Rittenhouse's lawyers are arguing he was engaging in "legal hunting" on the streets of Kenosha.

[Effete Snob]

2. Word in statutes are whatever they are defined to be

If, in Wisconsin, (a) "hunting" is legal and if (b) "hunting" is defined as "walking around with a gun", then you end up with things like this.

They are not arguing that it is legal to hunt people. They are arguing that he wasn't committing some other offense up to the point of shooting people, which might have an impact on the degree of criminal homicide with which he is charged.

Or, to put it simply, if "walking around with a gun" is otherwise an offense, and if he killed someone in the process of already committing an offense, then, in some states, that kind of thing can bump a lower level of criminal homicide up to a relatively high one.

But if "walking around with a gun" is otherwise legal "hunting" in Wisconsin, then you end up with arguments that, yeah, sound bizarre in the context of just what he was up to that night.