The kid's gonna fry. Only Grosskreutz had a gun.

If this isn't found as self defence. Nothing is.

Arguing with your liberal buddies does not constitute having studied defensive shootings. Lol at having "studied" defensive shootings for 30 yrs and still clueless as to how self defense works. Everything we've heard has been from Rittenhouse's POV and nothing more. There is nothing to corroborate that he was ever in any danger in any of the encounters that he had with the victims. We only have one video of him being chased only, and that was AFTER he'd killed the first victim in cold blood, making chasing him justified. For all we know those people would've apprehended him and done a citizen's arrest, which Rittenhouse was desperate to prevent. A person can use whatever force is necessary to bring a person committing a felony to justice and thats what the mob was trying to do. In any case, everything that happened that night was his doing and no one elses. When you shoot someone for no reason the first time, you can't blame anyone else for the chain of events you create afterward and then call self defense over it.

Remember the waffle house shooting in Florida a while back? Three unarmed white guys making racial slurs at a black dude and a Mexican. One of them charged the black guy and he was shot dead by him. He never faced charges because it was justifiable self defense.

So was he armed? Did he carry a weapon on his body?

Whoah, whoah, whoah. You can't be posting inconvenient facts like this. You'll hurt the simpleton's brains.

Yep. As soon as he grabbed the barrel of the rifle, he gave the green light to shoot him.

No it isn't.

No! You are delusional! Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse! Try explaining that to the jury. Then, later, Rittenhouse did experience more aggressive and threatening attacks, but it was after the fact that the crowd got word that Rittenhouse had just killed someone. Who is he? An active shooter? Actions of Huber and Grosskreutz may be plausibly explained as an effort to stop a potential mass shooter.

Your blatant ignorance and bias are abundantly clear. The gun charge was bogus in the first place and hinged on it being a licensed SBR (Short Barreled Rifle under 16" under NFA rules) to you ignorant types. It was not. It was a common every day 16" carbine. So the law he was charged as being in violation of, was not even applicable. Determinable with a fucking measuring tape.

Armed or not is irrelevant.

The reckless endangerment charges are the most absurd. He will be acquitted because he never should've been charged in the first place.