I think if Luigi had merely assaulted the CEO to teach him a lesson, and not killed him, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion nationally. Or at least not to the same level of debate. That (admittedly arbitrary) line is a reason most DC characters like Batman and Superman generally refuse to kill even the most deserving of villains.
My understanding is that the Confederacy did seize federal armories, navy yards and other military depots located in the South, which would have supplied a non-insignificant amount of small arms and canons. But most of the antebellum industrial capacity for manufacturing more was in the North, so the Union always had a strategic advantage there.
In terms of warships, the CSA did capture and convert existing Union ships in Norfolk, Virginia (despite the Union's efforts to scuttle them as they withdrew). A good number of ironclads were also constructed or purchased from England. With the remaining being commissioned and put into operations by the CSA itself during the war. Interestingly, this also included some very early submarines, which is I think the first time they were used in warfare.
That said, the CSA was never able to effectively break the Union's naval blockades, and battles by the opposing armies were far more decisive in the war's outcome. Particularly in the strategically decisive Eastern Theater of the war.
This would assume that there is consensus on what the "United States" is. If a significant portion of the US Military feels differently, then a civil war is inevitable. This is what basically happened in the actual American Civil War, as a number of U.S. officers and soldiers formed their own forces (under their new Confederate government) to fight against the United States.
Yes, I think you've eloquently summarized my thinking on this. Thankfully I've never had to witness people trying to take justice into their own hands, as you have, though I imagine it must be harrowing to witness especially in a mob situation.
It sounds like you're trying to be part of the solution, which I deeply commend. Thank you also for your very thoughtful reply. It's appreciated.
Retribution shouldn't be the driving force, but I can understand it from a societal standpoint. Victims and the families of the victims will want to see a punishment applied for the harm they've suffered. It's in the state's interest to make sure that it's not excessively applied, but to degree there's a mix of correction and retribution that has to be taken into account at sentencing. One person's spite is another's justice.
I think that if too many people see retribution as no longer being applied, some people will start to take matters into their own hands to seek vengeance.
The state has an interest in preventing that and assuring retribution is applied as evenly as possible, and counterbalanced by other mitigating factors (e.g. the degree of offense, the circumstances under which it occurred, likelihood of reoffending, penitence of the guilty, etc.).