Yes school shooters dont get to claim self defense but the process of how the law actually works doesnt play out on moral or ethical grounds is more what I mean. Rather it plays out on the terrain of narrative and perception. Moreover the situations are not great comparisons. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doudt that this kid murdered someone. This means the defense just has to create doudt. In this case, the defense can claim, as some others already have, that the kid shot someone because, he says, they threw a molotove coctail at him. As such they will claim he was in danger and responded with justified lethal force. Because this is off camera it is easier to create doubt via conflicting testimony, etc. If there is doubt about what happened before he is running down the street on camera, it becomes more difficult to prove, according to the court, that this kid murdered someone and assaulted/attempted murder someone else. The defense can now create a chain of events where their client did nothing illegal and was wrongfully assaulted by protesters. Here the legal code is strucured in a way that allows such a narrative to be compelling in court. Again I dont believe any of this. I think this kid is a murderer and if he has a legally plausible defense (again not moral or ethical) we need to know that so we can apply preasure if this is the case.

As you mentioned, the above point is moot if self-defense is not a legal option while one is commiting a crime. If this is the case, the kid will be convicted. I glanced at the state's self defense statutes and nothing jumped out at me in this regard. Doesnt mean its not there just that I didnt see it and you and at least one other are right to raise that point because if its true we dont need to concern ourselves with his court case because he has no defense and a conviction, barring gross corruption, is a sure thing.