Wildalaska
Moderator
:barf:
WildineedlawstoprotectmefromfolkswhodontrepectlawAlaska
Are you a vigilante and do you support vigilante justice?
- Thread starter Musketeer
- Start date
:barf:
WildineedlawstoprotectmefromfolkswhodontrepectlawAlaska
oldbillthundercheif
Moderator
I've got a nice belt-buckle from the "Eternal Vigilance Society" of San Francisco that has been passed down through my family. Apparently, one of my ancestors was a vigilante back when that word meant something.
There are no vigilantes anymore, only murderers.
If someone is not threatening you with death or serious bodily injury, they are not worth shooting.
There are no vigilantes anymore, only murderers.
If someone is not threatening you with death or serious bodily injury, they are not worth shooting.
SatanzBountyHunter
New member
I always thought vigilantism was when a community acted on what the law wouldn't. So I would support it to some degree...think of O.J. Simpson maybe? On the other hand, there is the Duke LaCrosse boys that were facing a mob mentality and they were as innocent as can be.
I will add this: The liberal media crucifies vigilantes...they fully support criminal behavior before they will ever recognize someone doing right that took the law into their own hands.
I will add this: The liberal media crucifies vigilantes...they fully support criminal behavior before they will ever recognize someone doing right that took the law into their own hands.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Answer is, it depends, because
The question is somewhat ambiguous, I think, so I didn't vote. Let's analyze this option:
Now, if one takes that sentence to mean: "If one uses lethal force outside the limits of the law, for example, to protect the life of a dog, then should a person not be punished because the act is morally justified, as may be decided by a jury" (i.e. suggesting jury nullification), then no, I have to disagree - the lawbreaker should be punished. Jury nullification is only appropriate when the law in question making the defendant guilty is itself clearly unconstitutional. That is certainly not the case with the current law of deadly force. So, no, all joking aside, the "he needed killin" defense should never prevail. Too many innocents have died that way over the centuries.
If one takes that sentence to mean, what I think you meant, quite literally, in a normative sense, "should lethal force only morally be used within the limits set by law", then the answer is, depends on the person, and for ME, the answer is no. I can and would kill someone to stop them from killing my dog or setting any dog on fire, *if* and only if they are caught in the act. My own personal morals dictate that value system. But does this mean or imply that I shouldn't be punished under the law as a murderer? Absolutely not! I can and must accept the consequences of my actions as illegal. We are a society of laws, and the rule of law must be upheld. I should try to work within the legislative system to change the law, if I should so choose, to get the allowable use of deadly force to include "defense of dog about to be set on fire", but until I do cause the law to be changed, I must accept that my act would make me a murderer, and I must accept my punishment as a murderer. To do otherwise would be anarchy. I certainly would still shoot the bastard if caught in the act however, consequences be damned. I would however, try to present a defense of "heat of the moment, under extreme provocation", which in my state and most states can reduce the verdict to manslaughter insted of murder, *IF* the jury agrees. But no way should I escape the brunt of punishment for at least voluntary manslaughter, which would be a number of years in the pokey.
In any event, I don't think moral vigilantism should EVER be considered morally justified (by definition illegal), under ANYONE's moral system, if they are not "caught in the act / caught red-handed", doing the dirty deed, due to errors of identification, hearsay error, possible deception, etc. Again, even if morally justifiable under any one person's morality system, the punishment must be meted out.
The question is somewhat ambiguous, I think, so I didn't vote. Let's analyze this option:
Now, if one takes that sentence to mean: "If one uses lethal force outside the limits of the law, for example, to protect the life of a dog, then should a person not be punished because the act is morally justified, as may be decided by a jury" (i.e. suggesting jury nullification), then no, I have to disagree - the lawbreaker should be punished. Jury nullification is only appropriate when the law in question making the defendant guilty is itself clearly unconstitutional. That is certainly not the case with the current law of deadly force. So, no, all joking aside, the "he needed killin" defense should never prevail. Too many innocents have died that way over the centuries.
If one takes that sentence to mean, what I think you meant, quite literally, in a normative sense, "should lethal force only morally be used within the limits set by law", then the answer is, depends on the person, and for ME, the answer is no. I can and would kill someone to stop them from killing my dog or setting any dog on fire, *if* and only if they are caught in the act. My own personal morals dictate that value system. But does this mean or imply that I shouldn't be punished under the law as a murderer? Absolutely not! I can and must accept the consequences of my actions as illegal. We are a society of laws, and the rule of law must be upheld. I should try to work within the legislative system to change the law, if I should so choose, to get the allowable use of deadly force to include "defense of dog about to be set on fire", but until I do cause the law to be changed, I must accept that my act would make me a murderer, and I must accept my punishment as a murderer. To do otherwise would be anarchy. I certainly would still shoot the bastard if caught in the act however, consequences be damned. I would however, try to present a defense of "heat of the moment, under extreme provocation", which in my state and most states can reduce the verdict to manslaughter insted of murder, *IF* the jury agrees. But no way should I escape the brunt of punishment for at least voluntary manslaughter, which would be a number of years in the pokey.
