It's not their fault for attacking Rittenhouse. No, No! It's Rittenhouse's fault for being there.

 The closing statements of the prosecutors makes the piece by John F. Di Leo at the American Thinker on target. In Doubling Down on Victim Blaming Di Leo argues that the true purpose is to get a court to agree that one does not have the right to self-defense.

The murder trial of young Kyle Rittenhouse, the only noteworthy prosecution to come out of the 2020 Kenosha riots, has become a surrogate for a war that the American Left has long tried to keep under the radar: the war against the concept of self-defense.

The Left finds itself in a quandary. They cannot say “you have no right to self-defense” in so many words. They must get there in another way, a roundabout way, but one in keeping with their longstanding effort to defang America’s police departments. Create technicality acquittals, and erect restrictive rules of engagement for police. Build red-tape barriers to keep private security guards from being armed and trained. Overrule the castle doctrine in the courtroom. Build in so many restrictions to self-defense that it becomes a toothless defense.

Like so much that the Left gets wrong, the right to defend yourself against an imminent attack is a God given right, and a duty for all people. What is not a right, is vengeance. Vengeance is mine, says the Lord. But the Left continually conflates self-defense with vengeance and vigilantism. They are not the same thing. In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, video shows that Rittenhouse was acting entirely within the relm of self-defense, and he should be acquitted on those grounds.

You can read the rest of Di Leo's article, which expands on the theme of turning a case of self-defense into a case of "if he hadn't been there, this wouldn't have happened."  But that isn't entirely true either.  While the Left may yet achieve its goal, as they have in England, the right remains with people.  The fact is that the three men shot were the ones looking for trouble, and they would have found another individual had Rittenhouse not been there.  The same trial would have happened with different defendants.

Meanwhile, Scott Morefield at Townhall.com had an article entitled Tucker Carlson Described The 'Whole Point' of the Kyle Rittenhouse Prosecution, And It's Horrifying. Again, what Tucker Carlson noted is that the point of trying Kyle Rittenhouse is to discredit self-defense against imminent bodily harm or death.

It will be interesting to see how the jury finds.  There have already been some threats against the jury.  How brave will these people be?