imported post
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
the statutory self-defense in §939.48 is a privilege and not a right.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
privilege - a special benefit, exemption from a duty, or immunity from penalty, given to a particular person, a group or a class of people.
right - an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature.
When you think about it the legal hairsplitting between "privilege" and "right" makes sense.
Self-defense is a legal privilege one may use to protect one's right-- In this case the right to life. You also have a right to liberty, which includes going about your business without interference by others. You may use your privilege of self-defense to protect that right also. Remember the use of the privilege must be proportional to the threat. You generally cannot shoot somebody for blocking your way down the street, but you if they refuse to move you may (theoretically) shove them if that's what it takes to stop their unlawful interference. Obviously a certain amount of forethought and prudence is advised before deciding to use this privilege.
If you literally had a "right" to self-defense it won't make much sense, because a right is something you have due to you from others. Since it is SELF-defense, then you'd have to have the right due to you, from yourself! And that makes little sense.
If there was a right to just "defense" then the government (and perhaps all other people) would have a legal duty to protect you, personally. Which is not the case. The government provides for a general defense, but not a personal defense of each individual.
It might be correct to say you have a "right to use the privilege" but that is an odd way to put it.