It’s not whataboutism. You’re proposing a change to society, and I’m asking you exactly what that change would look like.
Rules for thee but not for me.
If it's legal it isn't vigilantism. Isn't it the law in some states that you are allowed to use force to prevent theft? I assume that's what they meant. Yes it has its drawbacks but I think the current pacifist course has us headed for 24/7 surveillance.
These are punishments after the fact. Nobody is suggesting to allow people to go around exacting punishment. We are suggesting to allow people to defend self, family, and property.
Assaulting the manager would not be allowed because it has nothing to do with physically preventing the crime from being carried out. Same with slashing tires.
Allowing people to defend themselves and their property has been done many times in history. It is, in fact, the historical standard, including in the history of your own community. If you want a practical example of how this could look, simply look into that history, just decades ago. Please dispense with these unproductive gotcha attempts.
No, I’m describing crimes in progress. If a waiter confronts their manager while they’re they’re paycheck, that isn’t a “punishment after the fact”. They are defending their property by using violence to prevent wage theft from being carried out, in exactly the same way you’re suggesting shopowners be allowed to.