This might have been brought up before (there are just toooo many posts to read every one of them), but LEGALLY speaking (lawyers, please!):
Hypothetically -
1) Let's say I am on the fence about her "self-defense" claim (which I am not, so don't bombard me - I personally don't buy it for a minute), and
2) JA was telling the truth on cross that it was just her "perception" that he was chasing her, although she never saw him, and
3) that she shot him first as she claims, although the gun accidentally going off while he's tackling her is iffy at best,
4) then isn't JA the aggressor, according to her version, since the only thing according to her story he did was throw her on the ground (with one foot in the shower) and she got away without him catching her, and Travis tackling her is HIS self-defense against the gun being pointed at him? How does that become HER self-defense?
Because at the point where she reaches the bedroom door without him near her, according to her claim, she could have turned left and ran out to safety. Doesn't her claim that she ran into the closet instead, allegedly putting her directly in harm's way, negate the self-defense issue?
I'd love to hear our lawyers' take on that....