[pax]

Going by the book, I assume it would be like any other self defense shooting, you'd need to have reason to believe that your life was in danger?

Yes, but. Domestic violence cases are messy.

To claim self-defense, you cannot be a willing participant in the altercation. But "Why didn't she just leave?" is among the first question people ask (see here) about abusive marital relationships. If she could have left, but didn't, wasn't she a willing participant?

Or try this one on for size: with an ongoing pattern of abuse in the relationship, then why did she think that this time he would really kill her? He never did before, did he? How could she believe her life was really in danger this time? The more horrible the abuse pattern, the more difficult this objection becomes.

These objections don't come into play when it's a child who kills a parent, but they definitely have an effect on intimate partner violence outcomes.

In addition to these very predictable and legally-problematic responses from others, battered women who kill are typically represented by lawyers who paint them as having a diminished capacity for making rational decisions. But a successful plea of self defense requires a rational decision that homicide is the only way to save your own life. A combination defense of "I was nuts at the time, plus I made an utterly necessary and sane choice" just isn't likely to fly.

But if there was proof that any significant abuse was happening, I expect that it'd be pretty rare for any jury to convict even if the DA chose to prosecute.

No. The outcomes for battered women who kill in self-defense are generally very, very poor. A woman who kills her abusive mate will, statistically speaking, spend much more time in prison than will a man who kills his wife by abuse.

pax