This only shows how hard it is for average people with normal day to day job to make any sense of what they are told by the media. Almost no one will spend 15 minutes to do some basic research (not to talk that for a lot of it you need hours), but they will for sure have an opinion and share the narrative they were fed by what ever side they follow.
I know you did a good job on looking into it and still fell for the judge bias thing.
that law about could he carry a gun is badly written but he can carry a gun that is longer then X. it goes something like you have to be 18 but if you are 16 or 17 you can carry guns longer then X. if i remember correctly they wanted to stop gang crime in the 90s but still make it possible for people to go hunting with their kids or something like that.
The zoom in shit is badly explained because judge (and both parties) knows shit about tech. Prosecutors used a still frame form the drone video trying to prove that Kyle pointed a gun on someone. In that cropped frame photo Kyle was like 0.5 inch blob of some 50 pixels. So they had an expert to resize it. He used a program to enhance that still photo. When you resize the photo to be bigger, only way to do it is to add pixels that are not there. And that is fine for your FB post. But when you have an arm that is 5 pixels and you add 4... Program used for that had in his manual written "do not use this in court as evidence" :D
Banned the prosecution from calling the victims "victims".
from what i understood it is common to do that in trials where you claim self defense. Because they need to determent in court was he the victim or attacker (he is not claiming he did not shoot them). And by calling them victims you would claim that it is already determent that he is the attacker. Makes sense, but i can't say that is 100% true as i just read it in few different places.