Sigh... I hate to defend these types, but...

Thin Skull Rule in legal court: If you intended to do a lesser crime, but because of incompetence or unique unknown circumstances of the victim you accidentally commit a greater one, you are still liable for the greater crime [intending to injure someone with a thin skull by hitting his head with a brick, and killing him instead, you're on for murder, not just battery]. She intended to stab him, the fact her aim is incompetent and his sternum is apparently made of paper doesn't matter.

As for self-defense, you must have equivalent force. To respond with a weapon, they must have a weapon or a second party involved. A practically-retired old man is about physically on par with a height-of-strength woman, and given he was allegedly groping her, he clearly was bare-handed.

Were this woman a man, who stabbed a 64 year old woman to death because the old woman touched his backside, this would be an open and shut case of accidental manslaughter if not just plain manslaughter, and a psych evaluation and possibly permanent incarceration in the loony bin. Courts aren't, but should be, neutral to the sexes of the parties involved.

This'll get me downvotes, but yeah, the guy should be in prison for a few weeks, some community service, maybe deported back to his homeland, and the gal should be checked for psychoses. Notably, she's carrying around a switchblade for self-defense and instead of brandishing it (to ward off a threat), she immediately starts stabbing. When you pull a gun on someone in the USA, while you're escalating, you're also de-escalating: brandishing is diminishing the threat from the other side. You wait and see if the other side backs off, you don't start blasting the moment something doesn't go your way.

Sigh... I hate to defend these types, but...

Thin Skull Rule in legal court: If you intended to do a lesser crime, but because of incompetence or unique unknown circumstances of the victim you accidentally commit a greater one, you are still liable for the greater crime [intending to injure someone with a thin skull by hitting his head with a brick, and killing him instead, you're on for murder, not just battery]. She intended to stab him, the fact her aim is incompetent and his sternum is apparently made of paper doesn't matter.

As for self-defense, you must have equivalent force. To respond with a weapon, they must have a weapon or a second party involved. A practically-retired old man is about physically on par with a height-of-strength woman, and given he was allegedly groping her, he clearly was bare-handed.

Were this woman a man, who stabbed a 64 year old woman to death because the old woman touched his backside, this would be an open and shut case of accidental manslaughter if not just plain manslaughter, and a psych evaluation and possibly permanent incarceration in the loony bin. Courts aren't, but should be, neutral to the sexes of the parties involved.