MIG tourney R3: Vigilantism is Justified when the U.S. Government has Failed to Uphold the Law

Resolved: Vigilantism is Justified when the U. S. Government has Failed to Uphold the Law. This will be for Round 3 of the Man-is-good's tournament, officially. . http://www.debate.org...The purpose of this debate will be to discuss/debate a philosophical difference of belief, in determining whether vigilantism is justified in the United States or not, Ultimately, this will be the voters decision. Since MIG hasn't underlined any specific set of rules, we the debaters will formulate our own. I will start by setting down some framework (Rules), and if my opponent has any discrepancies, or changes he wishes to add to them, he can let me know via PM, or comments section, prior to the start of this debate. Without further ado, let us begin. FRAMEWORK:1. Both debaters will remain kind and courteous throughout the duration of this debate. 2. A forfeit on either side will conduct in the automatic loss of this debate. This is a tournament debate, so the opponent should be well prepared and ready before accepting the debate.3. Pro Carries the BOP, thus Con is not expected to present a case (though one would be helpful). That said, any and all dropped arguments will count as the loss of a conduct point, and a concession of that individual statement. This is a Lincoln Douglas topic, so I would like to stick to a certain set of LD framework to an extent out of respect for the resolution. To start this debate I would to offer up some definitions, that may be looked on and agreed/dis-agreed on by my opponent at his leisure. Upon agreeing on a set of definitions, both debaters will presume that definition, and it's meaning throughout the course of this debate. I ask again, that if their are any discrepancies in them, for my opponent to let me know before accepting this debate. ****DEFINITIONS****Vigilantism: anypersonwhotakesthelawintohisorherownhands,asbyavengingacrime. . http://dictionary.reference.com...An extended more descriptive definition can be found here, however, both definitions achieve the same notion. . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...Justified: toshow(anact,claim,statement,etc. )tobejustorright. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Failed: tofallshortofsuccessorachievementinsomething expected,attempted,desired,orapproved. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Law: the principles and regulations established in a community bysome authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Justice: rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness ofground or reason. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Utility: the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatesthappiness of the greatest number of persons. . http://dictionary.reference.com... I hope that these definitions provide a clear and concise outlook on the resolution at hand. To start I have several observations to offer up before jumping into my case. Keep in mind that these are clarifications on the resolution, not individual arguments, and need not be "refuted". ****OBSERVATIONS****OB1: This resolution will be in reference to the U. S. Government. Given that both my opponent and I are both U. S. Citizens, I feel this debate is best focused on the United States as we will both have a well equitted view on our home countries moral views, thus narrowing the resolution. OB2: This resolution is straight-forward in it's own terms of defining what is, and what should be. Basically the question for this debate is: "If the government doesn't do it's job, is it okay if someone else does their job for them? ". The purpose of this debate is to establish an idea that the vigilante will be attempting to accomplish the same thing as the government, through the use of their own methods. That being said, I am not and will not be making arguments that go against this principle. Arguments that vigilantism "can" or "might" violate the U. S. Law should thus be dis-regarded. Vigilantism, as defined above, will be "Taking the law into their own hands", meaning that the vigilante will be upholding the U. S. Law. If my opponent is confused at all about this observation, I ask that he reference it in the comments prior to accepting this debate, such that a clarification can be made. ****MY CASE****V: JusticeThroughout the course of this debate, I will attempt to value Justice, as it is almost demanded through the use of the word "Justify" in the resolution. Thus, if I can best uphold justice in this debate, I have accomplished the resolutions purpose. C: Utility My goal in this debate will be to best uphold justice with Utility. If a vigilante can provide an over-all inherent good by doing an act, and uphold it through the law's Justice system, then vigilantism is justified. C1: Vigilantism only ensures the government's goal's are carried out to peak satisfaction. If the government means well, but is unable to enforce the law, is vigilantism unjust? If enforcement of some laws is impossible, do vigilantes still have the right to exercise force? I am going to attempt to answer these questions. . http://ammonwiemers.weebly.com...The government has built it's law's and regulations over the principles of the constitution. As U. S. Citizens, we all adhere and abide by these, as terms of living free in our country. However, in accordance to these laws, there is a great fallible system which can tear every great moral value this country tries to uphold down. That, my friends, is the United States Court system. Read more in the link below: . http://www.debate.org...As evidenced in the link above, we cannot trust the court system to uphold Justice. When the U. S. Government fails to do it's job (which is to uphold Justice), than the people in which it is protecting should be able to pursue their own justice. C2: The people have a right to defend the Justice system. It is my firm belief, that it is within our constitutional interest, to be able to protect ourselves and others. The constitution ensures of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government does it's best to ensure that within it's people. However, what about when they cannot? If the government is acting in accordance to it's own people's needs, then by all means, these same people should be able to satisfy their own needs in accordance to our the rights we are ensured. To complete this arguments, I am going to say a few different phrases that will shine some light on the fact that vigilantism should be Justified. It is Legal for a police officer to fire a gun at a guilty man who expresses violent behavior. It is Illegal for a citizen to fire a gun at a guilty man who expresses violent behavior. It is Legal for a government official to detain and arrest a man who has stolen, or violated another individuals property. It is Illegal for a Citizen to detain and arrest a man who has stolen, or violated another individuals property. Now let's phrase this one more time, in a little bit different of a way. Upon a fallacy or a loophole in a court system being found by a defence attorney, it is perfectly Illegal for a cop, a government official, and a citizen to do anything about either of those two scenario's above. In this final phrase we can see the true and ultimate harms of not allowing vigilantism in our society. Our government is not perfect. They cannot actively be around to prevent crime at all times. Vigilantism that abides by the U. S. Justice system law should be viewed them, as a service to our country, and ourselves.