What do you mean "until" there is no "until" point where he stopped being an obvious risk to Kyle and Kyle retreated... that's such an obvious case of self defence that you're utterly delusional to be arguing it.
Totally false, he literally threatened Kyle with a gun and then fired it behind him... how is that not a threat??? Trying to downplay that is an incredible attempt at a cope here. Also pointing out that Kyle pointed his rifle is really dumb in comparison - it again ignores context, namely that he was turning while in the process of fleeing for his life and after someone had just fired their gun behind him after having threatened him with it!
Secondly, the last person approached him with a gun and then pointed it at him.
So yes it's totally false - in order for it to not be you'd have to argue that threatening someone with a gun, then pursuing them then firing it behind them isn't a threat??? And also that pursuing them with a gun in hand, feigning a surrender then suddenly pointing it at them also isn't a threat...
I suspect the jury is going to be somewhat more grounded than you next week and conclude that those things are indeed threats.
Yes, and that's a moot point - as none of the others were chased then attacked or threatened.
Of course, he showed contrition, he had an AR15 pointed at him! Kyle shoots when he drops his hands from surrendering and proceeds to point at Kyle, he literally admitted to this in court, it's on video
At any point that Kyle felt even remotely threatened, he used deadly force.
Hardly "remotely", it's pretty clear cut in all the cases - someone literally drew a gun on him and then pursued and fired it behind him another with that person made explicit death threats and then chased after him and tried to grab his rifle. Another chased him with a mob of people out to get him and tried to stomp his head, he was attacked twice by the guy with the skateboard who also tried to grab his rifle and then lastly a guy approached with a gun, feigned a surrender then suddenly pointed it at Kyle... pretty clear lethal threat there.
In all those instances Kyle was the one retreating and they were the ones pursuing him then attacking or threatening.
So what? He was being attacked and he was retreating, you don't need to be a mind reader, he's able to testify (and did indeed do so) in court if people wanted to know his claimed thoughts, they aren't necessary though for a self-defence argument just the fact that he was attacked/threatened and he was retreating should be sufficient.
This nonsense about Kyle was the only one to shoot people, Kyle was the only one acting in a "contradictory manner" WTF does that even mean here? The fact is those were all reactions... they were the result of other people attacking, pursuing and threatening him.
As for contradictory manner - look at the actions of the last person shot, he literally feigned a "surrender" hands in the air then when Kyle lowered his rifle he suddenly makes a move... there were some pretty quick reactions there from Kyle to be fair.
Funnily enough, all the trouble makes who attacked him/pursued him have criminal records too - the first person he shot is a literal mental case who buggers small boys, the second person he shot has a history of kidnapping women and the third person he shot was carrying a gun illegally and has a criminal past too.
Earlier on you were trying to draw inferences from a small quote etc.. when there was literally video footage for you to watch, you've clearly not watched some of the footage in this case.
