I think you have read so much into this. She left and returned with him - that to you means she made him go kick some backside etc. I just don’t have faith in our MSN to get a read on what happened. I think the point of this article is that teens can behave like vicious animals - apparently she didn’t know that and possibly the guy didn’t know that either. Either way - they do know it now.
But I am seeing some interpretation here that blows me away. The article just doesn’t say enough to go from 0-60 on whether she is or isn’t a creep herself. Let’s agree that she is a creep if she took this as a pride thing and wanted him to ‘defend her honor’ etc. and if true she may have cost him his life or quality of life. But there are many other ways this could have unfolded in which she wasn’t the monster that some have automatically assumed that she must be.
We know two things without ambiguity:
1) She left the scene. This means she had put herself out of the danger zone.
2) She returned to the danger zone with her boyfriend, thus putting both of them into danger.
Looking at (2), what rational reason did she have for returning to the danger zone with her boyfriend? Even if, upon hearing of the incident, the BF was insistent upon going, what reason did SHE have for returning? If the girl is on the scene, it makes it harder for the guy to retreat, because he has to shield HER retreat, and she is not likely to be faster than a group of teenage boys.
Her presence eliminated any opportunity for HIM to retreat safely, and divided his attention. I speak from personal experience, from an incident where I was with a girl and this crazy guy started attacking us -- the girl was just standing there and not running, so my attention was divided between her and the attacker, which could have ended badly.
In summary, the best spin you can put on this, is that this woman behaved stupidly.