Re: What's the problem?
Oh dear, poor Eel...
Your woeful distortion of reality is sad, but I'll try to help you: if we accept that the asswipe was justified in murdering people because he was scared and they had (or may have had) weapons, we can _also_ accept that it would not be unreasonable for someone else to be scared of asswipe with his assault weapon, and shoot him. It's really quite simple: what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In fact, all that's needed to justify the shooting is an articulated reasonable fear (which is why your bizarre paedo reference is utterly irrelevant). Is it reasonable to decide that a stranger wandering around with an assault rifle may be up to no good? Evidently, yes, because that's the argument used to acquit asswipe of charges related to the shooting of the man who survived. Had that guy shot asswipe instead of the other way around, there is literally nothing you or any other apologist for daft gun laws could say to differentiate the two cases.
As to your puzzlement about defamation law in the USA, calling someone a "white supremacist" based on disclosed facts is not defamation: it's a statement of opinion. It may be wrong, but it's an opinion, and as such is protected by the First Amendment. I could go into a lot more detail about limited purpose public figure (i.e. asswipe) and actual malice (which is not malice), but we both know you have no interest in accuracy or facts, just in pushing your partisan hackery.
However, I will make a couple of points: asswipe was photographed hanging out with white supremacists and making a sign associated with white supremacists. It is therefore reasonable to form an opinion (which might be wrong, but it's an opinion) that he's a white supremacist.
Trump has made multiple statements indicating that he might be a white supremacist (whether it's true... oh, come on, it's obviously true), and therefore a Trump supporter might also be a white supremacist. Again, doesn't mean that they are, but someone forming an opinion based on those facts is fully protected by the First Amendment.
Sadly, ex-Eel, in your enthusiasm to demonstrate your misunderstanding of both self-defense and defamation law, you missed the key point in my last reply: how is "white supremacist" defined? And that's odd, because you touched on an important point: some on the more militant end of the political left wing _will_ "overuse the race card", which means that to that crowd it will mean something different from what you evidently think it means. I don't think it's hugely controversial to suggest that the term is sometimes used as a label for those who believe in the superiority of western civilization and culture even if they do have a black and/or Jewish friend...