I mean it's futile to even bring such a thing up. Why would I even bother arguing against something like that? You're not a computer or superhuman to be able to calculate what your actual fucking odds are. It doesn't work like that. All you got are your instincts which a lot of people do not have at all. When you get into a physical conflict, whatever happens, you signed up for it. Now what comes out legally, is an entirely different situation.
When something happens that wasn't intended, there's no "Oh it was an accident" or "I didn't mean to do that". Kyle shot back as a means of self preservation. That's about it. He was running away from the Child Molester who tried to grab his gun while another stupid idiot behind the Child Molester though it was a good idea to shoot in the air. He was running away from the crowd till something knocks him down on the ground Huber did something stupid. He shot Huber while his back was on the ground. So I don't know what the hell are you trying to twist this situation into but it is hilarious!
I'm just trying to bring us back to reality here. If my child rushes me with a fork I shouldn't shoot him in response even if some people die from accidental fork stabbings. Kyle can be reasonable in his actions at the time without equating every single weapon even vaguely capable of killing someone. We aren't supercomputers but we should be able to differentiate use of force in different scenarios.
Your mind reading skills need work.
You can try to bring up apples and oranges but it's not gonna work. You're just looking silly.
If you're trying to say that what happened in the Kyle Rittenhouse incident is not a reality, then I question what reality you have.