what that says is that there is no legally defined "right" in international law to be allowed to injure another, however, self defense is a (arguably) valid reason to suspend the rights of another to -not- be injured IF they are in the act of/ about to injure another.
i.e. i have no innate right to punch DR in the head, but his right to -not- be punched in the head is legally suspended when he's about to punch me in the head, meaning that while i'm violating his right to not have blunt force applied, i can not be prosecuted for said application of force.
clear as mud? good. it's an arcane legal point.
NOW. that said, -generally- in legal issues of force, on can go one step up the force ladder w/o it bein assault, balanced with intent/threat. i.e. a 90lbs girl with a 9mm is the same threat to me as a 250lbs biker with a chain. a 90lbs girl with a chain is NOT the same threat as a 250 lbs biker with a 9mm, and i have to tailor my response accordingly (i.e. i can use lethal force on all but the girl w/o serious concern for legal fiasco, but the girl w/ chain i can use chemical irritants or non lethal force on) |
