Is there anything inherently wrong with intelligent objective "vigilante justice", especially in minor cases? Just because a judge won't look at a case doesn't mean it's inherently wrong to take action.
Yes, there is something inherently wrong with vigilante justice. Our law system is built on the pillar of due process, which means that we have prosecutor, judge and defendant and a process in which those three parties try to get as close to the truth as possible. Each party in that process has rights and obligations - and all those rights the defendant has get thrown out the window in vigilante justice because judge, juror and executor is one and the only party deciding what they deem "the truth" and "the correct punishment." There is no defense speaking, since the defendant doesn't get heard, there's no appeal, because the punishment has already been dealt. There is no 'intelligent objective "vigilante justice"' since there is no objective all-knowing human being, this is exactly the reason that due process was established: To prevent as many human failures as possible and to reduce the damage those failures cause.
Note that this does not mean "do not take action", please, do so: Call out false behavior, but keep it limited to the behavior. Collect evidence if you think that criminal charges should be filed. Support the victim. Doxxing, as appealing as it sounds is not the right action to take.
Vigilantism violates the rule of law. Just like censoring someone who says something really bad (but only if it's "really bad" and something you shouldn't say, of course), you can't just cancel the democratic principles because it seems like a good idea. That is the exact reason why we have these principles; because often it seems like a good idea but you will screw up if you make a habit out of it.
