When someone is threatening you with a gun at close quarters, you charge them. When she initially had the gun pointed at the ground, he didn't even make an attempt to take it from her.
How do you account for her casual stroll to her trunk? For staying right on top of him with her gun? For casually finishing up her business? For leaving the scene? You would have done NONE of those things. For the pocket knife being found "in his clothing"?
Having an argument with someone doesn't allow that someone to shoot you. This stinks.
Your message is an example - so common and akin to how many reviewed the GZ matter - of looking back and concluding her behavior was not perfectly correct - therefore somehow is at fault.
Here's a few comments in response. While it was foolish to point the gun at the ground, that may have been legally correct. Once you point a gun AT someone, you need the exact same justification as if you legally had a right to shoot at that point. If not, it is felony assault with a deadly weapon. So if she got it out to make it certain she's wants him to back off because he was becoming fearful to her, that may have been the only thing she could legally do at that point.
I don't agree with the view that if someone has a gun then you get to slug the person. I do not agree that someone having a gun means the other person is threatened by it justifying violently assaulting the person with the gun. To the contrary, I think if a person has a gun and tells the person to back off the person should back off, not attack.
He didn't try to take the gun? No, he slugged her with a haymaker. YOU say he could because she threatened him with a gun. Did she? If someone is intimidating you, harassing you and in a way making you fearful, if you say "back off, I have a gun" and show that you have one, does that person than get to physically assault you? That seems what you are claiming.
As for leaving? That isn't a crime. With other people around that may have been exactly the correct thing for her to do. Maybe a friend or relative there would shoot her in retaliation.
Without sound, I suspect the conversation was him increasingly harassing her and ignoring her telling him to leave her alone as he kept coming back. At some point she pulled out a gun and in some fashion told him words to the meaning of "back off asshole or I'll blow you away." He should have just stepped back, but instead he slugged her in a way to try to knock her down and she then fired. Apparently he also had a knife out at that point.
What alternative action do you think she should have taken? Gotten in her car? That's a trap. A person is virtually defenseless in a car. Run away? Then he, anyone could just steal her car or anything in it. Run somewhere else, leave her car and everything exposed to theft (plus away from her defensive firearm) and wait an hour for police to show up?
In my own view, if a woman tells a man who is a stranger "stay away from me" that is what he does. If he won't, or keeps coming back, in my opinion it is entirely legitimate for her to pull a firearm and repeat the command. Whether or not the man has a weapon. If he approaches again I think she may and should shoot - and certainly if he attacks her.
Again, a person having a firearm or holding a firearm does not justify then assaulting the person. I have no idea where people get that idea. I don't think her less than perfect tactical behavior changes that, nor do we know the words being said along the sequence.