A Question

[IIIIITHE1IIIII]

NintendoPie said:

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Well, in that case it seems like person B was harmed for no reason while person C wanted to defend him. Person C didn't harm A without reason, while person D's only reasoning should be to defend A's actions, unless D wasn't aware of C's motivation (defending).

Assuming that B wasn't able to defend himself, C did the right thing while A and D had no reason to hit anyone.

I thought D didn't hit anyone? It was just questioned at if it would be OK.

And I clearly said that there is no reason for him to do so. Where's the confusion?