I believe the assertion that all forms of violence are wrong is mistaken. All violence is unwelcome, indeed; I can concur with that notion in theory. Yet incorrect? Not entirely. If an individual were to intrude into my house and attempt to hurt me or my family, would it be inappropriate for me to resort to violence to protect myself and my loved ones? Many individuals would concur that in this situation, resorting to violence would be justifiable.

The idea that any support for violence is harmful appears to be an unreasonable, absolute claim. An idea developed by an attorney to reduce the risk of legal liability.

In a much more relevant scenario, if you were a Jew residing in Poland in 1939 and the authorities came to your door informing you that you're heading on a train trip, would it be unreasonable to resist? I believe there isn’t a person who would respond with "no" to that inquiry.

In essence, there are many situations in which violence can be considered justified. Everyone ought to have the right to safeguard and defend themselves.

I will even suggest that at times, promoting violence against specific individuals isn't necessarily wrong. If taking the life of one individual could stop a conflict that would result in the deaths of millions, would we proceed? I understand this is essentially the trolley problem, but in this situation, thousands or millions of lives appear to significantly alter the ethical considerations of that debate, right?

I want to be persuaded that supporting violence in any form is definitively wrong, which is a valid position.