Not guilty and the jury should agree. That being said, not sure about the merit of a 17YO walking around armed in a powder keg of a situation.
He should be able to walk anywhere without being attacked. Rittenhouse was completely within his rights. Americans have become used to cops doing their dirty work. In this case, the cops were prevented from doing their job. Had they DONE their job, there wouldn't have been a riot. In any case, all citizens can enforce the law.
Time was, in my country and, I believe, your country, that people were expected to turn out, armed if need be, to deal with disturbances of the peace and good order. Indeed that is why I quoted Robert Peel, earlier, because it was a principle from the common roots we have that the people would turn out, taking responsibility for protecting their community.
FWIW about a century ago relatives of mine, and many others besides, turned out with their guns to hunt down a gang of outlaws running wild in the region, robbing and murdering people. One of them was wounded by local citizens in an exchange of fire, and a few days later after being wounded again was captured by another group of local citizens not far from where my family has held land for the last 170 years. Another turned himself in, and the third was shot dead by another bloke, a farmer. These blokes who dealt with the bandits were hailed for it. Nowadays they'd probably be charged.
It seems to me, from this distance, that the young bloke turned out the way that people were, at one time, expected to do, and that there's a segment of the population which can't abide that he did so. That sort of self reliance, rather than dependence on the State for protection, seems anathema to them.
