I think you're arguing at cross-purposes here. If, e.g. Rittenhouse's presesnce with an assault rifle made him a target, as well it might have, then he created the danger from which he defended himself. So, not legit self-defense, I think, legally speaking.

I don't understand, either, why you keep harping on Grosskreutz's alleged criminal record. I think you're wrong about it, but even if you're not, what did he do wrong? He's present for whatever reason, he hears shots, turns to see Rittenhouse firing his AR. What's he supposed to do at this point? What would you have done? How would you have handled a situation like that? Yes, he admitted pointing his weapon at Rittenhouse, but that's because he believed him to be an active shooter. How would he know different?

I've covered lots of events, rallies, riots, etc., & when something violent & untoward happens, you never see it evolve. It's like seeing a traffic accident in its entirety. So how do you know who the good guys are vs the bad guys? I'm certain you've given this issue some thought over the years.