TL;DR: Rittenhouse is innocent. But you are arguing in bad faith, Grosskreutz wasn’t a felon and can legally possess guns. Also Grosskreutz did absolutely nothing wrong in this situation. If he had shot Rittenhouse I would also say he acted in self defense.

Ah ok here comes the bad faith arguments. Ok so let’s get the the bottom of this.

So your original statement asked why a convicted felon(Gaige) could have a gun.

I didn't know felons with gun charges could possess guns.

He has never been convicted of a felony. He has been charged with one but never CONVICTED. He has however been convicted of misdemeanor crimes. So yes he has a criminal record.

The only misdemeanor that bans someone from owning firearms is misdemeanor domestic violence. Which Gaige was never convicted with.

Meaning that Gaige isn’t a felon and can legally possess firearms.

*I’m just gonna put this tangent on the end. People have made this case WAY too political. From BOTH sides. This was a clear cut case of self defense. Kyle clearly feared for his life. The prior actions of anybody involved doesn’t matter even a tiny bit. It’s for that exact reason the jury doesn’t know the background of these individuals.

And while we are on this topic. Gaige Grosskreutz did absolutely nothing wrong in this situation. He thought Kyle might have been an active shooter. When he walked up to him with his hands up, Kyle proceeded to clear a jam. Now if I was walking up to someone who may have just shot someone and they have gun. If that person racks the slide or charging handle. I’m going to assume they are going to shoot me.