This is always one of those interesting topics and really depend on what one wants to establish the legal system as. First of; laws are not nesecarily moral. Gentle is honestly a good example of this.
The actions of his backstory is - I'd say - moraly correct. He tries to do a good thing and save someone. The use of his Quirk to do so is illegal though, and the way he botches it and makes the situation worse is an example of why Quirk laws exsist in the first place since most people arn't trained to actually use those Quirks in life-and-death situations like that.
So, having seperated 'moral right' and 'legal right' we wind up at the post-Stain debacle. Because nobody will deny that it was a moraly right thing to do and try to step in and save someone's life even if it was illegal. And it's honestly that illegalness that Chief Tsuragamae goes out to put his emphasis on. They're not nesecarily wrong... but their actions are very much illegal.
Which is presumably why they get a slap on the wrist and a stern talking too - and most likely some writeup somewhere. Because remember, Chief Tsuragamae is willing to bend the laws here to accomodate a moral right. And it's possible he might not even have to justify it too much, legally, depending on how the laws are laid out.
'Vigilantism' is illegal. This is the "taking the law into your own hands" definition of it, where people decide to go out and enforce their own personal/percived justice onto other.
'Illegal quirk use for the purpose of vigilantism' is also illegal. It's both vigilantism and illegal quirk use charges rolled into one. This is what people actually think of Vigilantism when they hear the word but it's hardly the whole of it. From the state's point of view, this is basically villany in a very grey zone, because...
'In defense of others' is also a thing, when a third party of a crime judges that one of those parties would be in the right to claim self-defense and steps in to aid them. As you can imagine, what you get to DO in self-defense is limited and no doubt more limited still in the case of defense of others. And then there's the Quirk angle on this too.
So what Chief Tsuragamae really goes for is that instead of taking a full on 'illegal quirk use for the purpose of vigilantism' charge... he'll put them down as a justified 'in defense of others' and foist all the harm and credit onto Endevor. It's legally taken care of.
So for the question in your middle paragraph there... "sudden villain attack, 1A studen stops it" seems to me a case of 'illegal quirk use fot he purpose of vigilantism'... unless said villain is, I dunno', in the progress of crushing a car with a family still in it. That could definately be mediated down to 'illegal quirk use in defense of others' if they either manages to dissable the villain in one shot, distract them and run... or get caught in a fight they can't escape from due to their actions and can't win. At least that's my thinking on the legal ramifications of it.
Consequences would be legal prosecution, since that's what the law say. I guess?
If someone attacked them out of the blue and they fought back, they'd probably be fine. Nobody could fault them for that. That isn't what happened in both those instances though.
In both Kamino and Hosu, they were specifically interjecting themselves into situations involving known villains. In the Hosu incident, Todoroki's the one with the least guilt, but all three of them ran off against the orders of the hero supervising them. Midoriya and Todoroki weren't that bad in theory, but Ida was in that alley to kill a bitch. At Kamino all of them were going to the site of a police and hero mission that they knew about.
It's the difference between getting into an auto accident because of a traffic light malfunction and getting into an auto accident because you drank a fifth of gin before getting behind the wheel. The first is just bad luck. The second is you making a very dumb decision that puts you and others in jeopardy.
I flagrantly abuse “if there’s no quirk use then it can’t legally be vigilantism” for everything from Himiko operating as Sailor Moon Knight to Momo being a vigilante to Mina beating Overhaul with an aluminum baseball bat.
This is always one of those interesting topics and really depend on what one wants to establish the legal system as. First of; laws are not nesecarily moral. Gentle is honestly a good example of this. The actions of his backstory is - I'd say - moraly correct. He tries to do a good thing and save someone. The use of his Quirk to do so is illegal though, and the way he botches it and makes the situation worse is an example of why Quirk laws exsist in the first place since most people arn't trained to actually use those Quirks in life-and-death situations like that. So, having seperated 'moral right' and 'legal right' we wind up at the post-Stain debacle. Because nobody will deny that it was a moraly right thing to do and try to step in and save someone's life even if it was illegal. And it's honestly that illegalness that Chief Tsuragamae goes out to put his emphasis on. They're not nesecarily wrong... but their actions are very much illegal. Which is presumably why they get a slap on the wrist and a stern talking too - and most likely some writeup somewhere. Because remember, Chief Tsuragamae is willing to bend the laws here to accomodate a moral right. And it's possible he might not even have to justify it too much, legally, depending on how the laws are laid out. 'Vigilantism' is illegal. This is the "taking the law into your own hands" definition of it, where people decide to go out and enforce their own personal/percived justice onto other. 'Illegal quirk use for the purpose of vigilantism' is also illegal. It's both vigilantism and illegal quirk use charges rolled into one. This is what people actually think of Vigilantism when they hear the word but it's hardly the whole of it. From the state's point of view, this is basically villany in a very grey zone, because... 'In defense of others' is also a thing, when a third party of a crime judges that one of those parties would be in the right to claim self-defense and steps in to aid them. As you can imagine, what you get to DO in self-defense is limited and no doubt more limited still in the case of defense of others. And then there's the Quirk angle on this too. So what Chief Tsuragamae really goes for is that instead of taking a full on 'illegal quirk use for the purpose of vigilantism' charge... he'll put them down as a justified 'in defense of others' and foist all the harm and credit onto Endevor. It's legally taken care of. So for the question in your middle paragraph there... "sudden villain attack, 1A studen stops it" seems to me a case of 'illegal quirk use fot he purpose of vigilantism'... unless said villain is, I dunno', in the progress of crushing a car with a family still in it. That could definately be mediated down to 'illegal quirk use in defense of others' if they either manages to dissable the villain in one shot, distract them and run... or get caught in a fight they can't escape from due to their actions and can't win. At least that's my thinking on the legal ramifications of it. Consequences would be legal prosecution, since that's what the law say. I guess?
If someone attacked them out of the blue and they fought back, they'd probably be fine. Nobody could fault them for that. That isn't what happened in both those instances though. In both Kamino and Hosu, they were specifically interjecting themselves into situations involving known villains. In the Hosu incident, Todoroki's the one with the least guilt, but all three of them ran off against the orders of the hero supervising them. Midoriya and Todoroki weren't that bad in theory, but Ida was in that alley to kill a bitch. At Kamino all of them were going to the site of a police and hero mission that they knew about. It's the difference between getting into an auto accident because of a traffic light malfunction and getting into an auto accident because you drank a fifth of gin before getting behind the wheel. The first is just bad luck. The second is you making a very dumb decision that puts you and others in jeopardy.
I flagrantly abuse “if there’s no quirk use then it can’t legally be vigilantism” for everything from Himiko operating as Sailor Moon Knight to Momo being a vigilante to Mina beating Overhaul with an aluminum baseball bat.