Obviously, photos and videos are two dimensional representations of a three dimensional world. Angles matter. To throw the "Rittenhouse should hang!" crowd a little bit of a bone, yes, there was an angle of the altercation between Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz shown at the trial which plausibly, for me at least, showed Grosskreutz pointing his gun slightly to Rittenhouse's left when he was shot rather than directly at him. In the flat profile, it looked clearly like Grosskreutz was aiming at Rittenhouse; but, there was one angle that made that less clear.
Now, the fact that Grosskreutz said himself that he aimed his gun at Rittenhouse throws the doubts that were emerging in my brain about where his gun was pointed out of the window. What's more, even if Grosskreutz didn't testify that his gun was pointed at Rittenhouse, that shouldn't shift anybody away from finding him not guilty. I have a reasonable doubt, even without Grosskreutz's testimony, as to where his gun was pointed.
Now, the prosecution is trying, in a last ditch effort, to claim that Rittenhouse provoked the whole event by allegedly pointing his gun at Joshua Ziminski, who was armed with a handgun and was the first person to discharge a weapon during the incident.
Rittenhouse's testimony was that he crossed paths with Ziminski and saw that he was armed and he decided to avoid confrontation. That's when Rosenbaum gave chase. We all know what happened after that.
The prosecution is trying to argue that Rittenhouse raised his rifle at Ziminski which provoked Rosenbaum. If the prosecution can convince the jury, that would make the killing of Rosenbaum a murder and it would throw self-defense out the window for the entire incident.
Now, I find the odds that twelve jurors will be convinced by a photo that's grainer than most Big Foot videos beyond a reasonable doubt to be slim to none. What's more, the image of Rittenhouse allegedly pointing his rifle at Ziminski is in profile; so, just like Grosskreutz, there's no certainty that the gun was actually pointed at Ziminski.
There are other factors that put a lot of very reasonable doubt on the charge that this was an act of provocation. We know that Ziminski was armed and he's currently facing charges for arson and conduct with a dangerous weapon. We don't know what Ziminski was doing with his gun leading up to the incident (Rittenhouse really wasn't pressed on that on the stand). If Ziminski we're approaching Rittenhouse in a threatening way and reaching for his gun, then it would be Ziminski who was provoking Rittenhouse.
Again, Rittenhouse is the one on trial. That means that if evidence of provocation can't be established beyond a reasonable doubt, he should walk. This isn't about your feelings or impressions. There's more than a reasonable doubt here.