Wrong. It's a free country. He has every right to be out in public.
Stop defending the actions of criminals by condemning those who are innocent.
Clearly he did not, at least until someone with a handgun attacked him, at which point he exercised his God-given rights to life and to bear arms, and defended his life with his weapon by shooting the thug who was attacking him.
Why should he?
What job? He wasn't there to attack anyone, or to be a vigilante and beat up the thugs and villains who were roaming the streets that night.
He was there as a free citizen who had armed himself in order to protect himself and others, if necessary.
There is nothing at all wrong with that.
So what?
Was he though?
Not sure if this was posted in this thread or in a different one, but in case you haven't seen it yet, here it is:
I recommend you watch it, and then try to make the argument that he was in the way, again.
Because he was attacked by thugs who should have already been behind bars awaiting trial. That's not his fault. That's theirs. Don't blame the innocent and protect or defend the guilty.
Rather, almost killed someone who was attacking him with a gun.... in other words: the person who attacked him had the intent to kill, and Kyle would have been fully justified had he killed him in self defence. Luckily, the bastard who attacked Kyle got off with only a bullet in the arm, rather than death through lead poisoning...
Oh, and the thug? He should be executed upon conviction for attempted murder.