A Question

[IIIIITHE1IIIII]

mantlepiecek 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.

Person B was harmed for no reason, but C harmed A in an isolated event where B didn't exist. That is either quite some time later, or in another location. The sole reason for C to harm A was that A harmed B.

Well, revenge does not equal defence. In that case what person C did was wrong.