Not exactly. If Rittenhouse had been disarmed, then the threat would have ended, and the person who did that (whoever it was), would have been a hero.
Disarmed and *then* shot? No. You can’t continue to use deadly force after a threat has ended.
Shot while *still* armed? Well: A self-defense question for the jury in that case, isn’t it? :)
There is more than one way to stop a shooter. Everyone on the Right assumes that disarming Rittenhouse would have necessarily meant “killing” Rittenhouse, but that lacks foundation. It’s a product of your own bias to think that.
Let’s look at what *didn’t* happen. If the crowd had wanted to kill him, outnumbering him as they did, they could have. If Grosskreutz had wanted to kill him, as he was himself armed, he could have. And if Rittenhouse had seemed like more of a physical threat (6+ feet tall, 30+ years old, 250+ lbs., etc. etc.), he likely would have been.
But he was 17 years old with a babyface. Hard to end the life of someone who looks like that. That’s what really saved him that day, not his rifle.