Vigilantism

[dahermit]

There have been several instances in modern times when there were cases of vigilantism. In these cases a person or persons, in situations where the police/Justus system seemed not to effectively protect the people, killed an obvious threat.
I can find no legitimate reason to consider what they did was not a moral right in view of the fact that the police and justus system failed to do its job.

The three most stated objections to vigilantism are: Innocent people can be killed and a "Wild West" mentality will take over. In the first instance, there are innocent people being killed all the time anyway...even by police(the several black men shot in a car the night before a wedding). The second objection is a platitude not a legitimate argument inasmuch as there is no proof that vigilantism would lead to general anarchy. The last argument, is a trial would prove or disprove the innocence of a perpetrator, flies in the face of O.J. Simpson's and Robert Blake's acquittals. In the case of Robert Blake however, I am not sure if Blake was a perpetrator or vigilante in light of the character, or lack of it in Bonny Blake...He may have done society a favor.
Thoughts on Vigilantism?

[Coyote]

Vigilantism is mob justice

it is the view of a man who feels himself above the law - he is judge, jury, executioner

it is an utter contempt of law

it is the lynchmob in the dark of the night

[vyo476]

Vigilantism is mob justice

it is the view of a man who feels himself above the law - he is judge, jury, executioner

it is an utter contempt of law

it is the lynchmob in the dark of the night

Yeah, and its also Spider-Man. People idolize vigilantes (especially fictional ones) for their seeming ability to be above the law and the limited perception of society.

In reality, vigilantism is a crime for a reason. Most people haven't figured that out yet.

[palerider]

Vigilantism is mob justice

it is the view of a man who feels himself above the law - he is judge, jury, executioner

it is an utter contempt of law

it is the lynchmob in the dark of the night

But you have stated that the law is not always a good enough reason to protect life. You initimated that there are valid reasons to kill that are beyond the scope of the law.

Those inconsistancies have a way of coming round to bite you on the ass don't they?:D

[Coyote]

But you have stated that the law is not always a good enough reason to protect life. You initimated that there are valid reasons to kill that are beyond the scope of the law.

Those inconsistancies have a way of coming round to bite you on the ass don't they?:D

Anybody ever tell you that you are a dork?

Just wondering...:D

guess I better mosey on over to another debate...

[Coyote]

Yeah, and its also Spider-Man. People idolize vigilantes (especially fictional ones) for their seeming ability to be above the law and the limited perception of society.

In reality, vigilantism is a crime for a reason. Most people haven't figured that out yet.


The problem with vigilantism in Hollywood is that there are no consequences....

[palerider]

Anybody ever tell you that you are a dork?

Just wondering...:D ...


Yeah, but I know they are just kidding.:cool:

[USMC the Almighty]

Yeah, but I know they are just kidding.:cool:

Don't worry -- Coyote called me a dork earlier today.

[Coyote]

Don't worry -- Coyote called me a dork earlier today.

You both exhibit the qualities of stellar dorkism.


:D

[dahermit]

You both exhibit the qualities of stellar dorkism.I intended this for a serious debate. If you cannot make a rational argument, perhaps it is after your bed time.
If you can't keep it civil this forum will deteriorate into childish name calling.

[dahermit]

Vigilantism is mob justiceThis type of platitude does nothing to add to the debate, it is too ambiguous. A more reasoned and complete response if you please.

it is the view of a man who feels himself above the law - he is judge, jury, executionerIn all cases? In the two instances I had in mind, they thought that the person they killed was going to kill someone. In one case the person who the vigilantes killed already had shot (but not killed)two innocent people.
it is an utter contempt of lawAlso, in the two instances I had in mind, the law should have been held in contempt.

it is the lynchmob in the dark of the nightBoth instances were in daylight, in one instance almost the whole town was involved(including the local preacher) and "got away with it". In the other the retired US Naval officer was sent to prison(he was sure that the person he shot would have eventually killed his wife or another innocent person).
Your responses were merely platitudes...not well reasoned or logical.

[Coyote]

Oh get a grip, I'm just having fun. I'll be serious now.

This type of platitude does nothing to add to the debate, it is too ambiguous. A more reasoned and complete response if you please.

Vigilantism is essentially mob or popular justice. That shouldn't be confused with self defense though.

The definition of vigilante: One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.

That means the person takes for himself the role of police, judge, jury, executioner. At the very least, it goes against our judicial system - innocent until proven guilty, trial by jury. A vigilante does not necessarily know the law and the person he is after is not necessarily guilty. The law, and respect for it is the glue that holds our society together and, as Palerider has pointed out in another debate - it is all that seperates us from the law of the jungle.


