"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...

You're right that my wording is not objective enough. There must be actual
evidence, reasonable, to justify violence. For example, if someone is
about to invade your home and you have a pretty good idea that they want
to hurt you, aren't you justified in using violence to stop them?
Stephen

In most jurisdictions, no you are not. You would only be justified in using
"violence" (i.e. "deadly force") if they actually ENTER your home. Being
outside of your house is not sufficient, and you cannot know their
intentions. Shooting someone because you "have a pretty good idea" of what
they might do is not sufficient. Once they are in your house, however, shoot
away.

Let's take the situation outside. You are accosted by someone who has a
deadly weapon. Are you free to shoot them in self defense? In some
jurisdictions, yes. In others, you are expected to attempt to flee, removing
yourself from danger, before you can respond with deadly force.

But let's change the situation yet again to make the analogy more fitting
with the subject at hand:

You're camped-out in your neighbor's yard when he comes out and threatens
you, ordering you off his property. He says that he will kill you if you
don't leave. You pull out your gun and shoot him, then lob a grenade into
his house because you saw someone behind the curtains and you have a tip
that there are other members of that family in the house. If they weren't up
to no good, they would have surrendered to you already. Were your actions
justified?