[infowarrior]

Retreat. One basic disagreement in approach to the privilege of self-defense focuses on whether the defendant must retreat if he can do so without increasing his danger, rather than stand his ground and use force.

BZZZTTT!! Epic fail! Self defense is *not* a privelege *ESQUIRES*, it is a right!!

If these morons bothered to dust off, and consult their own bible "Blackstone's Law", they would discover the definition of the word "right" means "just and lawful claim". The very idea that self-defense is "a privelege" subverts common law as it has stood for centuries, and anyone who publicly espouses self-defense as a privelege has no business being a member of the bar, since they are actively trying to subvert that which they've sworn to uphold...

the infowarrior

[Cboldt]

-- BZZZTTT!! Epic fail! Self defense is *not* a privelege *ESQUIRES*, it is a right! --

In this context, the word "privilege" is just a term of art. The question is whether or not you have a right to hit somebody. In the general, the answer is "no." But, if you apprehend unwelcome contact, then the law will permit you to use force - even to be the first one to use force.

-- The very idea that self-defense is "a privelege" subverts common law as it has stood for centuries ... --

I don't know what term of art was used say in 1400, regarding the use of force. At any rate, the law says essentially the same thing you do, the use of physical violence in self defense is justifiable.