Rittenhouse had a right to be there with a gun. Shooting someone in self-defense is not wrongful death. Yes he caused their deaths, but he had a right to self defense. The defense in a civil suit would be able to bring up all sorts of information that was suppressed in the criminal trial about the people shot. I don't think a jury pool in Kenosha, WI would be sympathetic to a convicted child rapist who apparently was anxious for a fight. The others also had previous felony convictions.
He inserted himself into a situation 20 miles away. He and his home were not under attack. He made it that way. He carried a gun to a protest that was nowhere near his house and now claims he felt threatened. Stop blaming a man who had been tried and convicted and served his time. Rittenhouse did not know in any way that a convicted child rapist was there. This was not Rittenhouse out to settle a score with a child rapist. Stop bringing up this red herring. It has nothing to do with anything except a distraction for the right.
Indeed during the trial it was irrelevant what the victims previous crimes were, which is why they were not admitted. However it does go to show the potential reasons for them being there. It was the second night of unrest, the peaceful protest happened the day before. This evening was not peaceful, there were clearly people there only there for the violence. You see this in many countries, a protest starts peacefully, then people pile in for the violence. Either far left or far right, or those that have grief with the Police. I see it here in Germany and the UK.
Kyle's extended family lived there. He had a job there. He had friends there.
Earlier in the day he was cleaning graffiti from a local school. He was a lifeguard. He had basic first aid training. He was a junior police cadet.
Testimony (personal and video) showed before he was involved in the altercations he was going around asking if anyone needed medical help. He didn't point his gun at anyone.
Should he have even had a gun, no, not in any sensible country. But this is part of the US that it is legal to be like the wild west. And here's the thing, it was legal for someone of his age to carry that weapon. As insane as that is. He wasn't alone. There were dozens, if not hundreds of armed people doing the same thing he was. And it wasn't illegal. Some, were invited onto private property to protect it. Again, completely nuts in this day and age but it happened.
There was no clear evidence in the trial to say he was a white supremacist. This part is a complete nonsense because the victims were not black, his reason for being there wasn't because of it. Yes something came out about some pictures taken and his family have clearly take money from Fox (very regrettable and he shouldn't be anywhere near Tucker Carlson).
BLM saying him being found not guilty with a comparison against how a black person would be treated, is probably actually correct however it has nothing to do with this individual case.
Why didn't the two dead people get to feel threatened? They probably did when they saw a guy walking toward the protest with an AR-15 but their feelings are meaningless, somehow.
Testimony showed they (the victims) were heavily involved in agitating the violence. They threatened Kyle's life, verbally and later physically. They started it. Kyle put out the fire in the dumpster, he tried to run away from confrontation.
They weren't just innocent protesters, come on. Their history and their actions on the night are completely as expected from people only there for the violence. In the trial this was as I mentioned irrelevant but they were not doing nothing that night and they didn't get shot by a "gun toting, white supremacist kid who crossed state lines with a gun". Trust me I am no fan of the right in the US (as my posting here shows) and I'd trust CNN and MSNBC every day of the week over Fox but they really haven't done themselves any favours over this with their coverage.
What it all comes down to, as it often does is the rights of people to bear arms. Remove that or restrict it and you'll remove the severe likelyhood of accidental or purposeful killing. Riots are dangerous enough in a population without guns. Add them in, with people carrying and it's just prime for a something to go badly wrong.