Totally wrong. The right to self-defense is not limited to situations where a judge would render the same verdict. I know in TX where they have strong Castle Law's set up, if a person breaks into your house at night and is leaving your home with your possessions (say, in an alleyway), you can shoot and kill them and be protected from civil and criminal charges. Just to protect your property.No judge in the country would have sentenced this woman to death. Why should this man be allowed to? We have a legal system for a reason...
Would a judge/jury/prosecutor render a death sentence to someone breaking into a home and stealing property? No way! Can a homeowner legally shoot them to prevent them from stealing his/her property (in TX)? You bet!
Under your "rules" a person can only use deadly force if the perpetrator has committed a crime that a judge/jury/prosecutor would give a death sentence for. Stop and think about the logical absurdity that that is... Depending on the state, the death penalty is usually reserved for murder. You're saying that I can only use deadly force to protect myself if I've already been murdered?!?!
Self defense laws are set up to prevent honest citizens from becoming victims of crime. Applying the "you can only do what a judge(jury) would do to a criminal" in order to protect yourself is asinine. If someone pulls a knife on me and threatens me, that's aggravated assault. A judge/jury/prosecutor wouldn't seek the death penalty for that crime. According to you, I should not be allowed to use deadly force because at that point, "No judge in the country would have sentenced this [person] to death".
I'm not defending this guy's actions. If the details of the case end up being that he shot her when she was on the ground defenseless, then he should be charged with something (I'd be okay with manslaughter depending on the details). But your way of thinking is way off.