Either way, perp disengaged. Giving chase necessarily negates perp as an immediate and imminent threat. And creating a new self defense situation because one followed and continued to engage the perp isn't really self defense.Assuming the perp had genuinely abandoned the act and wasn't simply going to his car, e.g. for a tire iron.
In Cali, for sure. Apparently Indiana doesn't mind if someone gives chase to continue to subdue the threat.He'll be charged with Murder 1 by Monday afternoon.
Of course, this runs counter to Indiana law, which dictates that the instant it registers in your mind that your attacker has disengaged and communicated his intention to cease any offensive measures, you lose any justification for using lethal force at that point, and rightfully so.
They broke in and attacked him, so technically it's self defense in the house.
Wher he failed was following them out into the alley. Then it becomes murder.
I was doing some reading into the California codes and found this.
[A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his
or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably
necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily
injury/<insert forcible and atrocious crime>
) has passed.
This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.]
http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_juryins.pdf#page=295