obligatory violence

can violence really be obligatory? in the australian aboriginal culture the dead are mourned by a festival of violent acts usually resulting in another person being killed, isn't there choice firstly to mourn the dead? and secondly mourn the dead in that way? (challenging mouning the dead)a lot of people choice not to mourn the dead because they don't want to accept the loss so this a choice even if a culture would prefer you to go to the funeral. this act of violence can be argued into supporting baudrillards thoughts on challenging the code because the dead and living asre not seperated the dead still has an important place in society, so lets use this same theory in gang culture. (challenging mouning the dead in a violent way) when a member of a gang dies they still have a role in the gang they willl influence violence to occur to any member of the opposite gang, they are obliged to act violent towards another person due to the dead person exactly like in the australian aboriginal culture. they are not explicitly mouning the death but evenging it! but do intentions really matter, either way they are apparently obligied to do so. this comparison should show that although things are expected of your from a certain culture you are not obligied to act in that way.