[HNo]

>He had just shot two people

He had just defended himself against two assailants.

>was still armed

But not threatening or brandishing.

>and proceeded to shoot a third shortly after.

And proceeded to defend himself against a third assailant.

>That fits every definition of “active shooter” I’ve ever seen.

Fits practically no definition of "active shooter".

[ceejayoz]

The definition of "active shooter" is "there's someone running around shooting people". Self-defense comes into play at charging time and in the courtroom, as it is now.

The cops role during the shooting incident is to stop the shooting and detain whoever's doing it. Until they do, it's an active shooter incident.

[HNo]

>The definition of "active shooter" is "there's someone running around shooting people".

No it's not: The United States Department of Homeland Security defines an active shooter as "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims."[0]

Even if it was, I'm glad that definition excludes the events that transpired when Rittenhouse was attacked.

>Self-defense comes into play at charging time and in the courtroom, as it is now.

Self-defense came into play when he defended himself against assailants.

>The cops role during the shooting incident is to stop the shooting and detain whoever's doing it.

Non sequitur.

>Until they do, it's an active shooter incident.

That is not what an active shooter scenario is.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_shooter