Here is a scenario for you. Lets say you are out and about like Kyle and you see someone break a window of a store. You with your trusty gun point it at that person and they turn around and shot you. Would the person who shot you be able to claim self defense.
The point is that you are not a police officer so your ability to point your gun at anyone unless they are directly attacking you goes out the window. Once you point your gun, then the terms of engagement changes and its whoever shoots first wins the day.
Nothing make me smile more than when someone just totally do not understand context. I have no clue what the heck you are talking about that I am pushing that games make people violent. Since it probably escaped you since you are very much so keen to not see the slight humor of walking around with your gun in your hand like Call of Duty which mind you is a game where you walk around with your gun always in your hand.
Also you have no clue on "My Way" because if I was Rittenhouse, I would have shot everyone as well because at that point he is getting attacked. My point is that his decisions as well as the attackers lead to this situation and if he came up against the wrong people he would have been dead.
Even your reply says you would do the same stupid thing believing you are in the right because as you say, the Police was not doing anything but the police is the authority. You going out to protect some property that isn't even yours and wind up dead, maimed or paralyzed for life, you would be thinking to yourself if not 6 feet under, why did I not just say home.
Ever hear of a citizen's arrest? If I see someone committing a crime, it is legal for me to detain them til the authorities get there. If he fires upon me, he would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if I survived or murder if I died. There is no self-defense for people breaking the law in the first place.
Oh, that's not what you are implying? Yet, you seem to be in Kyle's case. Even though, he was very responsible with his gun, as I stated. And his only decision was to protect his community, which he had the right to do. Further enforced by the ruling of the jury.
No, this is not Nazi Germany. The people are the authority. We give the government the authority to protect us, our property, and our community. When they are told not to by a political hack in charge, we can take that authority in our own hands. That is our right and the law. That is why people hoped he would lose because it may put that right into jeopardy. However, it just reinforced it.
Given that individuals are innocent until proven guilty, by what calculus is an ordinary citizen to make a snap decision to determine whether an action is criminal or not? If we wish to exist in a world where ordinary citizens are encouraged to intervene in such situations, should we be protecting them if their conclusion proves to be incorrect?