[Note: this blog is part of a research project. It is not especially aimed at a broad public. It’s a place for the author to keep notes, and it is made public in case others find it useful or interesting.]

This week a healthcare executive — UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson — was murdered in New York by a masked gunman. Evidence at the scene included multiple bullet casings inscribed with the words “delay,” “deny,” “defend” and “depose,” all words associated with strategies to minimize payouts to healthcare insurance recipients.

Was this a case of vigilantism? Some will certainly call it that. After all (and this is pure speculation, but not ungrounded) the shooter is quite likely seeking what he sees as a form of justice, and taking matters into his own hands in that pursuit rather than going through legal channels.

My own somewhat informal working definition of vigilantism is that it is “the attempt by those who lack formal authority to impose punishment for wrongs or perceived wrongs.”

On this somewhat loose definition, we might call the killer in this case a vigilante, if it turns out (odds are high) that he believes that the murder constituted punishment of Thompson either for specific wrongs or for his involvement in an industry — the American healthcare insurance industry — that has been subject to much moral criticism.

But it’s worth noting that this only counts as vigilantism on a somewhat loose definition, because in classic cases, at least, the vigilante seeks to punish not just wrongs, but violations of the law. Also, in classic cases, vigilantism is “disinterested” — that is, the vigilante seeks to exact punishment to protect the community, not (for example) to exact retribution for some personal grievance. And my bet is that this case is indeed personal.