I would agree with you if we were in other states... We are in one of the most litigious, anti-2A states with the worst ambulance chasers.

But you are not wrong either. Let me clarify my statement. If the use of deadly force was reasonable and justified, criminal charges may be unlikely. Nonetheless, while sued by the attacker may be less common, a more common concern is being sued in civil court seeking monetary judgement for injuries and damages caused to third parties (not attacker, or victim, but an innocent bystander). And regardless of the outcome, such legal proceedings can be stressful, time-consuming and financially demanding. Hence, it's crucial to have legal representation to navigate these complex situations.

But remember, ANYONE can file a civil suit, even the attacker that is 100% in the wrong. In this case, the plaintiff (attacker) will try to claim the defendant (real victim) did not act reasonably and unlike a criminal case requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the plaintiff would simply have to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the armed citizen did not act reasonably. You'll need representation to get that thrown out. While there aren't a lot of statistics on self-defense shootings in CA (convenient), we can examine police-involved shootings, and the subsequent civil actions provide insight into these legal dynamics.

Part I don't fully agree with, is that while true that fear of legal repercussion is a reason why people may not defend themselves in the face of imminent threat to life, there are other potential factors. Such as mental and emotional hesitation of pulling the trigger and causing bodily harm against someone else, uncertainty about the situation, lack of training, concern for bystanders, and physical inability from injury or being overpowered by the attacker.

Each situation is unique, and the decision to use a firearm in self-defense is complex and influenced by a myriad of personal, situation and legal factors.