Comment: Dogs are not humans.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: It's okay, I remain uninfected. (see in situ)

Dogs are not humans.

Humans have rights on NAP. You can't point to a presumably innocent person and say he's suspicious and then attack him. He's justified, you are not.

If you use humans in your example, you're stating its okay to kidnap people who look like suspects.

Well, this may be your opinion, and that's cool beans. But it's not self defense, no one is attacking you, you aren't capturing someone who attacked you and fled. It violates NAP.

Even if you're personally convinced beyond doubt that a person is guilty, you don't have jurisdiction to go attacking people, no one has vested you with that authority or responsibility.

If it later turns out you caught a murderer, you may get exonerated for your aggression and NAP violation by the actual law courts with valid jurisdiction, but at the time you took the action you committed aggression.

In order for you to be exonerated, there have to be valid law courts who do have the authority to capture suspects, and who then let you go free.

On NAP, no one has the authority to commit aggression or exonerate, even if the suspect did turn out to be guilty. No one besides the victim or eye witnesses can act in defense against the attacker. Once the attack is over, if the attacker flees and is spotted later, it is no longer self defense.

At that point, it is a new attack on the basis of a claim of prior aggression, and no punishment can ever be 'defensive.' It is retributive or punitive.

Punishment will be based on the evidence, which can never be in a preponderance equal to the knowledge of the actual victim who was acting defensively at the time.

To sat that a group of people have the right, the jurisdiction, to judge others guilt, is merely a reification of the principle of group consensus over individual liberty.

No such jurisdiction can exist on anarchist to even enforce claims of aggression; to claim such jurisdiction is in violation of the accused' right not to be molested on the basis of accusation.

Self defense is justified on NAP, not third party retribution or judgment. Some other principle, involving the validity of consensus and jurisdiction by a group, is required to permit retributive justice. Whatever this principle is, it must violate NAP as normally formulated.