B.S. "Society as a whole" doesn't just frown upon it. It's a crime.
Where's the story of Sanctimonious A-Hole #2 beating the sh!t out of Sanctimonious A-Hole #1 for holding a drink while the national anthem was playing?
Meh.
Whatever.
The beating of a child molester by disapproving citizens is a crime...but most prosecutors would not take it on, or if they did, only because it rose to the level of such abhorrent injuries that society was offended more by that than the molesting of the child.
I did not say it was not a crime...most everything that society has frowned upon has been criminalized, in one way or another.
My point being...she was not acting as a member of the STATE, when she did what she did.
The poster I was replying to made, or attempted to make a point, that he would prefer to live in a state wherein one is not punished for protesting in the manner the cretins were.
So, there is no state involvement here...simply an altercation wherein one has to make a moral decision as to who is more "right" in their actions.
Because of the past actions of these kneegoers, society is now of the opinion (for the most part) that a response is acceptable.
The level of the response...or what society will tolerate, is yet to be determined.
In other words...she was wrong, I do not seek to justify her actions...actually, I don't care...as she must fend for herself.
As far as the cretins involved...I don't care if they live or die and certainly will not defend them against minor assault actions of this nature.
But I have enough of a "good citizen" conscience to where I would not allow it to escalate to a "hunt 'em down and kill 'em" mentality.
I'm simply debating the vagaries of human nature.
There is a point where the majority of us would immediately say that she is wrong on all levels...but judging from some of the responses I read on this thread and others and in other venues, I'd say for now, the vast majority of "good citizens", rightly or wrongly, think the cretins got what they should have gotten.