Self-defense

Is it self-defense or is it not?

If you are where you have a right to be...

And you are doing what you have a right to be doing...

Then you can ethically use self-defense against anyone who uses (or credibly threatens to use) force against you. They are initiating force. They are archating.

If you are not where you have a right to be, OR you are doing something you have no right to be doing, then anyone you are violating has the right to use self-defense against you. No matter what your excuse is or who you are. No matter how popular your actions may be.

If I go into my neighbor's house- their undisputed private property- and I threaten to beat them up for smoking Cannabis (even though the regional governments all say it's "illegal" for them to do so), they have the right to shoot me. That would be self-defense on their part.

I can't threaten them with harm, then shoot them and claim "self-defense" if they try to run. Not even if they shove me out of the way. Not even if they intentionally hit me with their car, or shoot me, in an attempt to get away from my aggression. I'm the one in the wrong here, whatever the outcome. 

Legislation doesn't confer rights. Legislation can't change wrong into right; it can't negate a human right. Government policies do not determine rights. Government "jobs" or badges don't grant "extra rights".They can't. Rights don't work that way.

I would hope this clears things up. I suspect that depends on how poisoned by politics the recipient's brain is.

-

Thank you for reading.
Tips are nice.