In the news

I don't like coming across as defending Rittenhouse, who I think is morally culpable, but legally likely to get off the hook (not helped by US gun/self-defense laws and prosecution over-charging) but there's a few things in here that I also thought were true but have come to find aren't at all, or at least lack context. Long sentence, sorry..!
Also reckon that if/when he's acquitted these assumptions are going to be the reason a lot of people will absolutely kick off by way of seeing someone they believe to be a cold-blooded murderer absolved of wrong-doing.

Rittenhouse put himself in an active conflict zone

Arguably hyperbole, but there are videos of him at least performing the 'concerned citizen' stuff in the hours before shooting people - and at least within the confines of the trial, that's evidence enough he's not gone in 'looking for a fight' - whether or not he had ulterior motives.

drive him across state to another state

It was about a 15-20 mins drive, and he both works and his dad lives in Kenosha

With his rifle.

Not true - he picked that up from a friend after he'd got there, I think the day/evening before - not sure if that friend will be charged with anything RE: supplying a kid with a rifle, can only hope so.

suggests that he intended on finding and joining conflict

Open-carry state + US gun culture, so as much a we want to read into his intentions, they're essentially moot point legally (again, not saying that the legal side of things ignoring context/bigger picture is right - just how it is)

Might be preaching to the choir here with some of that especially around what's legally defensible and what's morally so, apologies if I've talked over you in that respect.

edit: just to be clear - I think Rittenhouse is a racist shithead who at best made some fucking stupid decisions, and I dread the elevation of the folk-hero status he already has on the right once this trial ends, whichever way it goes.