In all three cases, you've got the people claiming self defense having firearms. And at least some of the people they shot being unarmed. So there is some circular logic here in both written house and the case arriving out of arbury's killing. Men show up with guns to supposedly maintain law and order, and when a predictable confrontation ensues, they worry that their own guns will be used against them, and so they shoot. Their vigilantism and their decision to do it with guns becomes intertwined with, and arguably even gives rise to their claim of self defence. For ranhouse, at least, it worked during his trial.