You even seem to be relenting a bit and admitting that maybe he didn’t break a law, but saying there should be a law against it.

Maybe you’re having discussions with other people and confusing me with someone else. I remind you that my first reply to you was:

I can acknowledge the court case, not disagree with the decision, and still call Rittenhouse a murderer

The definition of murder does require “being found guilty of the crime of murder in the place where it happened.”

For example: historically it was legal to kill minorities. Those that did were still murderers even if it was “legal” at the time.

I don’t care that Rittenhouse was found “not guilty”, he’s still a murderer. I’m not saying the trial was wrong, I’m saying Rittenhouse was wrong and the existing laws are insufficient.