Sounds like in the end they got it right. To me at least.
Oh, that’s an article to copy and save. Maybe discuss with your Attorney (or prospective ~ ) to see how they would see defending it. I’ve personally thought, on the spectrum of necessary force to overcome or prevent an imminent illegal use of force to cause death or great bodily harm, what is generally known as “brandishing” can have in specific instances a functional deterrent quality. To see a State’s Court of Appeals establish precedent should be helpful going forward. The case description shows exactly those qualities where one might use such a level of force. (And likely, if she’d had loaded the weapon and the counterclaimant had continued the attack with her car, cause for deadly force.)
Comments appreciated. Anyone offer devil’s advocate? I wonder if this ruling will be appealed to the State’s Supreme Court.