No, that is not what a vigilante is nor is that an accurate interpretation of the Castle Doctrine.
Originally Posted by JAB1985
Wicked's definition is vigilante is spot on and the precise legal interpretation. The Castle Doctrine allows anyone to defend their home AND property against any person who the OWNER feels is threatening. Granted, a few Castle Doctrine states have an imminent peril clause in them, but most do not. I know in Texas, if a person is on your property and engaged in a felony, deadly force is authorized.
Take the exact same scenario with the terrorist suspect is hiding on your property and is armed, you're free to dispatch him in any manner you see fit -- deadly force or call the police; it's the property owners prerogative. Him having a weapon makes it a no-brainer. You can, and it seems like you are, argue that the *safest* thing to do may have been to retreat and call the police, but from a legal standpoint, 50 states in the country would have have found the property owner justified in using deadly force against an armed person on his property.
WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.