Switch Blayde made a comment in another thread that reminded me of an ethical question that occurred to me some time back.
We all know that killing someone who is trying to kill you is self defense. I was thinking about the legality of shooting an 'unarmed' man who hires 'armed' men to do his killing for him.
Does 'armed' mean you have to be in possession of a weapon? Does having control over an 'armed' man make you an 'armed' man?
If Person A wants to kill you and orders others to commit the act, would your killing Person A when they aren't in possession of a weapon be self defense?
If you think Persons A controlling 'armed' men makes him an 'armed' man, then if you were to kill Person A's hired guns, would he now be an 'unarmed' man?