Nobody is arguing it, then you proceed to argue about it.
I'm arguing about murder, not manslaughter or having an illegal weapon. I'm not saying he's totally innocent, and needs to get off non-guilty on all charges. I'm only talking about the one charge.
I'm arguing there is no good faith withdraw. He engineered himself into the situation to cause harm
So, consider this hypothetical situation:
Kenny explicitly wants to kill people, he even says as much in his journal, so he inserts himself into this violent protest. After being there for a few hours, he gets cold feet and realizes this isn't a good idea, and that he wants no part in this, so then he runs for his life. The mob chases after him, but he isn't fast enough to outrun them. He raises his gun and fires.
In this hypothetical scenario, where one changes his mind from "I want to kill people" to "this isn't a good idea and I want no part in this", would you consider this a good-faith attempt at withdrawal?
What do you think is necessary for there to be a "good faith withdrawal"?
Because it seems to me that you think that people aren't ever allowed to change their mind on the subject. Like, if at first they decide upon a course of action, they can't ever bail out, and they must be held accountable for everything that happens from that point on. Even if they are being chased and end up beaten within an inch of their life, they can't ever act in self-defense (legally speaking, if they did act it would be a crime) because "they put themselves in that situation".
It seems to me that you're saying that a "good faith withdrawal" was impossible for Kyle.