Originally Posted by Strike
No it's not. The issue is that he attacked people who were innocent and did not provoke him. He got a kick from killing for the sake of killing. Now, compare that to someone who kills the person who killed their child. They are not moral equivalents or even close. The latter has not attacked an innocent, the latter does not lust for murder as a form of thrill and the latter is not likely to ever repeat their crime. The latter was also provoked to a huge degree.
If you saw a grown man beating a toddler to a pulp and you ran over and slapped the **** out of him and you were glad you did it afterwards, it would not show that you had lowered yourself to his level in any way.
You're arguing a different point. Intervention is a completely different argument. So is familial revenge. We're talking about people unrelated to the crime trying to get notoriety by killing one of the UK's worst killers. That is wrong and indefensible. Same as mobile violence.