No. Even by your wildly inaccurate definition, this is not "by definition" a terrorist act. And if we describe it accurately:

"When someone from an outside state with no governmental authority (which he doesn't need because the law is insane) goes to the scene of violent and destructive looting with a semi-automatic rifle (which it's legal for him to carry because the law is insane) thinking he's a superhero who's going to protect buildings that don't belong to him."

It becomes even more obvious that it wasn't a terrorist act. Some of the takes I'm seeing here are so ridiculous. You've arrived at your conclusion ahead of time, and are now desperately trying to warp the facts to fit it.

Rittenhouse is an idiot. He had no business being there. And it's a shocking indictment of the legal system that what he did wasn't a crime. But the solution is to campaign to fix the law. Not to pretend that a stupid, delusional boy who was responding to a situation that never should have been allowed to occur in the first place, is a terrorist.,