Washington man allegedly kills teen because he mistook an airsoft gun for a real firearm

Reading the story, he would need some pretty good lawyers in TX to get off with this shooting, and in a blue state, he is likely all but convicted. Should have called 911 and if he was truly worried about people inside the store, take yourself inside and watch what happens. Majority of the time people are doing the right thing and if they are not, are they directly risking you? In this case, he was in his car and his child was in a different building.

SGM Erik Marquez - I have most likely been in more situations that could have cost my well being in trying to aid others than you ever will be. The last was 2020 when DASO had an AR15 pointed at them point blank and my EMT (vet as well) and I went in danger close because we knew if an SO took a round to the chest I would have little time to save them. If my lack of desire to play LE disgusts you and you want to call me names, I am fine with that. I am very pro-firearm, member of USCCA, and there is a right time to shoot and many other times not to. Here is an excerpt from the CNN story:
"The 51-year-old then tackled B.A. and pinned him to the ground, the documents state. H.R. had his hands in the air and was backing away, and Myers then shot at him at least seven times, killing the teen, according to the case summary."

Dude is going to jail.

MAJ Byron Oyler -I based my earlier response to your own words "Majority of the time people are doing the right thing and if they are not, are they directly risking you?"
That speaks not to "playing LEO"
It gives the readers the impression if it does not effect you presonally, you would not help.
You say thats not accuret? Ok, perhaps, but at the time I had only your original words to react to.

SGM Erik Marquez - I hate to tell you but "are they directly risking you" does make a difference. There is a world of difference between self-defense versus defense-of-others.

In self-defense, the legal standard generally rests on what a "reasonable person" would have believed in the situation as you knew it at the time. In defense-of-others, the legal standard shifts, your actions not only need to be "reasonable" but in most jurisdictions your perception of the situation needs to be correct.

In self-defense you have a chance of arguing that you acted based on a reasonable fear of a danger, in defense-of-others that danger generally has to be real. In the Myers case there was no real danger at any point in the events. There was no danger at all when Myers fired (other than the danger Myers himself created).

Consider this situation: You are walking down the street. You hear a disturbance, you turn and see two people fighting. One of the people pulls out a gun. Do you intervene?

Gun laws have yet to prevent idiots like Myer from having firearms or even his own security business.

Considering that this happened in a deep blue city that has forced the rest of the state to follow it into ridiculous restrictions, it hardly fits your nonsense comment about lax laws.