I think that's true of a lot of people. Probably not true of this person. She's a pacifist and she thinks of suing just like she thinks of self defense. She has an image of what the ultimately moral person is, and she strives to be that. She's a Christian, but I'd say her image of morality is a mixture of Gandhi, MLK, and Jesus.
If her kids lives were threatened, and an armed citizen stepped in to save them, I think she would be deeply conflicted about her pacifism. I'm not sure how she'd resolve the dissonance. But I don't think she's that superficial that she'd resolve it by blaming the armed citizen. I think she'd try to find a way to adjust the rules of her pacifism in a way that would allow her to keep the core beliefs, while being simultaneously pleased that her kids are alive and well, and displeased with the use of deadly force to save them.
An evil person killing non-evil people unchecked, is not good, or morally supperior.
It means there is a net gain in "evilness" in the world.
A person defending themselves against evil will stop when it is no longer necessary to defend.
The evil person will continue .
Allowing evil to continue unchecked is not good.