Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty

I think some of the law enforcement officers might argue with you on that point. Many of them were quite grateful for the help they got from armed citizens protecting businesses and homes.

More like shown up to be failures being they were armed themselves backed up by armour ,and needed outsiders to deal with the riots , while they turned up average Joes they did little to quell the rioting or helping law enforcement

The gun was bought in Illinois ,he wasn't legally entitled to own the gun in Illinois,did he not transport it across state lines ,

Ok you might argue the straw purchase ,but the fact it's been publisised thorough the trial process they might Illinois may decide they have to do something to acknowledge that and to be shown they won't allow similar to happen ,

I know Wisconsin dropped the weapon charge , but that wouldn't stop Illinois from charging him for offenses in that state ,

Unless you know otherwise ?

One thing wow that's a real gotcha 😂

Was he legally allowed to possess or use the gun in Wisconsin? Technically, he didn't own the gun, Dominick Black bought the gun for Rittenhouse using Rittenhouse's money and was holding it in Wisconsin until he turned 18.

But black is facing trial for that next

Those charges will likely be dismissed. The agreement was that Black would hold the gun in trust until Rittenhouse's 18th birthday, which is legal. If Rittenhouse was legally permitted to have the gun in Winsconsin (which according to the discussion this morning where the charge was dismissed, he was) then I can't see that there is any ground for charging Black for supplying a legally owned firearm to a person legally permitted to possess it.

It's just useful for the prosecution to be able to say "I am prosecuting Mr Black for bla bla"

Goes to show the gun laws are easily circumvented.

No, they're not "circumvented". The charge was dismissed because as the law stands it was legal for Rittenhouse to be in possession of the firearm he had that night.

There is an argument that that law is bad and should be changed, and that there is never any reason a minor should be able to legally possess a firearm in public, and I'd probably be sympathetic to it, but there was no "circumventing" here. That's simply what the law states.

I'm watching the closing arguments, the defense says the car source owners asked Rittenhouse & Co to guard car source. But I thought they said differently? e.g.

[quote]But the co-owner of Car Source said Thursday he didn't hire the men, ask for their help or endorse it. 

"Why would I?" Anmol Khindri said, in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  "I'm already burned out. There was nothing left to protect."

Khindri said he and his father own Car Source, and three lots along Sheridan Road, just blocks from the civic center. Arsonists burned dozens of cars at the main retail lot on Sunday night. [/quote]

I've fired more guns than most people on boards , including bolt action hunting rifles , pistols , revolvers , semi automatic rifles and shotguns ,and black powder smooth ball muskets

Being in fair digging matches too ,

Again a competent shooter would have put their rounds centre mass ,but rittenhouse house was not competent ,he previously only fired a few mags through it a few months previously but then decided to walk into a riot ,

He was lucky

You say he was competent I take it you have little or no experience with firearms of any kind ?.