We really all do need to be concerned now because, really, even though there is a valid difference between criminal court and the court of public opinion, there should be awareness of that difference and we're losing it.
When George Zimmerman was on trial, I believed that he was guilty while also believing that he would and should be found not guilty. This shouldn't seem nonsensical to people; but, apparently, from personal experience, it seems downright hypocritical.
I believed that Zimmerman was guilty; but, I tried my best to place myself into the shoes of a juror on the case and ask myself if I've seen any indication that the prosecution proved him to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What I believed didn't matter. My feelings about Zimmerman didn't matter. You don't convict a person of murder because you believe that he's guilty, or an idiot, or an asshole. If there's doubt, you put in a decision of not guilty.
When Zimmerman was found not guilty, several people were irate and made statements like "The dead body is the evidence."
Obviously, for people with some intellect, statements like that are absurd and negate the entire concept of self-defense while also showing that people are placing the bar for their own doubt in a place that will allow them to convict based on their guts rather than their brains.
We would like to dismiss this as just being a bunch of morons on the internet; but, these are all potential jurors. I don't personally carry my gun when I go out; but, I know people who do. If one of my friends who carry a weapon gets assaulted and ends up using the gun, these people could end up deciding the fate of my friends. If the dead body is sufficient evidence to negate a claim to self-defense in the mind of enough potential jurors, then we don't have a right to self-defense.
The Rittenhouse case is even worse than the Zimmerman case in this regard. With Zimmerman, I felt that he was guilty while admitting that I would have to find him not guilty if I were on the jury due to lack of evidence. In the case of Rittenhouse, he's been not guilty for fifteen months already and we're still pissing at each other. The prosecution has been so bad that their closing statements contradicted their opening statements and their entire case is hinged on a grainy, out of focus image with no context and still, somehow, the jury has been in deliberations for two days and a significant number of people - potential future jurors - find the grainy, out of focus image with no context to be enough to find Kyle guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
If we don't start understanding that we can believe that a person is guilty while finding the person not guilty due to lack of evidence, we're in trouble. If we can't find a person who we think is an asshole to be not guilty due to lack of evidence our society is crumbling. If we can't find political opponents not guilty due to lack of evidence, we have a society full of mini Lavrentiy Berias.