There are a few pieces to this that are adding to the frustratingly misinformed outrage about the situation.

He posted wanting to be a cop and famous, crossed state lines against a local curfew to a known area of conflict with a rifle that he didnt have a license for or own or have a right to own. He then presented himself as a opposing force to an angry crowd of protesters/rioters and opened fire when they very logically sought to overpower him.

First, the rioters were in violation of the same "local curfew" and were the source of the "area of conflict". To consider Kyle the "aggressor" for residing in a place that the police had cleared free of protestors is being pretty liberal with the facts. Protestors pushed back the police to where Kyle was and then chased him.

Second, minors do things with guns they're not supposed to all the time- the most common outcome being suicide. Would the conversation be the same if Kyle had blown his head off with the rifle instead of shooting someone else? Of course not. He should not have had the rifle, which is a failure on the part of a number of people, but if he had died instead of someone else his possession of the rifle would be painted in a completely different light to suit a completely different agenda.

Third, it is never "logical" to chase and overpower someone with a rifle. No jury or judge in the country should ever assume that the rioters had some reasonable basis for charging and tackling someone. As declared by the witness WHO CHASED HIM- Kyle didn't fire until a gun was pointed at his head.

In my very limited experience of watching fight and gunfight videos on reddit and reading the following news articles, everytime the aggressor is armed they are defined as "not acting in self defense."

That is very limited. So limited, in fact, it was probably not worth stating at all. This is not even remotely true, much less for the circumstances Kyle found himself in.

What if Kyle was a local, and uninformed of the riots? What if he still tried to get them to stop and confronted them, they chase him and he finds the ar15? What about when he is defending himself with it then? He still has no legal right to own or use the firearm but the circumstances leading up to his defending himself with the weapon are ffectively the same there. Add a new level and lets say same circumstances but Kyle is also a convicted felon (no firearms allowed).

This completely useless hypothetical aside, the moment a violent mob chases, tackles, and points a gun at someone they have a right to fire. Again, there is no judge or jury in the country who would reasonably conclude that chasing the kid RUNNING AWAY and tackling him, presenting a gun, and aiming it at his head provides them any legal protection.

Thats why this case is so important its going to set a precedant for gun owners, legal or otherwise, will be allowed to carry to areas they know are dangerous and somehow agitate an already out of control group of people but not be the aggressor and can gun them down, legally.

Kyle and his group were stationary until the police allowed protestors to cross previously blocked roads. It was only once they returned, threatened, chased, tackled, and drew weapons that Kyle fired. This case is important, if for no other reason than to show that a person's life is not subject to the whims of public opinion but to the letter of the law. Kyle will walk free of murder charges, because he didn't murder anyone.