Posted by jhenry: The statute, 563.031 states "reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person".
Yes, one may lawfully employ physical force
to defend against the useof unlawful force by another person.
But she did not do that. She didn't touch him. She threatened deadly force
Do we know any case law on the distinction? Do we have a qualified legal opinion?
But that would be of academic interest only. There was no report of any threat of the imminent use of unlawful force. None.
And as long as we are discussing Missouri, since when was not inside her residence or automobile on property that she owned or leased, there's also the little matter of a duty to retreat, unless she could show that retreat had not been safely possible. Long-standing common law here.
Not that Missouri law matters here.