Quote:
I doubt very much he would argue what he did should be allowed in our society, or even that it was right.
My understanding is that many years later, he acknowledged that what he did was wrong but that he had no regrets (i.e., he'd do it again under the circumstances). I did not follow that case at the time and can only read the after the fact reports, but, as a father, I could understand his actions. Not to justify or excuse it, but understand it. But here we are talking about one man extracting "justice" on a perpetrator for a specific crime against his own son. But with lynching in the Jim Crow era, we are talking about a society, in a mob fashion, doing it collectively. How much of a difference that should make? Not sure, but it is a diffidence (imo).
