The Rittenhouse defense has invoked self-defense justification for the shooting deaths of 2 in Kenosha Wisconsin.

Given the context of:

 1. Protesters
 2. Rittenhouse indicating intent to protect property from protests

How, if at all, does said context nullify the Rittenhouse self-defense?

RyanM has written [a good response][1] to a [question][2] posing a single issue (suspect's age), whereas my question is more consider with the broader context (suspect's statements, situation, nature of conflict).  The narrow question is:

> Does this latter fact [of being a minor in possession of firearm] make
> it impossible for him to claim self-defense?

This questions serves to cast a "wider-net" to consider the context ('all the facts') to determine the validity of self-defense.  

  [1]: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/55783/10793
  [2]: https://law.stackexchange.com/q/55781/10793