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

My definition of vigilantism comes from the American University of Law System and therefore outweighs his definiton and we must use the definition Vigilantism occurs when a person violates the law in order to exact what they believe to be justice from criminals, because they think that the criminal will not be caught or will not be sufficiently punished by the legal system. By limiting the debate the United States government it is easier and put into a prespective we can more easily relate to. I offer my definiton of government again as a means to limit the debate. The Government refers to the United States government and its checks and balances. Including the judiciary, Executive, and legislative branches. My first contention was attacked as there was no international. Law but by limiting the debate to the US government. The United States law is at hand. Through his VC of individual autonomy people would go out and enforce these unjust laws becuase they thought they were just. My opponent attacks my 3rd contention claiming that if the government wasnt willing to convict a murderer and there was clear evidence of the crime that only then would vigilantes act. Well, excerising the death penalty is a big deal and if they are put to death it is because they were found without reasonable doubt to be guilty. Just because they were not put to death does not mean they were not guilty, it just means there was doubt to whether or not the accused was guilty. To address our founding fathers If revolution is ever justly undertaken as a means to redress grievances, then the revolutionaries are, from the outset, legitimate forces and not vigilantes. I think any definition which would make the majority of the American founding fathers vigilantes is simply too broad to allow for negative ground. Vigilantes avenge unpunished crimes, not unchecked criminal regimes. My fifth contention is addressed. He addressed how much force is required. If someone is raping someone you have the duty to protect that person by subduing them from stopping the rape and holding them tell you call authorities. You can even issue a citizens arrest. I would like to add that his contention two is untopical through my definition of government. Also, I would like to furthermore add that. Specifying a few instances of where vigilantism is acceptable is a huge ground skew, as well a predictability skew.The burden doesn't even function under you defending multiple instances, you could win off of extending anyone of them. That's also a reciprocity issue, there would be no turn ground on that AC, because even if in one scenario vigilatism is bad, if it's ok in another it's justified. Further, I don't even think that interp is true, the qualifier is "when the government fails to act" not just debate about vague instances of vigilantism My oponnents VC Autonomy is not a desirable trait : the right to set your own agenda to conduct your own affairs with a minimum of outside interference. I propose that the concept of autonomy is extended to cover the smallest group in society: the group of one, the individual.To be autonomous is to have the right to self-determination to order your affairs as you see fit. Of course, that doesn't give you the right to impose your order or beliefs on any one else, because they're autonomous also. So, this brings us to the point of who decides what is justice. What you consider justice and what I consider justice may be remarkably different. So if you act and set your own agenda based on your theory of justice than it may be a skewed form of justice in my view and therefore actually being unjust. However, by supporting my VC we are portecting the rights of everyone and allowing the majority to choose what is just and unjust. As that is why we have a law system. His value of justice is the same as mine and upheld through the protection of rights.