It is interesting because, as the poster implied but didn’t state, this case is an outlier and an emergent problem of a law presumably designed to solve a different set of issues. I don’t understand why immediate arrest isn’t the norm in the US. This law does grant self-defence in the absence of an armed police response, but it does seem to grant everyone the chance to just say ‘self-defence’ and avoid custody. Here in the U.K. it would’ve been immediately obvious the response wasn’t proportionate to the threat (perceived or actual) and self-defence wouldn’t have been a valid argument to make from behind a locked door. We also don’t tend to give elderly people (racist or otherwise) access to firearms.