For the Rittenhouse verdict (and the soon-to-follow protest riots).
A couple of points though:
This is, essentially, a judgement on the right to defend oneself when attacked (Notice that people in the background NOT attacking young Mr Rittenhouse were not threatened…only those who physically attacked him). Provocation, even if it were valid here, only goes so far. Rittenhouse was retreating/leaving the scene, yet he was attacked (a point the
prosecution defense should have made much more vehemently) and then actively fleeing….therefore, even if a provocation, he was not a threat at the time of the attacks. One cannot shoot a person once they cease being a threat in any scenario….if they are leaving your house, even after attacking you, you cannot shoot them once they are leaving.
Further, if the (mostly peaceful!) protests are allowed to run rampant, not snuffed out quickly, then the State is saying that such riots are acceptable and allowed. This too has to stop. People need to be able to sleep at night without fear of rioters burning their homes and businesses. Without fear of being attacked on the street by a Mob. If the authorities cannot stop this, then at what point do the citizens have right, the responsibility, to do so themselves….by whatever method they choose?