"Bernard Farquart" > wrote in
:

>
> "DYM" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Bernard Farquart" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "223rem" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> fbloogyudsr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And your view of the beating applied to the other juvie?
>>>>
>>>> Well deserved!
>>>
>>> Shooting fireworks at cars is a dangerous act.
>>>
>>> The two boys used thier own judgment, and they
>>> chose to act in a way that led to one of them being
>>> struck by a car, while the other escaped with only
>>> a beating. I think the occupants of the car that got
>>> out and administered the beating were merely agents
>>> of karma, and should be let go.
>>>
>>> Bernard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That would be vigilantism.
>>
>> Doug
> No, the driver of the car was just minding his own
> business when someone shot explosives at him, he was not
> going aroung looking for something to take care of, it
> was a reaction to an extreme provocation. I sure would hope he
> will get off of the improper manslauhter charge, and I think no one
> but the jackass kids parents will be upset by it.
>
> Bernard
>
>
>

Bernard,

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.

Doug