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

Before I proceed with my final statements, I would like the voters to please pay close attention to my opponent's use of LD formatting. Because my opponent has just stated his conclusion, he is not allowed to state anything else in this round. If he does continue on with anything referring to an argument, conclusion, etc., he violates the LD formatting rules. First of all, my opponent's evidence referring to the PEACA, may seem (he so stated) related to the topic. I would like respond to how this evidence may seem, but actually is not relevant to the topic. His evidence refers to South Africa. Yes, in some countries, the law is the same as it is in the U.S. I restrict any foreign information in this debate. This is simply for the fact that other countries may have different laws, codes, or rights for the people. Also, Africa is not part of the United States and this debate is specifically about vigilantism in the U.S. and the U.S. only. He also made a brief point about my source referring to the KKK. Wikipedia I understand is not a so so reliable source. On the other hand, it was only to give the viewers a brief notification of who the KKK were and what they did. Most people definitely know about the KKK, but it was only a little clarification. I disagree about my opponent's definition of a vigilante. He states that a vigilante has to have a understanding of rules and must be known by the community. This is incorrect. A vigilante is generally anyone other than law enforcement who takes the law into their own hands. Any civilian can be a vigilante, they do not have to know the community or be accepted by it. A vigilante can be anyone as far as someone who beats up a man who runs a red light. http://law.jrank.org... The Tennessee case, involving Timothy Chandler, absolutely involved vigilantism. My opponent mentioned that the vigilantes were not in community boundaries or were not accepted by the community to take action (referring to his false definition). For one, they were his NEIGHBORS. They were for fact in community boundaries. His neighbors had no good understanding of how to carry out the law. First off, Timothy Chandler was just released from prison, he paid his debt to society and may have realized what he did was wrong. His neighbors still thought of him as a criminal, but did not have a good understanding of the law. But they went ahead with their stupidity and decided to make a huge mistake, and ended killing the wrong person on top of it. The government is what makes up everything the in the U.S. This includes law enforcement such as police stations, FBI headquarters, etc. So when the topic states "when the government has failed to enforce the law", this is not direct to the government itself. This can refer to the NYPD, LAPD, etc. The government supports the law. The laws are rules that keep the nation in order. When the government cannot enforce these laws, it doesn't mean that laws no longer apply. If that were the case then the entire nation would be in huge jeopardy and not even vigilantes could make a dent in the situation. If the government cannot enforce the law, then the people still have to obey the law. Without the law, there probably would be no country. If highly trained police officers cannot enforce the law, can vigilantes therefore enforce it? Chances are, no. Like said before, vigilantes are anyone. Most vigilantes are probably just ordinary people who have not been trained, nor contain a good knowledge of the law. Vigilantes mostly only go by what they think is good or what should be. When a vigilante like that sort, stops a criminal or even a man who runs a red light, that makes it a very risky situation. Chances are, the vigilante may feel that killing is the correct way of handling it, even though it is not. Is that justified? No, of course not. My opponent may have mentioned that I always show evidence involving violence. Of course, not all vigilantes may think like this. But then again there are some that do. Some vigilantes simply think that "eliminating" the problem is what is best when it isn't. Vigilance is the act of a vigilante or vigilantes. A vigilante is anyone who takes the law into their own hands. This is for reasons unknown. We, meaning society, are unaware of this person's intentions. If the people do not have a good understanding of why this person is enforcing the law or what they might do, then clearly the vigilante cannot be trusted. This person, referring to the vigilante, may endanger the people and might take things to an extreme level like the case in Tennessee. Despite what criminals may be guilty of, it is not fair to them as well as many others to have to pay an unreasonable punishment when chances are they might become a better person. It is not also fair for the innocent citizens to have to experience homicide and murder. If the government failed to attain the law, it is no ones' job but the government to handle the law. The government is the organization that is hired to handle anything that happens in the country and it is their job and no one else's to protect the law. If the government has failed to do it's job then it is their responsibility to fix it, to aid the situation. How I think they have to handle it is to clearly reformat the government. This can range from replacing law enforcers to government officials. But regardless, it would be more effective than allowing vigilantism. This counts as my resolution..... I conclude my argument with the simple fact that vigilantism cannot be justified in any situation. If the government has failed to enforce the law then it is not justified for vigilantes to take action when the people do not have a good understanding of how dangerous it is or what might become of their safety. Quick facts: May I remind the voters that my opponent is not allowed to state anything related to this debate. LD clearly forbids it. Therefore, my opponent may not respond to anything else I have or may have said. He has no other choice but to forfeit this round. This secures my side of this debate and I only recommend voters to vote against vigilantism.