'defense of others' is too limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypo

In reply to my first point, that Bob has the right to a trial by jury, pro offers the following: "people only have this right with teh government. they don't have this right with vigilantes the question is whether vigilantism is okay here" The problem with this statement is that rights do not work this way. The government is not the only agent that must respect your rights. Wouldn't we say that a lynch mob during the Jim Crow era violated their victim’s right to a fair trial? These were also vigilantes. By applying moral principles to one moral agent but not another, pro is being inconsistent. Pro may have meant that vigilantes do not recognize this right. This is, however, irrelevant given that we are debating morality in other words what a person ought to do. So Pro has not avoided the argument that the perpetrator has the right to a fair trial. Pro then attempts to refute my supporting argument with the following: "mowing the lawn is in no way similar. i see your point in that we could argue that if vigilantism with bob is okay, someone else might see it as permissible to lock me up for what they see as going too far with teh lawn. the problem, is that this relies on lunacy.. no one thinks that vigilantism is okay. the only difference here with killing him or not is a matter of immanency, whether it should be a killing is "about to occur" or "will occur soon enough". that's the extent of difference between killing him in the park v when he's about to kill someone. this is sufficiently similar enough that to compare it with not mowing the lawn is just poor judgment." You may note that Pro contradicts her earlier quote here as she went from stated that vigilantism was okay in some circumstances ("the question is whether or not vigilantism is okay here") to saying it is never permissible ("no one thinks vigilantism is okay."). So I would like to pose this question to pro: Is vigilantism okay in some circumstances or not? I will put this aside for now and address pro's stronger point about whether immanency should mean killing that is "about to occur" versus "will eventually occur". Pro is arguing that there is no significant difference between the two. But there is a fundamental difference between the two. Imagine ( as in the film Minority Report) that you have a choice to kill a man that you somehow know will murder someone in the future. Yet the person, as of right now, is not guilty of any crimes (this is similar to the "Baby Hitler" dilemma). There is an intuitive difference between this and using lethal force to stop a shooter in your office building. The final point I need to address is about my alleged comparisons between murder and mowing the lawn. Contrary to what Pro has asserted, I was not comparing the two, but rather I was arguing against the kind of arbitrary justice being considered in this example. Pro then goes on to address my point about the potential for mistaken identity by arguing that shooter might have some "special inside knowledge of Bob and his murders" But even Pro acknowledges that this would not -- in the legal sense—Be a valid proof of Bob’s identity. Also given that someone’s life is at stake “close enough” just doesn’t cut it. This is not merely a practical concern, as Bob having a right to a trial by jury is a moral principal. And one man’s hasty judgment is not enough to justify ending someone’s life. My point about endangering the wild life is, of course, absurd when taken as an argument in itself. But it was meant as a rhetorical point to demonstrate that you are putting others beside yourself and the serial killer at risk. Since Pro did not address the other half of my argument, she is attacking a straw man. Regarding my argument that you should contact authorities rather than handle the situation yourself, Pro argues that the situation is better handled by the person that see’s Bob. But this is not true, just because you see a problem does not mean you are the most well equipped person to address it. The police force is trained to handle these types of situations as, the vigilante may not be.