You often can't tell what really happened from the news report.
Agreed.
The guy with the gun apparently felt he was in the right, or had a need to report himself and confess, since he called the cops.
Whether he felt like he was right or wrong makes no difference if you confess to a crime. It's your responsibility to understand the laws. You're assumed innocent until proven stupid.
If the locksmith were an off duty officer the only question would be "what charges will the driver who had the gun pulled on him face for making the off duty officer so fearful he pulled a gun".
Perhaps, but now you're muddying the waters by conflating different issues. That the police officer's word is prima facie evidence in court isn't the issue in this particular situation, though I know what you're driving at and agree. That's why police dash cams and video cameras are a good idea for the public at large, and it's no wonder that police departments are fighting video cameras and often "lose video evidence" due to "technical glitches", I digress.
So I guess maybe the moral of the story here is, don't get into road rage disputes? Because you never know if it's an off duty police officer. I do take issue however with your narrative that if I were to get into a road rage dispute and it happens to be with an off duty officer, that if I were to approach his vehicle with no weapon in hand (but in an aggressive manner) that I should expect that he draw on me? Is this legally permissible and SOP for off duty police officers? Or is it basically their word against your's and see you in 3-5?
According to the report, the locksmith parked his van and did not approach the other driver - it was the other way around. What one person describes as "approaching to get the plate number" could be taken by the other person as an aggressive action by a nutty driver.
Where's the lethal threat though? Did the approaching party approach in a belligerent or confrontational manner, with a knife, club, gun, or other weapon drawn and at the ready?
The arrest was made because absent overwhelming evidence to the contrary, policy is generally to arrest any civilian who uses a gun against another person.
Maybe, but if the use of lethal force was justified you technically wouldn't (shouldn't anyways) get convicted of any crimes, and all charges would have to be dropped (in an ideal world).
It's easy to rush to judgement, especially when the only information available is a police report and media report that does not even include an interview with the accused party. This person is entitled to the same protections, and presumption of innocence, any of us would expect if we were accused of using excessive force.
Agreed. However I would say that it's become pretty clear (to me at least) that in MA no use of a gun is ever permissible by a civilian in any situation, even if you have a carry license, and sometimes probably even in clear cut and legally valid cases of self defense. So the system is already weighted against the law abiding gun owner. Why tempt the odds in a road rage dispute, esp. when you're on the job and in a company van.
There's a preponderance of poor decision making here on the accused's part.