I would be find what you wrote much more convincing if I didn't have sufficient knowledge of the Rittenhouse case to know you were deliberately misleading us by selectively presentating and omitting key facts.
1. You omit the defense's stated reasoning for bringing up Rosenbaum's prior convictions. Their theory was not "pedophiles bad kill pedophiles good." They wanted to argue that Rosenbaum lunged at Rittenhouse in order to take his firearm, because, as a convicted felon, Rosenbaum was not legally able to purchase that firearm. It was important that they show evidence that Rosenbaum had a pernicious motive to lunge at Rittenhouse, because the prosecution was alleging the only reason he did so was in self-defense.
2. More crucially, you omit the fact that the judge prevented his defense from mentioning these convictions in court for fear it would be prejudicial. Because of this, the jury never found out about Rosenbaum's extensive criminal history. [1] This craters the relevance of this example. It doesn't demonstrate any sort of double standard.
> They wanted to argue that Rosenbaum lunged at Rittenhouse in order to take his firearm ...
That reason provides the moral cover for mudslinging at the victim but we all know what's going on.
From the perspective of those around Rittenhouse, they had no knowledge if this was about to turn into a mass shooting or not. Disarming him may well have saved lives (and would've as it turns out).
Defenders of these "stand your ground" type laws ignore the consequences of cases like this. Here's the lesson from the Rittenhouse case: as soon as he pulled out a gun, someone else should've shot and killed him and then argued (with some justification, honestly) they were in fear of their life.
The extreme here is the case of Curtis Reeves [1], who started an altercation with another man who was texting during the previews to a move. When the man stood to confront him, Reeves shot and killed him and successfully argued he was in fear of his life.
Take that further: the victim can reasonably argue he feared for his life when confronted by Reeves so, if he had a gun, he should've pulled it out and shot Reeves dead.
Like I said, I followed the Rittenhouse case extremely closely, and you are completely, 100% full of shit. That you are so confidently spouting off about it means that you are a completely unreliable writer, and no one should trust a word of what you have to say on this thread.
1. You omit the defense's stated reasoning for bringing up Rosenbaum's prior convictions. Their theory was not "pedophiles bad kill pedophiles good." They wanted to argue that Rosenbaum lunged at Rittenhouse in order to take his firearm, because, as a convicted felon, Rosenbaum was not legally able to purchase that firearm. It was important that they show evidence that Rosenbaum had a pernicious motive to lunge at Rittenhouse, because the prosecution was alleging the only reason he did so was in self-defense.
2. More crucially, you omit the fact that the judge prevented his defense from mentioning these convictions in court for fear it would be prejudicial. Because of this, the jury never found out about Rosenbaum's extensive criminal history. [1] This craters the relevance of this example. It doesn't demonstrate any sort of double standard.
[1]: https://www.insider.com/details-the-kyle-rittenhouse-jury-wo...