You are confusing two moral issues. You're talking about revenge, and the Christian moral position is of course, that nothing justifies revenge.
(But keep in mind, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and others all regulate revenge instead. Revenge is certainly justified under those moral systems, and the revenge is usually bigger than the event that "justified" the revenge. Judaism, but especially Islam is especially famous for having revenge punishments so extreme (I should say so extremely stupid) that they have triggered civil wars on occasion (of course these come from the Roman Empire's late-empire laws, which had a justice system that can reasonably be called "based on terror"). Which moral system is right ?)
The moral issue here is the duty to stop or at least contain moral wrongs in progress, e.g. this Unit 731, the Soviet Union, ... The key difference being that revenge is after the fact and is unnecessary. The key thing about revenge is that it makes society worse off in the short term, both the person taking revenge and the person being punished (e.g. kids destroying a toy rather than giving it back).
To fight moral wrongs in progress the moral position is that it is justified to use any amount of force, but comparable force should be tried first. Collateral damage should be avoided, but if you can't stop a criminal without causing collateral damage, then it is acceptable to, for example, destroy property (if the police destroys your front door chasing a robber, you will not receive compensation, nor if they burn down your house, though insurance usually covers this). If someone fights, beat him a bit and lock him up. If someone has a knife or a gun and is (trying to) kill people, shoot him. If a country is raping and killing half a continent, ...
This differentiation can be found in the bible, and in any sane moral text. Hell, it can be found in the UNCHR (united nations convention on human rights).
(But keep in mind, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and others all regulate revenge instead. Revenge is certainly justified under those moral systems, and the revenge is usually bigger than the event that "justified" the revenge. Judaism, but especially Islam is especially famous for having revenge punishments so extreme (I should say so extremely stupid) that they have triggered civil wars on occasion (of course these come from the Roman Empire's late-empire laws, which had a justice system that can reasonably be called "based on terror"). Which moral system is right ?)
The moral issue here is the duty to stop or at least contain moral wrongs in progress, e.g. this Unit 731, the Soviet Union, ... The key difference being that revenge is after the fact and is unnecessary. The key thing about revenge is that it makes society worse off in the short term, both the person taking revenge and the person being punished (e.g. kids destroying a toy rather than giving it back).
To fight moral wrongs in progress the moral position is that it is justified to use any amount of force, but comparable force should be tried first. Collateral damage should be avoided, but if you can't stop a criminal without causing collateral damage, then it is acceptable to, for example, destroy property (if the police destroys your front door chasing a robber, you will not receive compensation, nor if they burn down your house, though insurance usually covers this). If someone fights, beat him a bit and lock him up. If someone has a knife or a gun and is (trying to) kill people, shoot him. If a country is raping and killing half a continent, ...
This differentiation can be found in the bible, and in any sane moral text. Hell, it can be found in the UNCHR (united nations convention on human rights).