The Rittenhouse defence

This kid Kyle Rittenhouse (well 17 at the time of the incident but he still looked pretty young in court) has been acquitted of the murder of two men whom he shot during protests in Kinosha, Wisconsin following the shooting by police of a black man who is now paralysed. There are two things about this extraordinary story which only Americans who believe in the right for all citizens to carry and fire weapons in public places will be able to understand. This acquitted teenager didn't live in Kinosha. He lived in Antioch, Illinois and crossed state lines in order to reach the city in Wisconsin. He went there, he said, in order to protect property and provide medical help where and when required. Sounds very altruistic. But along with his first-aid kit he also brought with him into the protesting city of Kinosha an assault rifle of some kind. Presumably to stand guard outside vulnerable buildings to keep protestors away. I make no comment about the court case and the acquittal. The jury found him not guilty of murder on the grounds that he was acting in sef-defence. That's the law - in the US at least - and so be it. But it begs so many questions. He went to help the people of Kinosha carrying an assault rifle. He was 17 and he had an assault rifle at home to take out whenever he saw fit. Turning up in neighburing Kinosha with an assault rifle cannot be considered a very wise move. Did his parents know what he was doing? He then opened fire during the melee when he felt scared that his life was at risk, killing two men and injuring a third. The man who survived did acknowledge that he was pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse before the kid fired his assault rifle. The whole scenario just beggars belief. It is perfectly all right apparently for a teenager to go to someone else's city with an assault rifle and open fire in self-defence. Is this madness or what?