Odds are that if they could see her enough in the dark to shoot her, then she could see them. If she meant them harm she could have done it in the dark as well as the light. In most cases the advantage of illumination goes to the one who controls the switch. In this case he would have the added advantage of the gun and the light switch.
If all papabears in history shot first in the dark and then identified their targets later, think of all the baby bears that would never have known Goldilocks. How Grimm would that be???
There's a lot of nonsense here about taking lengthy interviews being synonymous with identifying a target but no such comparison is realistic. Nor is the need to turn on any lights. I can identify persons in the dark of my own home and know it well enough that I can move quietly through it on the darkest of nights. If I thought I had an intruder in the house that's exactly what I would do. On the other hand a tac light, as mentioned up-thread, would absolutely blind whoever you shined it on. Painfully so if it's a good one.
But that's OK. People can do what they like. They usually do and there are a few living in Canyon City, CO who thought our Make-My-Day law here was a free pass to shoot anyone in their house. I bet they'd love to share their opinions about it with us but I don't think they get internet access unless they play real nice with their bunk-mates and wait staff. ;-)
If she meant them harm she could have done it in the dark as well as the light. In most cases the advantage of illumination goes to the one who controls the switch. In this case he would have the added advantage of the gun and the light switch.
Most bedroom light switches are located next to the door. She was in the bedroom. So, who had the “advantage” of the light switch?
Would you suggest a victim of home invasion attempt to slip past a potential drug crazed Treyvon on the off chance the intruder just might be a drunken coed?