In all cases? In the two instances I had in mind, they thought that the person they killed was going to kill someone.

Also, in the two instances I had in mind, the law should have been held in contempt.

Both instances were in daylight, in one instance almost the whole town was involved(including the local preacher) and "got away with it". In the other the retired US Naval officer was sent to prison(he was sure that the person he shot would have eventually killed his wife or another innocent person).
Your responses were merely platitudes...not well reasoned or logical.

It's impossible to comment on this without knowing more about those cases....

[Bunz]

Ill point out that a dork is a term for whale penis for the record.

Also vigilante justice has no place in modern society, except the one case would be for a large group of people to kick the sh!t out of Reverend Phelps and his gang of idiots as they are protesting the funeral of a fallen soldier.
Other than that, let the system and process work itself out.

[Coyote]

Ill point out that a dork is a term for whale penis for the record.

Also vigilante justice has no place in modern society, except the one case would be for a large group of people to kick the sh!t out of Reverend Phelps and his gang of idiots as they are protesting the funeral of a fallen soldier.
Other than that, let the system and process work itself out.

No kidding? Now THAT's funny....


So is the thought of kicking the **** out of Phelps :D

[Bunz]

Hey man, Im an Alaskan, we know all about whales including how they taste, but not the dork end of them of course. Another tidbit, an oosick(OOh-sick) is the native term for a walrus penis.
I have said before to friends, that if heaven forbid a friend of mine was to be KIA, and Phelps showed up at his memorial, I would crawl through broken glass to get the chance to let my hands and feet do my talking.

[Coyote]

Hey man, Im an Alaskan, we know all about whales including how they taste, but not the dork end of them of course. Another tidbit, an oosick(OOh-sick) is the native term for a walrus penis.
I have said before to friends, that if heaven forbid a friend of mine was to be KIA, and Phelps showed up at his memorial, I would crawl through broken glass to get the chance to let my hands and feet do my talking.

lol..the things I learn here :p


I think Phelps has a long line of ...umh...personal admirers...:rolleyes:

[palerider]

Don't worry -- Coyote called me a dork earlier today.

Congratulations.

[palerider]

I intended this for a serious debate. If you cannot make a rational argument, perhaps it is after your bed time.
If you can't keep it civil this forum will deteriorate into childish name calling.


Be glad we have not turned our childish name calling on you. The babysitter is in a very precarious position.

[palerider]

Vigilantism is essentially mob or popular justice. That shouldn't be confused with self defense though.

....

Couldn't such action be construed as self defense when the local law enforcement has made it clear that it eiter can not, or will not deal with a particular element within a community which is generally what brings on vigilantism in the first place?

[Beetle Bailey]

There have been several instances in modern times when there were cases of vigilantism. In these cases a person or persons, in situations where the police/Justus system seemed not to effectively protect the people, killed an obvious threat.
I can find no legitimate reason to consider what they did was not a moral right in view of the fact that the police and justus system failed to do its job.

The three most stated objections to vigilantism are: Innocent people can be killed and a "Wild West" mentality will take over. In the first instance, there are innocent people being killed all the time anyway...even by police(the several black men shot in a car the night before a wedding). The second objection is a platitude not a legitimate argument inasmuch as there is no proof that vigilantism would lead to general anarchy. The last argument, is a trial would prove or disprove the innocence of a perpetrator, flies in the face of O.J. Simpson's and Robert Blake's acquittals. In the case of Robert Blake however, I am not sure if Blake was a perpetrator or vigilante in light of the character, or lack of it in Bonny Blake...He may have done society a favor.
Thoughts on Vigilantism?

Just one question. Could you possibly be more stupid? I think the answer is obvious. No. It would be humanly impossible. Innocent people are killed all the time anyway? That's your logic? That's the premise that supports your assertion? You have to be joking.

[JavaBlack]

Vigilanteism is why we have a state. In the past a single crime, real or perceived, could lead to a chain reaction of violence. We still see this dynamic in areas of lawlessness such as the Middle Eastern tribal areas and gang territory in the ghetto.
Justice is subjective and not usually as just as we'd like to think. Courts exist to make sure that a real justice is served.
It's a shame when courts fail... but mob justice is not justifiable. There are rare cases when vigilanteism might be right because it might lead to protection... and other cases where it should at least cut the sentence because of the vigilante's emotional state...
But it should always be punished to some extent.

