Are you a vigilante and do you support vigilante justice?

Do you approve of the use of lethal force beyond that allowed by law based on an ind

  • Yes, individuals should be allowed to use lethal force without lawful justification.

    Votes: 22 23.4%

  • No, lethal force should only be used within the limits established by law.

    Votes: 72 76.6%
  • Total voters
    94
M

Musketeer

New member
This is serious. There is a current post asking about whether one should use deadly force to prevent a person from setting a dog on fire. No threat to human life present.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251659

The addition of a cuddly animal drew responses far beyond that expected for someone setting fire to his neighbor's woodpile or fence. Waht was amazing was how truly shrill some of the responses became with one individual exclaiming in post #80
It's not about "defense of an animal", it's about ridding our society of a sick demented bastard who gets his jollys by hurting defensless animals.
Click to expand...

There are obviously people here who believe they are justified in meeting out justice as they see fit and I find that reprehensible. We have laws in this society. Specifically we have laws that allow for the use of deadly force and in no jurisdiction that I know of is your deeming a person a "demented bastard" grounds for the use of lethal force. The animal part of the argument certainly got blood boiling. Would people feel the same about shooting a Rabbi overseeing the non-painless slaying of animals as required by Kosher laws? Because one considers them Demented Bastards are we justified in shooting them?

The specific question though is this...

Do you approve of the lethal force in manners beyond that allowed by law based on an individuals assesment of another's worth? Yes or No please.

EDIT: This assumes we are living in the USA in 2007. It is not a fascist state where the CoTUS and BoR have been thrown out the window and the rule of law as we know it no longer exists. This is not about burning a dog (that is another thread). This simply asks, Yes or No, do you agree with and support the use of lethal force inside the USA in a situation not allowed by law? Just like a coin toss has only heads or tails there is no "maybee" here. Either you are an advocate for the use of lethal force beyond that allowed by law or you are not.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a violent person at all, but few things bring out the demons in me like animal cruelty (I'm talking about things like animal torture, not hunting). As soon as I determined that the situation was for real, I would shoot the person without hesitation to save the animal.

For the most part I follow the law because it's easier to go along to get along, but in the end I'm always going to follow my own conscience. That's my ultimate authority -- not lawmakers, the public majority, or any other human beings.

When it comes to vigilante justice in general, I can't give a blanket answer. For the most part I'm against it, but I can think of situations where I would find it justified.
 
There are two issues here, the legal and the moral.

In no state that I know of is it legal to shoot the SOB, no matter how richly he deserves it.

The moral issue is a bit more complex. This creep is a Hannibal Lector in training. He will graduate to human victims. If you do not stop him now, he will kill innocent people, perhaps many.
 
I will say what I always say in these discussions:

I recommend that each and every person FOLLOW THE LAW. At no time would I endorse, recommend, or condone violation of federal, state, or local statutes. Despite any satisfaction we think we might receive, we will surely be disappointed with the ultimate consequences of violation of applicable laws.

Keep in mind that in some situations, people have been strung up on the strength of things they said in online forums. I have to wonder about those who, knowing that, do not say what I said above.
 
I was reminded of that thread while I was cleaning the useless sludge out of the oil pan of my boat's deisel engine. You're question is good. Many, myself included, remarked about beating the slimeball. That's unavoidable, gun related forum or not. Such a lowlife brings out the worst in the most wholesome adult - especially males because testoserone wires our brains to protect with force if necessary. I do not feel at all bad about saying I would pepper spray him and give him a h*ll of a beating, and I would answer for it. I would call the authorities. I still feel that with someone capable of such an act, it's only a matter of time before he gets the idea to try it out on a defenseless person.
That being said, I look at the deadly force of a firearm this way;
The SECOND worst thing I could ever imagine is using my weapon to shoot another person. The ABSOLUTE worst is to have no ability to stop someone from taking an innnocent (especially my wife/kids/self) PERSON'S life. I'm a church-going man, and hope to god that I NEVER need to use this weapon at my side (though I certainly enjoy going to the range) against a person, but make no mistake, any direct, active and capable threat to a PERSON'S life that does not stop when warned will meet the business end of my barrel without hesitation.
ONLY (worth repeating) ONLY such a threat against a PERSON, but I would still kick the cr*p out of that guy on the other thread.
 
