lethal force with non-lethal force, lethal force with lethal force; it does not cross to lethal force to non-lethal force (this is built into self-defense statutes). The "punch to punch" and whatnot were just examples. I brought up proportionality with respect to the attacker wielding a blunt object and hammering away at your hood. This is non-lethal force, which cannot be reacted to with lethal force. I've already said that lethal force can be met with lethal self-defense if the situation calls for it.

Looking up AZ's self-defense law (which I should've done sooner), reveals that (1) a person may use lethal force to defend against lethal force and (2) a person does not have the duty to retreat provided he is acting lawfully wherever he is. §13-403-5, 408.

I'm not talking about "a punch," I'm talking about "punching," something very easily done quickly even by someone who isn't trained. Anyways, you realize you don't have to be big to knock someone out with one punch? You don't even have to be that skilled. Part of boxing is keeping your chin tucked and protecting the sides of your face/chin from hooks. What do you think is left open when you're being attacked from the driver's side of your car? It's your profile and chin. This isn't even accounting for the whiplash that can occur. And a punch can easily turn into punches, eye gouges, or the guy grabbing hold of you and slamming your head into whatever is available. You're basically as vulnerable as if you were on the ground: the attacker has leverage and you have none. Your only advantage is that you can drive away if you hit the gas, unless you've put it in park and are now using your hands to defend yourself from blows.

Completely agree. I mentioned in my response to Simon_Jester that I cannot speak to theoretical injuries sustained while being punched in a car; it's completely dependent on circumstance. Nor have I said that punching cannot be lethal force. What I have said, is given the little information we have about the OP incident, it does not appear that lethal force was used here by the deceased. The driver claims a pipe or bat was swung in his direction, but no weapon was found. There isn't even confirmation about how close to the driver's window the deceased was. An officer in the video mentions that the deceased may have swung his fists twice at the window, and may have even struck the window itself (implying that it was rolled up). Did the driver really think that the deceased's fists were going to break through the window and cause deadly injuries?

[TheFeniX]

Yes, proportionality is a part of self-defense: non-lethal force with non-lethal force, lethal force with lethal force; it does not cross to lethal force to non-lethal force (this is built into self-defense statutes). The "punch to punch" and whatnot were just examples. I brought up proportionality with respect to the attacker wielding a blunt object and hammering away at your hood.

This is a more accurate assessment of self-defense escalation.

Looking up AZ's self-defense law (which I should've done sooner), reveals that (1) a person may use lethal force to defend against lethal force and (2) a person does not have the duty to retreat provided he is acting lawfully wherever he is. §13-403-5, 408.

Yes, with the exception of:

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:
If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:
(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and
(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

This is a self-defense gray area. If a verbal argument between two actors turns physical, it's much more difficult, legally, to respond with deadly force, even if the other initiates it first (grabs a knife, whatever). This is why it's just generally not a good idea to even bother with verbal arguments in public. Say whatever, then get the fuck out of there, and make your intent known loudly.

What I have said, is given the little information we have about the OP incident, it does not appear that lethal force was used here by the deceased.

I never really argued it was. Mainly I'm arguing against the assertion that "unarmed" means a person doesn't have access to deadly force. But, unless there's a recording they haven't informed the media about, we'll likely never know exactly what happened.

The driver claims a pipe or bat was swung in his direction, but no weapon was found.

Another point: "Reasonable belief." Genuinly believing someone has a weapon, even if they have none, is actionable with regard to self-defense.

There isn't even confirmation about how close to the driver's window the deceased was. An officer in the video mentions that the deceased may have swung his fists twice at the window, and may have even struck the window itself (implying that it was rolled up). Did the driver really think that the deceased's fists were going to break through the window and cause deadly injuries?

People fucked up on drugs do stupid shit. The shooter may have thought this is what he was dealing with and overreacted due to fear. We don't know. But since they were at a drive-through and there was a verbal confrontation, I assumed the window was open, but "He swung his fist towards the driver window" is extremely vague.

