The first time a response includes a personal attack the debate is lost. Once it turns into bickering it basically discredits both debaters. It is such a waste of bandwidth
Revenge killing. This isn't something I thought of...
re·venge Pronunciation (r-vnj)
tr.v. re·venged, re·veng·ing, re·veng·es
1. To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult).
2. To seek or take vengeance for (oneself or another person); avenge.
1. The act of taking vengeance for injuries or wrongs; retaliation.
2. Something done in vengeance; a retaliatory measure.
3. A desire for revenge; spite or vindictiveness.
4. An opportunity to retaliate, as by a return sports match after a defeat.
However in the immediate act I would have a hard time believing a prosecutor would take this approach because it would be so easy to say it was a response to a proven threat and she feared her rapist would kill her. If the rapist died then there is no way the prosecutor could prove the victim wasn't threatened... in the same context if the rapist survived he would likely be on trial first and on the defensive. In this case if she was in her own home then the castle doctrine is the thing to protect her against a civil suit the rapist would file because of his injury. OMO, IANAL