And yet he held back, even though he was facing someone who just killed a man and was obviously dangerous. But the narrative here is that Rittenhouse was running away from bloodthirsty mob that'd murder him on the spot. While member of said "mob" didn't shoot him in the back, even though it would be so much easier than trying to grab him. Seems like there's something wrong with the narrative after all.Please, he already had similar ideas and it wasn't anywhere near of a stretch as you're trying to say. Rittenhouse was not some poor, undecided centrist, who was "forced" by evil lefties to join the Proud Boys. Being an armed vigilante "defender of property" and shooting some people on the "opposing side" is right up their alley.