Reply #35: I beg to differ on a few points.

[57_TomCat]

vigilantism is NOT the result of a private citizen defending their life and/or limb or that of another.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante

vigilante

Main Entry: vig·i·lan·te
Pronunciation: \ˌvi-jə-ˈlan-tē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
Date: 1856
: 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
— vig·i·lan·tism \-ˈlan-ˌti-zəm\ noun

To use a weapon to inflict harm or death on another for the purpose of defense is a morally and legally justified action with no hint of vigilantism. That vigilantes might attempt to cover their illegal acts by claiming self defense or defense of others is despicable.


I might mention however that I am a member of two vigilance committees. One is the local neighborhood watch program. The other is as a gun toting member of the Weewahootee Vigilance Committee. A band of "Cowboy Action Shooting" guys and gals in Central FL. Our annual big bash "The Last Stand" is going on this weekend! :D

http://www.laststand.org/

The use of the word "righteous shooting" by me in the original topic I posted was simply a semantic choice for justified. I felt it better described what the local legal gun owning/using public was doing in the area. My use of "Righteous" in the scheme of legal gun carry has NOTHING to do with Killing.

First off as a LE Firearms instructor I train and teach others to only use firearms as a last resort and to shoot to STOP illegal aggression of others. The official standards of the agency I work for has our officers firing three shots before assessing the effect of the firearms discharge. Most of the competitions I engage in as well as other official training I have taken use two shots as the minimum to engage a target with. These two or three shots are the rule not the exception. I might add that more often than not the bad guy survives. Historically about 25% of people hit by handgun fire die. The other 75% live on. Many of those hit do however suffer from minimal to great disability from being shot.

I have never killed anyone in my career as a cop and gun toting citizen but I have used my handgun to stop several people from continuing their aggression.

I will stipulate some people, both LE and non LE believe that "shoot to kill" is a legitimate term for deadly force but in this day and age it is not. We in LE and those not in LE but granted the authority to pack heat (code word for "firearm") must accept the fact that killing is not and never will be the goal of the use of deadly force. Even so every time deadly force is used it must acknowledged that the chance of death exists (it IS deadly force.)and therefor NOT to be used unless necessary and "righteous". (or "justified" for those offended by the term righteous)