The Rittenhouse defense attempts to light the fuse

[Sympthsical]

9. I think he meets the legal standard of self-defense

All the questions of whether or not he should've been there, etc. aren't nearly as relevant as "Was he being attacked, and did he have reason to believe he was at risk for grave physical harm and/or death?"

From everything I've seen, there's just no way a conviction for murder happens. I don't see any possibility of it.

And remember, the prosecutor is the one who has to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. There is nothing but doubt all over the shootings.

This doesn't mean I think he's a great person or should've been there or the victims don't matter. I am solely giving my opinions on the trial itself and the legal standards involved.