… believes that if he suffers collateral harm caused by A’s abuse of B, then he is ethically justified in calling upon C to abuse D if C’s abuse of D has a greater-than-zero chance of reducing the collateral damage that he, the protectionist, suffers as a result of A’s abuse of B.
In other words, the protectionist arrogantly presumes that D is inferior to him, the protectionist. The protectionist believes that it is just and right to forcibly diminish D’s well-being if doing so might increase the protectionist’s well-being.
The protectionist doesn’t give a damn about anyone but himself.