In Texas a few years ago, a young man who had learned a few tentative Aikido moves (a martial art), found himself in a convenience store just as it was being robbed. Rather than stay out of it, he intervened and used his fledgling skills to execute a shihonage (she-ho-nah-gay) move. The result was the robber fell backwards having lost all balance and cracked his skull on the tile floor, dying moments later. Can Creator comment on the karmic consequences of his decision, and whether the divine considers his actions intervention or interference?

In this kind of situation, the Law of Karma would be the deciding force coming to bear through the workings of the universe, as karma is always involved energetically in all that happens. This is because everything taking place is recorded for all time and assigned the energies, positive or negative, with great specificity, about one’s involvement and the relative responsibility one bears as to whether they were a victim or perpetrator if negative consequences arise, and to what extent they were a benefactor or acting with an ulterior selfish motive in the case of positive energy being offered. In this case, there was an attempt to right a wrong, so the mitigating factors would be to what extent this was done rashly, with little thought to the level of force being applied that might have been overdone, and with greater experience would be seen to be putting the individual at risk of having a serious damaging blow, directly or indirectly, especially if unconsciousness were inflicted. If there was a selfish desire in the mix to be a hero, that is no excuse when harm to another results from one’s actions. If it was an entirely selfless act that simply backfired unintentionally, that could not have been predicted in advance, that, too, is a strong mitigating factor that will outweigh a karmic liability, even causing the death of someone. Because, in effect, the robber’s decision to commit an act of wrongdoing in the first place, karmically predisposes them to receive blame because they are responsible then for what might be done to counter their wrongdoing, and this would include risking their life and having the karmic consequence of having their life ended prematurely because of a rash act of misjudgment for selfish reasons. The same might happen were a policeman on the scene ordering them to stop, and perhaps if they acted belligerently, might be shot and killed. There is an obligation to the soul to safeguard one’s health and wellbeing, so any criminal behavior puts the person at risk for loss of freedom and much anguish, as well as a physical consequence from someone fighting back against their inappropriateness, and things can get out of hand and even become a fatal outcome. The Law of Karma will be dispassionate even though humans, on a human level, particularly through the legal system, might not receive an exquisite accounting and assignment of responsibility. Laws are often more arbitrary, seeking simple black or white distinctions, guilt or innocent, with only crude levels of relative assignment of culpability, as in being charged with murder as opposed to manslaughter with a choice of only several degrees of culpability. There are many cases in legal rulings where "meaning well" is not an excuse. If someone causes harm to another, they will have a legal responsibility to pay for what happens. The Law of Karma will often make dual assignments or multiple assignments of responsibility from a finer analysis of all parties having a hand in something coming about, directly or indirectly, to varying degrees. So this is simply making the case that one needs to proceed with caution and wisdom in every undertaking. A rash act will put the person at risk if there is not time to ponder what is at stake, what is the most appropriate action to take, and the level of effort expended, so it is in proportion to needs in balancing level of obligation, versus the need for honoring personal integrity as well as the needs of others.