Doesn't make it right, moral or the people he killed who otherwise would still be alive, any less dead.

Rittenhouse didn't carry out an unprovoked attack on someone who was clearly armed. His attackers did. Perhaps they shouldn't have been there.

No idea why you want this wild west society where it's fine to shoot someone due to your predetermined set of parameters. To the rest of the world it seems absolutely deranged.

The parameters are the circumstances and the law. The circumstances were that three individuals attacked Rittenhouse to the point where his belief the force he used, being necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, was reasonable. Which is what the law requires.

Why are you relieving Rosenbaum of any & all culpability? When Rosenbaum attacked Kyle, he was running to extinguish a car fire. A fact that ADA Binger acknowledged. How are you justifying the unprovoked attack on Kyle by Rosenbaum?

I'm not. I just don't think it is the actual point here.

What is the point? As far as I'm concerned the point is Kyle's right to self defense & the unprovoked attacks. Everything else (i.e. He shouldn't have been there, He was armed, etc.) is irrelevant.