Any reasonable and unbiased viewing of the facts of the Rittenhouse case would conclude he acted in self-defense, which happens to be what the court decided as

Any reasonable and unbiased viewing of the facts of the Rittenhouse case would conclude he acted in self-defense, which happens to be what the court decided as well. One of the people he shot admitted under oath that they had chased Rittenhouse with a mob, then pointed a gun at Rittenhouse and were preparing to shoot him prior to being shot by Rittenhouse. That has absolutely nothing to do with what happened at Kent State.