A good video on the legal aspect of the case.
TL:DW - With the ways the laws are written this is a difficult case to call. A reasonable person could include that what Rittenhouse did was murder, but it's also possible for a reasonable person to conclude that he acted in self defense. That being the case, it would be difficult to argue that the prosecution made a case beyond reasonable doubt. He points out that it's true that nobody would have died had Rittenhouse not been there in the first place, however, Rittenhouse being there with a gun was not illegal so that doesn't really matter.
On a side note, one interesting thing that he points out with the law is that a person that is committing a crime and provoking a response can turn around an claim self defense if they feel their life is danger.
For example, a rapist could attempt to rape a woman at gun point. The woman could respond by shooting at the man. That would be self defense on her part. However, the man could try to run away, and if she keeps on shooting, he could then shoot and kill her and then correctly claim self defense. In that scenario, he could essentially get off with nothing even though he tried to rape a woman and then killed her.
