That was everything for the prosecution.
The gun charge was all they had.
State law had a refusal of rights & case built on carrying as "inciting", nullifying his right to carry.
They now have nothing, as they did from the beginning, never should've been charged or harassed.
There's never been a clearer more documented & witnessed example of self-defense recorded. It's now a perfect case study with the remainder simply academic setting precedent.
I think there were only two real things that made defense questionable:
1> The first shooting. If the first shooting is a bad shoot then everybody else is simply chasing a criminal. No further shooting is justified.
2> If he is there with an illegal weapon in the commission of another crime such as a felony perhaps some sort of law could combine the deaths as unjustified due to the commission of a crime.
The first one seems to have come very clear once there was continued witnesses and videos before the case even got started.
The second one takes a lawyer to know if there's anything there and I would never put it past a prosecutor to continue for the trial due to a detailed understanding of the law that I could not fathom.
Once it became clear that the first guy had earlier interaction with Rittenhouse and was advancing on him I think that closed out this case. And surely the prosecutor knew trying to link the deaths with gun charges would fail.