You fail to understand the point. Whatever the specific case is, your argument is that "it's her fault because she did not exercised prudence", and the counter-argument is "in Justice, what you say is simply not true".

And again, your argument is illogical: you can say exactly the same about the ICE agent (they did not acted carefully enough). Why is the victim guilty of not have considered the aggressor as unhinged, and the aggressor not guilty of avoiding the situation that they use to justify their behavior.

I'll be even more literal: can you give information about the case? (Which "videos"?)

> at least few videos

Sure, but I objected to the general principle: prudence has a limit - the value of one's life has limits. Justice comes before life, Dignity comes before life, etc.