Reply #37: The problem is a matter of establishing precedents of

[ladjf]

vigilante action. So, they caught the guy red handed. (1) Did they know his identity? (2) Was it possible to restrain him until the cops arrive? (3) if not, they should have let him flee but called the cops. With that many witnesses, the cops could have located him.

I know it sounds like good justice to catch the guy and beat hell out of him. But, the fact is, if they were able to tie him up, why not wait for the police. If they have the right to administer justice without the court decision, then where will the line be drawn?

Had he fled the church, what property did he have on him at the time? What was the loss to the church had he left? And, do you really think killing him would have been justified for his crime? and, what authority would they have had to decide that? I don't think we're on the same page here.


I was reading a Vicksburg, Ms. newspaper from around 1875. An incident occurred where a young girl claimed that a street person paid her a quarter to "touch her". (those were her words). Within one hour a vigilante group apprehended the man and lynched him, solely on the word of the child. It might not have even been the right person. This isn't the same as the church robbery, but, it shows how dangerous vigilante action can be.