Vigilantes!!!???

We were "Vigilantes" in AK in The Aleutian Islands . I worked there at a cannery . When someone did something bad (beat , rob , steal etc.) we grabbed them and locked them in a tool room until the State cop could get there . BTW AK was a state at the time albeit a young one . This was in 1970 . There was never a problem with us doing that .
 
Roger-Ruger :(


Your so-called "modern society" has decriminalized all criminals and criminalized all sanity! :p

Perhaps you are actually an "infiltrator" to this forum and a serious threat to my ever diminishing segment of your modern society??? :eek:

I know your answer will be something like, "I hope so", but it won't suffice!

Vigilante mentality is the root-foundation of the greatest free nation in the history of the world. And when the founding fathers and General George Washington had secured the new nation, God bless 'em, they GAVE IT BACK TO THE PEOPLE!!!!

Human beings who commit crimes against society have no right to
demand a place in that society. And the society they offend, has every right to expell them like the refuse they are.

The "refuse" are the very reason we find it necessary to CC and discuss related subjects ad infinitum.

If society were to kill everyone we KNOW to be a child molester, or rapist, or murderer, or drug pusher, or car-jacker, or Mob Wiseguy... it would not be very long before our streets were safe again, and we would no longer live in fear behind the bars on our windows.

You need only watch the TV show, Growing up Gotti, to see why it would have been better to kill John Gotti than to let him continue to perpetuate the rot that continues even after he is dead and not-so-very gone.

If vigilanteeism appears in any society, it is born of necessity, and the responsibility can be laid squarely at the feet of your corrupt "modern government".

"Modern Civilization" is the worst thing that ever happened to "Modern Society". :D

Are you a bleeding-heart Welfare-Stater or just a run-of-the-mill Marxist?

I choose to keep the vent open! :mad:
 
Last edited:
CarbineCaleb

You said...

- there is no investigation
- there is no separation of arrest from trial or from penalty
- there is in fact no trial, no representation, no burden of proof
- there is no schedule of penalty (in fact, there seems to be only one all
purpose penalty)

I say...

There are also no appeals. And, there are no appeals. And what's more, there are no appeals. :D

Did I mention that there are no corrupt lawyers? And that there are no appeals! :p

The "all-purpose penalty" seems like a good idea... This would eliminate the "chicken hawks" and pimps and others who enslave and torture innocents. And it would most likely eliminate all those pesky appeals! :rolleyes:

I like it because it is effective, and efficient, and it is NOW!

Hell, that's "downright appealing" :D
 
Last edited:
If someone is commiting a crime and STOPPED in the process, in my book its good. In book they were already forfeiting their rights by commiting that crime. Now, the laws don't agree with me.
 
AMEN X2!! If "The Government" would do its job, We The People wouldn't be forced to do it for them.
Click to expand...

As Sir Robert Peel, considered the Father of Modern Policing, observed:

...the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Click to expand...

If the police give NO attention to these duties, what is left for a citizen drowning in a sea of violent crime, intimidation, and brazen criminality?

No trial? If someone in the nieghborhood is widely and openly known as a thief, or a drug pusher, or violent thug, by everyone in the neighborhood, haven't more than just twelve of his peers been convinced of his guilt?
 
Seems to me the clearest example of vigilantee action in the US was the panhandle of Oklahoma at the turn of the century. It was an area of the country claimed by no state. As such criminal enterprise was rampant. during that time it was the local inhabitants that enforced what ever standards of conduct there were. When Oklahoma claimed jurisdiction the state imposed law and vigilantee actions stopped.

TFL and other gun advocate sites have a significant number of participants that buy into the concept of natural law. When government can not or will not enforce law by duly constituted human agencies, those living in the society are faced with a decision: move, submit, or resist. No human will willingly live indefinitely in a lawless society. I maintain the very existence of vigilantee actions demonstrates a failing of government at some level.

