Here's an editorial/opinion piece published today in the Chicago Tribune. Writer thinks Rittenhouse will be acquitted of the most serious charges:
Chicago Tribune Article

Kyle Rittenhouse is going to walk.

This is my conclusion as I emerge, blinking in the light, from the rabbit hole I’ve been down all week of self-defense law, jury-instruction language, charging documents and online, frame-by-frame analysis of the videos of the tragic shootings in Kenosha during street protests on Aug. 25.

Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois, has been charged with first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, attempted first-degree intentional homicide and possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, in the shooting deaths of two protesters and the wounding of a third. The homicide charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 65 years.

Those of us on the left who are already outraged that it’s legal for civilians to openly carry military-style assault weapons in public spaces should begin now to brace for the inevitable resolution of this case.

Kyle Rittenhouse is probably going to walk.

He’s going to plead self-defense — his lawyers have already signaled as much — and from what I’ve seen, read and heard, I predict he’s going to be acquitted on the most serious charges.

Yes, it seems certain that Rittenhouse was in violation of Chapter 948.6 of Wisconsin law when he was guarding business properties with a weapon of war slung across his back. That law bans minors from carrying guns, and Kenosha County’s criminal complaint notes the maximum penalty for that offense is nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine.

But even those who break that law don’t forfeit their right to “use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm (if they) reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (themselves),” as Chapter 939.48, Wisconsin’s self-defense law, spells out.

According to prosecutors, video from the scene and witness accounts, the legally relevant portion of the story picked up a little before midnight: For unknown reasons, Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, of Kenosha, who had earlier been yelling angrily at the armed men who had come to the protests, was at a run, chasing Rittenhouse along Sheridan Road and into the parking lot of a used-car dealer.

When Rosenbaum, who was unarmed, finally cornered Rittenhouse, he grabbed for the teenager’s gun. Multiple shots rang out, and Rosenbaum fell, mortally wounded.

Did Rittenhouse have a reasonable belief under the circumstances that if Rosenbaum got his gun he would suffer death or great bodily harm? Jurors in Wisconsin are instructed that “reasonable” means “what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed ... under the circumstances that existed at the time.”

Tensions were high late into the protests against the police shooting of Jacob Blake two days earlier. Gunshots from other weapons were heard immediately before and after the shots that killed Rosenbaum. Whether you think Rittenhouse is a hero for helping guard against a repeat of the vandalism the night before, or if you think he’s a reckless wannabe cop who had no business in Kenosha, you’ve got to concede that, at that moment, he was probably terrified.

Rittenhouse hustled away. Soon a group of people began chasing him up Sheridan Road, shouting “Beat him up!” “Get him! Get that dude!” and “Get his arse!” according to the prosecution’s summary. One of the pursuers took a swing at Rittenhouse and knocked his ball cap off.

Were those running after him simply trying to effect a citizen’s arrest in the belief that Rittenhouse had just committed a crime and might be a danger to others?

“Whether or not the people chasing him thought they had the right to chase him is irrelevant,” said Richard Kling, a veteran Chicago defense attorney who teaches evidence and forensic science at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Rittenhouse stumbled and fell as he ran. One of his pursuers took a flying kick at his head and missed as Rittenhouse fired two errant shots from the ground. A second pursuer, Anthony Huber, 26, of Silver Lake, Wisconsin, swung a skateboard at Rittenhouse, hitting him on the shoulder, and grabbed and tried to hang onto Rittenhouse’s rifle. Rittenhouse shot Huber in the chest during that struggle, prosecutors said, killing him.

A third victim, Gaige Grosskuntz, 26, of West Allis, Wisconsin, who survived, first held up his hands in a gesture of surrender at a distance of a few feet. In one of his hands, he held a gun. But when he “moved toward” Rittenhouse, prosecutors said, Rittenhouse fired, striking him in the arm.

That final shooting “will be the most serious problem” for Rittenhouse at trial, Kling said. ”The guy did have a gun in his hand. But he wasn’t pointing it at or threatening Rittenhouse.”

What about the context, though? The confrontational, high-adrenaline interactions that led up to the tragic deaths. The night air punctuated by gunshots. Danger all around.

Did the teen willingly put himself in that fraught milieu and illegally, allegedly, risk a horrific escalation of that danger by carrying a gun on the scene? Yes.

Do I support that? No. I’d like to see open carry in public spaces by civilians of any age banned.

But under the current weapons and self-defense laws, will these killings result in prison time for the shooter? From what I saw down in the rabbit hole, I doubt it.

.
.
.
.
.

Hopefully the writer's forecast is accurate.