[Coyote]

Couldn't such action be construed as self defense when the local law enforcement has made it clear that it eiter can not, or will not deal with a particular element within a community which is generally what brings on vigilantism in the first place?

The problem with vigilantism is it is a slippery slope - where would you draw the line? And how?

I can't help but think of all these Rambo-wannabe's shooting up a street with disregard for the safety of others.

[dahermit]

Just one question. Could you possibly be more stupid?
Yes, not only could I be stupid, I could be young, arrogant, and stupid. I could be a raging and rude little boy...but I am not. If you cannot debate in a civil manner please find another thread.
Innocent people are killed all the time anyway? That's your logic? That's the premise that supports your assertion? You have to be joking. What I was referring to was that many people have been convicted and sentenced to death by courts that were innocent (recent DNA evidence releases several on death row). Therefore, the court system does not have a very good history in sorting out who is innocent as opposed to guilty. So, the idea that courts make better determinations of guilt than would vigilante committees is debatable.

[dahermit]

The problem with vigilantism is it is a slippery slope - where would you draw the line? And how?Admittedly it is. But historically there were vigilance committees, not just one person. There are small units of local government (town meetings) that could elect/appoint a vigilance committee instead of a sheriff to act in their behalf. But, I am not advocating this as a system; just answering your question.

My main point is: When conventional law enforcement/criminal justice system fails, do the citizens have the moral right to act preemptively in their own defense?

I can't help but think of all these Rambo-wannabe's shooting up a street with disregard for the safety of others.In the two instances I had in mind, that is not what happened. In the first instance, the shooter(s) had the support of the whole town, including the local minister. In the second instance, the retired Navy officer had the support of his neighbors and testified at his trial.

[Coyote]

What I was referring to was that many people have been convicted and sentenced to death by courts that were innocent (recent DNA evidence releases several on death row). Therefore, the court system does not have a very good history in sorting out who is innocent as opposed to guilty. So, the idea that courts make better determinations of guilt than would vigilante committees is debatable.

Even given that - the courts still make better determinations. The accused has the right of due process and all that implies. That is not possible with vigilante committees who will each interpret the law - and the penalty - in his or her own way.

[Coyote]

Admittedly it is. But historically there were vigilance committees, not just one person. There are small units of local government (town meetings) that could elect/appoint a vigilance committee instead of a sheriff to act in their behalf. But, I am not advocating this as a system; just answering your question.


I have to ask though...how is that different from the lynch mob? They took justice into their own hands, they certainly felt they were in the right...


My main point is: When conventional law enforcement/criminal justice system fails, do the citizens have the moral right to act preemptively in their own defense?


Except for self defense....I don't think so....because "fails" is subject to a subjective interpretation. A person may not get the result he "likes" and may then consider the system to have failed - does that give him the right to over ride the system?

If each person has the right to interpret the law and accord justice, according to his own personal feelings...then what value is law?


In the two instances I had in mind, that is not what happened. In the first instance, the shooter(s) had the support of the whole town, including the local minister. In the second instance, the retired Navy officer had the support of his neighbors and testified at his trial.

[palerider]

Even given that - the courts still make better determinations. The accused has the right of due process and all that implies. That is not possible with vigilante committees who will each interpret the law - and the penalty - in his or her own way.

Hold on. I thought that you believed dead was dead and that one's day in court really didn't matter if one was innocent.

If each person has the right to interpret the law and accord justice, according to his own personal feelings...then what value is law?

Didn't you argue against this very concept elsewhere? What value is the law indeed?


You really need to work on those inconsistincies.:D

[Coyote]

Hold on. I thought that you believed dead was dead and that one's day in court really didn't matter if one was innocent.



Didn't you argue against this very concept elsewhere? What value is the law indeed?


You really need to work on those inconsistincies.:D

Dork:D


I'm still working through those issues...because, basically I believe in law and I believe in preserving an innocent person's life and I believe in equality under the law. Thus I disagree with the death penalty. Because I believe in the rule of law doesn't mean I agree with all laws or their justness but there are mechanisms for changing them and that mechanism shouldn't be vigilantism.

[dahermit]

Some very good posts beginning to appear. Thank you.

Re: The original purpose of my post was to determine if there is a point where it is justifiable to take the law into civilian hands.

