A) shoot the officers that are unknowingly protecting the shitsec officer
If, say, you decide on violence to get back at the <objectively griefing shitsec> (OGS)
as is your right and then that escalates to violence with the rest of sec, it should be "valid" for both sides. You can't be "valid" for every seccie, but you can only attack that one officer because the rest are "doing their job". It's, at some point, sec's job to investigate and ask why that random engineer is on a crusade to fuck up OGS. And if they don't care, they should face consequences for not caring. You don't fix shitsec by protecting them at every turn.
Again, if a situation goes out of control and we end up with multiple bodies, who is to blame? The engineer who was griefed or the OGS who got fucked over the engineer because he was on a power trip?
Furthermore, if you do ANYTHING to the sec, like trying to dodge him randomly stunbatoning you, does that make you valid? Every shitsec out there has a "valid" bullshit idea for why he is going on an abusive rampage. "Oh we got reports of a ling in maint and I saw him and he dodged me when I tried to baton him".
I am not even saying we should ban shitsec. I would prefer to relax the OOC protections from both sides. Let conflict escalate and, if it is initiated by sec, revolts should be allowed. Some of the most memorable rounds have been anti-sec revolts (the infamous pizza revolts of bagil come to mind). It keeps both sides in check naturally. The problem here isn't tiders or shitsec. It is unbalanced OOC rules.