Do I though? Do I make it sound like that? Or do I simply point out that he was clearly acting in self defence? The fact that he shouldn't have been there doesn't mean that he couldn't have been acting in self defence. Both of these can be true simultaneously.

The Rittenhouse case doesn't show that the laws are biased, it shows that the laws (the same laws that allow the New Black Panthers to patrol the streets with automatic weapons) are wrong. And will inevitably lead to casualties. This should concern everybody. But describing this as white supremacy is dumb.