Win 73. You can set in the “peanut gallery and state what you would have done, but until you have actually set on the jury in a criminal case, heard the evidence, had the law explained, and the options given, then you really can’t make a judgment of the jury, or their actions. The State of Texas has, perhaps, the best laws available to protect someone in a shooting (and they are about to get even better), but it also has limits on when you can shoot. The law is clear, when a person has a means of escape, and ability to flee, any self-defense plea goes out the window by them not taking advantage of the situation. Additionally, there are twelve people setting on a jury, in order to arrive at any verdict, it must be unanimous. To push for "jury nullification" requires the vote of all twelve members of the jury, one no vote, a hung jury. I admit, there are those situtations where jury nullification is an acceptable avenue for the jury to take, but it is normally in a case so clear cut the courts can not argue with the decesion, this was not the case here.
Evidently your experience as a jury is limited, and laws may differ in your state. Based on my education, and experience in law enforcement, I think the jury did her the best service possible. With age, and experience, you will clearly see that, though a workable solution, the theory of jury nullification, for the most part, is a pipe dream. To render a finding as such, one has to fully understand the law pertaining to the case, must have a judge that will accept it without dismissing the jury and declaring a mistrial, and must fully understand the many options the courts have against you if attempted.
You are entitled to your opinion, but until you have all the facts, you are just blowing hot air with the jury nullification theory.