ok, but what moral viewpoint should the court take? assuming that some classs of stabbings (or other invasions) happen unintentionally? what is teh relation between unintentional aggressions and self-defence, it seems you are saying that there is no legitimate self defence from unintentional aggression
Detectives are paid to look for evidence of intentions/coercion and courts to decide. That’s it. Now, the last part puzzles me; how can one defend against an unintentional coercion? Simple: If it was really unintentional, the coercer would stop the coercion. If it is intentional, they do not.
Example:
I grab the wrong shopping bag from a store. If I realize that it is not mine and keep it, I have not stoped the coercion and have aggressed. If I turn it in to lost and found or give it back or whatever, I have ended the coercion.
You have ended the coercion, but you still coerced.
If I unintentionally run you over with my car, then realizing my folly, back my car away, are we good?
Absolutely not. You would owe me for hospital bills, pain & suffering, etc (restitution). If you ran me over intentionally, then you would not only owe restitution, but also retribution for the crime of claiming higher ownership of my body.
I should have specified there that I would owe restitution for taking it in the first place. My bad. That example was only to show the difference between intentional and unintentional coercion.
I dont see why.
I’m walking down the sidewalk and my wallet falls on the sidewalk vs I’m walking down the sidewalk and my wallet falls into someone’s lawn.
if they are shooting at me with live bullets and think them blanks, there is no intent to kill me, just deadly aggression coming my way, aggression that they are responsible for, i am not justified inself defence by shooting back…
relevant difference, by littering the sidewalk with the wallet, no-one has been deprived of the ‘full-use’ of their property or suffered damage/vandalism; yet they may have in the private scenario.
Next problem. We can prove action. How do you prove intent?
For example, can you 100% declare and prove the intent of this post I have just made?
Let me add to that:
Imagine the owner of the lawn witnessed me drop it. I say him to, “Can you hand me that wallet? Its mine” to which he replies, “I refuse to hand it to you, which means its no longer yours.”
The wallet only belongs to the lawn owner if he refuses to recognizing my legitimate claim to it.
Which is where a liens comes in, no?
Unless you were fooling around with someone you knew well (as in it is not a surprise attack), blanks would most definitely be initiating aggression. If there was no intent to kill, then there was definitely an attempt to voluntarily coerce in another way.
Ah, but you cannot prove action. If there are no witnesses I could have just as likely fell from a cliff. If it was an issue that intent is not easily identified (for example, a man holding you up in an alley is pretty clear-cut), then detectives could be hired to gather evidence.
so you are chanigng the no intention to kill with bullets into a crime of intention to coerce with blanks? and saying its ok because the person can presumably defend against this intentional aggression.. well what if there is no such intention?
i’ll admit im not too intimate with liens, they sounds like (though i realise they may not be, they just sound like) some kind of artificial legalism .
from wiki:
A common law lien only gives a passive right to retain; there is no power of sale which arises at common law,[4] although some statutes have also conferred an additional power of sale,[5] and it is possible to confer a separate power of sale by contract.
anyhow liens arise from common law, just so much as the common law traditions in some places looked kindly on slavery, commonl law-ism is not a foolproof path to sound natural law, but i’d be happy to learn from you if this has merits. can you point to any straightforward literature?
If there is no such intention, then the self-defense would only be justified as far as restitution is concered; not for retribution. However, I cannot think of a single case where this would be a problem. If you can, then go for it. I’m the defender here 
restitute a landowner ‘make his lawn whole’ any present ball may be destroyed as an act of self-defence.
No offense, but I really don’t understand what that sentence means…
i mean, the act of unintentionally losing ones ball onto one persons lawn, damages the lawn, to make the lawn whole (which is what restitution is all about) it is legitimate to destroy the offending ball, just as legitimate as returning it
But if there are witnesses or satellite photographs or camera phones or whatever I COULD.
Nice try at a dodge but you’ll have to do much better with this crowd.
How do you prove intent without a shadow of a doubt? How can you absolutely know the thoughts, the intention of another person?
Are you claiming that mind reading is possible?