I don't agree, that seems like it would be giving official journalists for example special privileges over citizen journalists. Give free reign to racists to lynch counter protestors, etc.

If I'm on my way to sell crack and I get attacked by some psycho do I lose my right of self defense?

If I'm breaking curfew and I get attacked by some psycho do I lose my right of self defense?

At some point you will see that it makes no sense, the legal system already forbids killing looters, so you want them to lose their right of self defense because you don't like them.

In what state are there laws that would lead to his conviction for double homicide?

Nah, he is a murderer. Shitty laws in a shithole state does not change that fact.

What shitty laws are we talking about? He made a pretty basic and straightforward self defense defense. He didn't invoke Stand Your Ground, in no small part because WI doesn't do Stand Your Ground (and all Stand Your Ground generally means is that you don't have a duty to try to flee from an attacker if possible, and it was only really possible for Rosenbaum and he did try to flee from Rosenbaum).

The only case where he got off on a charge because of "shitty laws" I can think of would be the weapons possession charge and that's because WI has different ages for different classes of guns, and the kind of gun he had was in the 16+ rather than 18+ category. Ironically, there was at least one person with an illegal gun on the scene, and it was Grosskreutz, and then it was because it was a concealed carry with an expired permit.

I can go into detail if you'd like to know why I agree with the self defense argument made for each of the shootings, but for now I'll leave you with the point where I knew Rittenhouse would be found not guilty for Grosskreutz, since that one had a single question that changed everything:

"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him — advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?" the defense said.

"Correct," Grosskreutz replied.

Because that question was the difference between self defense or not self defense.

Grosskreutz (the one who survived) could have shot Rittenhouse and justifiably claimed self-defense under the law. He had a gun pointed at him by a dude who had just wasted two other men with it. The law's fucked.

You don’t grab a rifle, drive to another state

This did not happen, the rifle was always there and rittenhouse was there the day before as they worked there, at least read the damn wikipedia article of the kenosha unrest before making up such blatant lies.

edit: And to give you an example, lets say you rob a house and then flee, you can actually defend yourself if the home owner starts chasing you after you left the home.

Here they couldn't even demonstrate a "crime" or something that rittenhouse did that would have given them a reason to chase him, all we know is that Rosenbaum was going around threatening people before he began to chase rittenhouse and tried to take their weapon, also the moment right before someone shot their pistol into the air which was what made rittenhouse turn around when Rosenbaum was chasing him.

Kyle works in that state and did not "bring the rifle across state borders" which just cements to me that so many of you did not follow the trial. You're speaking from a position of ignorance.

Just about everything you wrote shows a complete lack of understanding of the evidence presented at trial.

Gun never crossed state lines. If it had, they could have busted him for a firearms possession charge in IL. The gun was kept in WI because of differences in gun laws between WI and IL.

Driving to another state is such a nothing. It's phrased this way to make it sound like he took some massive journey, but Kenosha and Antioch are just on opposite sides of the state line from each other. The distance is about 20 miles, about half an hour by car. He worked in Kenosha as well.

He didn't just show up and declare people were threatening him and then start shooting at them. He got into an argument with Rosenbaum when Rittenhouse tried to put out a fire and Rittenhouse tried to flee him. Someone else fired a shot, at which point Rittenhouse stopped and turned and Rosenbaum was within arms length and reached for Rittenhouse's gun. Rittenhouse fires.

Then Rittenhouse starts heading for the police line. He gets knocked to the ground, and Gruber moved to start beating him with an improvised weapon. Rittenhouse shoots him too.

Then Grosskreutz approaches him in a false surrender,.gets close, lowers his hands and points his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shoots him. Grosskreutz's own testimony said as much.

Let them take a gun or any weapon out of the house unsupervised.

He didn't take it out of his home. The gun was never in his home. This was covered in the trial, because if he had had the gun at home, it would have been illegal due to differences in firearms possession laws between WI and IL. That's why the gun was kept in WI.

Let them go to another state at night unsupervised.

This is such a nothing, but it makes it sound like a big deal. Kenosha is right by the state line, he lived in a town just on the other side of the state line. So, what you are saying is you think parents shouldn't allow kids in their late teens to go to the next town over unsupervised. The distance is ~20 miles, about half an hour in a car.