[SVPD]

Techno_Union, what you are missing is that if you reasonably believe you are being threatened with deadly force, and it later turns out that the person actually was doing something else, it can still be acceptable to use deadly force in self-defense against them. Not only that, but the facts must be viewed in light of the circumstances the person defending themself had to make them under; i.e. how easy was it to see, how much time did they have, etc, not based on what seems reasonable after the fact when there is plenty of time to think.

That was the relevance of the "rush a cop with a butter knife" scenario, which you totally misunderstood. In that scenario, it was the officer defending himself, and as far as the officer can tell, you're rushing him with a knife of some sort and he'd therefore be justified in shooting you. Pointing out later on that "oh it was really just a butter knife" doesn't mean anything because if a person is charging at you, it is completely reasonable to think the knife in their hand is a sharp, dangerous one.

This incident happened at night, and it may well be that the black man perceived that the other mans dog leash was a weapon. That's entirely possible in a fast-moving stressful situation at night.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I have to agree with SVPD here, as much as it pains me. The situation is tragic and stupid, but the guy did behave as a legally reasonable person for the sake of a self defense statute. Unless one sees the dog, or the dog or barking, it is rather easy to mistake certain types of leash handle for something else, and in a high stress situation, people do make mistakes. There is also no ability to determine if the person attacking you is mentally disabled or high on something without specialized training (and even then, not always).

When the Fight or Flight response gets switched to On and flight is not possible (Buckled into a car, it is easy to say that one should simply drive away, but said Fight or Flight response does not lend itself to complex actions like having the presence of mind to drive unless someone has specialized training in driving while under significant duress, and trying to do so would not be safe), the Fight response is not exactly precise when it comes to analyzing a threat and delivering a perfectly proportionate response. What matters is what happened before the incident and what the person's actions, intent, and other forms of state of mind were immediately before the Response got triggered.

[Techno_Union]

I never really argued it was. Mainly I'm arguing against the assertion that "unarmed" means a person doesn't have access to deadly force.

Understood, but I never made that assertion.

People fucked up on drugs do stupid shit. The shooter may have thought this is what he was dealing with and overreacted due to fear. We don't know. But since they were at a drive-through and there was a verbal confrontation, I assumed the window was open, but "He swung his fist towards the driver window" is extremely vague.

Very vague indeed. The officer did say, though, that he may have "struck" the window, implying, if correct, that the driver had rolled up the window at some point.

Techno_Union, what you are missing is that if you reasonably believe you are being threatened with deadly force, and it later turns out that the person actually was doing something else, it can still be acceptable to use deadly force in self-defense against them. Not only that, but the facts must be viewed in light of the circumstances the person defending themself had to make them under; i.e. how easy was it to see, how much time did they have, etc, not based on what seems reasonable after the fact when there is plenty of time to think.

Nope, didn't miss that at all. Already made that point in my first response to TheFeniX and then to Gaidin when speaking to the objective and subjective reasonableness elements in self-defense. The whole point is what would a reasonable person do in your shoes. Would a reasonable person interpret a leash to be a weapon? Would a reasonable person respond with firing a fun? Would a reasonable person drive away? These, as said, are jury questions that will be examined with all the facts available - many of which we do not currently have.

That was the relevance of the "rush a cop with a butter knife" scenario, which you totally misunderstood. In that scenario, it was the officer defending himself, and as far as the officer can tell, you're rushing him with a knife of some sort and he'd therefore be justified in shooting you. Pointing out later on that "oh it was really just a butter knife" doesn't mean anything because if a person is charging at you, it is completely reasonable to think the knife in their hand is a sharp, dangerous one.

I did misunderstand the scenario. I was taking it to mean the man with the knife was defending himself from the police officer. Absolutely the calculus is different if you, as a police officer or a regular civilian, are being rushed with a knife of any kind.

With the situation in the OP, the jury will have to decide if a reasonable/theoretical third person put into the driver's shoes would believe that a dog leash could appear to be a baseball bat or rod. That's what I've been getting at: was it reasonable to believe so and react with a gunshot. I personally do not believe it was reasonable to respond with a gunshot. Could the leash have looked like a weapon? Absolutely. Could the driver have thought such a weapon could cause damage to his car and maybe eventually his person? Sure. Were there alternatives available to shooting the deceased? So far, I think yes. Driving away/keeping the window rolled up. But this may very well change when new facts are released.