That's a good question, and a difficult one to answer. It depends heavily on the given situation. In self-defense, surely, you must use some violence to defend yourself. Against an invading army (the case of Britain was mentioned), surely you must defend yourself. But are the people throwing rocks at these police men, at those buildings, are they acting in self defense? Is it the same case? It is not. Whether the use of a weapon / violence is right or wrong depends on the context, and we must be very careful not to assume that because you have been wronged, that it is right to use violence. These people came to protest mandates - yes there is coercion when it comes to the mandate, but it is not (yet) forced injection, not in Europe for sure. So what will rock throwing here achieve? Surely now, the people being harrassed by rocks have the right to defend themselves, too? Will they be wrong to defend themselves? You see how it can easily turn into a vicious cycle.
That's a good question, and a difficult one to answer. It depends heavily on the given situation. In self-defense, surely, you must use some violence to defend yourself. Against an invading army (the case of Britain was mentioned), surely you must defend yourself. But are the people throwing rocks at these police men, at those buildings, are they acting in self defense? Is it the same case? It is not. Whether the use of a weapon / violence is right or wrong depends on the context, and we must be very careful not to assume that because you have been wronged, that it is right to use violence. These people came to protest mandates - yes there is coercion when it comes to the mandate, but it is not (yet) forced injection, not in Europe for sure. So what will rock throwing here achieve? Surely now, the people being harrassed by rocks have the right to defend themselves, too? Will they be wrong to defend themselves? You see how it can easily turn into a vicious cycle.