Thoughts/questions re: Rittenhouse trial

[consider_this]

So I watched the full day on the 10th, and the day of closing arguments - but some things I am trying to make sense of.

Hope you all can correct any misunderstandings that I may have (if there are any). Here are the things ins question for me:

I understood it is illegal to use deadly force to protect someone else's property - is that correct?
If so, that what was KRs point in bringing a deadly weapon to protect CarSource? And by just having it there, isn't that seen as threatening deadly force?(otherwise why have it?) Is that legal?

We learned it is legal for a 17 year old to carry a rifle in WI. As I understand it, it is in the WI law to allow for teen hunting - correct?
What is it that KR is planning to hunt in a city at night that makes such possession and display (and tragically, USE) legal? Is this law really that loose?

KR had someone else buy the weapon for him since it wan not legal for him to buy. That person is getting prosecuted, but does KR have any charge for requesting his friend do that and paying the friend for the straw purchase?

[Sympthsical]

1. Some answers

You cannot kill someone for property. The idea of open carrying rifles is for personal protection and, IMO, intimidation. "Don't fuck with us. Don't fuck with this property." Neither things are illegal. Is it good judgement? Not for Rittenhouse. Should've never been there. But what he should've done and what was legal are two separate things. Simply put, open carry is not illegal in Wisconsin.

The hunting question is almost immaterial. It may have been the legislators' intent to make rifles only legal for hunting purposes, but that's not how they wrote the law. How they ultimately wrote the law made it legal for Rittenhouse to possess the rifle. So this is on a gun law sloppily written. If Rittenhouse had other types of guns, it would've been illegal. The law is weirdly clear on it. When the defense brought it up for the judge to dismiss, the prosecution didn't even fight it. They knew Rittenhouse didn't violate the gun law.

Rittenhouse isn't facing any weapons charges now. One of the ironies of this is, the friend could end up serving more time than him.