Actually "two wrongs" is exactly how enforcement of the law works. Party A breaks into house, so Party B assaults and kidnaps them. Ideally, Party B is operating according to due process (including duly enacted "laws"), thus is approved of by wider society and the situation converges. It's not a given that Party B can only be some government-blessed police, because such police cannot be everywhere and police (or even wider society) can be corrupt (eg gun control laws gained stream after Black communities started arming themselves in self defense).

As a libertarian who is generally sympathetic to arguments from both tribes, I have to say that the red tribe arguments here seem quite sensible and applicable (which frankly is a relief to me because most everything else I've seen from the red tribe over the past two years has seemed batshit insane and I was worried that I had been captured by the political machine)

If Grosskreutz had ended up killing Rittenhouse, it's certainly possible that the legal finding would have also been self defense (with Rittenhouse not being prosecuted posthumously). In general the law doesn't have clear answers for chaotic situations, and the best way to protect yourself is to avoid them in the first place.

Which brings us back to the larger issue - if Rittenhouse's behavior was problematic for electing to become an armed combatant or force escalation at a riot or something like that, then it seems that is what needs to be criminalized directly - regardless of the specific armed confrontations precipitated. Of course any such law would have to distinguish between bona fide community defense by residents standing their collective ground.