Who is the murderer in these cases?

[Rodion Romanovich]

However, I would ask you to think of this: Remarkably few people who are abused as children go on to be abusers. Most transcend their experience, one way or another. No-one can abrogate personal responsibility for their actions because of their experiences, though those experiences may be an explanation, perhaps a mitigation. Never an excuse.

For example, Ludwig van Beethoven was beaten extremely severely as a child, to the extent he lost his precious hearing as a result. He did not commit, nor encourage others to commit genocide. He loved and was loved. Yes, he led a fairly screwed up life, but who doesn't?

No, on the contrary, people who are abused either end up successful because they're trusted to be hard-working and good at what they do. As mentioned, hatred gives a lot of energy. But those who aren't trusted eventually pass a line where they stop trusting themselves too. And then everything goes down.

Finally, to my knowledge, it has always been the case in law and moral philosophy that conspiracy to murder has always been viewed as seriously as doing the act itself.

Officially, yes, but in practise? No. Whenever I'm judged after a fight, I'm called aggressive because I make parrying moves against the fist of my opponents. Why should a man care about law, mankind or whether he starts becoming self-destructive with his own life if that's the case?

Legio, I am not going to comment at length on your post because it contains a lot of things I disagree with but are clearly emotionally explosive for you.

Please do comment on it, I want to know which cases of indirect murder by harassment are allowed by law and morals in general opinion. It's frustrating to hear that parrying the fists of others isn't allowed, that responding to their verbal attacks isn't allowed. So which weapons am I allowed to use to defend myself? Tell me where the line is drawn between when hurting someone indirectly isn't a crime or a sin, so I know how I can defend myself without being called immoral, because the general opinion on moral and law isn't based on logic and insight, so I can't derive it through my own contemplation, but only by asking. Or is it just as arbitrary as it seems, based on the person, rather than the offense? Please do tell me! I at least have the honor of wanting to carry out my defense against the guilty and not some random innocents.