If a mob boss controls an area, extorting "protection" money in exchange for not burning down a business and breaking the owner's legs, I think anyone in that area would be completely within their rights to sneak up behind the mob boss and shoot him in the head. Even as he sits "peaceably" in a theater.
Even though the mob boss may never do any of his thuggish activity himself, employing underlings to carry out his will. He is still the aggressor, right at this moment. Shooting him is an act of self-defense, not revenge.
It may or may not be smart to shoot him. It could well be a suicide mission. But it isn't unethical to do so.
His continued existence in that "job" is harming the shooter's life, liberty, and property in the current moment and into the future as long as he continues to do what he does.
Obviously, the mob will say you aren't allowed to kill mob bosses, and it will punish those who try.
Will shooting one mob boss, while the mob continues to exist, make any real difference? No. He'll just be replaced by the next in line. So it's pointless and dangerous to do so. But it can't be wrong.
Some people see politicians as somehow meaningfully different from mob bosses. Those people aren't me.
--
I really need an infusion of money for some unexpected expenses, on top of the expected ones.
Thank you.