Vigialante Justice

[crazy white guy]

I have shared my views on politics and crime a few times on this forum and many more times with separate members of this forum and others. If you didn't catch on of my rants, here's a summary.

I think that There are two kinds of crime.

- The first Is what I call the "penis > PENIS crime". This is basically when a 'little guy' defrauds a large organization or group and does an amount of damage that is not crippling to any organization that causes no harm. If the crime is politically motivated like say a atheist group against a church/school union, then I also consider it fair because it is an act of war and the nature of war itself is to be unfair to your benefit.

- The second is a crime against a lesser being. killing the innocent, stealing from the poor, robbing the elderly. Anything that robin hood wouldn't do falls under this category.

Now here's a bit of a prefacing scenario.

A man in his middle ages is faced with a problem. He achieved a comfortable place in life at a relatively young age and he has reached the point where he is at the limit of his education and ability. All that he has in life is a family and his material wealth. This man should be happy. yes? There is one problem. He is in a place where He cant look up for the sole reason that there is nothing above him. He looks around and he can see people going up while the only way he can go is down. All he can do is stare downwards at a world plagued with crime and poverty. Being a simple man, can he change the world for the better?

He takes a trip down to the local slum and perches himself on a hilltop with a spotting scope and a bag of chips. A ill looking individual double takes before going into an alleyway. In that alleyway he meets a larger fellow with a single gold ring on his right hand. After a quick meeting the ill looking man leaves the alleyway the way he came and walks quickly out of view. After day begins to turn to night, a constant stream flows towards the ring wearing man. Young women and men that look like they shouldn't be anywhere but a hospital bed are coming to this man to forward their slow suicide.

The man looks up from his Walmart-store brand spotting scope and thinks to himself

"why are the cities of this world safe for these people and not my children?"

A day later the man is back at the hill. This time along with his Walmart brand spotting scope he bring a large cup of coffee he bought at the local timmies, and the 5.56 sporting rifle that his boss gave him as a congratulatory present a year back for an outstanding quarter at the firm. The same street worker is sitting in the alley, this time he has a unhealthy looking youth with him. A car pulls up. Its an older model Cadillac with large chrome rims and a set of purple fuzzy tennis balls hanging from the rear view mirror. A group of three individuals dressed in muscle shirts and baggy jeans step out of the car and approach the gold clad man and his partner. The two groups exchange brown paper bags. Each group thumbs through the contents of the bags. The forward most member of the purple tennis ball group pulls a gun from the waist of his jeans. He points it at the larger of the alley group. Within a second, five guns are drawn and a stalemate is reached

The man looks up from his Walmart-store brand spotting scope and thinks

"these are the people that make the world unsafe for my children"

Instead of gazing again through the spotting scope, he takes his 5.56mm rifle and plants the cross hairs on the forehead of the purple tennis ball leader. Guns still drawn, the two groups exchange a few simple words, a bag of white powder is thrown to the ground. It's contents scatter and fall into the cracks in the pavement. The expression on the face of the young partner is fear, anxiety, anger. With a single trigger pull, the purple tennis ball leader falls to the ground. A hail of bullets follow leaving four dead men and a scared young man standing in shock. His finger still tapping the trigger of the small .32 revolver he holds in his right hand. The young man opens his eyes and sees the result of his actions. He runs out of sight and drops his .32 revolver while stepping through the pile of white powder.

The man looks up from the scope of his 5.56mm rifle and thinks to himself

"The world is now a safer place"



Here's where the discussion comes in.

Do you think your being vigilante would make the world a better place?



To anyone that wants to use the story, or doctor the story into your own words for school or similar, feel free. But please as respect to the author. Add details to make it your own story, re-write it in your own words. I don't authorize the use of this story for profit. Not that I think you could make any money off of it =)

[DOZER]

The problem with vigilante justice is that it relies too heavily upon the morals of the vigilante. For example, the drug dealers in your story would have a different idea of who should be 'dealt with'. This is why a JUST and POWERFUL government is desirable.... too bad justice and power rarely go hand in hand.

[Th0r]

Crazy White Guy, ever watched the Michael Douglas movie, 'Falling Down'?

Michael Douglas goes on a one day spree of Vigilantism all across Los Angeles fighting for the consumers rights, fighting Fascism and gang members as well as rich assholes!

It's a fantastic film and if you haven't watched it I advise that you do. Great acting and whatnot.

