Conflicting Definitions: Assault, Self‑Defense, Victim, Attacker
When systems want a particular outcome, they don’t always change the facts — they change the definitions.
This post explores how language becomes a tool of power.
Not through overt manipulation, but through quiet, structural reclassification:
who counts as a victim, who counts as an aggressor, what counts as assault, and who is allowed to claim self‑defense.
The Rihanna Novalee Chasingstars case shows how these definitions shift depending on identity, narrative fit, and targetability — not on what actually happened.
Legal vs. Lived Definitions
There are two sets of definitions in any justice system:
Legal definitions
These are written in statutes, case law, and constitutional protections.
They are supposed to be objective, consistent, and universally applied.
Lived definitions
These are the definitions systems actually use in practice.
They shift based on:
- identity
- optics
- local culture
- narrative protection
- targetability
The gap between legal and lived definitions is where systemic harm hides.
In Rihanna’s case:
- The legal definition of assault requires causing harm or imminent threat.
- The lived definition treated her defensive posture as aggression.
- The legal definition of victim applies to the person attacked.
- The lived definition applied “victim” to the attackers.
This is not a misunderstanding.
It is a structural choice.
Assault vs. Self‑Defense
The same physical act can be labeled two different ways depending on who performs it.
Assault (legal):
Causing bodily harm or placing someone in reasonable fear of imminent harm.
Self‑defense (legal):
Using reasonable force to stop an attack or prevent injury.
But in lived practice, systems often apply these definitions based on identity:
- When a protected identity uses force → “self‑defense.”
- When a targetable identity uses force → “assault.”
- When a protected identity initiates harm → “mutual conflict.”
- When a targetable identity is harmed → “provoked it.”
This is how the same event gets reframed depending on who the system is willing to punish.
In Rihanna’s case:
- She was shoved hard enough to injure her tailbone.
- She drew a legally‑owned firearm with the safety on.
- She harmed no one.
- The attackers fled.
Yet she was charged with aggravated assault, while the attackers were not charged at all.
This is definition‑inversion, not justice.
Victim vs. Aggressor Labels
Labels are not neutral.
They determine:
- who gets protection
- who gets punishment
- who gets believed
- who gets ignored
Systems often assign these labels based on narrative fit:
Victim (lived definition):
Someone who fits the community’s idea of who “should” be protected.
Aggressor (lived definition):
Someone who fits the community’s idea of who “causes trouble.”
These labels are not about behavior.
They are about identity alignment.
In this case:
- Rihanna was attacked by three men.
- She was alone, outnumbered, and injured.
- Yet she was labeled the “aggressor.”
- The attackers were labeled “victims” of her defensive act.
This is not accidental.
It is a narrative assignment.
Stand Your Ground Paradox
Wyoming’s Stand Your Ground statute protects the right to use defensive force when threatened.
But in lived practice, Stand Your Ground is not applied equally.
Protected identities:
Their defensive actions are framed as “reasonable fear.”
Targetable identities:
Their defensive actions are framed as “threatening escalation.”
This creates a paradox:
The law protects self‑defense. The system punishes self‑defense — depending on who performs it.
In Rihanna’s case:
- She met the legal criteria for Stand Your Ground.
- She used no lethal force.
- She stopped the attack without harming anyone.
- Yet she was charged with felonies that contradict the statute’s intent.
This is the Stand Your Ground paradox in action:
A right that exists on paper but not in practice for everyone.
Closing
Conflicting definitions are not just semantic.
They are structural tools that determine outcomes.
When systems want to punish someone targetable, they don’t need new laws.
They only need to reinterpret existing ones.
Assault becomes self‑defense.
Self‑defense becomes assault.
Victims become aggressors.
Aggressors become victims.
Rights become conditional.
Protection becomes selective.
This is how language becomes a weapon —
and how inequality becomes invisible unless we name it.
Follow this story on Instagram and Threads
We Believe You
Apple Music
YouTube Music
Amazon Music
Spotify Music
Explore Mini-Topics
Leave a Reply