I haven't read anything about this case except what I've read here, but I find her version of the events of that day believable. What I'm not sure of in my mind, however, is whether that should qualify as self-defense or not.
It sounds to me like once they started arguing and Doug seemed to be escalating possibly to real violence, she ran for her gun, with the expectation that once she had the gun, he would naturally back off. She thought the gun in her hand would bring her safety.
But it didn't. He likely didn't see the gun as a real threat to him, thinking she would never really shoot him. So instead of backing off from her, he attempted to close the distance and still looked to her like he could really hurt her, possibly even punched her if we can believe her words (that part I think she may have added in), so there she was, gun in hand, aimed at him, but it didn't have the effect she'd been counting on, so she just shot. Not much else she could do at that point? I think she may have thought that. I personally am totally pacifist and would've chosen to put the gun down, before someone really gets hurt, even if that meant leaving me at his mercy and in probable true danger. But she's obviously different from me; she's obviously a gun owner, and one who knows how to use them, so imo, that wasn't an option for her at that point.
So she shot him. He didn't go down, according to her, so she shot more times, which I believe is how trained professionals (cops) are also told to shoot at a dangerous, threatening individual. So I don't even fault her for shooting 3 times.
But as I said, what I'm not sure of is if I'd call that self defense. I personally don't feel like her life was in danger, and I really don't think she should have either. But it doesn't matter what I'd call it, it matters if the law calls it self defense, and I don't know. I don't think the law says you have to actually believe you may be killed; I think the law says you can shoot (and kill) someone in self defense if you believe they are trying to harm you. At that moment, of course.
I don't know, but if she knew that this man had punched a pet dog and knocked him out, that alone imo may have been enough to see him as life-threatening when he got violent. I can for sure see that as valid grounds for not wanting him to be near her newborn baby. That's why I can accept her acting the way she did about the baby. I can see why she'd go to great lengths to keep the baby away from him, including lying and making up false allegations about him, since the truth wasn't enough for the courts to prohibit him contact. I'm not saying it was right, but I can see why she would have resorted to that.
