Those individuals who criticize a crime victim’s self defense actions often argue that the crime victim didn’t need to defend themselves with deadly force.  As part of their argument, those individuals will generally suggest that the attacking criminal wasn’t (yet) a deadly threat, and that the shooting of the criminal by the victim was therefore improper.  Firstly, I would note that not every state requires that there be a threat to one’s life before deadly force may be used. However, even assuming that a “deadly threat” really is the threshold at which it becomes proper to shoot the criminal in self defense, the argument is still deeply flawed.

The only folks that make arguments like those described in the article are the folks that have never been in the situation or have ulterior motives ...