The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

When is violence or the threat of violence justified? Does The Day the Earth Stood Still answer this question differently from The Thing?

I believe that fear or the threat of fear is only justified when the enemy seems to have shown that they are planning to use violence or have already demonstrated their own type of violence. There is no point of starting a war against someone who hasn't even attempted to kill anyone or show any kind of violence  towards anybody. For example, near the beginning of The Day the Earth Stood Still, after Klaatu starting walking out of his ship, he was going to present a gift for the "Earthlings" but before he could tell anyone what it was he was shot prematurely by a soldier. I think that the soldier shot Klaatu out of paranoia because there was no evidence that Klaatu was planning on hurting anybody and he had previously said that, "We come in peace; we mean you no harm." You would think that after someone saying that, can you really see them as a threat? 

In The Thing,  I believe that violence was justified only because it was clear that the monster didn't want to "become friends" with the humans. He was attacked by dogs, shot at, lit on fire, and Dr Carrington still expected him to want to communicate. Though the creature showed some interest in what Carrington was explaining to him, he just flung his arm at him anyway, signifying that he was not interested in becoming friends, whatsoever. I believe that after the way the monster acted towards the humans, the violence in this movie was definitely justified.