Maybe then the real question has to be, "What constitutes self defense?"

I am remined of the following: "What should be the penalty for a cold-blooded murderer?" IMO, he/she who committed the murder has already shown agreement with capital punishment. Therefore, there IS no question. Simplistic, but neat and to the point--and I was happy to be reminded of it because I said that in an argument when I first started to reconsider my stand on capital punishment.

Freda initially said, "what do people think - is there any place for challenging darkness with darkness? can threats and confrontation ever achieve anything worthwhile?" I think they are excellent questions and the answers above have been good. I am just surprised that fewer people have talked about the rights of the individual. If the legal system provides for protection, good. The enforcement arm of the legal system isn't always around when stuff happens. So, do people have the 'right' to act in place of the police? A question that was posed in a court case a few years back had to do with a teacher's actions to do with an unruly student. Under that Province's law, teachers were deemed to be acting 'in loco parentis'; that is, in the place of the parent. Therefore, the thing that had to be answered was whether or not the teacher had behaved as a responsible parent would have given the same circumstances. Because the answer was yes, the case was dismissed.

This rambles somewhat--so I'll get to the point. When there are NO mechanisms to protect individuals, does the individual then have a right to protect the self? My answer is yes. Mostly because I have difficulty seeing why not.

BM