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

I will be going over the NC, before returning to defend the AC. ****NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE****NC1: Vigilantism is self- refuting My opponent must have missed my second observation. He feels that vigilantism must be regulated, in order for it to work, as it could be too severe. My question is, what is "too severe", if the vigilante is only doing the same thing the government is supposed to be doing? By definition, the one I provided, a Vigilante is only a Vigilante if they take and uphold the law. Meaning the vigilante is not doing anything, that is "too severe". My opponent seems to want to assume that by being a vigilante, the person in question will be running rampant, killing and torturing all of those he encounters. This is clearly a mis-guided approach at negation of what I am actually trying to say. My opponent, as most people probably, may have a television show idea of what vigilantism actually is. But in all reality how often do citizens actually take a Batman, or Dexter approach at handling criminals? A vigilante by definition, is taking and upholding the law; Assisting the government if you will in stopping crime or preventing it. If a man witnesses another man steal a woman's purse, and he tackles that man and forcibly takes the purse and gives it back to the woman, can we really say that what he did was wrong? That is all vigilantism really is or really has to be. Force doesn't even have to be used in order to be a vigilante. I found an article where a man stopped a robbery of a coffee shop, simply by quoting the movie "Pulp Fiction" to the robbers, which scared them enough to make them run out of the store. This was vigilantism used to prevent crime, and thus "Upheld" the law as pertaining to my definition. . http://superofficialnews.com...Vigilantism isn't an arm of the government, as my opponent says. It is an extension. ****AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE****AC1: Vigilantism only ensures the government's goal's are carried out to peak satisfaction. "Yet, when the criminal justice system fails, he finds it perfectly reasonable to place justice in the hands of even fewer flawed humans who themselves do not operate under any such regulations" In response to this, I fail to see the importance of this specificity. Again, as clearly stated in my contention one, the government doesn't always fulfill it's purposed duty. That duty being to protect our individual rights, and ensure us life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My entire contention attempts to accomplish that while the government does it's best to support these things, it is exceptionally flawed, in that several aspects of it's own branches cannot stop things in which prevent humans from doing so. So why not allow us to provide those basic rights for ourselves, when the government fails to? Do we not have to assist the ones we love, or even strangers when they are in need, or are having these principles infringed against? My argument is that the resolution NEEDS to support vigilantism, in order to protect JUSTICE as both me and my opponent agree is the over arching value for this debate to uphold. Justice demands that a person gets what they deserve. Specifically according to my definition, with reason. The government has "reason" to do their job. But they don't have the means to do so, given flaws in our system. Thus the ONLY way to succeed Justice, is to let our people ensure those rights. My observation 2 premises that vigilantism doesn't succeed law enforcement. Any vigilante act that my opponent could classify as "Too extreme", I will just classify as an act of a criminal, rather than a vigilante. Vigilantism is an effective way for civilians to assist the government in accomplishing justice for the greatest amount of people. To reference the National Forensic League: "The problem is that there are other activities that are closely related to vigilantism but which are something else altogether. The first one that comes to mind is civil disobedience. An act of civil disobedience is a refusal to obey an existing law, presumably because one feels that the law in question is unjust. Are those people we refer to as the patriots of the Boston Tea Party actually vigilantes? Or were they being civilly disobedient? Were they revolutionaries or terrorists? ". http://www.nflonline.org... Onto Mapp Vs Ohio. My opponent goes on to cite a passage from source, where it talks about how officers are often dismayed at not being able to obtain "enough" Evidence, even though it is extremely obvious/likely that the killer is guilty. This is exactly my point though. Even when evidence was obtained illegally that proves a persons guilt, we should be able provide justice. So what exactly is wrong with convicting a guilty person? Should we not give him his proper justice simply because of how the evidence was obtained? However this is not the only flawed case where criminals were set free. Here a drug dealer was set free simply because of a "typo in the search warrant". . http://www.officer.com...This one happens all the time. Criminals being set free for simply having an over crowded jail cell. (Not that there is much a vigilante could do about that). . http://www.mlive.com... The point is that when the government fails, we fail. Vigilantes provide a prominent back bone of re-assurance for the government. Finally my opponent questions my sources. I ask him to review these, as I am quite sure all the statistics, graphs, and analytics I provided in my source are completely accurate. AC2: The people have a right to defend Justice "So, when asking whether people have the right to vigilantism, it is equivalent to asking that the targets of vigilantism do not have the freedom of due process. "My opponent again mis-understands me. Vigilantes are only assisting the government. I have provided evidence as to a flawed due process system. Vigilante's are the key to solving justice when due process fails to bring down a criminal. Due process can save any murderer, as long as their is money involved for defence attorney's or a loop hole in finding evidence. Is this really fair? Vigilantes can be the answer to these indescprencies. My opponent cites the fifth amendment. I will too. "except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. "The lawful judgment is the vigilante, fulfilling the law of the land. According to the fifth amendment, vigilantism should actually be perfectly legal, and I thank you for bringing this up. " So, I have to ask, what need is there really for vigilantism beyond allowing for victims to respond with vengeance? "Now whoever said responding with vigilantism had any thing the do with vengeance? If a vigilantism is fulfilling the law, really all he/she is providing a free service to the government and his community, to stop crime. Onto my hypotheticals. My opponent attempts to dis-prove them by saying these things are legal. I know this. This is why they are hypotheticals. According to the resolution, my opponent is supposed to be arguing that these things should be illegal. I am offering these hypotheticals so my opponent and the viewers can see the explicit harms in allowing a negated resolution. I am perfectly aware of what the law is with that said. ****CONCLUSION****My opponent has a mis-guided belief on what vigilantism actually is. I have proven successfully how the only way to have a successful formation of the government is to allow vigilantism to surpass the flawed due process system that we call the "Justice" system. In order to truly allow justice, we need to Affirm the resolution.