I think like everything, there's nuance. At least one of his victims actively went after him, including stalking him for a further confrontation after the first one had already subsided. The one he shot in the arm seems to have been much less clear, and probably more a case of an itchy trigger finger on a medic who wasn't doing anything to him. On the other hand, it's absolutely crazy that he was illegally (age 17) in possession of a gun that was itself illegally purchased, and those lesser charges were dismissed by the judge on a questionably-interpreted technicality. Those are things he should have been found guilty of, without question.

Undertoad wrote:

The guy Rittenhouse shot in the arm was pointing a pistol at him. (An illegal pistol - the guy's carry permit had run out.)

The prosecution claimed a different order of events:

The prosecutor showed Grosskreutz's shooting frame-by-frame which shows him appear to retreat before Rittenhouse is seen aiming his gun at him from two to three feet away. Once Grosskreutz was shot, the bullet severing his bicep, his arm lowered in an involuntary action, the prosecutor said. "At this point, yeah, absolutely. That right arm is probably dangling down towards the defendant," Binger said. "It's not going to be able to pull that trigger without a working bicep muscle, and it's not a voluntary thing. It's done because the defendant just blew his arm off."

I don't know, I wasn't there. Anyone with an illegal weapon should absolutely be charged with such.
 

One carries an AR: to attack.  It was never good for defense.  Only is effective, as a defensive weapon, when an attacker is more than 13 feet away.  It is a defensive weapon on the battlefield.  That obviously is not defensive on city streets.

One carries a pistol to be a defensive weapon when an attacker is only five feet away.  Why do cops constantly watch about?  Because a threat, less than five feet, can compromise the defensive abilities of his weapon.

He carried an AR because his mindset was 'attack'. Difficult for extremists to comprehend - even though it is taught in weapons training.  But he need not disprove that.  We now have laws that say anyone with an attacker's mindset need only claim he was defending himself. Need not provide any proof.  Instead, we want prosecutors to prove he feared.

Responsibility: when one carries a gun in public, means he must be so responsible as to never use that weapon - unless he can prove later that it was necessary.  Cops are required to meet that criteria.  Adults, who are still children, need not prove they were threatened.  Making it legal to murder anyone such as Trayvon Martin.

Assault weapons are carried on city streets to attack others.  They are not and never were defensive weapons.  Cops only carry such weapons when attacking.  An emotional child need not meet a criteria of responsibility.


 

An AR which isn't an AR(Automatic Rifle) is a fine defensive weapon if you're pointing at the attacker.
However, it's probably most valuable feature is its intimidation power, especially to people who no nothing about guns. They've seen the shape in movies and on the news enough to know it's bad juju.

I don't live in Portland. I live hours away, in the county outside a small rural town.