Not sure what you are trying to argue, TheDaemon... a gunman was seen shooting somebody in the head, and he was still holding the gun and running away. You seem to be suggesting that the unarmed people who were attempting to disarm the gunman are somehow guilty of something.
Query me this - if the gunman was Muslim, and a crowd of unarmed people attempted to disarm the Muslim shooter, would you be pointing out how it looks like one of those people tried to hit him with a skateboard? Or what if he was a member of Antifa?
Your response validates the "nightmare scenario" for "good guy with a gun" where a shooting happens, good guy brings out his gun and "handles" the shooter, just in time for others to decide he is the bad guy.
In the instance of the first shooting, Rittenhouse was
not the first person to shoot, and as the
New York Times outlined, the guy who was shot as a consequence of Rittenhouse's response, happened be
in a direct line between Rittenhouse and where the muzzleflash from the first shots being fired could clearly be seen. That victim #1 had also just tried to set Rittenhouse on fire made his demise that much less tragic,
and clearly self-defense. However, everyone else present is operating in "fog of war" and most of them don't know that, and have no way of knowing that.
That said, there are claims of earlier footage where Victim #1 and Vicitim #2 were threatening Rittenhouse prior to their ultimately fatal confrontations(I've only heard it talked about, haven't seen it, and haven't seriously tried to find it as of yet), and the chase that was witnessed prior to the first shooting was a consequence of Rittenhouse having put out a fire they'd just set.
But in any case after exercising his legal right to self-defense, he's now on the wrong side of an angry mob, which as you correctly point out, mostly believes he wasn't acting in self-defense. Which causes things to escalate, fatally.
This is one of those messy legal situation where both sides were mostly "in the right" with regards to the law. Rittenhouse was legally authorized to used deadly force, as from his point of view, he was in imminent danger of either serious bodily harm, or even death.
While many (but not all) members of the crowd were also legally authorized to try to detain him on suspicion of having just committed murder. (the ones who had reason to believe he had acted in self-defense would be in the situation of either being legally compelled to stay out of it and stand as a witness, or help protect Rittenhouse; if they attacked him, they were likely engaging in criminal conduct, as that would have been an unlawful detention at that point; kind of like the situation with Ahmaud Arbery only without the racial aspect, and the gun possession flipped)