Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

In the Rittenhouse trial the prosecution agues that if you plan for your self defense and then find yourself in a position to exercise that self defense you are guilty of premeditated murder. Premediated self defense is akin to premeditated murder. So if a woman takes a self defense class and then injures or k**ls someone defending herself she is guilty of premeditation since she anticipated she might be attacked. Is that the prosecutions line of thinking?

In addition he tried to argue that the Grosskreutz, the assailant waving the gun, never shot at Rittenhouse therefore Rittenhouse was not actually defending himself since Rittenhouse shot first. So the prosecution's argument is that one can never defend themselves until they are actually shot or shot at first. What if the assailant had a knife instead of a gun. Would Rittenhouse have to respond in like kind, with a knife? What if he hadn't brought a knife? Oh ya, if he brought a knife it would have been premeditated self defense with a knife and he would have been guilty even if he was attacked with a knife and responded. In other words this prosecution tried to argue that any pr********n for potential self defense is proof of guilt.

Do people actually believe this twisted logic?

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

If they want Rittenhouse to be found guilty of murder, yes, they do. If they are able to think objectively, then no.