chapotraphouse

Jurisdiction and Travel: One could argue that traveling to a place, even if it's not one's primary residence, does not inherently constitute wrongdoing. Rittenhouse had family ties in Kenosha, and he worked in the city as well. Thus, presenting it as an outsider coming in with no connections can be misleading.

Intent: The presumption of his intent as "acting belligerent" is an assumption. Kyle's stated intent was to protect property and provide medical aid. It's vital to separate one's interpretation of his actions from the actual intent.

Law Self-Defense: The trial's core issue was whether Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. The jury found him not guilty on all counts, implying that, legally speaking, his actions were in line with self-defense statutes in Wisconsin.

Weapons: While he was underage possessing a firearm, the gun charge was dropped due to the specifics of Wisconsin law. The argument could be made that the gun shouldn't have been there in the first place, but this is a separate issue from the question of whether he acted in self-defense once confronted.

Moral Nuance: One can argue that Rittenhouse may have made decisions that escalated tensions (like bringing a firearm to a volatile situation), but that doesn't mean he acted criminally during the events in question.

Avoid Overgeneralization: It's essential to avoid painting the entire situation with a broad brush. Just because someone believes that Kyle acted in self-defense in the events of that night doesn't mean they endorse every decision he made leading up to it.