(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, DYM wrote:
>
>> First go look up the definition of vigilante.
>>
>> Yes, the kids acted in a criminal manner and should be punished for
>> that. When the occupants beat and chased the kids they crossed the
>> line and commited another crime. When you seek justice outside of the
>> law you are a vigilante. That is the very definition of the word.
>>
>> The occupants of the car are (at least as far as the facts reported
>> here) guilty of assult. They can plead to extenuating circumstances,
>> such as anger. The kids can only plead stuipity and that dones't get
>> you anywhere.
>>
>> All parties are in the wrong in this one.
>
> To me it seems like self defense. Someone launches bottle rockets at
> another person, should not be surprised if that person fights back.
>
> Your post indicates to me that you believe that nobody should fight
> back but always flee. The same mentality that has laws in the UK that
> have sent homeowners to prison for defending themselves and their
> property against criminals who illegally entered the home.
>
> Your theory of always fleeing, running away, never fighting back only
> puts the power in the hands of those who do wrong. Because they can do
> wrong without fear. The cops are never everywhere. And they'll get
> there later, after the fact.
>
> Nothing keeps crime lower than the fear the victim will hurt the
> criminal.
>
You are very wrong in your assumptions about me. Where did I ever
indicate fleeing. I do feel that you are entitled to defend yourself.

There is a big difference between defending yourself and taking revenge.

If the two in the car intended to just detain the kids until the police
arrived, they are with in their rights. You do not have the right to
pursue and exact your own revenge.

Do you think these kids thought they would be caught? Fear of being
caught didn't deter their criminal behaviour.

It all comes down to knowing where that double yellow line is, and
choosing not to cross it.

Doug