People keep coming up with these fanciful scenarios because they don't like the idea of being able to shoot intruders, but think about that for a second. You're positing that a person wants to kill a random person they don't know, but also wants to do it in the loudest, messiest way that absolutely guarantees a police investigation. And the outcome, if their brilliant little scheme fails, is the death penalty.

A jury has found that was not the case with Rittenhouse; reading the Wikipedia page that details the incident will explain why [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting

There's no point in arguing about the facts of the Rittenhouse case, because everyone has seen all the video and decided where they stand on the issue. Arguing about it will only lead to a flamewar.

So let's posit that you are 100% correct - Rittenhouse went there with the explicit goal of shooting people, killed multiple people, and was not convicted of any crime. Do you think anyone looks at that scenario and thinks "and it was totally worth it, I want to do that too"? He's going to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. He's 18 and effectively has no chance of living a normal life unless he moves to another country and disappears. He very easily could have been killed by skateboard guy, or knocked out by jump kick guy and beaten to death, or shot by Grosskreutz.