Which of the following is NOT a recognized defense to intentional torts?

Retaliation is not recognized as a valid defense to intentional torts. In the context of tort law, defenses such as self-defense, consent, and defense of property are well-established legal principles that can justify or excuse the actor's conduct in response to a perceived threat or harm.

Self-defense allows an individual to use reasonable force to protect themselves from an imminent threat or harm. This is recognized as a legitimate defense when the individual reasonably believes that they are in danger of being harmed.

Consent involves the agreement of the parties involved, permitting certain conduct that could otherwise be deemed harmful. If one person consents to the actions of another, those actions may not constitute an intentional tort.

Defense of property permits individuals to use reasonable force to protect their property. However, this defense is limited and may not justify the use of deadly force in most circumstances.

Retaliation, on the other hand, typically connotes a response that is aimed at avenging a wrong done to someone rather than defending oneself or one's property from an immediate threat. This kind of action is generally viewed as an escalation of conflict rather than a lawful defense and does not align with the principles that govern recognized defenses in tort law. As a result, it is not accepted as a valid defense