You're right, we don't have the details yet, but from what we do have, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a jury willing to convict someone that shot an assa

You're right, we don't have the details yet, but from what we do have, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a jury willing to convict someone that shot an assailant with the assailants gun after being shot twice. Once you've been shot, you are on a clock for getting medical assistance. I could see how retaliatory shooting is valid self defense as it ensures that the person who just threatened your life is unable to continue threatening your life, even if you have possession of the gun(because you've just been shot) and it ensures that you have a scene where paramedics can actually attend to you. If you want to ensure your best odds of survival, making sure your assailant is dead also ensures that you aren't competing for medical resources...but I'm not sure taking it that far would qualify as self defense. Using deadly force though, seems entirely justified.