Concepts from cognitive developmental domain theory (CDD), public health, and environmental psychology can be used together to explore teachers’ judgements about intervention in violence-prone subcontexts such as hallways, playgrounds, and cafeterias. Teachers, along with other members of the school community, have different preformed assumptions about violence-prone subcontexts that systematically influence their judgments and interpretation of events in those locations. One of the informational assumptions is the individuals’ or groups’ estimation of risk for physical harm or provocation in specific locations within the school. The other assumption is the individuals’ or groups’ beliefs about the school staff’s professional role or responsibility to monitor and intervene in violence-prone areas. Studies exploring the diverse views of violent subcontexts held by students and teachers were conducted in high schools (1999), and elementary and middle schools (2001 and 2002). The findings showed that teachers use moral reasoning to condemn student fights and focus mainly on psychological/physical harm experienced by the students. Teacher beliefs about gender and context do make a difference in their judgements and reasoning about their obligation to intervene in fights. It was suggested how a synthesis between CDD theory and other concepts such as undefined space and perceived danger could be used to conduct research on teachers’ understanding of their obligations to intervene in violence-prone school subcontexts. Findings showed that in addition to the moral dimensions around fighting as an immoral behavior, teachers’ judgments are partially based on the gender of the students and the teacher; and the location of the fight (especially middle and high school teachers). The findings support the notion that teachers approach school fights with a host of informational assumptions about potential harm and responsibility that influence moral judgements but these are not moral judgments per se. 1 table, 84 references