[winwun]

I do not support as a general rule "vigilante justice", but when the same small percentage of BG's rotate through the revolving doors of the system and continue to cause a disporportionate amount of mayhem and travail in the general population, the concept looks better and better.

What is the answer ? ? ?

Do LEO's look upon them as job insurance ? ?

Perhaps VJ is alive and well and functioning under cover of anonymity. If so, as previously stated, I would not be the first one to cast a stone.

It is important to remember that what we refer to as "VJ", was once referred to as "The System".

[Oracle]

I think the "three strike" laws, as ill-advised as they are, were designed to prevent this kind of thing ("revolving door" criminals).

And, it isn't "vigilante justice" to protect yourself and your loved ones from harm. If more people took this responsibility seriously, there would be far less of the "revolving door" criminals, and ill-advised laws such as the one above wouldn't be suggested or enacted (well, hopefully).

[Jeeper]

The problem with vigilantes is that the term "crime" becomes blurry. It can also be taken too far very easily. Some might think that a doctor who performs abortions deserves to die or another might thinks red light runners deserve to die. It makes any person a judge and jury which is slightly against the ideas of our country. I am not saying that the current sytem is perfect but a bunch of vigilantes is worse.

[Battler]

For starts, take the time to distinguish (for those you may meet who don't know better) the distinction between self defense and Vigilante justice (I've heard self defense called that, in the UK it is DEFINITELY seen as that). I figure people on THIS board know better, however.


Vigilante justice is very VERY bad. It is the essence of anarchy. Why not rob someone then punish THEM as a thief instead?

We don't really have them now; but we need good laws to punish aggressors.

And guilt, not innocence, must be proven before folk not party to the situation and subject to objective law.

This last one - the courts and the sentencing, need to be fixed. But let us not forget that, without them, everyday life becomes a battle of who can commit the most crimes.

[HankB]

Aside from some nut job who can't distinguish reality from a Charles Bronson movie, vigilante justice only crops up when the authorities are perceived to NOT be doing their jobs.

And self-defense is IN NO WAY "vigilante justice!"

Last time I heard of "vigilante justice" was a couple of years ago - it involved a couple of guys who - when the police wouldn't do anything - took it upon themselves to torch an abandoned building that was being used as a crack house.

[winwun]

While not proposing VJ, I do not hold with the concept that "It will get carried farther and farther". I believe that reason would apply in the application of VJ as it does in most subjective situations.

It's like saying simply because McDonalds has cheap hamburgers that people will eat themselves to death.

A bubbling spring is free, therefore people will drown themselves.

The open Interstate beckons, but we are controlled by our own sense of what is proper more than by the law.

Food and water are requirements, but people are reasonable enough to use the amount needed.

All this is not to say that people do not over-eat, drink, or speed. These aberrtions occur, of course, but they are, and always will be, in a minority of cases, and are worthy of mention only in an anecdotal sense.

Again, I neither support VJ or argue for its implementation. I am simply suggesting that the reasons for the lack of it are more along the lines of "I wish someone else would do it", or "I would do it, but I am afraid I will get caught", than it is a purity of heart and a dedication to ethics.

Who of us has not, at one time or another, been besieged and obsessed by the deep feeling of hatred and a burning desire for revenge ? What stopped us ? What held us back ? I suggest it was the same thing that makes most of us honest, and that is the fear of getting caught.

That serves for as good a "cooling-down" agent as any.

[Art Eatman]

The problem seems to be the varied interpretations of "Vigilante Justice".

In the early days of this country, there was no organized law enforcement system that really amounted to much. This was particularly true for the early days of western development and settlement.

So, if some group of bad guys started preying on the innocent, some local collection of Good Folks finally would decide they'd had more than enough trouble and seek to end said trouble. Quite a few early settlements had "Vigilance Committees" which were supported by the citizenry at large.

Fast forward to today: We as individuals have collectively delegated authority for laws and the enforcement thereof to our Criminal Justice System, which includes the police and the courts. Within this delegation of authority is included the DUTY to minimize criminal activity in a community to the greatest extent possible, insofar as we are willing to pay the tax dollars.

Seems to me that when there is broad public perception that the duties are not being properly carried out, a climate comes to exist which supports the concept of Vigilantism.

Art

[BigG]

Dirty Harry had the right idea. :evil:

[winwun]

AND the right gun.

[P95Carry]

Most points have been adequately made.

The biggest danger with vigilantiism is when to stop ........ what can start as level headed search for justice can soon become ''posse'' hysteria ..... and that does need controlled. Hot heads and fair play do not often go together.

