If two gunmen are in a standoff, can either of them kill the other and claim self defense in the USA?

Question

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 "self defense".

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?

Answer 1

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):

1. A person often cannot claim self defense if they are already committing a forcible felony (but it depends on the circumstances)
2. 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.

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:

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

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

C doesn't see B attack A and only sees A shoot B, C pulls out his gun and they stand off

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

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.

Answer 2

Yes.

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?

For a legitimate self-defense case one needs to "reasonably believe that he or she is ... in imminent danger of death or serious injury".

When someone clearly aims a gun at you, you surely can "reasonably believe" to be in "imminent danger of death or serious injury". 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.

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.