Actually, you make a fair point here. But you're also making mine.

First, the "it" that I got the first and subsequent times, is that Rittenhouse travelled "across state lines". It' simply irrelevant to the legality of what he did. This is a fact, not an opinion. The verdict of the jury is based on facts presented in evidence. True, this is not always the case. But in this case, we benefit from a large amount of video evidence that establishes the facts very clearly.

Sometimes, even given all this, the jury gets it wrong. You're right about this. But in those cases, there's an appeals process as well as the option to mount a civil case. As you probably know, this happened in the OJ Simpson case. And he lost.

By talking about subjectivity I don't mean to say that the law is perfectly objective. No human system is perfectly objective. But it's nothing to do with whether I "like" your opinion. As I've said countless times, including in the article, the fact that what Rittenhouse did was legal should have everybody asking serious questions about the legal system. I'm sure I don't like t he idea of 17-year-olds running around with semi-automatic weapons any more than you do.

But unless you know something about the law or the specifics of the case that I don't (in which case please enlighten me), there's no reasonable argument to be made that he didn't act in self defence. That's all that's at issue here.