For the record though, there is a recognised and established standard for matters such as these despite the severe lack of snarkiness in their expression:
self-defense n. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault, battery, or homicide. The force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to continue the attack or use excessive force. Examples: an unarmed man punches Allen Alibi, who hits the attacker with a baseball bat. That is legitimate self-defense, but Alibi cannot chase after the attacker and shoot him or beat him senseless. If the attacker has a gun or a butcher knife and is verbally threatening, Alibi is probably warranted in shooting him. Basically, appropriate self-defense is judged on all the circumstances. Reasonable force can also be used to protect property from theft or destruction. Self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property, unless personal danger is also involved, as is the case in most burglaries, muggings or vandalism.
I see no advantage in providing any potential courtroom adversary with free material to use against me should such a circumstance ever confront me, especially in a vain effort to convince another of their "error". Sufficient to acknowledge that opinions differ on what activity rises to the level of self defense and confine my efforts to matters closer to home.
And that's my final word on this topic on anyone else's blog.