united-states self-defense firearms homicide
If two gunmen are in a standoff, can either of them kill the other and claim self defense in the USA?
<p>Because of recent news about the Kenosha shootings, and people claiming the shooter might walk free because he can claim self-defense, I've started wondering this question. I've seen pictures of another person having been shot in the arm, holding a gun. To me it seems like, if that person who got shot in the arm would have killed Kyle Rittenhouse, he could just as easily have claimed &quot;self defense&quot;.</p>
<p>This brings me to the question: if person A gets provoked / threatened by person B, causing A to shoot B in legitimate self-defense (regardless of if this was the case in the Kenosha shootings), if this then makes person C feel threatened, if then A and C end up in a standoff aiming their gun at the other, would then both people have a legitimate case if they claim self-defense for shooting the other, or not?</p>

<p>Rules about self-defense in the US vary from state to state, but generally a person can raise a defense that they legally used deadly self-defense if they had a reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm, with some exceptions (exactly how these are worded changes from state to state):</p>
<ol>
<li>A person often cannot claim self defense if they are already committing a forcible felony (but it depends on the circumstances)</li>
<li>A person cannot claim self defense if they are the aggressor in a fight or took aggressive actions toward another person who then attacked them.</li>
</ol>
<p>So, with that in mind, let's assume that Person A has a valid deadly self-defense claim against Person B.  When considering self defense, the question is whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have feared death or grievous bodily harm.  So, the exact sequence of events matters.  Consider the following four scenarios:</p>
<p>C watches B attack A and then A shoots B, C pulls out his gun and points it at A before A turns to him and points his gun in response</p>
<p>C watches B attack A and then A shoots B, A then points his gun at C and C pulls out his gun in response</p>
<p>C doesn't see B attack A and only sees A shoot B, C pulls out his gun and they stand off</p>
<p>C doesn't see B attack A and only sees A shoot B, A then points his gun at C and C pulls his in response</p>
<p>In some of these situations, A may be considered the aggressor against C even though he had a valid self-defense claim against B.  In others, a jury may find that a reasonable person in C's position would not expect A to shoot them just because they shot an attacker, and therefore C is the aggressor by drawing on A.  This all assumes a hypothetical where these people exist in a void, things like their relationship, the situation around the three subjects, and any other relevant facts could be introduced and considered in the analysis.  In theory, a situation could exist where both sides have a valid self-defense claim against each other, the third example possibly being that situation.</p>

<p>Yes.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>if this then makes person C feel threatened, if then A and C end up in a standoff aiming their gun at the other, would then both people have a legitimate case if they claim self-defense for shooting the other, or not?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For a legitimate self-defense case one needs to &quot;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reasonably believe that he or she is ... in imminent danger of death or serious injury</a>&quot;.</p>
<p>When someone clearly aims a gun at you, you surely can &quot;reasonably believe&quot; to be in &quot;imminent danger of death or serious injury&quot;. Therefore, unless the person aiming gun at you is deemed to be doing it lawfully (e.g. a police officer, a home owner protecting themselves of your aggressive and illegal invasion etc.) you can use deadly force to defend yourself e.g. shoot.</p>
<p>This is just as simple as that. The fact that both A and C stand and point their guns at each other changes nothing — both have equal rights. The fact that C has witnessed A shooting B also changes nothing apart from adding some extra reasonableness to C's belief to be in imminent danger.</p>
