I don't disagree with you entirely - but a self-imposed mission isn't against the law. It's just painfully stupid. It might've been possible for Ritttenhouse to go to the riot and not kill people - you have to prove he went to the riot specifically to kill people to prove causation rather than correlation.

The act of showing up armed would be considered a crime here in the UK - but it doesn't meet the criteria for a crime over in the US. You have to police the laws you have, not the laws you want to have. So whilst I can agree that it's stupid he went to a riot and fully armed, I cannot conclude that doing so led directly to the deaths of the two men. What did lead to their deaths was attacking him - and that's a reasonable defence in American law. The matter of showing up and shooting are separate things.

The prosecution should've put a better case together on the curfew argument, the defence did a sterling job of getting the gun holding off on a technicality. Everything else was judged to be just fine - and his showing up unannounced is somewhat troubling - I think it will happen more regularly and America needs to radically tighten it's laws to prevent it from happening again.

Kyle Rittenhouse cannot be a lawless murderous thug, because he did not break the law and he did not murder people. You and I may privately disagree with the jury's decision - but there's no case to answer for, the US has no law against children (or adults) rocking up to riots and waiting to be attacked.