Jan 15, 2010 8:04:49 AM cite

Our legal system tends to propagate this kind of activity. If you are a victim you must then prove the asault, and failure to prove, only encourages further violence. If you are able to subdue your attacker then you must prove that you did not become the perpetrator of violence. Your best course of action is to take your assailant out somewhere away from everything and bury them very deep. Note I did not say kill, just bury, that should ease your conseience if necessary. These kind of people are not likely to announce their intention to commit a crime, so no-one will know where they are, and probably no-one will miss them.

by thedoc

Jan 14, 2010 9:25:44 AM cite

Violence is ingrained in the human psyche, only those who are aware of this can control the tendency to become violent. In order to stop the violent actions of others it is necessary for one to become violent themselves, see the problem? The solution is humane and just punishment of the guilty dispensed with understanding not violence in retaliation, but wars are seldom fought with understanding and crimes of violence are not done in a peaceful state of mind. Perhaps we need the return of the hero, a person with undeniable sense of justice and fairness to set things straight.

by Thai sean

Jan 14, 2010 2:18:46 AM cite

Asking this question proves, violence is not so easily tolerated... as for the quantity at any given time being excessive... that is a relative judgement to what ever one considers as nonviolence...

by PeaceProfit