>Kyle exercised an incredible measure of discipline in his restraint—not shooting wildly into a mob that was overtaking him, only firing on those who were attacking him.
He was an active shooter, and thus a threat to anybody around, and the people tried to defend themselves from that threat. Why those people got denied the right of self-defense and treated as attackers instead? I think it is a total miscarriage of justice that an active shooter successfully claimed self-defense. Not shooting wildly into a mob is really a pretty low, a new low i'd say, bar of responsible gun safety. You seeing laudable restraint and discipline in that is one of the best illustrations of the gun problem in the society.
Self defence is not antisymmetric, as a contrived example suppose two people are independently running away from murderers and bump into each other in the dark (maybe add some extra factor like a gunfire sound starting at the same time) then both would be covered under self defence to use (deadly) force againt what was actually an innocent victim.
He was an active shooter, and thus a threat to anybody around, and the people tried to defend themselves from that threat. Why those people got denied the right of self-defense and treated as attackers instead? I think it is a total miscarriage of justice that an active shooter successfully claimed self-defense. Not shooting wildly into a mob is really a pretty low, a new low i'd say, bar of responsible gun safety. You seeing laudable restraint and discipline in that is one of the best illustrations of the gun problem in the society.