Carrying a hot-loaded AR-15 was not illegal. Running away was not illegal. Shooting someone in self-defense (if justified under the law) was not illegal. If there was a public perception that he was a threat, that does not make his actions illegal. What that does is give someone a reasonable belief that he is a threat, so if that person took steps to apprehend Kyle, then this reasonable belief would actually be used as a defense for that individual against a charge of battery. However, the law would still permit Kyle to use deadly force if the facts ticked off the statutory requirements to do so.

In this situation, technically, Huber could have been charged with assault and battery as well as other things. However, he could have used his perception of kyle as an affirmative defense against such charges and would have likely been successful.

Two people can be right or wrong at the same time. Kyle could have been justified in his belief that he was facing the threat of death or serious bodily injury at the same time that Huber could have been justified in his reasonable perception of Kyle as a threat to himself and others.

My only interest in this trial was whether the law was correctly applied. So far, I have not seen any arguments that have persuaded me to believe it wasn't.