I want to go some more into intention.
We just discussed violence and trespass, and you are likely wondering about accidents or unaccounted for extenuating circumstances. For example, I mentioned that you do not require the specific intent of violence for violence to occur.
Imagine someone may be doing a reckless behavior such as running full force in a crowded area with blind corners and other vision impediments. Let’s say a collision occurred, and someone was injured. Now the person was intentionally running; however, they did not intend to cause the accident. Who is at fault?
Well, the reality is both individuals demonstrated negligence. The runner was negligent in the safety of others. The victim was negligent in their surroundings. So there is each a part of the responsibility for the collision. Rarely is it that both parties didn’t have some decisions they made knowingly or unknowingly that contributed to a trespass.
It is this inherent risk that exists for individuals who are unable to predict the future. We live in a physical world where there is an inherent risk, and by choosing to live, we are choosing to accept that risk. This gauge of assumed risk and responsibility is measured by this concept called reasonableness. In short, reasonable is a measure of the probability of something based on past experiences and likely hood of something occurring. Because it is probability, there is no correct definition to it, and it is primarily left to individual discretion. Legal authorities define it for the law, but nothing makes their interpretation more valid than anyone else except the forced acceptance of it. This notion of reasonableness is used because we are unable to predict the future, leaving all our decision making filled with uncertainty.
Now back to the person running in an unsafe manner. Though there is an inherent risk to the victim, it does not excuse the reckless endangerment and disregard for the notion that others are as equally existing in this world as the runner. So in a situation like this, the runner is primarily responsible for the damages. If the runner was under duress, then potentially a third party bears responsibility.
When I say equally existing, this is a reference to future letters, but for now, take this as no individual is greater or lesser. Physics, or the laws of the universe, if you prefer that language, equally applies to all. So the not respecting comment means you are acting as you are in some way removed from the laws of the universe.
Now let’s mix the scenario and say a person who is walking where they clearly should not be, and this resulted in a collision. The same reasoning would apply. They both have some responsibility, but the individual that is not respecting the equality of existence is mainly at fault.
So intention does play a role in trespass in the manner of the responsibility of the damages. Primarily intent is about the choice to respect the equality of the existence of other individuals or not. If you recognize an individual’s equality of existence, then you give thought to avoid causing damages to that existence. This respect means you wouldn’t put others at risk unnecessarily and that you would be conscious of your actions and the repercussions of them.