Protection & Service

Let is say so, that a man would be attacked by another man without doing him anything, and he is uncapable of defending himself, let's say maybe he is from another religion then the man that is attacking (for example)
Would you see it as your responsibility to try to either diplomatically try to solve the conflict or to defend the other man with defensive violence until the police arrives?
Or would you solve it diffrently?
Please add your thoughts

I belive i would firstly engage a dialouge with the man, and try to make him leave
I would ofcourse call the police right away, but i would also need to make sure that the man that is being attacked would not be harmed.

This can be a very tricky situation. It is always possible that we didn't see what the person being attacked did to warrant the attack. The attacker could be a plain clothed police officer taking down a suspect. The possibilities are endless.

This reminds me of a Green Lantern comic in the 70's where GL saved an old man from being assaulted by a few younger men. The people around GL started throwing things at him telling him to leave (Green Arrow was watching and says "I was about to throw cans at you too"). It turned out that the old man was the owner of the apartment buildings there and was a truly terrible person that almost anyone would want to see come to harm. GL had jumped into the fray to "do good" and may have done more harm because he didn't know what was really going on. (this kicked off a whole string of issues where Green Lantern is questioning his moral compass and is accompanied by Green Arrow on a cross country road trip to re-discover himself and America. A truly great story by Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adams. One of my favorite comic stories of all time.)

That said, attempting to resolve the situation with as little violence as possible would be my first response. If violence was necessary I would keep it as minimal as possible. Ideally I would like to keep both parties present until the police arrived. As much as I might not want to pick the "wrong" side of the conflict I'd rather stop the conflict while figuring out which side is "right" assuming one of them even is.

Edit:

...let's say maybe he is from another religion then the man that is attacking (for example)

This line makes me think this is more of an analogy for something else though. Things are not always the same principles from random assault to global conflict.

Goken wrote: This can be a very tricky situation. It is always possible that we didn't see what the person being attacked did to warrant the attack. The attacker could be a plain clothed police officer taking down a suspect. The possibilities are endless.

This reminds me of a Green Lantern comic in the 70's where GL saved an old man from being assaulted by a few younger men. The people around GL started throwing things at him telling him to leave (Green Arrow was watching and says "I was about to throw cans at you too"). It turned out that the old man was the owner of the apartment buildings there and was a truly terrible person that almost anyone would want to see come to harm. GL had jumped into the fray to "do good" and may have done more harm because he didn't know what was really going on. (this kicked off a whole string of issues where Green Lantern is questioning his moral compass and is accompanied by Green Arrow on a cross country road trip to re-discover himself and America. A truly great story by Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adams. One of my favorite comic stories of all time.)

That said, attempting to resolve the situation with as little violence as possible would be my first response. If violence was necessary I would keep it as minimal as possible. Ideally I would like to keep both parties present until the police arrived. As much as I might not want to pick the "wrong" side of the conflict I'd rather stop the conflict while figuring out which side is "right" assuming one of them even is.

Edit:

...let's say maybe he is from another religion then the man that is attacking (for example)

This line makes me think this is more of an analogy for something else though. Things are not always the same principles from random assault to global conflict.

Yes, very true
Wich is why i would first engage a dialouge, but i doubt that a police would take down a suspect in such a brutal way that he attacks him, and i belive a assault or attack looks diffrent then an arrest

Bareus wrote: Let is say so, that a man would be attacked by another man without doing him anything, and he is uncapable of defending himself, let's say maybe he is from another religion then the man that is attacking (for example)
Would you see it as your responsibility to try to either diplomatically try to solve the conflict or to defend the other man with defensive violence until the police arrives?
.

You mean like disposing a dictator you believe to be evil and replacing him with a form of government you believe to be better? Who is to say how that will turn out? Oh, well maybe we do know.

I honestly can't say one way or another. There are too many variables. I would have to be faced with a particular situation to determine what my actions would be.

Diplomacy is always first and foremost tool of the Jedi, to seek a peaceful resolution. Violence is always the last and final course of action when all other means have failed for defensive purposes when combat is engaged. The one who throws the gauntlet is always in the wrong.

Slebo wrote: Diplomacy is always first and foremost tool of the Jedi, to seek a peaceful resolution. Violence is always the last and final course of action when all other means have failed for defensive purposes when combat is engaged. The one who throws the gauntlet is always in the wrong.

I agree with you