Yes. But he still wasnt hit repeatedly around the head with it!
Does this change the fact that he was being attacked with it?
If I use a skateboard to attack someone who is armed with a rifle, I expect them to shoot me with their rifle, and I want the law to side with the armed person I am attacking.
I want people to be allowed carry a weapon to defend themselves, and I don't want them to have to wait until their weapon is taken from them before the law allows them to use it.
People should be allowed to use their weapon to stop an attacker from taking their weapon from them.
People should be allowed to use their weapon to stop someone from incapacitating them because, once an attacker incapacitates you, they can now use your weapon to kill you.
I think the root of the disagreement is that some people don't think citizens should be allowed the means to defend themselves with deadly force. If you start from the position that the government should have a monopoly on deadly force, there is no proper way for any citizen to use their own firearm.
I think this is why some posters in this thread don't think he was in *enough* danger to kill his attackers. He basically needed to put himself in a position where he could no longer defend himself, (by getting dazed, knocked out, and/or having his attackers gain control of his weapon)....*then* he would have been justified in using the firearm he no longer had or could no longer use to defend himself.