You were right, obviously, about the outcome. But the reasoning that led you to this conclusion seems extremely strained.

The point is that most states, including Wisconsin, allow self-defense against an imminent threat to one's safety. And there was video and photo evidence of every interaction that clearly demonstrated that Kyle was trying to flee while being attacked and/or aggressively pursued.

So it actually was a pretty simple case. You could have called the people victims or living, breathing human beings with mothers and fathers who love them...and the jury wouldn't have had any choice but to acquit Rittenhouse because what he did fell solidly into self-defense law.

In order to give an example of how CRT might be used to see things, you have to use a different, less clear example. Otherwise you're just making the point that CRT sees things that don't exist, which I don't think is what you intend.

(A much better example would be how hard it was to get the Arbery case to go to trial. Once in trial, it was another really clear case. But comparing the story of how hard it was to get there, compared to some other cases, is exactly the kind of arena where critical race theory earns its keep.)