The criticism focuses on his actions as a whole, the crowd's, his motivations, and the people praising the killing. Which legal charges stick and which do not are interesting, but using them as a stand-in for morality is a common fallacy employed in irrational political side-taking.
> Which legal charges stick and which do not are interesting, but using them as a stand-in for morality is a common fallacy employed in irrational political side-taking.
Agreed, but morality is in lock step with the law here: the result of the attacks is the moral responsibility of the attackers. Which know isn't Kyle, because we have video evidence from multiple angles of all three attacks.
The part where he took a gun he doesn’t legally own, drove to another state, and inserted himself into a tense situation because he was itching to shoot someone.
He drove 20 minutes. His attackers may have driven for even longer. The law around the long gun is true though, he should have used a handgun for protection.
I could drive 20 minutes and be in Canada, but if I did that and committed several crimes like he did, the fact that I was only 20 minutes from home wouldn’t help me any. And if it looks like I drove those 20 minutes in order to commit a crime, like he did, it would be even worse.
(Used to be able to drive 20 minutes, of course, since Canada won’t let me cross the border for a while)