I don't believe in the concept of Vigilantism, but I do agree with doing the right thing.

Where does one draw the line?

At what Crime does it warrant action from the Vigilante?

[odin_dax]

To me, a vigilante is a person who takes the law into his own hands when the system fails. I'll say it again, the law.

Accordingly, one definition worded it this way, "A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts his own form of justice when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient."

The issue of morality is irrelevant in the context that a person decides who deserves to die or not since morality in the definition of "vigilante" is implicitly stated as not subjective.

[jacob]

Wow great story, I liked it a lot.

When I think of vigilantes I think of the movie V for Vendetta and he was pretty sweet. He was being a vigilante for a good cause, a government gone so power hungry they set restrictions on everything, gave curfews, etc...

I don't think vigilantes would end up doing a lot of good though, because, as someone said, its all in the morals of the person. What I view as wrong some others might view as not immoral and wrong at all.

[Th0r]

V was not in my opinion a Vigilante, but an Anarchist with a brutal hatred for the Government due to what had been perpetrated against him.

The Vigilante-Style behaviour at the start of the film where V saves Evey from the 'Fingermen' is out of his hatred for the Government and their Slaves as opposed to wanting to do moral good.

Also a Vigilante could in turn also cause more Crime and Violence in the process of doing good. Something that is shown in the aforementioned movie 'Falling Down'.

In 'Falling Down' Michael Douglas's character attacks two Mexican 'Gangstas'. Their pride is unsurprisingly hurt after they've just been beaten up by someone who looks like he stepped out of the Music Video of 'White and Nerdy'.

In retaliation they drive by the street where Michael Douglas is using the phone. Killing and injuring half a dozen civilians.

All because of one man effectively correcting what he thought was wrong.

[crazy white guy]

Do you think your being vigilante would make the world a better place?

Answer that bit ^

Although I do like to hear your views on the subject.

[Nocturnal]

We had a significant debate on this subject on the TM forum. I believe that in theory, vigilanteism can work. As can anarchy, communism, etc. Human nature prevents the theories from being applied to real life.

Last April, a friend of mine was shot while delivering pizzas. The guy who shot him is named John Jones. Jones was 19 and had been released from prison 3 days earlier. When he was 14 he stole and car and was quickly arrested. He got a slap on the wrist and went on his way.

When Jones was 18, he climbed in the back seat of a "friend's" car, pulled out a gun and shot the driver and passenger. The passenger died instantly but the driver lived and identified Jones. He was quickly tracked down and arrested. The case when to trial before the prosecutor had his evidence together. Jones was convicted, but only sentenced to 9 months because of the week prosecution.

Nine months and three days later, he and another gang member shot my friend 4 times. My friend survived and was able to identify Jones a few months later after seeing him on TV. He had been arrested in connection with a murder within a couple weeks of shooting my friend. The second shooter was ambushed and killed. The police, working through their channels, never had a lead on who he was.

Jones is now being prosecuted for about a dozen murders, several assaults, robberies, and rapes. Some of the crimes he's being charged with, the police know he didn't do but since the people who did are already dead or in prison, the prosecutor is charging Jones with everything he can to make sure he never sees freedom again.

Jones is a good example of a failure by the "system" leading to a lot of trouble down the road. Had he been killed following his premature release from prison, many other lives would have been spared. Granted, most of his victims were fellow gang members or other people who arguably deserved their fate, but at least a few of them were innocent. His specific case would point favorably to vigilante justice.

On the other side of the argument, it's a difficult decision to declare a single person judge, jury, and executioner. Very few people would enact justice fairly, cleanly, and without bias as would be required. In theory, it's possible. In reality, it's very, very unlikely to happen without quickly being corrupted in one way or another.

Personally, I think it can work adequately in isolated cases where someone exacts justice quickly, one time (as in the case of my friend's second shooter who would have otherwise gotten off clean). If done improperly, it will only lead to retaliation, collateral damage, and wrongful killing.

[crazy white guy]

Alright Nocturnal. Say you have a gun to the the head of the guy who shot your friend. Would you feel guilty about pulling the trigger?

I know there's a lot of problems with it. But I have known people who could do the world a great service by taking up the rifle. I think that person would have to be smart and sane. People today are usually one or neither.

[DOZER]

But I have known people who could do the world a great service by taking up the rifle. I think that person would have to be smart and sane.

