Same here friend. My friend responded to my postings in support of Kyle and all he could focus on was Kyle prior toxication with a firearm as like 13 years old. She called me out for posting the assailants' criminal history. Saying I couldn't have it both ways. So I asked him I could set aside both of these prior criminal histories and ask ourselves who was in the wrong? The young man who is legally allowed to carry a firearm and is on tape defending himself? Or the three felon, several of them were in possession of a firearm which would be legal, and are on tape from multiple angles attacking him while he's trying to escape?

This is actually one of my more intelligent critically thinking friends which really disturbed me.

I asked him this simple question: regardless about how he feels about Kyle's open carrying at 17 years old, (and he used hyperbolic arguments with no footing, claiming Kyle went there with a gun thinking he was a cop blah blah to instigate and agitate, which he wasn't) would those three men still be alive if they had attacked him?

My man basically said it's Kyle's fault for having a gun and being there. I finally said we can agree to disagree because this is the same guy who said Ahmed Aubrey was a victim