i.e. peremptory strikes. Jury selection was clearly, with many many examples, used in the past to create a group not that was not the defendant's 'peers'. Even with the '86 court ruling that nominally ended peremptory strikes on the basis of race, most lawyers recognize (as do Gerrymanderers) you can find related reasons to strike them within the realm of plausible deniability (i.e bias against police).
The author presents no reasoning from those in favor, only disgruntled and largely anonymous counterpoints.
Furthermore, the praise of S African policy is a cherry picked example and clearly far outside the mainstream. One American official praising an approach is hardly a bellwether.
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse, citing one example as a potentially adverse ruling ("liberals would hate to convict this black man!") is hardly a good counterargument towards vigilantism. Just this week, a Florida 70 year old was acquitted after shooting dead a man who threw popcorn in his face. Even if we had to admit there is no perfect middle ground (may or may not be true), I think over-convinction of vigilantes is clearly preferable to allowing greater death and destruction through the furtherance of stupid legal theories like Stand Your Ground.