Alright, so I read your story and I disagree with you even more now. You had the system used against you and yet you still defend it. The system was specifical

Alright, so I read your story and I disagree with you even more now. You had the system used against you and yet you still defend it. The system was specifically used against you by ignoring who initiated and escalated the conflict and by ignoring how other people have wronged you before you supposedly did anything you call wrong but not illegal. See, you did nothing wrong. You were wronged by the people in the house who initiated the conflict by cheating on you, by hiding a felon (assuming his offense was moral, not just legal), by attacking you physically and by refusing you access to your property (if you couldn't agree on temporary access to retrieve it, then a reasonable compromise would be to call the police to mediate the access, not to use against you). You were wronged by the police by not letting you press charges. And you were wronged by the state by setting up an inherently (due to imbalance of power) abusive system of plea deals. And the reason none of them are concerned with harming you is because they know you have no way to fight back without overwhelming violence (the state) being used against you. It's the classic case of "might makes legal" (which I prefer to "might makes right" because the latter conflates legality and morality/justice. The system needs to be changed so that: 1) You always have the right to fight back legally and punish people for harming you - e.g. police should absolutely be punished for doing their job poorly to this level of incompetence. 2) Failing that, you have the moral right to fight back against all three aggressors. Of course, as I said, overwhelming violence will be used against you. That's why people don't do it and that's I am not advising people to do it. I am saying they have the _moral_ right to and I wouldn't consider them doing anything wrong if they did (as we discussed earlier, assuming I had sufficient proof, not just taking their word for it). --- BTW by all 3, I literally mean all 3. People have the right to overthrow governments if those governments are sufficiently abusive. We could discuss where exactly the line lies. But nobody in the "free world" can defend a position that you always have to submit, especially given how many of today's democracies were created by overthrowing a previous (abusive) government. Which is funny, many make it legal to celebrate events like the French revolution, the US war for independence, the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, etc. but at the same time make it illegal to call for their own overthrow or for assassinations of current politicians.