Vigilantism is Justified when the Government has Failed to Enforce the Law.

His definition states that a person violates the law to ensure justice when they think that the criminal will not be be caught. However, it is not necessary for one to break the law to ensure justice: for example, if one steals food from a grocery store, and another stops him, then the second person is not breaking the law, but is still acting as a vigilante to ensure justice in the society. I disagree with my opponent's definition of government. He states that the government refers to the United States. However, because the US is not stated in the actual resolution, government cannot mean only the United States government. My value is the same as my opponent's, so I have no argument. My opponent's value criterion is protecting rights. He cites that vigilantism offers no protection of various governmental rights. What he fails to note is that when the government has failed to enforce the law, the government is null and void, because the government does not do its job of protecting its citizens. If the government is null then so are the rights it "guarantees". My opponent's first contention claims that the law itself might be unjust or even criminal under international law. He cites the Fugitive Slave Act and the Jim Crow laws. However, no international organization was existing when these laws were being implemented, so no international law existed. My opponent's second contention claims that vigilantism leads to anarchy. He cites that an imperfect democracy is the best form of government. However, a democracy is run by the people. Vigilantes are also people, so won't they have input in the democracy? So, under my opponent's contention, if vigilantes are really criminals, then criminals would be running the democracy. So if this occurred wouldn't the best form of government would be republicanism, where leaders are elected by popular vote. Criminals make up for a small minority of the population so their votes would not really be existent. My opponent's third contention claims that vigilantism is unjust. He admits that the law can go wrong, but only after being found guilty by a jury. However, remember that vigilantes would only act as a last resort because of a failure of the established law system. So only if the government wasn't willing to convict a murderer in which there was clear evidence of the crime would vigilantes act. My opponent's fourth contention claims that vigilantism interferes with constitutional rights. He cites the Sixth Amendment, stating that an impartial jury should be reviewing the case. Again, remember that vigilantes would only act as a last resort because of a failure of the established law system. Only if this system did not work would vigilantes take place. My opponent's fifth contention is an attack on my case, claiming that my examples are untopical. He states that we "are only allowed to use as much force that's required to stop the attacker". The question then becomes how much force is required. If one is intent on raping someone, for example, then I am sure that telling the rapist "Don't do that, that's against the law" won't do much. Rather, what one must do is not chainsaw the attacker, but ensure justice occurs in a meaningful way. My opponent's sixth contention claims that the government may be strapped for resources. However, I don't exactly understand where my opponent is heading with this. Doesn't this support my side: the government is unable to enforce the law because of lack of money, and so it is upon the citizens to ensure justice in the society. If my opponent could elaborate on this contention that would be helpful. My opponent's conclusion is cut off, so I don't have any comment. I await my opponent's response. Thank you.