Sanity doesn't always matter. The problem is that we, as humans, almost always assume we're right and that we have all the facts. When you choose to execute "justice" against someone else, you inevitably don't have all the facts. Maybe the person you are executing justice against is also a vigilante. Thus, the acts of violence you have seen them perpetrate are actually acts of justice.

Regarding this: To me, a vigilante is a person who takes the law into his own hands when the system fails. I'll say it again, the law.

Accordingly, one definition worded it this way, "A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts his own form of justice when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient."

The issue of morality is irrelevant in the context that a person decides who deserves to die or not since morality in the definition of "vigilante" is implicitly stated as not subjective.

The problem with this is that the definition states they are a person who "enacts his own form of justice when they DEEM the response of the authorities to be insufficient". It's still very much a morality issue. The "failure of the system" is a very subjective thing. The vigilante decides that the law letting someone off the hook is insufficient. The vigilante decides that torture would be more appropriate than prison. Ultimately the vigilante becomes judge, jury and executioner.

This is dangerous when you are dealing with men who are all, to some degree, corrupt and self-loving.

[odin_dax]

Regarding this:

The problem with this is that the definition states they are a person who "enacts his own form of justice when they DEEM the response of the authorities to be insufficient". It's still very much a morality issue. The "failure of the system" is a very subjective thing. The vigilante decides that the law letting someone off the hook is insufficient. The vigilante decides that torture would be more appropriate than prison. Ultimately the vigilante becomes judge, jury and executioner.

This is dangerous when you are dealing with men who are all, to some degree, corrupt and self-loving.

I don't believe that all men are corrupt and self-loving, but I digress.

When you throw in torture over prison, you can change the definition of vigilante. However, no one ever mentioned torture. I don't get how you find a murderer getting off the hook subjective. Is it not the implied definition of a vigilante that the guilty are in fact guilty? And when you say "executioner" you imply that the executed is a murderer as well, since a vigilante would make the punishment fit the crime. Is Batman not a vigilante?

Everybody should see Kevin Bacon's Death Sentence. There's an example of real vigilante justice, and how it goes wrong.

[gbu-36]

+1 to falling down

Honestly I can't see vigilante justice being too bad of a thing, but with anything on the streets it's sometimes hard to figure out what exactly is going on, so innocents could die. The failure of the system (at least in the US, and from what I understand in the UK as well) is frustrating for me, there is just no rehabilitating some people. :sad: Though I must say I don't think dealing drugs is a crime worth capital punishment for. Murder yes, Rape yes, theft no, selling dope, no

But with all that said I myself would never engage in something like your scenario, but am licensed to carry a concealed weapon which means I have to be pretty damn responsible (when I carry I not only take responsibility for my life, but responsibility for the safety of those around me) and as I dislike Jail/Prison I do have to follow the law to a T. So if confronted with mortal danger to myself, or my loved ones I would do my best to make sure I and them come out alive.

[Nocturnal]

Alright Nocturnal. Say you have a gun to the the head of the guy who shot your friend. Would you feel guilty about pulling the trigger?

If I knew that was the only way justice would be served, I would do it without hesitation and without guilt. Jones will never get out of prison alive, but if by some miracle he does, I can guarantee that he won't live more than a week.

I would never advocate vigilante justice as a replacement for the legal system we already have in place. As faulty as the system is, it's more fair than a vigilante system would be. The only place for vigilantism is as a supplement to the legal system. The cases where guilt is certain without doubt, but unproveable due to corruption or some fluke in the system. The system should always be given a chance to work first.

At points in my life I have carried a firearm on a regular basis. It has on a few occasions saved my life, although I've never had to fire it in self defense. The mere presence has been sufficient. Most violent criminals are cowardly when faced with a victim capable of defending himself. I was able to walk out of a 15 on 1 situation for the mere fact of having a weapon. A month earlier, three of the guys in that group jumped me and broke my jaw. When I was armed, they weren't nearly so brave, despite having 5 times the previous numbers.

Had I been forced to fire in that situation, some would have called it vigilante justice, retaliation against the guys who robbed me the month before. In a case like that where I could have drawn, flicked the safety off, and drilled 5 rounds through each of their chests in a matter of seconds and claimed self defense, it wouldn't have been vigilante justice. It would have been revenge. Being a white guy against 15 black guys, I probably wouldn't have gotten more than a slap on the wrist, assuming I survived.

