Not guilty, but no hero

Three points about the Rittenhouse case:

1. I agree with the not-guilty verdict. Just because he shouldn’t have been there, and whatever political beliefs he might have, doesn’t negate his self-defence claim. When one of the alleged victims testified that Rittenhouse shot him only after he pointed a gun at him, the ball game was over.

2. Rittenhouse is still no hero. David French, as usual, puts it best:

   When Kyle Rittenhouse walked the streets of Kenosha in the midst of urban unrest following the police shooting of Jacob Blake holding a rifle in the “patrol carry” or “low ready” position, similar to the positions used by soldiers walking in towns and villages in war zones, without any meaningful training, he was engaged in remarkably dangerous and provocative conduct. But that dangerous and provocative conduct did not eliminate his right of self-defense, and that self-defense claim is the key issue of his trial, not the wisdom of his vigilante presence.

   But that brings us to the danger of K…