There's a few issues with the case: he was robbed before numerous times and physically assaulted (according to some sources) during the invasion; he's 80 and being used as a favorite hunting ground by these people just robbing him at will and the police have done nothing to protect him. Was she pregnant or just lying? She could have been lying and being sarcastic because she thought an 80 year old couldn't do anything about it. We don't know how she said it or the tone so we can't assume anything. Clearly she was wrong about pushing someone this far. However as a gun owner, shooting someone in the back fleeing isn't a strong case. If his lawyer can make a case about the numerous times he was robbed and the affect it had on him emotionally, it may work in his favor. When you own guns, you have to know the right time to use it: when they're in the act of robbing and facing you - not running and shooting them in the back - it's just a weak defense. I do feel for the man but I think it's important for people to realize, we're not getting the whole story in the papers - just a lot of "he said, she said."
I remember in a law class I took reading about a man that was robbed numerous times and the cops did nothing. He built something so when the robber tried coming through the roof again, he was electrocuted and died as a result. The case stemmed on that there was no warning sign for intruders (ironic, huh?) but in the end he was acquitted because the police failed to protect him and it had a financial and emotional impact. This is what the case will hinge on for self defense.
Laura