Moved to Gen Discussion.  Thanks for responding Vampire, please look over there.

Not guilty.... your guy backed up (gave ground) repeatedly from your description.  

How did he only hit 1 of 3 rounds laying at the feet of his assailant?  (answer this after case is settled )

The prohibited possessor is troubling as is the fact that he came out w/ the rifle in the first place, but since he backed away 'repeatedly'....  I'd say he did what he had to do.

Is the DA pushing this because the client is  a 'prohibited possesor' or another reason?

Not Guilty.  You're in AZ, right?  Any king of the castle statutes down there? So, you're client defended himself with a prohibited (for him) rimfire autoloader?  If he had used a knife, most likely the same outcome.  Rational people think a man who comes in your yard/home doped up may just get what he deserves.  Looks to me like this was the case.  Just another homeowner defending himself.


toast

Not Guilty

Stand your ground.  No plea bargaining.

No Attorney, but some pPolice background. Defendants lack of a phone will help in the "Why didn't he notify Police" prior to confronting "victim", but frankly, with his prohibited possession of the firearm, he needs to get his "stuff" in order, he's going away for a while. Confronting the victim in the yard (or off his property as you stated the victim "backed" him into his backyard), does not bode well either. He should have remained in the house and only fired if the assailant had entered his home. Again, depending on the State, most say deadly force is justified in the defense of ones life or the life of another. I just don't see how he's going to beat the rap.  Just my considered $.02  ed