Perhaps moral is not quite the right word. Ethical? Civil? Whatever ... vigilantism by beating up bad people is illegal, and I was assuming this to be a line you were saying it is OK to cross in certain circumstances. Note too that I have said from the start I am somewhat ambivalent on this case myself (which clearly implies that I also think there is a line somewhere that becomes justifiable to cross). Simple example (and a less violent one) ... walking down a deserted street I see someone on the other side requiring medical assistance. I can offer first aid, but the street crossing is 50 yards down the road. Should I break the law and jaywalk to get there as quickly as possible? My answer: of course. Even though I am the only person I've ever known to actually get booked for the archaic offence of jaywalking - many years ago.

Let's break this down starting with just the concept of beating someone up. Is beating someone up wrong? Not necessarily. It depends on the reason one is getting "beat up."

Beating up someone to protect presents no moral, ethical, or civil problems to me. Its self-defense.

Legal - I'm not a expert on Indias laws and I doubt you are either, so we can only speculate. I think every practical legal avenue of resolving a problem should be attempted to protect oneself and his interests before breaking a law to do so. But one is morally bound to do whatever is necessary to protect himself and his loved ones.


I will gladly accept a jaywalking ticket if I have to in order to provide medical assistance. In reality, I would think if there were a police officer there to give the ticket, she'd be helping provide the medical assistance as well.

If I recall, you're trying to set up some sort of gotcha on me where you'll say "being you're willing to break the law, you're no better than suicide bombers." The difference is, the suicide bombers aren't trying to save anyone's life. If all the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq suddenly stopped fighting the Iraqis and coalition forces, the coalition soldiers there would be able to leave their weapons in the armory. The point is, the terrorists are trying to effect a political change with terrorist tactics.

Actually, no, I was never trying to set up any kind of gotcha. I made the passing comment about a seeming incongruity which was little more than that. After some further discussion, I did accept the reason for it. If 'moral standards' was also the wrong term then so be it - my impression was that breaking the law, and stepping over a moral(/ethical/whatever) line in your view. I agree we are not Indian law specialists, but do thing its safe to speculate this case of vigilantism is illegal. But really, I guess that is not 100% certain. I suspect this discussion is just going round in circles getting nowhere, and not headed anywhere interesting, so suggest we move on.