In today's world with the prevelence of goverment virtually everywhere, the absence of government is for some specific reasons related to government decisions and actions. Government for what ever the reason decided not to act according to its own decrees. Does that mean local residents must now endure lawlessness because of a disinterested or corrupt government chooses not to act?

Vigilantee actions can not be condemned out of hand. This is particularly important in the US as we move from a society of laws to a society of power.
 
Vigilantes....

Roger, as with everything the press reports: I take it with a grain of salt. Personally I prefer 1st hand information. I am from the Philippines by birth and lived there for over 20 years. Know Davao, and I agree with DNS - it is by no means the largest city in the world - Manila by itself is far larger. By a factor of 2 or 3.

Which leads me to doubt the authenticity of the rest of the news article.

I agree the politicians in the country, along with the police and army are mostly corrupt.

There have been (during the Marcos era), a special group known as the secret marshalls who went around and did vigilante type killings. Yes to drug dealers, pushers, and general BGs. Most of these BGs did not abide by the law, and in most cases paid off the law. So this form of justice was efficient in that particular situation. This program was terminated with the end of that regime.

If you look throughout America's history - you can see remnants of vigilantism still on the law books - Bounty Hunters or Bail Enforcement Agents as they are referred to today: They do not need search warrants, and typically operate independent of organized law enforcement. At the time of the old west, they were a necessity, because of the lawlessness.

At its current infancy as a country - The Philippines is just like the old west, except we are in the year 2005. Nowhere near the maturity level of the US. So it is like comparing apples and oranges.

The next time you visit - if I am in town (and this goes to the rest of the TFL members) I would be happy to host and show everyone a fantastic time - just like the days in the old west. Also your dollar buys a lot there - 54 to 1. Beer in a 1st class restaurant - $1.25
 
Roger please clarify your post....

I asked once earlier about this portion of your post. Can you clarify it for me and whom ever else is trying to figure out what your saying.... Thanks

****"but taking law into you hands is just as immoral in the war in serbia, iraq, the drug wars in mexico, angola and GOD knows where"****


I might be reading it wrong or just not getting your point....... Are you saying the U.S. in Iraq is wrong and immoral? :confused:
\


If that is your take on that, I respect your freedom of press.....but I couldn't disagree with you more.....


Regards.......Rojoe67
 
re: jonathon wrote:

If someone is commiting a crime and STOPPED in the process, in my book its good. In book they were already forfeiting their rights by commiting that crime. Now, the laws don't agree with me.

Exactly!...when will the policy maker understand this.
 
Vacation?

I just can't understand why someone would freeze up and not answer a simple question........If I wrote something that seemed to stir the pot and someone asked me what I was trying to say I would answer. Maybe Rog went on vacation or just figures it's not worth answering my question?

Oh well, I guess I will never know what he meant?
 
jonathon wrote:

If someone is commiting a crime and STOPPED in the process, in my book its good. In (my) book they were already forfeiting their rights by committing that crime. Now, the laws don't agree with me.

I say...

A carreer criminal is living/committing a continuous crime.
Why is he free to do this?
 
Rojoe67

Do you think he realizes how wrong he is?

Or how we feel about it?

Disappeared indeed... he probably slinked away knowing how untenable his position is.
 
The Klan murders and bombings are also examples of vigilantism. That's the problem with it - any person, decides on their own what is right and wrong, and then uses violence to try to enforce their will - in that case, the "outlaws" who needed justice meted out to them were "uppity niggers"... by the noble "White Knights". If anyone has ever seen the early film "The Birth of a Nation", it is all about the noble KKK, and how they are protecting the good citizens from internal threats posed by the evil.

The Klan, and other white supremacy groups are still closely tied to the militias of today, and their message is the same - there exists a great evil in this country today, and we are going to protect people from it by attacking it... sounds interesting until you learn that the great evil is things like the US government, and various religious and ethnic minority groups.

