[Jeff Higgins]

Just a nit-picky pint of clarification, but this was not "vigilante justice". This was "self defense", or possibly more accurately, defense of property. Catching a crook in the act and defending one's self, loved ones, property, or even a complete stranger is not "vigilante justice". Private citizens hunting the perpetrator down, assuming his guilt, and punishing him in some way after the fact is "vigilante justice".

This term gets brandied about all too frequently. It is most often used in an effort to apply a negative connotation to a citizen's actions of lawful self defense. The hand-wringing ninnies among us would have us believe any form of self defense that injures or kills a crook is wrong. That citizens have no right to bring it to that level. That only the police can legally, morally, or ethically injure or kill the bad guys to stop them in the act of committing a crime. "Vigilante justice" is the term de jour, adding a sinister, illegal tinge to the situation. The disingenuous ninnies gobble it up, convinced they should never resort to violence to defend themselves. Balderdash. It's not only our right, it is our responsibility. And it is not "vigilante justice".

Sorry for being so picky. And yes, they used the wrong end of the shotgun. Hope they didn't crack the stock or something.