In the case of the 9 year old it's definitely legitimate self defence. That's also true of Kyle Rittenhouse - that's what the jury found. I don't have a problem with the self defence necessarily - the problem is the wider questions... why was a teenager out patrolling the streets on a self-imposed mission he was underprepared and undertrained for. He's got a right to defend himself, he sneaked past the curfew and gun laws by a weak prosection and strong defence team respectively - but his self defence shouldn't be necessary.

To take your example and make it fit - if a nine year old goes to the local dive bar with her Mum, and then the rapist attacks; isn't there a question about why a) the mum took her to the dive bar and b) why the bar staff let her in. This isn't an 'in your own house' argument - this is someone under the age of 18 on the front line of a riot.