One night I walked into a horrible scene- bloodstained carpet, one child crying with blood gushing from her head, children crying telling me what they saw happened, that one child has jumped on another and has brutally punched her repeatedly on the head. I was starting to get very angry at the "aggressor" for her violent behavior, as "witnessed" by her peers.

My shock at the violence at that time reminded me of the shock people felt at the events off the coast of Gaza where a humanitarian aid ship was alledgedly attacked without provocation by Israeli forces. People jumped on the bandwagon of condemning Israel for the killing of nineteen civillians. The people immediately saw the Palestinian activists as victims of Israeli aggression and understandably, they sided with the Palestinial activists.

This reaction was similar to the reaction of my kids at work when they saw their peer bleeding profusely, an injury that required fifteen stitches. It was similar to my initial reaction towards the aggressor-"she should be in jail", "she should apologize profusely to everyone, "she should be isolated for awhile."

Alas, the truth is not what it seems. The cops came on the scene and the cameras were reviewed that night to see if charges have to be made on the "aggressor". Here was the true story. The "aggressor" was sitting on the couch and the "victim" came on the scene. The "victim" started bullying one of her peers. The "aggressor" stood up for the peer who was being bullied. The "victim" responded by punching the "aggressor". The "aggressor", being at a disadvantaged position, stood up and in the process pushed away the "victim". The "victim" tripped and her head hit a TV stand. The "aggressor" (at least initially) was in a precarious situation and the injury was an accident that indirectly resulted from the "victim's" provocation.

We tend to have strong feelings towards victims and aggressors. However, my experience has shown that the role of victim and aggressor is not always as clear as it seems. I heard that police cameras are being used to evaluate the behavior of policemen. I understand that a group of policemen beating one person with a baton is most probably police brutality. However, there are situations that may not be as black and white. Consider a cop throwing a suspect to the wall. It is completely probable that the cop felt that the suspect may overpower him and he neutralized the suspect by throwing him against the wall. To just stand there and wrestle with a suspect could cost the policeman his life.

I don't think many people understand how is it like to have to subdue other human beings as part of their jobs. I ask those who does not know to give those who know the benefit of the doubt. When an aggressor seems to be very strong, a feeling of fear comes on the one who has to subdue him. The fear may become warranted at the first physical contact between the aggressor and the subduer. The subduer may feel fear for his safety as he feels the strength of the aggressor who is doing all he can to resist the subduer. Can we be quick in condemning the subduer for throwing the aggressor on the wall? Or tightening up on a choke hold? I think those who don't  understand the reality of having to subdue other human beings should try to empathize with the subduer.

In our world, sometimes violence is necessary. There will always be people who are determined to harm their fellowman. The scenes in the movies where the cop just goes behind a suspect and cuffs him is unfortunately not always the reality. There is the possibility that the suspect will fight and endanger the life of the cop. That is the reality. So please, when we hear these events of "peaceful" people being "harassed" by aggressive villains, let us reserve our judgment and be open to the possibility that violent action was warranted.