Vigilante, or Not?

 Today I saw a meme depicting the 376 motionless members of the police department at Uvalde during the active shooter casualty event. It also showed the one young man who stood up more recently to an active shooter. 

It's a rather clear picture, even by words, isn't it?

Then I considered what some people may say or think concerning the one individual who took action. I have not read, nor seen video of any of the original documents or videos from either event. I have seen some internet comments and, of course, the noted meme. The following is personal opinion and should not be construed as if I were speaking legally.

Two words came immediately to mind, Militia and Vigilante. Do not get the two confused.

According to the South Carolina state constitution:

ARTICLE XIII.

MILITIA

SECTION 1. Militia.

"The militia of this State shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens of the State between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such persons as are now or may be exempted by the laws of the United States or this State, or who from religious scruples may be adverse to bearing arms, and shall be organized, officered, armed, equipped and disciplined as the General Assembly may by law direct."

Emphasis on shall is by me. The consideration is, under law, Shall is not optional as in May. In other words, if you live in South Carolina and are able bodied between the ages of 18 and 45, you ARE the militia, unless ruled exempt.

Vigilante is a group of a different bent. They are defined as a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate. (Note: they operate without legal authority. Most notably, they take justice into their own hands by trying, convicting, and executing.)

The legal authority of militia stems from centuries of law before the constitutions of the various colonies came into existence. Once those colonies became states under the US Constitution, they retained all rights of militia organization and regulation because those rights were never part of the national constitution. The only mention of the militia within the body of the US Constitution refers to the right of the President to call up such a force to deal with treason, insurrection, and anarchy. The 2nd Amendment leaves the militia to the people.

Another initial intent of the founders little known to Americans today, requires the legal system of the Grand Jury to request the militia to arrest based upon fact and evidence, sorely lacking in the instance of vigilantes. And the militia has no authority to convict under civil law. That belongs to the courts.

To bring this back to full circle, the one lone gunman acting to preserve life guaranteed by the constitutions of the various states' laws (see right to use deadly force) wasn't acting as a vigilante. His state gave him the right to act to preserve life, as I understand it, through the castle doctrine.

There will likely be more discussion, evidence, legal opinions, and such during the next few months concerning Uvalde and other instances of US Citizens, militia members, and police interacting with aberrant shooters.