>>511057722 (OP)Biggest point of controversy is someone approached him with a gun and didn't shoot. The guy was trying to deescalate, even pointed gun away, but stupidly tried to walk behind Kyle. Kyle feared for his life killed him.
He was within his rights to defend himself, but arguably so were they. The type of gun he was carrying is one that is meant to kill as many people as quickly as possible, so they could be fearful and want to stop him. It's like how Abbott pardoned a guy for killing a protestor because he walked up to him carrying an AR, but didn't point it at him. No video exists of him pointing it and the guy and the shooter even told cops "I didn't want to give him the chance" to point at him. So if carrying an AR in a protest situation means it's okay to kill you, the guy with the gun Rittenhouse killed really just should have shot him from a distance. Running at him with a gun and trying to show Kyle he wasn't a threat, and then trying to run behind him got him killed. And that's fine for Kyle to defend himself, I just have to wonder if he were shot from a distance, would the guy get off because he can just say he saw him with an AR. Is it legal to just kill people for feeling threatened when you see them with an AR?