Controversy naturally adheres to these edge cases. If Rittenhouse wasn't a law breaking idiot, there'd be no story. Similarly, if his actions weren't in self defense, there would also be much less story. Because you have someone who made demonstrably bad decisions and broke the law in several ways but to all evidence did not break the law in the most important way, you have a situation primed for engagement of the public and use as a political tool. Whatever your stance is, complexities like these give you the ability to project your argument onto them and thus become more about what you think the current state of society is than the actual case itself.

Personally I find it remarkable how well legal commentators who viewed the footage shortly after it happened predicted how the trial would go. The trial itself and the reactions of various interest groups have been completely unsurprising.