Last edited:
Technosavant:

Let's say you're living in Nazi Germany and you know where some Jews or Gypsies are hiding. The law says that you have to turn them in. Do you do it?

How about if the law in the US one day demands that you turn in all of your firearms in complete violation of the Bill of Rights. Do you do it?

Laws are not written by gods. They're written by mere mortals, many of whom are idiots or power-mad freaks who need to feed their egos by controlling others. Just because something was written into a lawbook doesn't mean it's right.

Of course many laws are necessary and reasonable, and those tend to be the ones that nearly everyone agrees with. But when the law is wrong, then screw the law -- I'll break it, since I'm not going to live my one and only life bowing or cowering before other mortal men. My conscience is my final authority, and I'll stand or fall on that basis.

I respect those who disagree with my position, but this is the way I've chosen to live my life and regard the law.
 
The very fact that two folks voted to be vigilantes is absolutely frightening and is the best argument for gun control I have ever seen.

WildyepitneverfailsyadontwintillthewhistleblowsAlaska
 
Very, very tough question. I would say that I'd stick with letting the law take care of everything, because I'm not the final arbiter of justice in the world. No individual is - it just doesn't work that way. That's not saying that the U.S code of law is, but it's certainly more impartial than I am, and we've established that as the accepted rules in the land. That being said, if I had a close family member murdered/raped etc, and the perp got off somehow, I would feel inclined to take matters into my own hands and accept the consequences following, whatever they may be. I know that's wrong, and I know that would get me in serious trouble, but I also know that I wouldn't be able to rest if I let someone go who did that to someone close to me. That's absolutely worst case scenario though, and I really hope it would never come to that. Ever.

But I agree with Wild - toting the idea of vigilante justice as generally acceptable is a fast way to get our rights restricted.
 
vigilante justice

The only way I could possibly advocate vigilante justice is if an absolute state of anarchy existed and was expected to last for the long term.
 
Vigilantism is very dangerous. It is powered by bigotry and madness. An example would be the beating to death of that guy near Austin yesterday. He was a passenger in a car that accidentally hit a little girl. The little girl was not injured (he was driving very slowly), but the mob dragged him out of the car and beat him to death. The driver managed to escape.

This is very, very bad. There is a trend toward ugliness in this country that scares me. We seemed to have lost the ability to talk to each other and reason things out.

It is important to remember that we may feel like killing someone, but we may not act on it. There is nothing "self-defense" related in vigilantism: it amounts to going out and hunting someone down.

CORRECTION: the little girl was slightly injured, but not in a life threatening way.
 
Last edited:
Do you approve of the lethal force in manners beyond that allowed by law based on an individuals assesment of another's worth? Yes or No please
Click to expand...

Isnt this what every single war in history was about? Somone thought they were better than somone else, or felt they deserved something more than somone else, or felt that their openion was more important than somone elses?


Personally, I cant answer the question o vigilante justice with a yes or no answer. For me, it depends on the situation. But when somone tortures the innocent simply for their own sick pleasure, wether the victim be a pet, livestock, or a person, I feel that they are undeserving of life.
 
I guess it's hard to say what I'd do. Most likely I would fire a round "near" him and if he lit the dog anyway I guess I would just shoot the dog and put the cops on him. One thing for sure, anyone who would shoot the whacko would do well to have me on the jury.
 
Vigilante justice is a problem, not a solution. I would suspect that in the places that vigilantism flourishes is the same places where the actual legal system is corrupt or failing. If people have no fear of being caught then they feel that they can get away with setting their dog on fire. If I was there and shot this person; It would be a bigger tragedy if I was to get away with it than to suffer a legal punishment, for then I showed people that there is no legal ramification in shooting a person.
 
