Kyle Rittenhouse video and audio analysis clearly shows...

Yes, I missed that one initially.
But if you listened to the court proceedings you would have found out that the gun was only pointed at Rittenhouse after Grosskreutz had been shot in the right arm, severing his bicep. The prosecution contends that he then had no control over his right hand and that was when the gun ended up pointing at Rittenhouse, due to a complete loss of control. He would not even have been capable of pulling the trigger.

The defense showed the video of the shooting frame by frame and it confirmed this statement.

But if we grant that he did point his gun at Rittenhouse, so what? That's what all the open carry, we need more guns people tell us we need more guns for. To stop an active shooter. All Rittnehouse had to do was drop his gun, he didn't. He had shot two people already. Grosskreutz saw an active shooter that needed to be stopped, he was acting precisely the way the pro gun coalitions tell us to act.

 

It depends on where and how you are open carrying. This wasn't some guy out for a stroll in a park somewhere. This was an individual who knowingly entered an active violent situation where he had no reasonable reason to be with a fully loaded assault weapon. In addition the weapon was loaded with full metal jacket ammo designed to pierce standard police armor.

According to the defense at last one police officer changed his body armor from the standard issue to plate armor when he found out there was an individual roaming around with this type of ammunition.

Have you looked at the sequence of events in chronological order?
1. Rittenhouse tells reporter he didn't have "non-lethal" ammunition. So he knew he was prepared to kill people.
2. He left the car dealership he was protecting" even though he wasn't asked to protect it and the owners testified in court that it didn't need protected and they weren't interested in having it protected.
3. Most of the protestors and others had already left the area. At this point he should have gone home.
4. He decided to walk the streets alone even though he was supposed to be part of a "team" as his "team mate" had left. At this point he should have gone home.
5. He gets chased by a man who throws a plastic bag at him. A plastic bag. Lethal weapon?
6. They argue and Rosenbaum grabs for the gun, Why? Did he think he was going to be shot or trying to disarm Rittenhouse?
7. Rittenhouse shoots him. Not once, but four times as he falls to the ground. Four times ensuring death, not just self defense.
8. After that the crowd assumes there is an active shooter and since Rittenhouse did not immediately drop his weapon or offer aid to Rosenbaum as he claims he was there to do with his medical kit, it's open season on an active shooter by the concerned citizens of the crowd. Any one he shoots after the first victim can not be defended.

 

No, what I said was that even if we concede that the first killing was justified, which I don't believe it was as he shot the man four times with at least three shots occurring as he fell to the ground, and as Rittenhouse did not drop his weapon after the first shooting and offer aid to the fallen man as he said he was there to do, if we concede that all this was self defense and we consider that he didn't stop to offer aid, as he didn't drop his weapon, and as he didn't immediately seek aid or help from the police, the crowd assumed he may shoot someone else and acted as if he was an active shooter. Just as he may have believed his life was in danger, so too they now believed there life or someone else's life was in danger.

 

The question is did he use excessive force and did he contribute to the situation by being there in the first place.
You have to realize that if he didn't show up with that gun, no one would have died.

 

He made a tremendous error of judgement, and an irresponsible one.
The question is not did he have a right to be there, the question is did a reasonable person have the right to walk uninvited into a dangerous situation to "protect" something that wasn't his and that he wasn't asked to protect with a highly lethal weapon that he had very little experience with and no training (I believe he had shot it only in one setting) and then leave the area he was "protecting" to walk alone into a more dangerous situation....I could go on.....and, and after killing two, wounding one, and shooting at another; go home and go to bed.
Of course he had a right to be there, it's a free country, but not in the way he was there.
He was inexperienced, he had a lethal weapon, and he panicked.

He should be charged with at least felony first-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon. IMHO
You are entitled to your opinion.