In criminal cases, the field is not level as between the government and the defendant. The field is tilted against the government, on purpose, because of the power the government wields over the defendant.
Judges are more concerned with "fairness" toward the defendant than fairness to both sides.
This whole mess is just a traveshamockery. You have the "right" trying to make this kid into a martyr and the "left" reacting accordingly, and no one is being rational about it.
The second and third shootings, I think, were pretty clear self-defense. Someone swinging a skateboard at you or drawing a gun,while you're on the ground, pretty clearly invokes self-defense 99 times out of 100. Those two actions by the victims supersede any bad intent Rittenhouse may have had.
The first shooting is a bit more suspect, but I think it's naive to believe that under current self-defense and open carry laws, he would be convicted. Also, as repeatedly hashed out in this thread, the "prior bad acts" evidence was fairly unlikely to make it in. There are ways in which it could have been admitted, but very well may have been reversible error. A trial judge can barely go wrong keeping that out.
It's kind of interesting how, depending on the popularity of the defendant, the various pro-defendant procedures of our criminal courts are accepted as good, or decried as bad.