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.