"It’s like a funhouse mirror. People look at the same facts and have wildly different reactions. It is troubling because..."

"...when people are having such different reactions, I guess tragedies like this shouldn’t be a surprise. People are afraid of each other and that is a situation that creates danger for everyone."

Said Wisconsin Law School professor Cecelia Klingele, quoted in "Dueling narratives fuel opposing views of Kenosha protest shooting/Amid intensifying political divisions, Americans are debating whether the shooter’s actions were homicide or heroic" (WaPo).

The conflicting interpretations of the case are fueled by murky details about who fired the first shot and other key factors in the encounter, as well as the state’s broad legal standard for self-defense. Wisconsin, unlike some other states home to high-profile self-defense cases, does not have a “stand-your-ground law,” which absolves armed people of an obligation to retreat when threatened. Instead, Klingele said, a Wisconsin court will determine whether Rittenhouse reasonably judged the danger he faced and used an appropriate level of force in responding — a standard that can be highly subjective.
“People’s divergent reactions suggest that there’s a question here about whether the defendant acted reasonably in self-defense,” Klingele said. “It doesn’t surprise me that self-defense is being raised, but whether it will be successful is an open question.”...

[Rittenhouse's lawyer] described protesters as “a mob” that was “determined to hurt” Rittenhouse because he was protecting a business they sought to deface. He said Rittenhouse heard a gunshot behind him, turned and saw Rosenbaum “lunging toward him and reaching for his rifle.”...

Rittenhouse fled north on Sheridan Road, one of the city’s main thoroughfares, past throngs of people on the street and sidewalks, according to video, as people yelled, “Get that dude!” and “He shot him!” Rittenhouse stumbled and fell to the ground, then took aim at the people pursuing him. Several people hit him or tried to disarm him as he was on the ground. The law firm statement described Rittenhouse as “in fear for his life.”

One man, identified as Huber, 26, swung at Rittenhouse with his skateboard while trying to wrest the gun from the teen’s hands, prosecutors said. Rittenhouse shot Huber once in the chest and killed him, the complaint states. He then shot a third man — Gaige Grosskreutz, who was holding a handgun, the complaint says — striking him in the right arm.... [Grosskreutz's] attorney, Kimberley Motley, declined to answer questions about Grosskreutz’s alleged gun but said he was “not trying to attack” Rittenhouse....

If his attorneys take the case to trial... it may turn on the voluminous video evidence and the jury’s interpretation of it, said Abbe Smith, a law professor at Georgetown University who has been a criminal defense lawyer for more 30 years and is skeptical of Rittenhouse’s case.

“Every once in a while the crime is clearly depicted on video, but often it’s subject to interpretation,” Smith said. “Video is like a Rorschach test. Everybody sees something different. People see what they want to see.”

I presume the lawprofs quoted in the article discussed the burden of proof at trial but WaPo chose to omit it. The mysterious complexity of video is far less puzzling if you pose the question the way it will be asked of the jury: Is there reasonable doubt of Rittenhouse's guilt?