He likely will have some emotions to deal-a kid like that doesn't actually WANT to kill people. Fact is it was them or him.
For SELF DEFENSE-Have the reasonable belief: that they or another person, are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent said harm.
Here's what one lawyer with an interest in CQB said:
LEGAL ISSUES – Lawyer's opinion(not from there)—”review of the Engagements suggests that it is difficult to argue that Rittenhouse was not of such reasonable belief. Very Clear cut in terms of exhaustion of alternatives short of the use of deadly force and restraint” that the author has encountered.
“One (Grosskreutz) melted down even though he had ample means to continue the fight. Grosskreutz is only alive today because of Rittenhouse’s amazing (perhaps even naive) restraint. I don't know of any tactical instructor that wouldn't counsel a follow-up shot to center mass on Grosskreutz immediately after the arm-strike. “
“Amusing aside: Interview with McGinnis by Detective Cepress:
“McGinnis stated that he had handled many ARs and [Rittenhouse] was not handling the weapon very well.”
Based on the videos I've seen Rittenhouse is one of the best weapons handlers under pressure I've ever seen. So much for McGinnis’ credibility.”
Is it possible to have the opinion that Rittenhouse behaved commendably once he was under attack but stupidly before he found himself under attack?
Judging from the comments here, it seems to draw down to the usual black-and-white (no, not skin color) lines of American politics; if you don't think Rittenhouse was 100% correct from beginning to end, well, then you must be a Marxist.