In any event, I don't think moral vigilantism should EVER be considered morally justified (by definition illegal), under ANYONE's moral system, if they are not "caught in the act / caught red-handed", doing the dirty deed, due to errors of identification, hearsay error, possible deception, etc. Again, even if morally justifiable under any one person's morality system, the punishment must be meted out.
Just to get some ground rules established here, albeit late...
We are talking about 2007 in the USA and with the assumption that in all jurisdictions that lethal force may be used to:
Prevent the use of lethal force on an innocent (including oneself). (established by the presence of lethal force or a reasonable disparity of force).
Prevent a forcible rape or sodomy.
Prevent a kidnapping.
Prevent an act of arson against an occupied structure.
Resist an unwarranted invasion of an occupied home.
In all cases this shall be IMMEDIATE (No shooting him a day beforehand)
Let's please try to not split hairs about "She could be consenting?", "What about firemen coming to the rescue?" or "Am I really facing lethal force?". I simply want to know if a person has not crossed any of the lines I have listed should an individual's personal assessment of another's rating on the "He needed killin'" scale be acceptabel as valid grounds to defend a shooting?
Should you be able to say to a court, "Yes, I shot him and he wasn't doing anything listed as warranting lethal force but he was a really bad guy and I would like you to acquit me based on my judgment of him being better off dead than alive."
I am glad 27 so far have put some faith in the rule of law. I hope that many of the 10 who didn't were following the hypothetical Nazi America model where the COTUS went out the window... If that happened, with the COTUS and BOR being suspended and the gov't refusing to stand for re-election then I would agree the rule of law has failed and it is now everyone for themselves. I do not think we are there and do not think we will reach that point any time in the immediate future. I would like to keep this question purely in the here and now.
We are talking about 2007 in the USA and with the assumption that in all jurisdictions that lethal force may be used to:
Prevent the use of lethal force on an innocent (including oneself). (established by the presence of lethal force or a reasonable disparity of force).
Prevent a forcible rape or sodomy.
Prevent a kidnapping.
Prevent an act of arson against an occupied structure.
Resist an unwarranted invasion of an occupied home.
In all cases this shall be IMMEDIATE (No shooting him a day beforehand)
Let's please try to not split hairs about "She could be consenting?", "What about firemen coming to the rescue?" or "Am I really facing lethal force?". I simply want to know if a person has not crossed any of the lines I have listed should an individual's personal assessment of another's rating on the "He needed killin'" scale be acceptabel as valid grounds to defend a shooting?
Should you be able to say to a court, "Yes, I shot him and he wasn't doing anything listed as warranting lethal force but he was a really bad guy and I would like you to acquit me based on my judgment of him being better off dead than alive."
I am glad 27 so far have put some faith in the rule of law. I hope that many of the 10 who didn't were following the hypothetical Nazi America model where the COTUS went out the window... If that happened, with the COTUS and BOR being suspended and the gov't refusing to stand for re-election then I would agree the rule of law has failed and it is now everyone for themselves. I do not think we are there and do not think we will reach that point any time in the immediate future. I would like to keep this question purely in the here and now.
Glaring gap in this conundrum. Are the only 2 choices here shooting the head case or letting him burn the dog?
A presented weapon provides for a lot of second guessing by the other party.
TAKE CONTROL AWAY from the Mental case.
Present. Direct. Direct. Direct
Draw your weapon and VERY quickly approach YELLING to get down get down get down.......Knock the dam lighter out of his hand and if needed deliver a dib blow or 2.
You don't HAVE to kill the guy. Just take away his command of the situation. There are a number of level of escalation to utilize here before shooting the demented BG.
LAST resort is committing a homicide. VERY hard to justify this one. I see poverty and prison in the future of the person killing another person for a dogs safety.
A presented weapon provides for a lot of second guessing by the other party.
TAKE CONTROL AWAY from the Mental case.
Present. Direct. Direct. Direct
Draw your weapon and VERY quickly approach YELLING to get down get down get down.......Knock the dam lighter out of his hand and if needed deliver a dib blow or 2.
You don't HAVE to kill the guy. Just take away his command of the situation. There are a number of level of escalation to utilize here before shooting the demented BG.
LAST resort is committing a homicide. VERY hard to justify this one. I see poverty and prison in the future of the person killing another person for a dogs safety.
Edward429451
Moderator
I didn't vote. It's a slanted poll and nothing is black & white. There's no provision for situational ethics.
