Did a public service and had fun doing it. Nice job.

Gun nuttery has proven that.

Apparently not

What if he'd turned out to be innocent? What if he just happened to resemble the man the police wanted? Would we all be lining up demanding this wannabe hero be charged and convicted for assaulting an innocent man without any warning?

What we cheer, can come back to haunt us. We should decry, not defend, person on person violence. We certainly shouldn't celebrate it because for once, a lunatic got lucky and actually tackled a genuine bad guy. The ends never justify the means.

They are denouncing the vigilante Zimmerman, because he targeted an individual who turned out to be innocent. Here, we seem to be saying that it's OK, so long as the guy turns out to be a baddie.

I'll give you a hint: in one case, the victim is dead. I'll leave you to figure out which one.

Was any warning given to the escaped prisoner? Was any attempt to confirm his identity? If it had been innocent, the vigilante would have gone to jail for assault and battery, and had serious difficulty defending himself before the courts.

The point is this, the ends do not justify the means. Average citizens have no right to jump on anyone and throw them to the ground because they resemble a picture.

The vigilante is not wrong when he kills, the vigilante is wrong when he takes the law into his own hands. That's my point.

The guy's alive, and it turns out he's a pretty bad guy. If he was actually innocent, the law allows him recourse through the courts. Trying to equate this situation with George Zimmerman is really pretty lame. Zim armed himself and went hunting - that is not what occurred here.

But what about our hero? He was right once, and what if he goes out looking for his next baddie to capture?

Either we support person on person violence, or we reject it.

for.

If he had merely resembled the individual in the picture? Would the actions have been justified then? What right do you, any individual have to tackle an individual who is committing no crime in your view? Again, pictures are not always a good fit. Remember all those who are identified by pictures, and turn out to be innocent, because they have an alibi.

guy is alive.

and handed over to the police. His photo was right on the counter.
Trayvon Martin was murdered while returning home to his father's apartment because a racist, lying gun nut set out to follow him despite being told not to do so.
Please don't confuse two completely different happenings.

Nobody in the store said. "Hey, isn't that your picture?" Nobody said call the police, I think this is the guy they're looking for. Instead the patron tackled, initiated physical violence, based upon his own interpretation of a photograph, matching the suspect.

So now we allow that providing the guy turns out to be a baddie? The ends justify the means? Personally, I denounce all person on person violence. Especially where it wasn't warranted by circumstances.

The individual who believed the suspect matched the photograph of the escaped prisoner had a responsibility, certainly. A responsibility to notify the authorities. He had no responsibility, and no right, to just tackle the guy on nothing but his own belief that the suspect was in fact the escaped prisoner.

The scumbag is back in prison.