This was reported in the Kansas City Star, but apparently the Star's crime scene reporter got his facts mixed up, as the Star reported that the aggressor had died.
It appears from the original article that the aggressor was the killer. (Edit: DNS found an article that indicates the aggressor was the one who died.)
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/Hou...g-Death-030612
In any case, a minor fender-bender resulted in a physical scuffle that turned deadly; a husband and father was killed in front of his wife and kids. (Edit: Based on the article DNS found, the husband and father was put in a position where he killed somebody in front of his wife and kids, though it appears his intent was to stop and detain his attacker.)
The article doesn't say why the decedant opted to get out of his vehicle and fight the road rager. Obviously, it was not a good decision. (Edit: The aggressor apparently was the decedant; not sure why the victim got out of his vehicle. Hopefully his intent was to de-escalate, not to engage in mutual combat.)
Lessons learned:
1) As we already knew, one does not need a firearm in order to kill another human; people kill people.
2) While there are instances where getting out of a vehicle is a good idea (such as when the aggressor has a firearm or a contact weapon capable of penetrating the vehicle, and one can't just drive off), it may be best to stay in a locked vehicle when dealing with an unarmed road rager.
3) Call 911 early, at the first indication that the other guy might be a road rager.
(Edit: 4) Read multiple articles, when articles conflict, to avoid false assumptions...)
Since the defender died, it's not clear whether he would have been accused of accepting mutual combat, and losing his right to self-defense by engaging, if he had lived and the attacker had died. That would be something to consider, too.
(Edit: Since the defender apparently lived, it will be interesting to see what the police and DA determine.)