I feel that the correct verdict was reached and I saw Kyle as innocent from the day I saw the footage. Most people would’ve done the exact same thing when in peril. It was always very clear to me that his life was in imminent danger and he was forced to use his weapon to defend his life and well-being. If anything, the boy had a cool mind in the face of danger, showed great marksmanship and, most importantly, incredible restraint. There are many people out there who would not consider the third attacker (the man he shot in the arm) as truly “neutralised” since he technically still had a firearm and could very well return fire as soon as their back is turned. If he shot him a second time, it’d be a clear execution, but Kyle prioritised getting out of the area and disengaging his assailants as quickly as possible, with the intention of informing the police about the incident. I think the drone footage of the events was a pivotal element of the puzzle and it’s a shame we haven’t seen it until now - it made it hard to question that Kyle was in fact being pursued and threatened, and that he did not start the altercation. The witnesses seem to confirm these events, so I have no reason to believe that a mistake was made. His possession charge was dismissed based on a technicality and I’m surprised the prosecution didn’t pursue it harder, especially considering the fact it was the only charge with any merit to it, but then again, the prosecution has shown to be incompetent throughout the trial, to the point that they walked the thin red line of what is legal and what is evidence tampering or unconstitutional conduct. In my opinion, justice was served. Kyle shouldn’t have been there in the first place, it was no place for a kid to be, but that’s immaterial in regards to whether he was defending himself or not.
