Thread by @AkivaMCohen

Anyone acting like the Rittenhouse verdict is a travesty either doesn't understand the law, doesn't have a good grip on the facts, or doesn't care about how the law is supposed to be applied. I said day 1 that the self-defense argument was too fact-specific to be assessed from

a distance and the evidence that came in at trial made it sounder and sounder. The jury finding reasonable doubt? That's our system working the way it should, protecting the accused. That's why a DA needs to prove more than just "the defendant PROBABLY did it"

Of course, there are too many people that the system doesn't work for, and that needs to be fixed. That takes work. But that work isn't "well make it fuck over the white kid too"

Also, taking a gun to a protest should absolutely be illegal without some special permit. But *it isn't currently illegal*.

That's a policy problem, not a basis for a criminal conviction

Last, you know what jury will be assessing the problem of driving a kid with a gun to a volatile situation, and the kid's choices while there?

The civil jury. The folks he killed should and will file wrongful death suits. Not guilty doesn't mean not liable.