RE: Vigilantism is justified when the U.S. government has failed to enforce the law.

I will proceed with just a minimal amount of observations I would enjoy to clarify. 1. My opponent has agreed to use LD formatting for his side: -That limits the amount of arguments he can provide -He cannot make any new arguments in the final round of this debate I for that matter, am not using LD formatting so my arguments are infinite. 2. My opponent has provided evidence that is restricted from the topic at hand: -I specifically stated vigilance in the U.S. government. My opponent has provided evidence involving South African vigilantism. This is outside U.S. regulation and is forbidden to be issued in this debate. I will continue with my side of this debate.... My opponent has offered facts from a book, I will have my own idea of arguing the topic which will include the U.S. constitution and cases involving vigilantism. The term vigilantism refers to someone who is a vigilante (someone outside law enforcement who takes the law into their own hands). Through out the years, there have many situations that have vigilante involvement. For example, during the 18th century, there was a cult that even exists today that we all know as the Ku klux Klan (KKK). http://en.wikipedia.org... The KKK during the time, was a southern vigilante group who discriminated and oppressed African Americans. They are also considered to be a terrorist group. They murdered and abused these poor citizens who did not commit a single crime. Therefore, they violated several laws in order to "protect the American or white life style". These laws include murder, destruction of property, and violation of the civil rights act. Another example I would like to provide is a murder situation in Tennessee that also involved "vigilantes". http://www.msnbc.msn.com... For those who chose not to read the links provided, I will simply summarize the occurrence. A man by the name of Timothy Chandler, was arrested for possession of child pornography. When let go, he returned to his wife and home. Two of his neighbors (vigilantes) decided to take action by scaring him. They set off a small fire near his house. The fire grew to the point where it burned down Mr. Chandler's home and ended up burning his wife alive. The two vigilantes were charged for murder. Clearly this shows that vigilantes do not bring peace or justice to the community if they break the law in order to protect the law. I will now discuss in more specific detail, why vigilantism is unconstitutional. Now, picture a criminal who is not armed but not yet caught by authorities. A vigilante decides to take his/her own action by killing the criminal (there have been several situations same as this one). The difference between a police officer and a vigilante killing a criminal is the fact that police are authorized to do so by law. This is because they have been professionally trained properly versus a common civilian who might have no good understanding of how to carry out the situation. Police officers are only allowed to kill a criminal when the criminal is armed and dangerous, otherwise they would have their fair share of punishment. Regardless, vigilantes are not authorized to do so. Problems with this situation: -the vigilante is not authorized to kill so they are charged with murder -the vigilante violated criminal justice -the vigilante violated the sixth amendment -the vigilante did not have a good understanding of the law and only went what they thought was right To clarify any concerns: Criminal Justice: clearly states that a person arrested is not yet guilty until proven in court. Sixth Amendment: clearly states that a criminal has the right to have a jury and a fair trial. With the information provided above, this proves that vigilantes cannot be trusted to carry out the law as well. If they do not have a good understanding of the law, break the law, or only go by what they think is good, clearly shows society that they are an unreliable source.