No. I am NOT describing vigilantism. I am describing enforcement of rights, at the time they are violated.
The distinction being that vigilantism happens after the fact, or by people who were not witnesses.
As an example, if someone steals from a business and returns later, its too late to arrest or hold them. But if you perform a citizens arrest at the time of the theft that is legal.
Another classic example is a use of force altercation. All participants should be present from start to finish to avoid legal jeopardy if they wish to intervene. Someone that sees a fight after it started has no idea whose side it is legally permissible to take. Even so, it's very risky to intervene because it's hard to know what's going on in the heat of the moment.
This is why rights must be enforced in the here and now, by those that have standing to do so.
The distinction being that vigilantism happens after the fact, or by people who were not witnesses.
As an example, if someone steals from a business and returns later, its too late to arrest or hold them. But if you perform a citizens arrest at the time of the theft that is legal.
Another classic example is a use of force altercation. All participants should be present from start to finish to avoid legal jeopardy if they wish to intervene. Someone that sees a fight after it started has no idea whose side it is legally permissible to take. Even so, it's very risky to intervene because it's hard to know what's going on in the heat of the moment.
This is why rights must be enforced in the here and now, by those that have standing to do so.
Otherwise, as you say, it's vigilantism.