They hadn't killed me or attempted to the first time. I don't think killing them would have been justice. Just revenge.

As someone mentioned above, I don't think capital punishment should apply to anything less than murder, rape, or child molestation. I think punishment should be more severe than it usually is, but not to the point of death. But for murder, rape, or kiddy fiddlers, I think they should all die.

My friend's brother in law is a cop in Cincinnati, Ohio. He told me a story about a child molester that they arrested. On the way to the station they stopped at the victim's dad's house. They locked the pedophile in the garage and told victim's dad that they wanted to get coffee and would be back in 5 minutes. He wouldn't tell me what happened to the pedophile, but he said that he's sure whatever he suffers in prison during his life sentence will not be half of what he went through in that 5 minutes.

In some cases, I would like to see the criminal handed to the family like that. Not exactly vigilante justice, but close to it. Have the legal trial same as we have, but instead of prison or the electric chair, turn them over to the family. I bet that would deter crime.

[crazy white guy]

In the situation where a 15 member mob approaches a single person, I think that not firing would be the best option. If the sight of the gun didn't stop them, three non-lethal shots to a few of the more aggressive members would not have been overkill but it would have made them less likely to repeat this scenario.

I don't think anyone would go back to jumping random people if the last guy shattered their femur.

[DOZER]

I don't get how you find a murderer getting off the hook subjective.

Well, there are lots of ways.
1) People are let off due to mental instability.
2) People are let off due to age (under 18).
3) People are let off due to involuntary manslaughter... (maybe the jury thought it was an accident but you, as the vigilante, do not agree)
4) People are given lesser sentences depending on their mental state (alcohol related, etc)

And so it becomes subjective. The vigilante thinks "I do not agree with the courts findings, therefore I shall carry out 'true' justice." THAT is subjective.

[odin_dax]

Well, there are lots of ways.
1) People are let off due to mental instability.
2) People are let off due to age (under 18).
3) People are let off due to involuntary manslaughter... (maybe the jury thought it was an accident but you, as the vigilante, do not agree)
4) People are given lesser sentences depending on their mental state (alcohol related, etc)

And so it becomes subjective. The vigilante thinks "I do not agree with the courts findings, therefore I shall carry out 'true' justice." THAT is subjective.

Okay... but now you're just defining justice and not vigilante. Most people aren't automatically let off the hook because they're mental, underaged or other. Manslaughter still comes attached with many years in jail. I think a vigilante would find justice in manslaughter or mental instability, because the definition of a vigilante is doing the right thing when the system fails. And I definitely don't see someone getting a lesser sentence for alcohol related instances, I see them getting bigger jail times.

[DOZER]

Okay... but now you're just defining justice and not vigilante. Most people aren't automatically let off the hook because they're mental, underaged or other. Manslaughter still comes attached with many years in jail. I think a vigilante would find justice in manslaughter or mental instability, because the definition of a vigilante is doing the right thing when the system fails. And I definitely don't see someone getting a lesser sentence for alcohol related instances, I see them getting bigger jail times.

Do you see that you are changing your story though? Look at your original definition:

A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts his own form of justice when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient

You can't now say that I'm just defining justice and that a vigilante would find justice in those instances. By your definition a vigilante could be driven to respond by seeing the authorities actions as insufficient. Insufficient = not harsh enough, lacking, etc.

This is my whole point. The vigilante puts himself in the dangerous position of judge, jury and executioner. Suddenly it's his morals that are the deciding factor, and not the government or law.

Honestly though, this all hinges on whether or not the vigilante lives under a truly just and moral regime. There are a lot of factors to consider....

[odin_dax]

Do you see that you are changing your story though? Look at your original definition:



You can't now say that I'm just defining justice and that a vigilante would find justice in those instances. By your definition a vigilante could be driven to respond by seeing the authorities actions as insufficient. Insufficient = not harsh enough, lacking, etc.

This is my whole point. The vigilante puts himself in the dangerous position of judge, jury and executioner. Suddenly it's his morals that are the deciding factor, and not the government or law.

Honestly though, this all hinges on whether or not the vigilante lives under a truly just and moral regime. There are a lot of factors to consider....

True, it is complicated, but now you're raising previous points made. My responses are the same. I'll say it again, a vigilante would make the punishment fit the crime. Obviously, murder is the main focus of such "justice" but even that was addressed already. Just watch Batman and Death Sentence.