Posted by jhenry: I believe she would have been legally justified in brandishing the firearm in Missouri as I read RsMO 571.030 and 563.031
Unfortunately or fortunately, your reading of the statutes would not be determinative, and is incorrect.
Unless, of course, she could present some evidence that the offender in this case actually presented a threat of physical force or violence (i.e., committed a forcible felony).
Same thing in Washington, which is more relevant. A significant difference is that in the State of Washington, a citizen need not retreat.
The statute, 563.031 states "reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force
by such other person". There is no requirement for the unlawful force to be at a felony level level as you assert. He approached her in an aggressive manner while she had the responsibility of providing protection for her disabled minor son. He was also in the act of committing a crime which coupled with his aggressive demeanor could easily and reasonably cause the mother to be in fear of an imminent assault. The only requirement for the aggressor to be in the act of a "forcible felony" is if deadly force was used. It was not. She did nothing which a reasonable person would understand could cause the loss of life or limb. Brandishing, even when it is contrary to the law, is not the use of deadly force.