The people involved in the two instances I mentioned were interviewed in a television special. They stated that they felt they had no choice(they were terrified). In effect, they acted at the lowest level of government authority; the village/neighborhood( held meetings) as opposed to the county, state, or federal authorities. The county and state's and federal (FBI got involved) position was that a crime was committed; the people stated there was not. Their position was that innocent death would have almost surely occurred if they had not acted.
This position brings another factor to the argument: At what level of government is likely to be more efficient at protecting people's lives?

[Beetle Bailey]

Yes, not only could I be stupid, I could be young, arrogant, and stupid. I could be a raging and rude little boy...but I am not. If you cannot debate in a civil manner please find another thread.
What I was referring to was that many people have been convicted and sentenced to death by courts that were innocent (recent DNA evidence releases several on death row). Therefore, the court system does not have a very good history in sorting out who is innocent as opposed to guilty. So, the idea that courts make better determinations of guilt than would vigilante committees is debatable.

Too bad you were unable to articulate your petty equivocations in your OP. Back pedaling after the fact doesn't present a convincing argument either. Of course what else can we expect? You make an academic argument with no actual point.

[dahermit]

1)Too bad you were unable to articulate your petty equivocations in your OP. Back pedaling after the fact doesn't present a convincing argument either. Of course what else can we expect? (2)You make an academic argument with no actual point.1) My OP was a "thread starter", not a statement of positon...I wished to garner meaningful input.(2) I am not making any "academic argument"; it is an inquiry into peoples' view of justice system vs. vigilantism.

If you find this thread pointless, please assure us that this will be your final post.

[dahermit]

Vigilanteism is why we have a state. In the past a single crime, real or perceived, could lead to a chain reaction of violence. We still see this dynamic in areas of lawlessness such as the Middle Eastern tribal areas and gang territory in the ghetto.
Justice is subjective and not usually as just as we'd like to think. Courts exist to make sure that a real justice is served.
It's a shame when courts fail... but mob justice is not justifiable. There are rare cases when vigilanteism might be right because it might lead to protection... and other cases where it should at least cut the sentence because of the vigilante's emotional state...
But it should always be punished to some extent.This is all well and good, but in the instance of the whole village rising-up and killing the person none protested against it. If we took a poll here, I am sure most would be against vigilantism with a few for it. Nevertheless, the people in that village, when faced with the decision to respect principal of law or taking it into their own hands, did indeed commit murder. Which begs the question: Do you think that in the same position that they were in you would put your life or your neighbors lives at extreme riskfor that principal? In short, what is more important, your life or a principal?

[Beetle Bailey]

1) My OP was a "thread starter", not a statement of positon...I wished to garner meaningful input.(2) I am not making any "academic argument"; it is an inquiry into peoples' view of justice system vs. vigilantism.

If you find this thread pointless, please assure us that this will be your final post.

What I can assure you of is that I will feel free to comment on your pointless threads when ever I feel like it.

[dahermit]

What I can assure you of is that I will feel free to comment on your pointless threads when ever I feel like it.I am putting Beetle Bailey in my ignore list. He is obviously unable to engage in a civil debate; it is not likely that he will contribute anything of value. I suggest that other posters review his posts and consider doing the same.

[Beetle Bailey]

I am putting Beetle Bailey in my ignore list. He is obviously unable to engage in a civil debate; it is not likely that he will contribute anything of value. I suggest that other posters review his posts and consider doing the same.

Oh no. Not that. I don't think I'll be able to sleep at night. You are going to ignore me? I don't think you quite get the concept of negative consequence. This seems more like a reward. Thanks anyway.

[dahermit]

To sum up, posters here are concerned with the social results of vigilante actions and want to punish those who are envolved no matter what the provocation. However, when I asked about observing principles as opposed to protecting the life of a family member or neighbor, the posts stopped.
I encourage those of you that have been contributing to this debate to continue. Thank you for your responses this far.

PS: I made the mistake of feeding the troll, I promise never to do that again. I can see how it detracted from the issue.

[Beetle Bailey]

To sum up, posters here are concerned with the social results of vigilante actions and want to punish those who are envolved no matter what the provocation. However, when I asked about observing principles as opposed to protecting the life of a family member or neighbor, the posts stopped.
I encourage those of you that have been contributing to this debate to continue. Thank you for your responses this far.

PS: I made the mistake of feeding the troll, I promise never to do that again. I can see how it detracted from the issue.

I wouldn't worry about it. Your thoughts are unlikely to provide sustanance for trolls or any other creatures.

[steveox]

I agree with vigilanteism. If the Police arent going to do their jobs and protect us WE`RE DO IT FOR THEM!!! See AKA Bernard Goetz.