So in Kyle's favour I get the strong impression that the judge is sincere in character and intelligent. And in combination with the fact that Kyle certainly was engaged in purely self-defence and against credible serious injury or death, that should lead to being found innocent.
However, the judge is also a bit weird and seems to be working out the law as he goes and in a very acadmic way. The whole thing about "if there were four children in your field of fire would you be obliged to move before shooting at your assailant". I'm not sure what the actual US law is on that but the analogy is a bad one. Firstly, the midst of a riot is not a comparable situation and secondly, Kyle had very limited ability to "choose his ground" as he was the victim and was on the ground when he was forced to fire.
I don't think the defence lawyer should necessarily be getting into the details with the judge. Well, maybe he has to but it's unfortunate in that it sets him up to be the one arguing with the judge while the prosecuting lawyer just sits it out.