"Good guy with a gun" is the argument that a lot of people use to justify people running around with guns.

So, again, as I said in my other comment, it's okay to shoot the guy who has a pistol, who is pointing it at someone that literally just murdered someone over a plastic bag, but it is NOT okay, using your logic, to shoot the guy that just killed someone.

Are the people in the crowd supposed to be a jury in that moment? Should they just assume that Kyle was a good guy with a gun?

Sorry, bub, but that just doesn't fly. It really doesn't.

Had the guy with the pistol shot Kyle and killed him, would you then tell us that the guy with the pistol was justified because Kyle pointed the rifle at him, or that the guy with the pistol was just defending himself from a person that just killed someone?

Or, is it whoever fires first gets to claim self defense?