Facing the person who shot you and killed a bunch of your friends and colleagues

Take a look at the following extract of a Guardian article, Fort Hood shooting suspect will cross-examine survivors of attack:

Thirteen soldiers died in the attack, and a further 32 were injured. One of the survivors, staff sergeant Alonzo Lunsford is expected to testify on Tuesday as one of the first witnesses in the case. The now-retired service member was shot in the head and body. He played dead briefly, but was shot again in the back when he exited the building. Quoted in a New York Times article over the weekend, Lunsford said: "I will be cross-examined by the man who shot me." "You can imagine all the emotions that are going to be coming up," he added.

Compare to rape shield laws which prohibit this sort of thing in such cases. While it would still definitely suck to have to testify in such a case, does facing cross-examination by someone who shot you multiple times, leaving you blind, and who you saw kill some of your friends and/or coworkers sound any better? Special extemptions for one type of case (which don't include, at a minimum, this sort of situation) seems rather inconsistent.

On the topic of inconsistencies it also seems worth noting that this incident was classified as workplace violence rather than terrorism. What does that mean?

It denies these victims cost-free VA health care for five years, as they would receive for combat injuries. It denies them cost-free counseling and critical mental health services. It denies them tax-free disability benefits and Combat-Related Special Compensation. It denies them eligibility for the Purple Heart and its related benefits.

That said, I still find legally separating out both "terrorism" and "hate crimes" for special distinction rather dubious.