>> Self-defense is a form of viglantism.
>
> Oh stop it, it is not. It's specifically separate.
Just to put an end to this, according to American Heritage Dictionary:
------------
vigilante: one who takes ... law enforcement into one's own hands.
-------------
Protecting one's self or others from conduct constituting a crime is pretty plainly taking law enforcement into one's own hands. (What I omitted for clarity was the following: "...or advocates the taking of...".) I am not negating a claim of self-defense or defense of others; I'm encompassing it. The term "vigilante" has no legal significance, and I'm not making any kind of legal argument. I expressly renounced any implication of negative connotation. This is pretty petty, no? Are you seriously taking issue with this phrase: "...nor did the thought of his being shot by a vigilante ever cross his mind"? And given the rather clear pro-vigilante thrust of some of the posts, it's a bit disingenuous for any of those persons to take issue with that use.
>> A criminal is one who commits a crime ...
>
> You said the other day that there's no such thing as a criminal.
Literally, we're all criminals, since all of us have engaged in conduct constituting a crime. But what's the point in using a term that encompasses everybody? Why not just use "human"? That's the philosophical meaning of what was said, which I explained in a subsequent post. I was making an effort to illuminate the political use of the term (as by Wojtek) by negating its literal use and making an appeal to view all people as human, rather than permanently segregating us into a (fictional) criminal class and (fictional) law abiding class.