If it's so obviously a case of self-defense why do so many find the need to delve into Rosenbaum et al's backgrounds? Rittenhouse had no way of knowing any of this at the time. And I'm sure you'd agree that even having horrific crimes in one's background doesn't mean anyone can just come along & take your life.

I'm most troubled by the issue with Grosskreutz. True, his carry permit had expired, so he was not legally armed at the time. But then didn't Rittenhouse purchase the AR through a straw-man buyer? Also illegal.

The real issue is the NRA's "good guy with a gun" proviso in response to active shooter situations. Suppose there's more than one good-guy-with-a-gun on hand, how are they to identify one another? Suppose you were in Kenosha, also armed. Someone shouts "active shooter!". You cross the corner & see Rittenhouse with his AR facing off Grosskreutz with a handgun. Which would you take, in that instance, to be a more likely candidate for active shooter?

Honestly, I have no problem with the verdict. But I don't think Grosskreutz reacted unreasonably. I think that shooting illustrates the danger of armed people taking to the streets during times of unrest. I was in LA during the Rodney King riots. Asian bodega owners stood in front of their stores, or on the rooftops armed with assault rifles & shotguns. There you had a clear picture of who was who. Not so in Kenosha.