Here is what you need to know.

1. Given the evidence, the verdicts are appropriate (see next point for justification).
2. In my opinion, the wrong charges were laid. If I am reading Wisconsin law correctly, the prosecution cut themselves off from the correct option which was charging Rittenhouse with second degree intentional homicide, see reference one.
   •  If you are going to argue with me anywhere, I suggest it be here. Maybe I am missing something key.
3. The judge ruled out some evidence regarding Rittenhouse’s prior actions and utterings that the prosecution may use to appeal. Then we get to do this whole thing again...
4. There will likely be civil suits that follow (much like the OJ case). It is hard to see Rittenhouse not being forced to financially compensate the people who were shot (I will use the term victims henceforth).
5. One of the bigger issues at hand is that this case will be used by both protestors and counter-protestors as a how-to-shoot-someone-you-do-not-like guideline.
6. Yes, I spent a small portion of my Saturday writing this. #SendHALP

Here is what online discourse is getting wrong:

1. It does not matter why the victims were there.
2. It does not matter what the victims have done in the past.
3. You cannot use deadly force to defend property (see reference two).
4. Although many valid discussions may emerge from this case, what-ifs regarding the race/color of the shooter in this specific case do not matter. The jury cannot ask themselves what they would have thought if the shooter/victim were another ethnicity. The jury deliberated on what evidence they were allowed to ponder.

One of the biggest hurdles to productive online discourse that I have seen is that people try to tackle too many points at once. This just results in everyone becoming confused, then frustrated, which results in nothing being resolved. If you wish to comment, please be specific. Also, avoid analogies. Although they can have their uses, when discussing the specifics of this case I have not found them to be productive.

Finally, although I am happy to debate some items, here are the following counter arguments that I will copy and paste, along with this text, because you obviously either did not read my whole post and/or the references:

1. I do believe that, as the law in Wisconsin is written, Rittenhouse acted in self defense. See reference two.
2. Traveling across state lines (to a weapon that was purchased illegally by a friend) to a situation which one ought to have known would be dangerous demonstrates intent. From what I have read, because the prosecution was not able to bring Rittenhouse’s prior actions/utterings in as evidence, there is a strong chance that the prosecution may appeal and/or lay more charges (pretty sure this does not violate double jeopardy). Also, the Department of Justice may yet lay Federal charges, although this appears to be less likely.
3. Traveling across state lines to a situation which one ought to have known there were state sanctioned actors (police, medics, etc.), who have proper authority to respond to crimes, and were activated, demonstrates intent. From what I have read, because the prosecution was not able to bring Rittenhouse’s prior actions/utterings in as evidence, there is a strong chance that the prosecution may appeal and/or lay more charges (pretty sure this does not violate double jeopardy). Also, the Department of Justice may yet lay Federal charges, although this appears to be less likely.

Note:

1. I am an armchair lawyer who is well out of my league here. So please identify any mistakes you see. I will edit my original post to make it look like I am smarter than you. #ArguingOnline101