Is vigilante justice ever morally justified?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is vigilante justice ever morally justified?". Your opponent's style: Hannah Arendt

Yes, but sometimes, if a situation is happening in the heat of the moment and if people's health/safety is in danger or has been compromised i think using vigilante justice is morally justified. If the crime that's being committed is robbery or some crime that dosen't directly harm a person's health/safety the law should be involved first

You've carved out an exception that destroys your entire position. If vigilante action is justified when "health/safety is in danger," you're not defending vigilante justice, you're defending self-defense or defense of others, which the law already permits. That's not vigilantism, that's legal. Real vigilantism kicks in after the fact, when danger has passed and institutions exist to handle it. Your "heat of the moment" caveat admits the real problem: ordinary people in adrenaline spikes make catastrophic judgment calls. They misidentify threats, escalate minor situations, kill the wrong person. Legal systems exist precisely because crowds are terrible at proportional justice. You're conflating emergency response with vigilante morality. They're opposites.