If you are outraged by the Rittenhouse verdict then there is one of three possibilities: You are ignorant, you are stupid, or you are evil. Although you might be in more than one of those categories simultaneously, there is no fourth category*.
This is the “benefit of the doubt” category.
You might not know the actual situation, despite there being multiple witness descriptions of the events leading up to the shootings and video from multiple angles. You might not know that Kyle worked in Kenosha (the very definition of “having business” there). You might not know that his father lived in Kenosha. You might not know the personal relationship between Kyle and the person who’s property he was helping guard. You might not know how deadly a gas station fire can be. You might not neve know that what set off the mob was Kyle acting to extinguish a burning dumpster being pushed into a gas station. (Oh, wait, a claim–entirely made up purely out of whole cloth–was later made that they weren’t pushing it to a gas station but to some overturned cars. A distinction without a difference since the gas station was right there and there’s little difference in it being ignited by a burning dumpster or burning cars.
You might not know that there is no legal requirement that “sometimes you have to just take a beating” when faced with an angry mob that has made verbal threats to kill you. You might not know that there is no legal bar to crossing state lines to clean up graffiti (why Kyle was there in the first place) or to help guard someone’s property. You might not know that it was perfectly legal for Kyle to be carrying a rifle for his own protection–which was why the judge dismissed that charge out of hand. You might not know, in fact, that he could only carry a rifle or shotgun. The law did, explicitly, forbid him from carrying a handgun.
You might not know that being armed for your own protection, even with something that other people can see (such as a rifle) is not, legally speaking, “provocation” and, does not turn any attacks on you into “mutual combat.” You might not know that the prosecutor was just making things up in presenting such a claim.
You might not know that the first person what Kyle shot had made verbal threats to kill him (motive) and then demonstrated means and opportunity by trying to grab Kyle’s weapon. You might not know that the second person shot by Kyle first assaulted him with a deadly weapon (attempts to dismiss it as “just a skateboard” neglect the fact that it’s a wooden plank, a club, that’s perfectly capable of killing someone, as was demonstrated recently in another case). And the third? You might not know that the third admitted, in court, that Kyle did not shoot at him (hitting him in the arm) until he. pointed. a. gun. at. Kyle.
You might not know that nothing that Kyle did prior to a violent mob attacking him was illegal and, therefore, did not eliminate his right of self defense.
And, not knowing any of that, despite the fact that all of that information being readily available, it’s conceivable that you could be outraged at Kyle being exonerated.
The problem is, all that information is readily available. And to continue to remain ignorant of it almost requires being willfully so, which is to fall into one of the other two categories.
Okay, perhaps you do know all or most of the above. But, you just can’t wrap your head around the idea that those things add up to justified self defense. You grasp at straws. “He shouldn’t have been there” and can’t seem to grasp the idea that as a free citizen in a mostly free country he had every right to be there. Indeed, he had more right to be there than did the rioters. Perhaps you can’t grasp the idea that this argument, if valid, wouldn’t apply just to Kyle but to anyone. It is to claim that not only should Kyle not have been there but nobody else should have either. And, thus, the rioters should have just been left alone to loot and burn to their hearts’ content and never mind the damage caused, the livelihoods ruined, the people hurt, and the lives lost.
And so, having the information you just cannot draw the conclusions that Kyle had every right to be there. He had every right to be armed in his own defense. And, as someone in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, he had every right to use the force necessary to stop an angry, violent mob from killing him.
You have the information, but you’re too stupid to draw the conclusions.
But maybe you do draw the conclusions. You know good and well that Kyle, in the situation in which he found himself, acted entirely properly first in acting to extinguish a fire that would have destroyed much property and put other lives in danger (if only the lives of those tasked with extinguishing it once it gained a foothold and firefighters were eventually able to get to the area). You know good and well that the villains of the piece are the rioters, not Kyle.
Perhaps it serves your purposes for the rioters to continue. Perhaps you get political advantage by supporting “protests” which allow you to demonize others for political gain. Perhaps you see the protestors/rioters as being on “your side” and, thus, anyone opposing them is on the “other side” and has to be the bad guy. Perhaps, in this you’re playing Drazi Politics.
In that case, I have some bad news for you: You are one of the bad guys.
*Okay, I’ll modify that slightly. One might be outraged that there was a verdict because there was a trial. Kyle should never have been charged in the first place. And since the prosecutor was not ignorant. He had full access to all the information I referred to above. He was not stupid. One really doesn’t obtain that kind of political office while being truly stupid (or at least without being a mouthpiece for someone not stupid). The conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.