BUT ... the other side to this is the situation where for instance, a community SEES crime and yet does NOT see any action taken .... or if any is taken then BG's seem to get off. This ''revolving door'' syndrome can easily lead to such frustration that in the end there will be those who seek a solution. Then vigilantiism can occur ...... ''something has to be done'' etc.

It's a fine line people tread when being vigilantes ...... often I could say it is way more effective than any so called ''legal'' solution but as i said .... it can so easily get outa hand ... to degree where the proponents of ''justice'' have become criminal themselves.

[MrAcheson]

Is there good vigalantism? Yes. Committees for Public Vigilance were formed in many areas to combat widespread corruption of the local government by powerful individuals.

In these cases the committees formed with rules and goals, accomplished them, and dissolved. There was strong (or at least enough) central control to prevent rampant mob rule. Their goal was often the prosecution of powerful individuals and reform of their local governments to the point that the committee was no longer necessary.

That said I wouldn't be surprised if many of the groups which actively and spectatively lynched blacks in the post-war south also called themselves "Committees for Public Vigilance". Many people would like to believe that blacks were lynched from pure, dumb, mob violence, that it was a fun thing for a few drunk huckleberry neanderthals to do on a friday night. Unfortunately this is not the case as many lynchings were systematic, deliberate, and premeditated.

[Battler]

Remember also that under vigilantism, the public doesn't necessarily get to see law done. The person "vigilantized" could just as likely be another victim.

Rule of law gives us consistency in these matters, and in the very grave case of finding someone guilty, standards to go by and accountability in the process.

[jsalcedo]

Take the example of the drunk guy driving down the beach in his Jeep.

He runs over two sunbathers killing one instantly.

A crowd of people pull the guy out of the vehicle and beat him to death.

That is not vigilantism.. it's mob mentality.

A group of citizens fed up with crack dealers who calmly decide
to take back thier neighborhood is the purest form of vigilantism.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking the law into your own hands when all other avenues have been exhausted.

[Waitone]

Vigilantism is a time-honored American tradition. It inevitably arises when duly constituted legal authority can not or will not enforce duly enacted law.

Has there been excesses resulting in tragedy? You betcha!

Has there been situations where life is intolerable on the part of local citizens and there has been no relief from proper authorities? You betcha again!

Are we far too adult and sophisticated today to even consider having to deal with similar situations? Some say so. I don't. I submit the situation we face on the southern border with illegal border bolters to be one fraught with risk and danger to the local population and the US in general. For whatever reason the federal government can not or will not take step to at least impede the flow of illegals into the US.

What you see going on at the southern border is landowners and various property owners who know the situation are taking matters in their own hands to at least document the problem. Federales don't like it, Mexican government fights it. US media ignores it. But at least someone is willing to stand up and try to fight it.

Will it proceed further? I think so if the federales continue to ignore the problem. Will the federales say, "me bad. We'll do our job now?" Hopefully yes, but I ain't bettin' on it.

[jimpeel]

Bernard Goetz was celebrated and condemned at about equal levels. Most of the derision came from the Black community -- driven by Black “leaders” -- because he was White. It would have been much more interesting to see what the support for his deed would have been if he were a Black man who shot four other Black men in self defense. In all likelihood, it would have been viewed as simple “Black on Black crime” with a further outcry for the disarmament of “inner city” (read Blacks and other minorities) criminals and their victims. They’re too “hot blooded” to own firearms ya know.

[Bruce H]

Things are still pretty quiet in Skidmore Mo.

[jimbo]

Vigilantism is always wrong. It there is no law, then you make up the law. But if there is law, you must follow it. We need politicians who uphold the law. We need the electorate to purge society of the bed-wetting liberals and their lawyer henchmen who coddle violent criminals, and make criminals out of their innocent victims. We need nation-wide concealed carry and we need a continuation of long and harder sentences for criminals.

But Vigilantism is just plain wrong. We get into massive flame wars here over 9mm vs. 45 or Beretta vs. Glock. Can you imagine the chaos that would result over having to play god and decide who should hang and who should just be horse-whipped?:scrutiny:

[rebbryan]

the current justice system has put people not guilty of the crime they were commited behind bars and to the chair, same could go along with vj. you think someone does it and you're so sure so you go shoot him, then it turns out it's the wrong guy. don't you just feel like crap.

with that said, i don't think vj is "terrible" in some cases, like when people are caught red handed. especially child molesters, if vj was fine then IMO if they're caught in the act, put a hole in their head and be done with em.

