One of the arguments – the primary argument – used by the prosecution in the Kyle Rittenhouse case and amen'd by the "peaceful" (if they get their way) protestors gathered outside the courthouse – is that young Kyle Rittenhouse was looking for trouble. That he had no business bringing a rifle to a riot; that he placed himself in a dangerous situation and thus is at least partially to blame for what ensued.

It is an interesting proposition – just the right word.

Years ago, women who'd been raped were regularly accused – in court, by lawyers – of having tempted men to rape them. As by wearing provocative clothing hey had no business wearing – such as Daisy Duke shorts and halter tops, for instance. How could the men help themselves?

Weren't the women who dressed that way around men asking for it?

Of course, it is now the absolute height of political incorrectness to suggest that any woman asked for it – ever. Even when she actually did – as in the case of women who let things get started but then decide mid-way they want them to stop. This isn't to suggest such women deserve for things to finish – or that men cannot stop themselves. It is to make a point about the becoming-tedious hypocrisy and situational morality of the indignant (when it suits) Left.

Whether Rittenhouse made a poor decision by venturing into a riot with a rifle isn't the question at hand. Certainly not as regards the law  since there was no law forbidding him to go where he went and the rifle he carried was legally carried.

The question – which the jury will shortly answer – is whether his decision to be there forfeited his right to defend himself against a rioting mob.