is a lengthy legal precedent, your honor, going back to 1789, whereby a
defendant can claim self-defense against an agent of the government, if
that act is deemed a defense against tyranny, a defense of liberty."
This is an interesting line... and the conclusions we can draw from the speaker's argument are very interesting. If an act of violence, or the threat of violence, violates the rights of the indiviudal, then that act is a tyranny, therefore, all violent/coercive acts of agents allegedly representing 'government', as agents of said entity, being backed by the threat of violence or violence itself, are necessarily acts of tyranny. If all violent/coercive acts of agents allegedly representing 'government' are by virtue of their violent implications, acts of tyranny, then every person is thereby justified to self-defense by any and all acts of agents allegedly representing 'government'. All violent/coercive acts of agents allegedly representing the 'government' are acts of tyranny and thereby violations of liberty.