What we see here are the limits of actions inspired only by one rule: who did it, has to pay. Of course this remains true, but it would be a mistake to simplify the issue. We need to do justice to the complexity of the situation. What we are observing are actions and reactions of the parts involved. Now, of course we can take sides, but that would mean to ignore the interactions taking place that actually steer the parts to act on this principle, and will never result in anything. Any new action will lead to a new reaction and so ad infinitum, unless we introduce a new idea on how to deal with this conflict.
Many times we have pointed that it is not the extremes that are relevant like the good or bad, 0 or 1, but what is in between, the fuzzy, the intangible, the nuances. Is enjoying vandalizing public or private property not a symptom of a social disease, maybe incurable? And how can anyone be satisfied by having to resort to ruthless suppression, other than in cases of proven pathological sadism?
What we cannot tolerate is the general civic inaction we observe. Who has put those predators on the spot in order to stop them keeping up their attitude? Of course I prefer that the monopoly of violence remains in the hands of a controlled and authorized force and not having people walking around with gun belts(far west style), but I would much rather have a society showing active civil responsibility and needing as little police intervention as possible.