They should all read like that.
Yes they should, assuming what was reported was accurate and that we know the bad person in the story was definitely the male.
Some are y'all are just amazingly gullible when it comes to anything pertaining to the possible good use of a firearm.
While the article is in the lingo of "the police say..." obviously they were not there to see the man kick in the door. They did not see the woman grab a gun. They did not see her shoot him. And they did not see him run away and die. They sure as hell did not interview the dead guy.
Where did they get the story? Well, it says the police are investigating. There is only one source in the story, the woman. So basically all of y'all have assumed that the woman reported the events in the manner they occurred, that the man was the bad guy, etc.
This sort of reminds me of Jesse Jackson's antics to racing across country to the aid of a fellow African American obviously done wrong by the man, falsely jailed, etc., until Jackson actually gets the facts straight. He just assumes the African American has been done wrong until the full story emerges and at that time he either defends the character of the wrongly accused, or if the wrongly accused is actually justly accused, then Jackson clandestinely disappears and never speaks of the matter again.
Regardless of what actually happened, there is one survivor telling a story. What other story is she going to tell if not this one? There may be huge motivation for her NOT to be truthful about said circumstances.