Mostly it's just a weak case. All they have is "Rittenhouse acquired a rifle through a legal gray area, three criminals tried to murder him, and he shot them in self defense on video from multiple angles, then ran straight to the police to surrender". Prosecuting a homicide case based upon that is essentially impossible without *looking* incompetent because it's such a weak case. Mens rea? Good luck with that, because people with a guilty mind dont run up to the police and try to turn themselves in. Pre-meditation? Who would "pre-meditate" being pursued through the streets by a howlig mob that outnumbers you 100-1 and only firing after being repeatedly cornered? That's ridiculous. Negligence? In hindsight, carrying a weapon on a night when three separate people tried to murder you is IQ 200 level prescience not negligence. Accident? Pointig a gun at someone who attacks you clearly isn't accidental. All the prosecution has is "you acquired a self-defense tool through a legal gray area and saved your life by using it". It'd be akin to trying to prosecute a police officer for murder because they parked too far from the curb when responding to an active shooter call. Technically you have to park within X feet of the curb, but technically officers can lawfully ignore traffic statutes when responding to calls, so do you really want to argue a murder case over a murky slap on the wrist citation at most?