vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law

In response to my opponent. .. Please note that you and me agreed upon stating our opening statements in the second round. That counts as my introduction. In my intro, I had no contentions and no observations. So in my defense, you are incorrect. LD clearly states an intro, contentions, and resolution + conclusion. Overall, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand which is supposed to be vigilantism. I sense that this was only a tactic used to forbid me from proving anything else. Anyway, this is not a debate of LD formatting. I will state contentions here. .. Contention 1: Vigilantism violates the constitution. Through out the years, there have been many cases of vigilantism. After the civil war had ended in the 1800th century, many southerners grouped together and formed the KKK (ku klux klan). They were a vigilante group that caused havoc through out the south. The KKK murdered innocent African American civilians in order to perfect the American way and defend the white race. By doing this, they were held account for multiple cases of murder and for the violation of the civil rights of the people. Many other vigilantes exist today even. For example, the Juarez group is a vigilante group in Mexico who have sworn to kill a criminal a day. They have been doing so for years. Placed in ditches were the heads of their victims. Now, when a police officer kills a criminal, it is because a criminal is armed. Not to mention, they are authorized by law to do so. Vigilantes on the other hand, are not. Most of the Juarez's victims were not armed. The Juarez to have caused multiple cases of murder, violated criminal justice, and also violated the sixth amendment. The sixth amendment clearly states that a criminal has the right for a jury and fair trial. The policy for criminal justice is that you are not guilty until the court says so. Contention 2: Vigilantes cannot be trusted. Vigilantes are anyone outside law enforcement who takes the law into their own hands. By mentioning anyone, this is the key factor of how vigilantism endangers citizens. For example, in Tennessee, their was a man by the name of Timothy Chandler. He was already arrested for child pornography. Two of his neighbors, otherwise known as vigilantes, decided a way of scaring him by setting a fire off near his house. The fire began to grow at a serious and dangerous rate. Mr. Chandler escaped safely but his wife (who was innocent) was killed because of it. Clearly these vigilantes were not aware of the dangers and consequences who ended up with being charged for murder. Therefore, they were not able to be trusted upon. This is a perfect example of the dangers vigilantism can cause. . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... I conclude my argument here. Vigilantism is an unconstitutional way of handling the law. Vigilantes like said before, cannot be trusted upon. They are an unreliable source for enforcing the law. Vigilantes are a threat to the people of society. I and many others have not been able to understand how vigilantism can be justified. If professional and trained law officers have failed to enforce the law, what makes anyone think that a group of civilians would do a better job than that of an officer? My resolution is simple, possible, and absolutely more effective than justifying vigilantism. It is the government's job to protect the people of it's country. If the government has failed to enforce the law, then they should simply act upon it. By this I mean reformatting the law enforcement agencies. Simply cops who are unable to do their job should be replaced with more highly effective officers and agents. Regardless whether vigilantism or reformation is more effective, it is fact that either way, there is always going to be crime out there. It is not up to a civilian to decide to take on the law without being trained or being authorized by the government to do so. .. .