[Feanaro]

The problem with Vigilante Justice is that often it spirals out of control. However if there were guide-lines of when you can and cannot invoke a vigilante meeting. The actions are discussed, a vote is taken and you proceed from there. Everyone in the "voluntry vigilante group" should have some kind of training for this, they should know what to do, how to do it and when they can't.

The law doesn't require police to enforce them. In times past when the police force, if any, could not respond then the citizens did. But it was in an ad-hoc, thrown together jumble without any control. An organized group ready for that could even eliminate the need for some police officers. Officers could even be placed in the ranks to keep things in line. You could even combine an organized militia(not militant) and vigilante group into one. You have freedom fighters and volunteer law enforcers all rolled up into one, meeting for drills and such. It would be safe as long as idiots and wackos aren't let into the ranks.

Of course this country would have to turn highly conservative and change quite a few ideas for that to happen. But I like it. :D

[Navy joe]

All things in moderation. The biggest problem with VJ is the way it is portrayed in fiction, usually as mob rule. This country was not founded on anarchist principles, but rather that of limited gov't. To stay safe with limited gov't you need to at a minimum defend your own. You may also have to help your neighbor. The alternative is a police state or a lawless wasteland. The latter sucks, the former sucks more. Any government powerful enough to give you everything you want(security) is powerful enough to take everything(freedom) from you.



But if there is law, you must follow it. We need politicians who uphold the law.

No offense, but that is quite possibly the most un-American thing I've ever read. This country was founded on adherance to higher principles often at the expense of man's laws. The first resistance at Concord could quite possibly be termed VJ rather than military action. Had they obeyed the law of the day and dispersed we'd still be drinking tea. I personally take pride in not following laws that are contradictory to certain supreme laws or inherent rights.

P.S. Politicians don't uphold the law. They can however uphold the Constitution. Everyone these days thinks that a politician must show his flock progress by passing laws, I'd like to see one that spent his career opposing new legislation and striking old from the books.

[Battler]

I believe they sought to replace bad law and governance, not to do away with law itself.

[winwun]

What is VJ other than macro law?

[Art Eatman]

jimbo, you said, "Vigilantism is always wrong. If there is no law, then you make up the law. But if there is law, you must follow it."

I disagree. Vigilantism is not a case of "make up the law". It occurs in the absence of enforcement of the law.

Part of the whole deal of having LEOs is that they follow the laws of duty in order to justify their pay. When they do not do that, for whatever reason, what can the people do but take back their own delegated authority? All the people are asking is that the LEO-world at whatever level enforces the law in a constitutional manner.

I go back to my earlier statement about the various interpretations of the word "vigilantism". It is not mob rule by small mobs. It is not "creating your own law". True vigilantism is citizen action in the absence of established law enforcement. It is nothing more than self-defense on the part of an organized citizenry.

One question comes to mind: Why would a vigilante group, comprised of an area's landowners, doctors, lawyers, newspaper publishers, etc., be any less wise or judicious than a public employee? It is a reasonable generality that public employment does not attract the majority of the nation's best and brightest.

Art

[Sir Galahad]

During the Gold Rush era, well up into 1880, "vigiliance committees" were formed by citizens to UPHOL an agreed upon law and order in the ABSENCE of it, or in the case of inefftive government that could not or would not uphold it. Vigiliance committees made arrests, patrolled the streets, held trials, banished petty criminals and, when necessary, executed those judged by the court of vigiliance. And (this is important) after the town was cleaned up, the committee was disbanded. This was the case in the vigiliance commttees of Aurora/Bodie, CA mining towns. (See the book "Gunfighters, Highwaymen & Vigilantes: Violence On The Frontier" by Roger D. McGrath.) In the case of the Gold Rush San Francisco vigiliance committees, again, these were formed to combat crime that local government could not stop. True vigiliance committees are highly organized, operate under rules of conduct, uphold agreed upon law, make arrests under agreed upon circumstances, hold trials, hear evidence, and execute those found guilty. When the system of government fails, the citizens must uphold the laws. Vigilantism is not "might makes right". It is the final attempt of citizens to have law and order before an entire community falls into chaos and then DOES live under "might makes right".

[P95Carry]

Sir G ..... I think you make a valid distinction ........ comparing if you like ''Gentlemen's vigilantiism'' with perhaps the less palateable ''mindless vigilantiism''.

Control is the key issue .. coupled with responsibility.

[QuarterBoreGunner]

Gentlemen, I have nothing relevant to add to this discussion, but would like to thank all involved for the thoughtful discourse.




I’ll be sure to bring it up at the next range day our Proactive Neighborhood Watch Team meets for.