> I take issue with this as an innocent bystander, because I don’t know what you know if the transgression happened previously to me happening upon you killing

> I take issue with this as an innocent bystander, because I don’t know what you know if the transgression happened previously to me happening upon you killing them. I cannot parse this sentence. In any case, I say that when you have the right to use violence to stop an attack (you have sufficient proof and the violence is proportional), you should still have the right after the attack up to the point the attacker has been punished in some other way. If you believe it matters who carries out a punishment (given the same standard of proof and proportionality), then you are the one who needs to justify yourself. > Please don’t use my post to advocate for violence The state is the single more prolific user of violence. By your advice, I would have to advocate against the existence of states. > your reckless pursuit of misguided justice You've been respectful up until this post but not anymore. You are just presuming things. How is anything reckless and misguided if I literally keep talking about needing (roughly) the same standard of proof as current courts? > I will hold you personally responsible and will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law And now you are just threatening violence to me. Except you believe if you you a middleman it's somehow different. > You’re not a good person in my moral estimation. This is something that eventually comes up with religious people. I've been called wicked. "Moral estimation" surely _sounds_ more polite. You need to understand yourself - religious people, you included i believe, are fundamentally about submission. You seem to believe that somebody who has more power than you (state of god) also must know better than you. That is not the case. > Please consider that you can be honestly mistaken. I've been saying this the whole time. > knowing you would strike first and ask questions later or never Please re-read my previous posts. I literally said "only people who have sufficient standard of proof of what happened can morally punish the aggressor". > Your moral theory doesn’t account for bad actors posing as victims It does, this is exactly why I focus so much on the difference between reality and provability. States/courts have the same issue BTW. > once the moment has passed, the punishment is not the victim’s to dispense This is just a belief that you have been indoctrinated into. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauch%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauch%C3%A9 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne_Bachmeier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne_Bachmeier 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinka_Bamberski_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinka_Bamberski_case These actions are generally supported by a large part of the public. (Though I don't know if majority.) This is because reciprocal justice is people's natural moral system before they are indoctrinated into submission to a "higher" "authority". Just look at the comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LBxCI3IZrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LBxCI3IZrc Interestingly the state punishes the good person in all of them with a sentence much smaller than it would otherwise be but it larger than symbolic. This reveals an issue with the legal system - it does not account for itself being wrong and people correcting the mistake because they simply couldn't tolerate the injustice. > you think two wrongs make a right No, I simply don't think a proportional sufficiently-justified response to a wrong is wrong.