OK I phrased that poorly, it sounds as if I am denying the self-defense and saying he was just shooting people for sport. All me to rephrase:

"Those who emphasize the role of self-defense in Rittenhouse's three shooting ..."

Is that better?

Suppose I ran into a crowd of yelling bigots protesting some LGB ruling that didn't go their way, waving a rainbow flag and festooned with gay regalia like long acronyms carrying a rifle. Suppose I killed a dozen of them and video showed that every one I shot had attacked me in some way first. Would I be blameless? With matters reversed, would I not be seen as someone who went looking for trouble, inviting attack by bursting among unstable people already enraged?

The general issue I see missing in your formulation is that Rittenhouse carried a weapon of massacre into a chaotic riot situation and strutted around with his rifle at a ready angle, not strapped to his back. The only murders were his. To me that is the very image of looking for trouble and while yes he technically acted in self-defense in each carefully decontextualized situation but is he innocent?

No.