I've had a number of discussions with friends and relatives about the verdict. A recurring argument made in opposition to the verdict is "he shouldn't have been there". Maybe I'm wrong be the question of whether he should or shouldn't have been there has no bearing on Rittenhouse's self-defense claim. In my mind the only issue the jury was dealing with was whether in the moment each shot was fired was Rittenhouse faced by a threat of deadly physical force being used against him. Some individuals think that he forfeit his right to a self-defense claim because he shouldn't have been there. What are your thoughts?