Originally Posted by
flyjimmy
If you choose to knowingly go where you will most likely find trouble is it really self defense if you get into an altercation? It’s a fine line but starts to sound like vigilantism.
... where one has every right to be, you mean?
Putting down violent assaults against us isn't so-called "vigilantism." It's survival in a situation NOT brought upon us via our own actions, not requested. The mere fact someone continues to go about his/her life irrespective of the potential for threat doesn't make that person a "vigilante" nor a criminal. (Except in states that criminalize "failure" to do everything in one's power to run from such felony attackers who cross our paths. [aka "duty to retreat" states. Thankfully, not everyplace is so draconian about one's right to live one's life.])
Consider this:
Suppose it's one path across town for which one has a dozen legitimate alternatives. But, suppose it's one's own street. Is a person somehow "vigilante" across town but, going about one's legitimate and lawful business, doing the same on one's own street is different? As though a person causes it if over yonder, but not somewhere else? That mixes up the perpetrator with the victim, right there.