The main interpretations of the ZAP I’ve seen described include the idea of using force when acting in the ‘common defense’ - that it can be reasonable to assume that someone suffering an attack would ask you to defend them if they could.
Another aspect of the ZAP seems to be that when force is initiated against you, then what changes is that you now have the /option/ of using force without moral qualm, not that you are automatically required to use it.
The main interpretations of the ZAP I’ve seen described include the idea of using force when acting in the ‘common defense’ - that it can be reasonable to assume that someone suffering an attack would ask you to defend them if they could.
Another aspect of the ZAP seems to be that when force is initiated against you, then what changes is that you now have the /option/ of using force without moral qualm, not that you are automatically required to use it.