No one would have died that night had Kyle not had a gun. People need to stop bringing guns to public spaces. We are too paranoid and trigger happy to be trusted with that kind of power, and there never seems to be a good guy with a gun when you need them. Likely because the legitimately good people are rarely the type who could stomach pulling the trigger.

So if you start something and then flee why would that make you the innocent.  I would agree that chasing someone with a gun and you are unarmed is absolutely stupid but the real facts here is that Kyle is very lucky he is not the one dead. 

If I walk up to you with my gun in my hand and you take it as an act of aggression, who is in the right.  No one knows the intention of anyone who walks around with their gun in their hands towards anyone.  If you are in a park with your family and someone walks towards your family with their gun in their hands, do you wait until they start shooting or would you put them down.  We continue to forget that the act of engagement determine the perception of everyone in this incident.  Kyle was walking around with his gun in his hands and just like Kyle can declare self defense, what's the difference from anyone else.  If he points the gun anytime at anyone, the act of engagement changes and there is no self defense claim to be made.

The same people who defend the police when they fear for their safety when someone has a weapon seem to just toss that out on this case.  If you walk up to a police officer with your gun in your hand and they put you down, you would say that the police officer was justified.  The main issue with Kyle is that he thought he was in call of duty, walking around with his gun in his hands presenting a clear and present danger to anyone.

The major problem in the US is there is no clear policy on engagement.  Everyone can be armed but how does anyone determine who is the idiot with the gun or a responsible gun owner.  

Anyway, chasing someone with a gun was stupid, if you have a gun and pull it out, you definitely need to be prepared to use it or you get your arm blown off.  My real problem with this case goes along the lines of the gun culture in the US more than Kyle himself or him getting off.  We will continue to see more of these engagements and without any clear policy along what is permissible, then its going to be shoot first and ask questions later.

Gun owners say, you have a clear right to walk around with your gun and in that same instance, I have a clear right to self defense if you walk towards me or my family with your gun in your hands.  Do I wait until you shoot or do I act first and deal with the court case later.

"Let me ask you one more question.

If the first shooting by Rittenhouse was not in self-defense, would his later action be justified, in your opinion?"

>Well then things get more interesting here. I'd definitely be less sympathetic...

The fact that Kyle was always fleeing goes a long way for me. Then Rosenbaum's aggressive behavior prior to his shooting and the fact that he was the one chasing costs me sympathy points for him.

"Also, if you want my opinion, if a man shoots someone and begins to run away despite no immediate danger, he should have no right to claim self defense as long as he still has a gun in his hands."

>What if the first shot was in self defense? And then during his retreat, another immediate danger develops? I say in this situation, he maintains a right to self defense.

If you shoot someone, whether it is in self defense or not, the act of running away with a firearm is, in my opinion, an inherent act of provocation. By running away, you are signaling to onlookers that you are attempting to escape from the commission of a crime which often creates situations where individuals feel a responsibility to act, either to prevent additional harm from being done, or to prevent a criminal from escaping. 

As long as there is no additional immediate danger, your responsibility as someone carrying a gun should to be either call the police and stay put, or to yell for help if you have no access to a phone and there are other individuals around. 

There are some exceptions to this rule (like, if you are in the middle of nowhere with no one else around and you need to run to get help), but generally, the worst thing you can do after shooting someone is to run away holding a gun. I feel that this is such an amazingly stupid thing to do, that at the very least, any harm that comes out of individuals responding to this action should be considered a result of negligence or reckless endangerment. 

Just stop it with the false narrative. You guys lost, we can defend ourselves and our community. The evidence all pointed to acquittal. Playing mind gymnastics to falsely claim it was the wrong verdict doesn't change it. Even worse is ignoring the human garbage that was there that night. I tell you I'm not upset that a pedophile can no longer rape little boys. If that upsets you, like those idiots protesting with signs of a pedophile and repeat domestic abuser, then you got other issues.

The people who were rioting are the criminals, not Kyle. He only shot someone who was trying to attack him. He fled because other people were coming after him. He also told them he was turning himself into the police.

You know why they were pissed at Kyle? Because he was preventing them from destroying even more stuff, putting out a fire they started. Had nothing to do with the gun, which he had before and nobody did anything about. Only when he disrupted the pedophile's destruction is when they came after him. They weren't trying to stop an active shooter, who amazingly only shot people who attacked him unlike any other shooter before, they were trying to kill a good citizen who was trying to prevent more destruction to his community.

Removing the discussion of self-defense, is murder morally justified if the victim previously committed murder or sexual assault?

I'm not even going to answer your strawman, as it has nothing to do with the discussion. There was no murder that night, just self-defense. If anything, you could say there was attempted murder by the rioters, which is why Kyle had to defend himself.

A) If you shoot someone, whether it is in self defense or not, the act of running away with a firearm is, in my opinion, an inherent act of provocation. By running away, you are signaling to onlookers that you are attempting to escape from the commission of a crime which often creates situations where individuals feel a responsibility to act, either to prevent additional harm from being done, or to prevent a criminal from escaping. 

B) As long as there is no additional immediate danger, your responsibility as someone carrying a gun should to be either call the police and stay put, or to yell for help if you have no access to a phone and there are other individuals around. 

C) There are some exceptions to this rule (like, if you are in the middle of nowhere with no one else around and you need to run to get help), but generally, the worst thing you can do after shooting someone is to run away holding a gun. I feel that this is such an amazingly stupid thing to do, that at the very least, any harm that comes out of individuals responding to this action should be considered a result of negligence or reckless endangerment. 

I read up on the Rittenhouse case on an Austrian website, so here's my summary of how this gets reported on in a place outside of the USA. I'll use italics for that portion of my post, because I then proceed with my own take after the summary.

Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha to join a group of armed men who, according to their own accounts, wanted to protect stores from burglars. Protests of the Black Lives Matter movement took place in the town at the time.

It's unclear what exactly caused the escalation because there are different accounts of what happened that day. The article doesn't reference any accounts and proceeds to describe the scenes that were caught on video.

Rittenhouse admitted to knowing that Rosenbaum was not armed; he feared that Rosenbaum could take his own weapon away from him. Rittenhouse became sort of a hero for the far-right who insist on the possession of weapons and self defense.

After the verdict had been announced, the judge thanked the jury with the words: "I couldn't have wished for a better jury in this case."

From another article on the judge's competence that concerned his denial to allow the jury to watch zoomed-in footage of the incident:

The judge's lack of knowledge in the field of technology culminated in his inability to turn his own smartphone silent.

I have a hard time finding the right words for this. Let's just say that none of it raises my opinion of the American way of life.