Some more choices with less extreme answers would've been nice.
Some more choices with less extreme answers would've been nice.
Hallucinator
New member
Mob Violence in Austin
This story seems pertinent to vigilantism out of control: they killed an innocent man:
Investigators were struggling to piece together what happened Tuesday when David Rivas Morales died defending the driver from members of a crowd. There could have been anywhere from two to 20 attackers, Austin Police Commander Harold Piatt said.
The car in which Morales, 40, was a passenger had entered an apartment complex's parking lot when it struck a 2-year-old boy, Piatt said. The boy was taken to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.
The driver got out of the car to check on the child and was confronted by several people, Piatt said. When they attacked the driver, Morales got out of the car to protect the driver and was attacked as well. Police said no guns or knives were used.
The driver got away and is cooperating with investigators. Police identified the child as Michael Hosea Jr.
There were conflicting accounts of how many people were in the area. Police originally estimated 2,000 to 3,000 and a woman who lives at the complex said hundreds who had been at a Juneteenth festival filled the parking lot and street.
But late Wednesday police spokeswoman Toni Chovanetz said only 20 people were in the area where the assault occurred.
Chovanetz also said there was no connection to the nearby city-sponsored festival for Juneteenth, which commemorates Texas slaves getting the word that they had been freed.
Most Popular - Last 24 Hours
* Surgery Performed by Teen Sparks Outrage
* Angry Mob Kills Man After Car Hits Boy
* Hubble Photographs Two Huge Asteroids
* Girl's Legs Severed on Amusement Park Ride
* Four Charged in Bizarre Homicide, Abuse Case
Margaret Morales said a young boy came to her door to tell her that her brother was lying on the ground outside. She found David Morales, sprawled on the pavement 100 feet from her townhouse, battered and choking on blood.
She said her mother came running after hearing her screams, but police wouldn't let either of them get close to him.
Police arrived one minute after receiving a 911 call, by which time the beating had stopped, Chovanetz said. But the Morales family complained that medical help was slow in coming.
Chovanetz said witnesses told police that three or four men attacked Morales, knocking him to the ground. A man got out of another vehicle and hit Morales again, Chovanetz said.
David Morales arrived at the hospital about 35 minutes after the 911 call was received, said Warren Hassinger, Austin-Travis County Emergency Services spokesman. Emergency officials said police ordered them to wait until the area was secure.
Several hundred people had filled the parking lot and street as the daylong festival at a nearby park ended and spilled over into the surrounding neighborhoods, said Katherine White, a Morales family friend who lives in a townhouse next door to where the beating took place.
Margaret Morales said her brother, who was staying with her, was a painter on his way home from work. The driver, whom she knew only as Victor, picked him up and dropped him off everyday, she said.
The Morales family remembered David as a caring brother who loved the San Antonio Spurs and was thrilled when they won the NBA title last week. Earl White, Katherine's brother, said David Morales enjoyed sitting on the porch, watching the neighborhood children play in the parking lot.
"I just want the people caught and brought to justice," another sister, Elizabeth Morales, said. "I want them to feel the same pain that they caused my brother."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
This story seems pertinent to vigilantism out of control: they killed an innocent man:
Investigators were struggling to piece together what happened Tuesday when David Rivas Morales died defending the driver from members of a crowd. There could have been anywhere from two to 20 attackers, Austin Police Commander Harold Piatt said.
The car in which Morales, 40, was a passenger had entered an apartment complex's parking lot when it struck a 2-year-old boy, Piatt said. The boy was taken to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.
The driver got out of the car to check on the child and was confronted by several people, Piatt said. When they attacked the driver, Morales got out of the car to protect the driver and was attacked as well. Police said no guns or knives were used.
The driver got away and is cooperating with investigators. Police identified the child as Michael Hosea Jr.
There were conflicting accounts of how many people were in the area. Police originally estimated 2,000 to 3,000 and a woman who lives at the complex said hundreds who had been at a Juneteenth festival filled the parking lot and street.
But late Wednesday police spokeswoman Toni Chovanetz said only 20 people were in the area where the assault occurred.
Chovanetz also said there was no connection to the nearby city-sponsored festival for Juneteenth, which commemorates Texas slaves getting the word that they had been freed.
Most Popular - Last 24 Hours
* Surgery Performed by Teen Sparks Outrage
* Angry Mob Kills Man After Car Hits Boy
* Hubble Photographs Two Huge Asteroids
* Girl's Legs Severed on Amusement Park Ride
* Four Charged in Bizarre Homicide, Abuse Case
Margaret Morales said a young boy came to her door to tell her that her brother was lying on the ground outside. She found David Morales, sprawled on the pavement 100 feet from her townhouse, battered and choking on blood.
