¶1concurring in part, and in part dissenting.
¶2I fully agree that the sentences in this case are too severe and excessive by any measure and should at a minimum be reduced as the majority has done. However, in my opinion, several errors in the admission of prejudicial evidence and in instructing the jury on self-defense would justify reversal upon the basis of plain error. I would go even further and vacate the convictions as a matter of law because Charlene met her burden of going forward with evidence of her need for self-defense and the State did not disprove that evidence. See State v. Kinser, 252 Neb. 600, 567 N.W.2d 287 (1997). In this case, the terroristic threats statute, which was designed for clearly different circumstances than that in which Charlene found herself, has been used to severely punish a woman who was attempting to defend herself against a drunken, angry, and abusive husband. I do not think it is or should be against the law for a person who has just been physically abused to point a gun at his or her abuser and warn that abuser not to come any closer. A person does not have to be a saint or a paragon of virtue to be entitled to use self-defense. In my view, Kurt’s tragic injury was caused by his foolish act of *124charging a gun, which under the circumstances, Charlene had the right to point at him. His intoxication is not an excuse for his foolish act.