Originally Posted by redietz View Post
Given the legal definitions involved, I'd have to have found him not guilty of the major charges.

The problem is the precedent this sets.

It goes something like this:

A) The more fearful you are, the more you can plead self-defense.
B) Proof of fearfulness includes carrying semi-automatic weapons, because why carry one unless you're afraid?
C) Using the weapons, as opposed to not using them, demonstrates more extreme fearfulness.
D) Therefore, whenever someone shoots first, it is proof of fearfulness, thereby demonstrating self-defense.

Sounds like a plan to me.
One guy tried to disarm Kyle by grabbing his rifle. The other guy chased Kyle down and clubbed him in the head with a skateboard. Then yet another guy chased Kyle down and had a pistol pointed at Kyle's head as he was on the ground. Fortunately he was disarmed (pun intended) before he could pull the trigger.

Sounds like having a rifle in that day in that environment was the right choice. It is fearful to hide and do nothing as rioters burn your community to the ground.

In all incidences Kyle tried to disengage and deescalate. He did everything perfectly on that day.

Why don't you move to a country that you have no right to defend yourself. Why don't you go into a hostile environment without a weapon and see how tough you are when the mob turns against you.

No precedent has been set. People have had the right to carry and defend themselves since the founding of this country.