I'm not a Trump supporter - I'm about as far left as it's possible to get and I'm afraid I support the Rittenhouse acquittal. WHY he was there is conjecture and not admissable - you can say 'he wanted to walk around and feel like the big man' you can say 'he wanted to show off his gun' - but the reality is, he's legally allowed to do so. Unless you have a video or evidence of Rittenhouse saying 'I fully intend to go to Kenosha to shoot people' - then inference about intention is meaningless.

The law is the law and that's the point of it. You might not agree with the verdict, but on the balance of evidence, not on the balance of feelings about evidence, the jury was correct to acquit. You cannot shake the law apart just because you don't like the verdict, not without allowing the other side to do it too.

Should Rittenhouse have been there? Absolutely not. I've got huge reservations about the sort of parents who allow a child to go to a riot, and i've got even bigger reservations about a country who arm their youngest citizens.... but that's by the by.

Rittenhouse isn't a murderer because he was acting in self defence - and you have mixed legal fact with personal conjecture to derive your conclusion about his guilt. Had there been a millisecond in it, had Huber turned the gun around and shot Rittenhouse instead, they'd have acquitted him too on the grounds of self defence. In his mind he was acting to take down an active shooter with a deadly weapon - same with the third man. The Right wouldn't have liked it - we'd have had a dead 17 year old martyr on our hands - but the interpretation of the law would've been correct.

Americans don't get the law right all the time, but on this occasion they did. https://medium.com/lucid-nightmare/kyle-rittenhouse-is-acquitted-once-again-america-misses-the-point-8a41ab56c969