In my experience, when people have no other methods to become whole (when wrong was done against them), they *will* lash out in ways you might disapprove of.

If anything, advocacy of violence shows just how far down our societal belief that we wouldn't be wronged, is nearly gone.

I'm for limited violence when all other methods have been exhausted. But then we have to decide exactly what "violence" is.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment regarding violence, I think that what's identified as crime in this case is not necessarily just. It should be criminal to sell faulty equipment and do nothing to fix it, but it isn't. Ergo, the system of law has already failed to reflect what should be appropriate behavior. IMO these companies have already torn up their version of the social contract, so I'm not terribly worried if a frustrated customer takes their website down for a day or two or takes some other nonviolent form of corrective action. I won't do it, but I wouldn't be clamoring to shut down anyone who did.

Let me tell you the story of my country who shot dead a president and his wife. It was a democracy before and it is after. I am not endorsing the comment that started this discussion, just telling you are not necessarily right: there are cases when violence and crime are not only acceptable, but even necessary.