I totally understand your point of view. However,I believe I can morally justify my telling of falsehoods from a Machiavellian viewpoint. I rationalize that since this individual is about to commit violence upon me or others "all bets are off"(yes, even the truth).
Both Hobbs and Machiavelli point out
that if you play by the rules against someone who doesn't "YOU LOOSE"!
By playing by the rules against someone who doesn't you only impede yourself and not him. "That's why nice guys always finish last".
If someone is about to strike me I hardly consider them a friend and worthy of the truth. Language is a tool we use to communicate with each other. This tool can also be used for selfdefense. It's the ideas behind the language/tool that make it nobel. By not resorting to violence in both cases I feel I "was" taking the high road (i.e. the honorable path). I know on the surface my last post made it appear that I was somewhat less honorable. So, hopefully this sheds some better light on me and the subject at hand.