I don't support the notion of militias except in extreme circumstances. Even setting aside the pathological racists and conspiracy psychos, you've got ordinary people who want to mete out their own, entirely arbritrary view of "justice" - there are no restrictions on it, there is no debate, no consensus, and each self appointed "peace official" will have completely different views on what is right and wrong, and what needs capital punishment.

The laws of the nation at least, were designed by elected officals, they are readily published for all to see and understand, and are subject to debate and revision, the will of the people. The justice and law enforcement branches carrying out their work along well defined lines intended to also protect the rights of persons, require due process, proof, etc., etc., etc.

I don't want my neighbor shooting me because he decides I am an uppity northerner who thinks he can paint his house whatever color he pleases. Essentially, vigilantism is an appeal to anarchy in my opinion.
 
Butch50 You asked...

"Anyone care to try to define Vigilante?"



Did you miss Progunner's ample definition in entry #3? :confused:


Someone said the Neighborhood Watch is a good example!
 
CarbineCaleb

Most of what you say is accurate... and reasonable in a perfect world.

However, the fact remains that "We the people" hired professional vigilantes to protect us and they have failed miserably...

"We the people" are not mob-minded, nor are we inclined to lynch people.

Anarchy? is a narrow view. Perhaps it is a threat. There are, of course "sheep" who will follow any ass with a semblance of leadership into the jaws of hell... but they are not "We the people".

Anarchy is far preferrable to enslavement.

The dicussion here is not corrupt vigilantes any more than it is about corrupt Police Officer's, or any form of organizational breakdown...

These have their place in the discussion, of course, but should not be allowed to bury the point that there is nothing inherently evil about vigilance, or the committees organized for that purpose.

Vigilantes, in fact, are required by circumstances and have risen to necessity in every society in history. :)

Ideally we shouldn't need them... and as has been amply stated here in the thread... they wouldn't be necessary if those who are given the responsibility by "we the people", would do the job they're paid to do!

Don't worry about your neighbor shooting you... ;)
The vigilantes will no doubt lynch him. :D
 
My impression is that the pejorative use of "vigilante" implies punishment without trial. Citizen's arrest is not part of that definition of vigilantism.

Tocqueville wrote... "During my stay in the United States I have seen the inhabitants of a country where a serious crime had been committed spontaneously forming committees with the object of catching the criminal and handing him over to the courts.

"In Europe the criminal is a luckless man fighting to save his head from the authorities; in a sense the population are mere spectators of the struggle. In America he is an enemy of the human race and every human being is against him."
(Democracy in America, Ch. 5, "Political Effects of Administrative Decentralization in the United States")

Sadly, that is not the case anymore.
 
Goverment inaction, forcing citizns to go overboard, is just as inexcusable.
Click to expand...

One of the most honest pieces of advice that I've ever recieved was from a Fort Worth police officer. several years ago.

I'd just spent over an hour watching a man with a gun emptying out the trailer across from mine. There had been two calls to 911 and officers took an hour and a half to respond, despite the fact that 3 officers were on 'traffic detail' less than 2 miles from our location.

After the officers check the house, my (at the time) arrogant little self decided to have a word with the police officers. After asking what we should do if it was going to take an hour and a half for the police to come and deal with a man with a gun, I was told "Get a gun of your own."

The officer, in no uncertain terms, advised me that it is almost impossible for the Fort Worth Police Department to respond in time to any form of a potentially violent crime. He stated that they were essentially relegated to the job of 'clean up' and 'damage control'. As far as preventing the crime, or protecting an individual, it was stated that it was far better to be able to defend yourself.

Once again, being my (at the time), indignant self, I asked 'Well what if someone else is having trouble. There could have been people home. What then?'

He didn't have an answer for that.
 
Maybe we shouldn't be funding the huge professional police forces cities have today?
I was told "Get a gun of your own."
Click to expand...
You should have asked if he would be kind enough to testify in your defense after you storm out of your house with a gun and end up in a gunfight.

If I ever watch a similar situation unfold, I'd try to do something... maybe slash his tires, if I could do it without being seen. What's he going to do, call triple-A?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top