Arguably, if Rittenhouse were in Florida or had been wearing a badge, he could claim that the first murder was in self defense; the man was carrying a deadly weapon (a nearly empty plastic bag) which he threw at him and missed, putting him in "reasonable fear" of his life.

However, once Rittenhouse said, "I just killed a guy!" and then took off running from the scene of a murder he committed, he lost all right of self defense from his pursuers.

It's interesting how many people are jumping up to defend the Rittenhouse self-defense claim, when in fact it appears that the prosecutor has exactly the same take on the situation that I have. https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journaltimes.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/6f/46ff33b7-0bd7-55e6-8f2f-9ded0582862f/5f4933274cde9.pdf.pdf

In regards to the first death, Rittenhouse is being charged with "reckless homicide." That is, there is no claim that he showed premeditation or even that he wasn't acting in self defense. Rather, the claim is that he was acting recklessly, resulting in death.

This seems exactly right. However, as I noted, once Rittenhouse committed that crime and fled from the scene, he cannot legally claim self defense when he kills someone who is pursuing him. That is why the second charge is "intentional homicide."

I am puzzled as to why that is confusing. Rittenhouse was an armed criminal who had just murdered someone. The people pursuing him were within their legal rights to stop and detain him, even if that required lethal force, as he was still armed and dangerous.

While it is true that he may have feared for his life, there is no law anywhere that would give him permission to kill one of his pursuers--even to save his own life. At this point, he was an outlaw, and any deaths he caused would necessarily be premeditated murder.

That's just how the law works.

A generic legal analysis of what I'm describing can be found here. https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/limits-on-self-defense.html

This analysis notes that the aggressor (in this case Rittenhouse) might be able to regain his right of self defense if he flees and makes it clear that the confrontation is over--i.e., that he has no intention of committing further violence.

This might work if Rittenhouse had discarded the weapon--but he didn't. The people pursuing him had every reason to believe that he might kill again, and it is clear that their actions were purely to detain him and prevent further deaths.

(By "communicating withdrawal from the confrontation," according to the analysis what is meant is that he pretty much would have to have stopped running, shown that he had discarded the weapon, and said, “Hey, I’m sorry and I give up! Please don’t hurt me!”)