Man Kills Woman In Self Defense: No Charges Filed

I can see public pressure being brought to bear that changes this initial outcome.

It's some margin of win that the D.A. did not immediately say a man should not have shot a drunken gun-wielding woman in self-defense. Guns are deadly weapons, so one has every right to reply with deadly force, even if it be with a superior weapon. However some people do not believe this is the case when the defender is male and the offender is female, as we know. Alas these people are the majority (vast majority) of the public as well as of the media personalities.

The right of the man to kill his attacker is not in dispute. Nonetheless his use of nine shots was excessive. Assuming he fired center-mass, no more than two bullets should have been sufficient to kill or otherwise incapacitate an attacker of either sex, even with a low-caliber firearm. In that regard if the D.A. had said he over-applied deadly force, that would have been a fair criticism, just as if a police officer of either sex had done the same. A defense to this criticism though is the heat of the moment. Were I faced with a situation like this I may well find I had fired nine bullets too but don't even recall doing it. When adrenaline gets pumping, events and analytical judgments alike can be hard to stay on top of.

But as I said, the principle is not in question. What is in question is whether or not the D.A. will reverse himself in this case. This is one to watch.