Despite the Arbury verdict, the Heir is still concerned about an emerging phenomenon he calls "Rittenhousing."  That's actively shooting people for the express purpose of arguing self-defense in a trial.  We have no idea why anyone would go to the trouble, because why not stay out of jail to begin with?  What have you got to prove?  But the Heir's looking at the Crumbley case in Michigan, and he wonders if that's a case of Rittenhousing.  It would not surprise him if both the teen and his parents argue self-defense on trial.  They seem to believe that anyone should be able to use any gun in any way they feel like, that being their possible definition of self-defense.  They don't care that the parents hiding out in that one office building may be a demonstration of a guilty conscience.  But the Heir believes the Rittenhouse verdict has given license to any active shooter as long as that shooter argues self-defense, despite the Arbury trial showing what the Heir sees as a common sense refrain in the law as per what self-defense really is and what it isn't.  That refrain the Heir sees as preventing the self-defense argument from becoming a blank check or a get-out-of-free-jail-card, but don't be surprised when the Crumblies argue self-defense in court.  In other Rittenhouse news, the Heir needs to go to the Wikipedia pages on Anthony Huber and Jonathan Rosenbaum to objectively see whether the families have yet to pursue a case against the city of Kenosha and/or seek compensation from the state of Wisconsin.  He hasn't heard anything on audio about it, and he's not going to do a general web search because that'll collide him towards pro-Rittenhouse biases online.