Understanding is not the equivalent of defending

I try to understand the "wrong" options or why someone chose to do it that way. People seem to mistake my "trying to understand where mistakes come from" with "defending for where mistakes come from." Understanding is not the same as defending.

When I talk about options or where a person's motivation may come from, it's because people fixate on the easy narrative and ignore all other possibilities. Knowing that there might be more than 1 way someone thought about doing something helps predict their future actions better. Focusing on only one possible cause leaves you with blind spots and a lot of room to become the villain yourself.

I wonder why practicing empathy and thinking about possibilities instead of binary terms is such a terrible crime these days.

Imagine if detectives would not try to get understanding of the criminal mind, it would make them very inefficient, no?
******
EDIT
So thanks to Miram I realize I didn't talk about context. As he/she points out: " If someone is hurt, they will be defensive. Especially if they are trying to vent their feelings and you priority is explaining why the abuser hurt them". It's a context i can understand. But it also makes important that I point out this post is NOT about abuse in particular. It's meant for just about any situation where people feel wronged from boss being mean to them to parents being too strict, a friend not taking your side on an issue, the way politics or economy goes and so on. The wrong doer doesn't even have to be a person, it can be an institution or simply an event.
My phrasing might have suggested this post is about abuse in particular, and it's not (just) about that.
Hope I've set a better context for whomever bothers to read this far.
******