You misinterpret my post.
I was pointing out that perception of threat is based on knowledge of the potential threat. Many here feel she was justified in shooting him, because he was a real threat, at least for those few moments he was advancing in the face of a gun. (And that's something we should all consider, jerkwad advances on you, you draw to discourage him, but due to adrenaline, rage or stupidity, he doesn't stop. He's not armed. Now what?)
His advancing at an armed individual could be perceived as intent to engage in deadly conflict. Also, remember that he was effectively continuing an assault on a female he had already attacked and disabled, by pushing her repeatedly toward the back and the other female. Again, implying intent of continuing harm.
You must also factor in the disparity of force between the assailant and the women. The woman with the gun did not shoot for reasons we do not know, fear of killing another, thinking the threat was not yet sufficient or she was in the process of squeezing the trigger, the guy sensed it and turned away just in time to make her stop. We weren't there. On sufficient threat, this is what I was talking about on relation to Tueller's rule. If you do not personally perceive the threat to be sufficient, even if in fact it is, then you are not justified. Many of us here perceive the threat to have been sufficient based on experiences and an understanding interpersonal conflict, would have pulled the trigger and argueably would have been justified in doing so.