“any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.”
Above is a difinition of “vigilantism”—I think it fits this situation.
I don’t. This is also covered by self defense laws.
Taking the law into your own hands while defending yourself or an innocent from an aggressor is lawful.
Not by my definitions. If he had heard about the molesting afterwards and then went looking for that guy...THAT would be vigilantism. Catching him in the act and then stopping that act with extreme force is not vigilantism.
Stopping a crime in progress by lethal force is not the same as avenging said crime after the fact.
Vocabulary fail: no soup for you.
“...as by avenging...”
avenging implies actions after the event which was not the case here. The man lost his life while in the midst of committing a crime.
To blame this father is a sick interpretation of events. I would have done the exact same thing under similiar circumstances. Any good father would also. Kudo’s to the father, he did the right thing.
When you interrupt a crime in progress and take action to stop it, you are not a vigilante. A vigilante is one who takes action AFTER a crime has been committed, but ended.
There is a difference, one major difference - timing.
PS: If it were my daughter of granddaughter who was being attacked, I wouldn’t be thinking about “vigilantism”. I’d be thinking how can I kill this bastard ASAP.
He was in defense of his daughter. He was protecting his daughter from bodily harm when the father saw his 4 year old girl being sexually assaulted.
Self defense is not taking the law into your own hands. Acting on behalf of a four year old daughter isn’t either.
The law in my own hands is exactly where I like it.
I aint gonna call 911 and wait around while he finishes.