Let's say you're living in Nazi Germany and you know where some Jews or Gypsies are hiding. The law says that you have to turn them in. Do you do it?
Click to expand...

Heck no. But then, I don't live in Nazi Germany, and the internet didn't exist.

As to your second question, if that ever occurs, I plan to leave no tracks online saying "I'll bury them behind the shed." Why? Where do you think they'll look? In that case, I say what I always say: I intend to follow the law to the best of my ability and knowledge. If you believe me, so be it. If you think I'm a liar and I've hidden all my guns away, I've provided you with no reason to suspect me of breaking the law. Either way, I'm not going to say anything incriminating in a public place.

Think about it: do you really want to provide a confession before the fact? Whatever you plan to do, I sure don't recommend bragging about it online where anybody can read it. God help the person who says "sure, I'm down with vigilantism" and is then involved in even a perfectly righteous shoot, protecting a bus full of nuns, orphans, and three legged puppies from a horde of drugged out zombies fresh from slaughtering their way through a preschool.

Because, you know, there will be some lawyer in a criminal or civil case who will dredge up that statement and say "See? He was just a trigger happy nutjob who didn't care that the victim was innocent! He was dealing out vigilante justice like something out of a comic book! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do you want this person walking among us?"

It is wise, if you have something you wish never to come to light, to never put it on a billboard or tell the town gossip. The internet is the same thing.
 
No matter how we value an animal , nor how much we value them, they are not a human . I will stop any animal abuse i see and if it escalates to the party(s) threatening my life because of an intervention , well then that is different than using lethal force for animal abuse . I chose to intervene , and they chose to escalate from there . My intervention will be verbal first , and walk up the use of force untill they stop tho , I have NO right to shoot an animal abuser unless and untill they are a direct articulatable threat to me .
 
I don't know what I'd do. Hopefully I'll never be in that situation. What I do know is that a good number of serial killers started with animal cruelty crimes.
It is not that far a leap from cruelty toward an animal to cruelty to a defenseless person (child, teenager, young woman, small young man).
 
I voted no. So that means that if I saw this scenario happening and I was armed, the BG would have the opportunity to stop or I would use whatever force necessary to stop him WITHIN THE LAW. In this case in my state, if the BG didn't yield to reason, he'd be dead. In other states this may not hold true. You could be held for murder or man slaugther. Even if you win your case, you may be broke from attorneys fees defending your position. I don't see a one answer fits all here. Hopefully, I would see the guy before the lighter came out and either held him at gun point or shot the gas can if he didn't yield.
I forgot to mention that vigilante means watchman in spanish. It has come to mean in the US the act of taking the law into ones hands. It doesn't mean that an individual that is a vigilante can make law as he wishes it. A vigilante can only self enforce the laws on the books. Anything outside the law is where most folks have problems.
 
I'm not going to answer this poll as neither of the answers really apply.

But I will say this:

We were not made for laws, laws are made for us. In other words we use the law, we don't worship it. As it is human law, it is subject to error. We should work with the courts within communities to change it if need be. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you say "oh well, the law says I can't do it so I guess that's that." Sometimes you just have to do what you need to do to get the job done and deal with what the "law" says later in court. That's one reason for the concept of Jury Nullification. State worshippers hate it, friends of liberty thank God for it.

As I see it there are three kinds of people on this board and in life. 1) those who worship the law and think that anybody who does anything unorthodox and outside what the law says or even anything that might even be offensive to public officials or even the PC crowd must be a psychopath and dangerous (wonder what these people must think of the Boston Tea party). 2) People who are just rebels without a cause and just want to shrug off any authority whatsoever just because it is there or because it "offends them" and have no consideration of the consequences. 3) People who have good sense, think "outside the box" and realize that no human law or government is God. It is imperfect and can even be corrupt because it is run by men. But at the same time, men that make up society as a whole are also corrupt and that's why we need limited laws to maintain civilization. We are to respect law and order but not worship it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top