Because carrying a weapon to the scene of unrest does not meet the standard for reckless endangerment!! Any more than when the New Black Panthers do it. Your question is effectively, "How, exactly does a jury conclude that someone who did something irresponsible, but legal, didn't break the law?" The answer is self-evident.

And you ascribe intent to Rittenhouse with no basis. Was Grosskreutz’s intent to “police protesters” when he drove the 50 or so miles to Kenosha with a gun? Or is it possible that they both realised they might need to protect themselves in that volatile situation?

I'm sure we'd agree that Rittenhouse had no business in Kenosha. But so much of the discourse around this case is essentially the question; "Why doesn't the law interpret people's behaviour the same way I do?" And this isn't an entirely unreasonable question. As I say in my article, there are many important questions to ask about how the events that let to these shootings were possible, never mind legal. The anger and frustration people are feeling about the law in this case is totally justified.

But it's being compounded by this baseless mind reading about "what would have happened if it were black kid..." There's nothing wrong with asking those questions per se, but they're totally beside the point when analysing this particular case. The jury, by design, is not allowed to collate their opinions about racial injustice in America and apply them to this trial to make you feel better. It seems you're the one missing that point.