She said her mother came running after hearing her screams, but police wouldn't let either of them get close to him.
Police arrived one minute after receiving a 911 call, by which time the beating had stopped, Chovanetz said. But the Morales family complained that medical help was slow in coming.
Chovanetz said witnesses told police that three or four men attacked Morales, knocking him to the ground. A man got out of another vehicle and hit Morales again, Chovanetz said.
David Morales arrived at the hospital about 35 minutes after the 911 call was received, said Warren Hassinger, Austin-Travis County Emergency Services spokesman. Emergency officials said police ordered them to wait until the area was secure.
Several hundred people had filled the parking lot and street as the daylong festival at a nearby park ended and spilled over into the surrounding neighborhoods, said Katherine White, a Morales family friend who lives in a townhouse next door to where the beating took place.
Margaret Morales said her brother, who was staying with her, was a painter on his way home from work. The driver, whom she knew only as Victor, picked him up and dropped him off everyday, she said.
The Morales family remembered David as a caring brother who loved the San Antonio Spurs and was thrilled when they won the NBA title last week. Earl White, Katherine's brother, said David Morales enjoyed sitting on the porch, watching the neighborhood children play in the parking lot.
"I just want the people caught and brought to justice," another sister, Elizabeth Morales, said. "I want them to feel the same pain that they caused my brother."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
oldironman
New member
Quote from Muskateer 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.
Muskateer, I have to disagree. There is a middle ground. I do not advocate it, but that doesn't mean I can't envision a scenario where I wouldn't do it. A critic might say, then, that I am an advocate it. B.U.T... there sometimes comes a time in a man's life when he looks at the situation and says, "this ain't the way it should be handled, but I think it is worth going to prison for to show the bad-guys what might await them, should they get off strictly on a technicality. To take the fall for the good of society - altruism at it's best, or worst. You know it isn't the way we should act as a whole, but you know it needs to get done, knowing full well you may, deservedly, go to prison. Someone like that will get my sympathy if I am the juror. Yes, I am afraid there is a maybe.
Muskateer, I have to disagree. There is a middle ground. I do not advocate it, but that doesn't mean I can't envision a scenario where I wouldn't do it. A critic might say, then, that I am an advocate it. B.U.T... there sometimes comes a time in a man's life when he looks at the situation and says, "this ain't the way it should be handled, but I think it is worth going to prison for to show the bad-guys what might await them, should they get off strictly on a technicality. To take the fall for the good of society - altruism at it's best, or worst. You know it isn't the way we should act as a whole, but you know it needs to get done, knowing full well you may, deservedly, go to prison. Someone like that will get my sympathy if I am the juror. Yes, I am afraid there is a maybe.
But why are those human beings more worthy of dispensing justice than you are? They're not gods.Eghad said:
In general I do believe in going along with the system. Society couldn't function for everyone's benefit if everyone took the law into his own hands. But I still think that in extreme cases vigilantism can be justified.
Here's another hypothetical scenario for people to consider. Let's say someone tortures and kills your mother or someone else dear to you. He gets arrested, but he gets off (say the jury are a bunch of idiots who find him innocent, or he's released on a technicality), even though you know for a FACT that he did it. As he walks out of the court room and gets into his car, you even see him laugh at you.
Who here would let him get away with what he did? I certainly would not. And if I were later caught and sent to prison, it would be worth it.
Indrid Cold
New member
I'd like to clarify my example situation in saying that I would only act if I *saw* the crime committed upon my family member by the perpetrator, and they still got off. Again, very rare situation with an equally rare response.
I don't like it, but I don't like the alternative either.
I don't like it, but I don't like the alternative either.
One of the worst things about getting old is a failing memory. But I do remember an event that occurred in a city south of here a few years ago.
It seems a drug dealer had gotten into trouble with the local police and a young woman intended to testify against him. The trial came and went and he got his wrist slapped, then set free. He made it clear that the young witness was in considerable, perhaps mortal danger simply because she had testified.
Her father walked into a local bar one night while the dealer was sitting at a booth and shot him in the head, killing him instantly and messing up the wallpaper too.
The father was arrested, tried and found not guilty because he was protecting his daughter, something the local police either could not or would not do.
Vigilante. You bet, but his daughter was safe.
It seems a drug dealer had gotten into trouble with the local police and a young woman intended to testify against him. The trial came and went and he got his wrist slapped, then set free. He made it clear that the young witness was in considerable, perhaps mortal danger simply because she had testified.
Her father walked into a local bar one night while the dealer was sitting at a booth and shot him in the head, killing him instantly and messing up the wallpaper too.
The father was arrested, tried and found not guilty because he was protecting his daughter, something the local police either could not or would not do.
Vigilante. You bet, but his daughter was safe.