So--seven males attack one sixty year old woman, and two are shot. It would be hard to argue against the existence of a clear disparity of force. The only issue would seem to be whether, or the extent to which, they started to flee before she fired. We do not know.
In the Lansing case, the attacker had a Taser. It apparently did not work, but that might have been a temporary problem.
Publicity is way up. Von Susteren had a victim on last night. Her view was that we need to "reach out" to the people who do these things. No comment.
On the Wilkow Majority today, the host was espousing the view that if a few of the perps end up shot, the frequency will fall off.
The Lansing case occurred in February. Why it's all over the web now is unclear to me.
It seems that the perps are videotaping their "work" these days. Something to keep an eye open for. Also might serve as clear evidence of intent--just thinking, here.
Where I live, we have a duty to retreat, and we do not have anything along the lines of a provision for defensive display. That is not to say that such a display might not be the prudent thing to do. The issue of justification would be determined later by others.
That brings up one other thought: a basis for a reasonable belief is also something to be judged after the fact, based on what the actor knew at the time. One does not want to shoot an unarmed teen, or anyone else for that matter, but when one takes into account the combination of the increasing ferocity and increasing prevalence of these incidents in some areas and the apparent targeting of seemingly helpless victims, one wonders whether those who would sit in judgment just might see things in a different light from some other 'run of the mill' defensive encounters involving unarmed attackers.
At least in some jurisdictions.....