Thanks for responding and engaging, Steven. I get where you're coming from, but I have to point out that Rittenhouse himself described his intentions as protecting property from protesters, not protecting himself. I'm not a lawyer, so I very well may be mistaken about the precise definition of reckless endangerment. At the same time, I think jurors can and should use their own common sense, kind of like Judge Schroeder using common sense to interpret the statute about sawed off barrels, when reaching a verdict. I know enough about lawyering to know much of it comes down to interpretation of legal language. Again, thanks for engaging. I've enjoyed your articles and perspective.