[rit]

This is a bit hyperbolic. Vigilantism refers specifically to "an individual or group undertaking law enforcement without legal authority".

Not to defend the clearly overreaching actions of the Malibu homeowners, but hiring security guards to protect what you feel is your property is not vigalantism in any sense of the word.

A homeowner has every right to hire security guards for their property. At worst, the issue here is overreaching claims on the extent of their property – something that happens among even the unwealthy.

[Dylan16807]

Vigilantism is based on using illegal methods to enforce the law.

Hiring a guard for land you don't own is using illegal methods to break the law. (Assuming the guard actually does anything.)

I see this as worse than vigilantism, and I find it really odd to see you explain it as less bad. I seriously doubt that the majority of these landowners are actually mistaken about who owns the beach.

[akiselev]

I don't think you understood what "guard" meant in this scenario. The guards couldn't stop anyone from walking onto the beach. And an easement in this case means that the public can use the land without owning it. Public beach access is a requirement for building permits on the waterfront.

This isn't vigilantism. They're trying to mislead the public about their rights, not enforce some law with illegal methods. I'd be damned if any of our politicians were arrested for that, let alone some Malibu residents.

[Dylan16807]

Are you ignoring the part where I said "assuming the guards do anything"?