If this were California, SHE would be in jail.
Actualy California has long had better self defense laws while in a residence or place of business than many other states.
Long before various states started to adopt "castle doctrine" there was no duty to retreat in the home in CA.
While most of the East Coast and Midwest required a person flee thier home if possible (or the attacker in general if possible), they had no such requirement in CA.
You never had to run from someone breaking into your home in CA.
In fact while over half of the states in the US had a "duty to retreat" from an attacker it was perfectly legal for a victim in CA to fire on said attacker without retreating.
A home intruder that breaks in has also long been assumed in CA to be an immediate deadly threat.
So CA has some very stupid gun laws (and other weapon laws), but don't assume other things. It has had better self defense laws on the books for generations than most of the nation (over half of the states had a 'duty to retreat' until recently.)
So while "castle doctrine" is a term thrown around in states today as radical and new, the practice has existed in CA law for decades.
Arguably most states are just catching up to what CA always had.
Further carrying a loaded firearm at one's residence, or one's business, etc concealed or openly has long been legal requiring no license or permit. Most of the Midewest and East Coast have long required a special permit to carry at one's business.
In fact in many you still cannot carry a concealed firearm without a license at your place of business.
Always could and still can in CA.
As for the case itself, I hardly think it qualifies as really pro gun. The woman after all had been previously raped by this convicted sex offender.
Hardly controversal. Still, glad she was able to protect herself.
