Well, Spike is a vampire. Wood has dedicated his life to killing vampires. Justified.

Okay, then explain why the m-effer took back Wood's dead mother's coat - that's pretty damned low.

He didn't take it from Wood, did he? I thought it was at the school, which I didn't get, but it's not like Spike said, "hey, I didn"t kill you, but hand over your mother's coat."

Well, Spike is a vampire. Wood has dedicated his life to killing vampires. Justified.

Nikki was a human. Spike was an unsouled vampire. Their reason for being - the way they stay alive - is to kill humans. Does that mean all along, all these vampires have been justified?

If I make it my mission to eat all the chocolate in the world, am I justified if I take chocolate from you?

edited to expand on this...

I'm not saying Wood's desire and attempt to kill Spike were not understandable. But there's a huge gulf between understandable (and even sympathetic) and justified.

The Buffyverse philosophy so abhors vengeance that vengeance has its own demons to do it's bidding, that there are curses made out of vengeance, etc.

Ohmygoodness. That's true. And I've managed to completely miss that for all this time. I'm really dense.

eta: thank you.

Ohmygoodness. That's true. And I've managed to completely miss that for all this time. I'm really dense.

That's why nobody staked Spike after he got the chip.

Well, Spike is a vampire. Wood has dedicated his life to killing vampires. Justified.

If Wood kills Angel in the season finale is that justified? I would be pretty pissed. And Angel spent a large portion of his life as an evil-murdering vampire.

Spike did take the coat away from Wood - prick.

Cindy, the distinction I would make is whether things are done for good or evil. Vampires' intent is evil. Vampire killers are on the side of good. So Wood has been acting on the side of good by killing vampires. While I see your point on the vengeance thing, I still think he'd be justified in killing Spike merely because he's a vampire. The fact that he can get his rocks off because the guy killed his mother is just gravy. And for the record, your chocolate scenario is of the evil :)

That's why nobody staked Spike after he got the chip.

I thought nobody staked Spike after he got the chip because he'd been defanged. He was no longer a threat.

Spike did take the coat away from Wood

I think I need to go and rewatch, because that sounds right, but I remembered it differently.

(Of course, I like Spike's ownership of the coat in any case, and how he uses it to help create the Spike persona even now.)

I'm disturbed by Buffy's "Spike, why aren't you more savage!" exhortation. I think it was pretty low on the conscience-o-meter. As was her "Oh, Will, get over your Dark!issues."

Spike retaking his trophy? Perfectly understandable reaction. But then what happened? The edge she wanted, where has it gone? I'm disappointed in the narrative for letting that go, since I was not unhappy to be disturbed by Buffy demanding it, if that makes sense.

Willow's still waffling, and I want a payoff there.

But yeah, sanctioned Buffyverse killing is to remove present threats. Less so to prevent future threats, and rarely endorsed to punish past misdeeds.