How does anarchy imply freedom? In your example, individuals forcefully strip the criminal of his/her ability to conduct a crime, and in doing so, take away his/her freedom. The very definition of a criminal suggests a system of morality or a Criminal code that is violated, which is a form of regulation. I donít think most people want a society were absolute freedom reigns. Most people would qualify freedom with limiters, such as Ďso long as it does not harm anyone elseí. I would not support your definition of aggression (rape, assault, murder), but I donít see anything inherently wrong with interfering with another personís actions so long as it maintains the assumed rights of other people (ie. right to life).
The only consistent thing I see about your definition of anarchy is the removal of a centralized power or government. Is that a good thing though? To continue your example of crime, would it be a good thing to strip Federal and municipal governments of their monopoly over the police force? Should the police force be privatized? What would be the ramifications of this decision? Would I not receive support and assistance from Police Company A if I did not pay for their services, and instead, paid for Police Company B?