[Dr. Bobsky]

Almost anyone can claim self-defence and get away with murder. This child murdered two people under the claim of self-defence. So is the verdict correct? Probably. But stand your ground laws need to change, as does the burden of evidence in the claim of self-defence. At the moment, it is up to the prosecutor to prove that self-defence wasn't the motivation; and without the ability to crack open Rittenhouse's skull (legally, though I'm sure there's more than a handful that would do it just for fun) and probe around for his motivation centre, this is an impossibility. One way to do this is to separate the fact findings of the trial: Rittenhouse murdered those men, unambiguously, no one is actually arguing this; from extenuating circumstances surrounding this act that would affect his punishment. We already do this to some degree with temporary or non-temporary insanity pleas. But for the moment, Rittenhouse, a murderer, is walking free without the benefit of society recognising the weight of the crimes he committed. Let's be honest though: his life is fucked, not as much as the men he killed but pretty fucked.