That doesn’t correct my points that the verdict does not legally mean what you claim it means. In fact, you essentially admit it beciae now you are turning to the evidence to try and prove that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. Rather than turning to any legal principles or holdings that …
a criminal verdict means that someone is innocent or that the verdict is binding on anyone other than the government Thanks for admitting that you are absolutely wrong that a “not guilty” argument means that the defendant is innocent,
You lunatics keep calling him a murderer, so show me the evidence. You can't, because you're an absolute liar. I showed you evidence to directly support my claims, they are undeniable. You are deflecting and clearly can't handle reality.
I didn’t call him a murderer. I pointed out the idiocy of claiimijg that a “not guilty” verdict equals “innocent.”
You sure seem upset that people are allowed to call Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer. Kinda weird since he murdered two people and tried to murder a third.