On the first one, not really enough details.
I was hoping that more details had been published elsewhere or will be in the future.
I have Andrew Branca's Level 1 Law of Self Defense lectures on DVD. In nearly every segment, he warns that use of force exposes the user to a greater than zero risk of death or long imprisonment. At the end, he advises viewers to consider whether they would be able to say, at the end of a long prison term, that it was worth it. Branca estimates that, simply by sitting in the defendant's chair, one incurs a 10% to 20% probability of conviction regardless of the evidence.
One thing Branca doesn't address, since the class is general rather than state specific, is variations in prosecutorial policy. (It's why I asked about Lincoln.) Branca states that, in Massachusetts where he used to live, self defense shootings are always prosecuted. The expense and stress of a trial are intended as punishment even when there is no chance of a conviction.
Douglas County seems to go the other way. During the recent attempted armed robbery of Bizarre Tobacco in Omaha, the defenders made at least two significant mistakes. An armed employee left the store to confront the escaping robbers, killing one of them in an exchange of gunfire. Inside the store is a sign that reads, "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again." Despite those errors, the shooting has been ruled justified and the surviving robbers will go on trial. One has been charged with felony murder because of the death his accomplice and the other (the getaway driver) with robbery.
There can be differences between overlapping jurisdictions. After an off duty security guard killed an armed robber at a pharmacy, the Douglas County attorney ruled the shooting justified while the Omaha city attorney made brief noises about charging the guard with illegally carrying a concealed weapon.
