It depends on the state but in general I would say this is not self-defense. The man approaches the person with the gun and I assume that person will claim she felt threatened. Whether a jury buys that argument is another question. I know you might say, "she has a gun and he is unarmed" but how close does she allow the man to get before she takes action? The rule of thumb is never let a a threat get close enough to disarm you. Still there appears to be plenty of room for her to step back and not shoot.
But my question is why would an unarmed person approach anyone with a gun pointed at them?
Another example of how lies travel around the world before the truth gets out the door.
It is completely false that the top 1% pay no taxes or lower taxes that average worker. The fact is, Our tax laws eliminate most tax deductions, credits and exemptions for the top 1%. In most cases those deductions are limited for many people not even in the top 1%. Are there wealthy people living off of savings and assets that pay no taxes? Sure, the smart ones. But that is a very small percentage of wealthy. And people forget that income taxes are taxes on INCOME, not wealthy. You can have $100 million in triple tax free bonds raking in millions in interest and pay no taxes. But that is the point of triple tax free bonds. No one would buy them if the interest was not tax free.
And just a note on that: Treasury bills you can buy are not tax free - dumb as that sounds.