While it may be fair to criticize police-inaction in the early phases of both these case, I don't think police should be criticized for trying to contain or keep a lid on the situations that developed. It doesn't sound like they were too heavy-handed in either case. In the Grand Manaan case, the people got what they wanted: the drug dealers were taken out of their community, and it sounds like the main bad apple got a few shots to the head on the way. In the second case, we aren't really told very much - the young alleged thief may be mentally-ill, may be of extremely low intelligence, or may be some manner of basket-case. Or she may be a total psycho. In any case, the police may have felt the removing of the spotlight was in best interests of all concerned, and they may have been right, for all we know.

" ... has convicted those with the balls to stand up for it's people." Of course, part of having the balls is the willingness to risk the legal repercussions. Much as I've supported the Grand Manaan five in this thread, based on the again scanty information in the press, the charges against them were probably necessary - it is important to affirm that there is a likelihood of legal consequences for vigilante-type actions, to ensure that they occur only when people have reached intolerable levels of desperation, and have tried every other recourse. Far better of course not to allow situations to reach that state.

I'm still curious, though, as to whether the trial of the five was by jury or not. I'm wondering if a jury would convict them. And it will be interesting to see what their sentences consist of. I'm hoping that they'll get a good old-fashioned rap on the knuckles and then be sent on their merry way, but you never know; there are some mighty peculiar judges out there ...