Reply #94: Ahh - OK - I see your point,

[jmg257]

But I do not necessarly agree it involves a 3rd person (I didn't get that take when I read it the 1st few times). And I never took it to mean the traditional "vigilante" lynch-mob type "killing", as that wouldn't be the case involving the present state of "committing".

Anyway, the use of violence by a 3rd person is still justified. I do not think that meets the 'normal' definition of the term "vigilante", though it does kinda sorta maybe fit the 2nd meaning below from Webster, so I will give you that too - a bit ;). I agree the poll could have been more specific, but I think that was part of his point.(?)


: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate) ; broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice



Hmmm... now thinking more - in either case (1st person or 3rd person defense), the increase in use of violence in stopping a criminal act could certainly make society safer, assuming that criminal has now ceased his violent behavior, maybe for a looong time.

edit:expansion