I’m betting that whatever Kyle is saying now during these interviews is being scripted by his attorneys. We may not like what he’s saying but I’m thinking it a big picture thing. With everything that’s happened his counsel isn’t going to let him just shoot off his mouth and let him talk himself into trouble.
If he's lucky, he's had his options laid out by
some lawyers.
(The criminal lawyers we've seen, or civil lawyers we don't know (yet)).
However, I don't put a lot of faith in Kyle following a script.
In at least one of the clips of him being cross-examined,
it seemed to me that he said too much - volunteered information
unnecessary to answer the question he was asked.
And I don't mean volunteered information helpful to his case.
(If it was helpful, the prosecution would have objected to him
"answering questions that weren't asked").
The example that happens to come to mind this evening is a long one:
Kyle engaging in a dialog with the prosecutor
about this-or-that aspect of AR-15's and ammo. The prosecutor
was clueless, Kyle wasn't 100% better, and helpfully offering false
info about the platform could have screwed him hard if the case
revolved primarily around super-killy bullets as opposed to
some other narrative thread.
And I
do credit the prosecutor with the sense to capitalize
upon an unexpected "admission" - even if it's
not an actual admission.
If Kyle didn't manage to internalize "don't run your mouth
when the prosecutor asks you a question",
then some double-reverse psychology ragtime
about BLM support is above his pay grade.
The prosecution may have been trying to argue that (c) applied based on their premise that Kyle's intent from start to finish was to engineer an opportunity for him to shoot people. But if the provocation alone is to be considered sufficient evidence of intent, then (a) and (b) become meaningless, so this interpretation cannot be right.
Using Andrew's framing of the five elements of self-defense,
IIRC the purpose of a provocation narrative is to destroy the element of Innocence.
Normally Innocence is disproved by evidence that someone
started a fight.
In many (all?) jurisdictions, if you start an argument or even a fistfight,
and then realize your mouth has written a check that your ass can't cash,
and you nope away consistently and earnestly then you regain innocence.
If you're noping away as hard as possible, but the person you fought
catches up to you, you're theoretically permitted to defend yourself.
Wisconsin has this One Weird Angle where if you
troll someone into attacking you,
so that you can get all killy on them in response,
you lose Innocence and can't get it back by retreating.
Note also the uncommon nature of a self-defense argument.
Normally in an assault or murder trial,
the prosecution is trying to claim you did it,
and the defense is trying to inject reasonable doubt about the claim.
(Usually, make jurors consider that maybe you didn't really do it).
In a self-defense case, you
admit you did it,
but your lawyer claims you check off all the items
which allow you to be
entitled to do it.
And the
prosecution is striving to give the jury
reasonable doubt that at least one of the 4-5 elements wasn't fully checked-off.
If the prosecution makes the jury doubt your entitlement then you're screwed,
because you'd implicitly conceded that you did the actual act.
So a danger in Kyle's trial in Wisconsin was that the prosecutor
might sow enough doubt in the jury that they considered
flouncing around open carrying a scary black rifle (and putting out fires)
to be a troll of the rioters.
Not sure if this addressed your point or argued straight past it.
If the latter, I'm too distracted tonight to do a good job...