>>149377175
>unprompted
Is a matter of interpretation.
If someone wants to threaten to kill my family and shows signs that they are willing to do that to others, then I recognize that they know the risks of that action and that those close to their victims will seek them out.
>I'd only agree with you if you'd be okay on the opposite side of that situation. That is to say, if someone said "you wronged me, prepare to die!", your only response would be "Okay."
It depends on the context. If I killed some faggot robbing and threatening my family and then their sister tried to shoot me I would think I am justified, but if I killed someone in an accident or something or I had to do it in service of an actual goal I could understand somewhat, but again it depends on context since I'm not exactly a politician who can direct the flow of society. And even then a just politician first and foremost has a duty to the people in such a hypothetical scenario.
I wouldn't just kill someone for no reason but if I did then yes, it would make sense for someone to want to kill me and if I didn't feel sorry for it they have that right since there is the implicit threat I could do it again.
If I did repent, then if I truly understood the gravity of my crime I would understand that my fate is rightfully in the hands of the one I grievously wronged. I don't think any law can truly put into words that concept into such a way where it is always fulfilled.