Self Defense

Have been pondering some of the things said during the prosecution of Mr. Rittenhouse. 

There seems to be a conflict of Constitutional guarantees. One of the foundations is that citizens have the right to possess property. If we are guaranteed that privilege, why do local governments assert that we aren't we allowed to protect that. 

Conflict emerges with the concept that inflicting injury upon a perpetrator is an infraction on that person's civil rights. 

In all cases, including the Rittenhouse, the issues are generally decided upon who was the aggressor and who was in a defensive posture.

Why would a prosecutor suggest that a legally armed man forfeit the right to self defense?

With focus on Rittenhouse, all three of the assailants suffered for their foolish attempts to blindside an armed and well trained man.

As it should be.