Right, the order from the 911 operator might be relevant in a trial but the fact that “something went down” after the order isn’t proof in itself of a crime.
Maybe there was a legitimate reason the guy had to get out of his car, maybe the guy got out of his car for a stupid reason, but still end up getting attacked and used his gun in self defense. That would make the shooter unwise, but it isn’t a crime for him to say, try to stop the kid from committing a crime.
It would be a crime if he say, saw the kid breaking into a car and opened fire (you generally can’t shoot someone to stop them from breaking into an unoccupied car.) But if he saw the guy breaking into a car, tried to go over to yell at him to stop, and the guy came at him and attacked him, then he shot the kid, that would be self defense.
There are a lot of scenarios I can see where this neighborhood watch guy would be acting in a manner that would fit the definition of self defense under many American jurisdictions. There are also many scenarios I can see where it is everything from cold blooded murder to some other lesser crime.
Is there any information about what the neighborhood watch guy’s side of the story is? If we don’t know, then there is really no way to say. I’m guessing police have already discussed the matter with prosecutors and the prosecutors are probably reviewing it. That can take some time.
In Baltimore a few years back a Johns Hopkins student had his apartment robbed. Later in that day him and his roommates heard some suspicious noises and started looking around their property, one of the students with a legitimate (not show or replica) sword. When the student entered his garage he found the intruder, who then lunged at him, the student slashed at him and caught him in the wrist and chest. He severed his hand completely and caused a deep chest wound, the burglar died (I believe from the blood loss from losing the hand.) It took weeks and weeks for the prosecutors to decide if they were going to charge the student, with family of the burglar (who was black, student was white) saying the student should not get away with killing their brother/son/etc. Eventually though, the Baltimore prosecutors said that it was not a crime and he would not be charged.
Could be the prosecution is going over this guy’s story to decide if:
a) if he committed a crime if his story is true
b) if his story is true / sounds credible / sounds like bullshit
c) if, in their opinion the story is bullshit and/or it’s true but reflects a crime, do they have sufficient evidence and ability to convict him of anything
Even if they have a belief the guy committed a crime, if there is no physical evidence, and he didn’t say anything damning in interviews with police, it may essentially be impossible to convict because they have no way to disprove his assertion of self defense.