I maintain the position that a reasonable person would infer due process when reading that statement and not interpret it as vigilantism, as prefacing every statement advocating punishment with a summary of due process is not the common manner of speech, much like the "in Minecraft" suffix for a similar exculpatory purpose.

The assumption that vagueness in speech should be interpreted in a way that' makes an expression illegal is an extremely unreasonable one, as it potentially makes all expressions criminal due to what may have been omitted.

It can and has, as we have witnessed, taken plain expressions such as "i hate jews" which on its face is not criminal, and apply unfair context of what people THINK it means, not what was actually intended - being a simple complaint.

Even so, advocating for criminal behavior is protected speech under the ruling of Brandenburg vs Ohio. Even if he was advocating for vigilantism, which is statements on their face is not doing, it is still protected speech.