Is vigilantism ever justified?

[uppityperson]

When, in what cases?

This is to get an idea about what is ok on a larger basis than 1 case. Hence asking when, in what cases, and is it ever justified.

thank you for your participation

[Ozymanithrax]

1. No...

[LeftyMom]

2. If some creep is targeting my kid, my first priority is making sure he doesn't come back

Response will be proportionate to how serious a threat I believe the person is.

edit: And this thread is a continuation of a flamewar. Which is against the rules, and you know it. And it's because you're getting your ass handed to you in the other thread, which just makes it bad form.

[uppityperson]

4. it is to get a picture of vigilantism in general, a larger picture than 1 situation

granted I used it for an example, but there are lots of other examples also.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. vigilantism is not self defense

it is an offense act - for example lynch mobs. Get a clue.

[uppityperson]

5. I agree. eom

[bluerum]

9. That's the crux. Offense against someone you think is a "bad guy". Think.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. There are those here who argue strenuously the Castle Doctrine is in effect vigilantism

While I disagree, there is a fair amount of gray there for many.


Perhaps the hot case is the mom who attacked a stalker after her underage daughter. I have a great deal of empathy. A long time I back I ended up having a confrontation with an 18yo male chasing my underage daughter. Was not planned that way, but before it was over he had shit his pants, convinced I was going to gut him like a hog and leave him pinned to a tree for his mother to find. Unlike the current case, he was not hurt, just scared witless and shitless.

[customerserviceguy]

16. Good for you

When I was out West, you know what we called vigilante justice?

Justice.

[white_wolf]

17. Taking the law into your own hands is not justice.

It's revenge. There is a difference despite what some believe.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. In my case he was never physically harmed...

A metal pen, some harsh words, and a fearsome rep did wonders.

[customerserviceguy]

22. Sounds like a good balance

between vengeance and wimpyness, the latter of which many here seem to laud.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. No desire to hurt him, he forced things and I improvised

Though I have no problem with lethal force under the right circumstances, that was not one of them. He was not hurt physically but probably wished I had killed him once the word got out.

[white_wolf]

25. You never broke the law therefore it wasn't vilganitlism.

However if you had physically assaulted would have been vigilantism and would have been prosecuted for it and rightly so. From what little I know of your story, it sounds like you just scared him which is not illegal and possibly justified in this case.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. Actually a case could have been made for assault.

I issued a threat credible enough to him for him to lose bowel control.

[SusanaMontana41]

53. Just curious: Would assaulting someone like Casey Anthony be acceptable to you? n/t

[flvegan]

6. Depends on how you define it. n/t

[Odin2005]

7. I chose #3.

[aikoaiko]

8. First you have to define vigilantism.

For example,

============================================================================
vig·i·lan·te (vj-lnt)
n.
1. One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
2. A member of a vigilance committee.
============================================================================

Given number 1, I definitely wouldn't call self-defense vigilantism. The defender of self is not enforcing a law per se.

Even when law abiding citizen sees a criminal commit a felony and that citizen detains the person is not vigilantism in most states because that is allowable by law.

However, is that detaining citizen decided to punish the apprehended criminal, then that would be a vigilante.

[Obamanaut]

10. In a situation such as listed in another thread, where the mom beat down the

predator who was stalking the daughter, absolutely.

Teach a lesson such that the predator does not recognize his image in a mirror.

You buys your ticket, you takes your ride. Immediate justice/punishment.

[uppityperson]

11. and let him walk away to do something to someone else? that thread?

Good thing someone called the cops about a fight and they stopped everyone who was walking away or he'd have gotten away.

[Obamanaut]

15. Here is your question "Is vigilantism ever justified?" In the other thread, the

narrative suggests the guy "tried to lure" and then got a beating. Immediate justice.

Any other way and there would be the issues of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt', witnesses who saw nothing, plea bargains, and the like.

Since he only "tried" according to the narrative, justice was served. Right then. Vigilante action at it's finest!

edited to ask why the silly choices in the poll? It looks like you aren't really seriously looking for answers.

[uppityperson]

19. And was let walk away by the kid's parents.

Personally I'd rather have the cops called and him arrested and taken off the streets than simply beaten and let go.

[Obamanaut]

26. He would be back on the streets in a very short time. With a beating instead

of a free ride to the police station, he may be 'rehabilitated.' Wouldn't you rather see immediate rehab through an ass-whipping rather than all the other red tape, after which he would still be on the street, but without said ass-whipping.

What would be a charge, absent touching the kid? Talking? Trying to lure? Being in an alley? Talking trash to the parent? What, exactly?

As luck would have it, the mom did not ask what YOU would rather have done - she punched him.

[uppityperson]

30. No, he wouldn't. Not if arrested, like he wa,s with a felony, up to 5 yrs in prison

I'd rather see him locked up, which he will be. Is he still on the street? No.
You asked what the charges? Here...

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110811/NEWS/108110301/-1/LIFE04/Police-Man-sought-lure-Des-Moines-girl-into-alley

Harding, who has a criminal history including convictions for felony drug charges, weapons possession and domestic abuse, was charged with enticing away a minor under 16, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, and a parole violation. He was being held late Wednesday at the Polk County Jail on $15,000 bond.

[Obamanaut]

41. We, you and I, have the benefit of the internet at our fingertips. You asked in the poll,

is vigilantizm ever justified. Now, rather than go back and forth any further, consider this: the mom in the story did not have at her fingertips the internet mentioned in the subject line. She did not know of any arrest record he may have had. What she did have was a daughter, and a creep. She punched the creep. It was justified.

There are people who would rather cower down and soil themselves, and wait for the police - which according to multiple posters here are rarely forthcoming - but this lady punched the dude. She took it upon herself to mete out instant punishment.

You don't like it perhaps. You would do it differently perhaps. I think she did a good thing. Now even her daughter knows her parents will fight for her safety. That's gotta be worth something.

You have managed to string this out waaay past the simple yes/no to is vigilantism ever justified.

So in closing, I'll vote a combination of yes/other, the other being pffft.

[uppityperson]

42. And she let the creep go. I'd rather have him locked up. Now her kid knows it's ok to hit people

who piss you off and that you can be outrageous, risking only a beating, not jail time. Cool.

I voted "If people should be able to do whatever they want, why should there be any laws, what gives you the right to stop anyone?", but "Get yourself safe place, call the cops, let them sort it out" and "It is ok to defend yourself and family against immediate threat, minimum force, but not more than that also work."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. You need to define the question much more precisely

For example, some consider Castle Defense/Stand Your Ground vigilantism, other do not.

[white_wolf]

13. No. It is too dangerous. Once you take the law into your own hands

what is to stop someone else from doing the same? It is too risky and dangerous. As I said when someone else asked this question: Vigilantism has only one place and that place is called Gotham City.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. One of items I think is worthy of discussion is where that line is crossed

Where does self defense/defense of family become vigilantism? The minimum force rule is impractical and often capricious in its application.

[white_wolf]

28. If someone breaks into your house or attacks your family you have a right to fight back.

However, if breaks into house and you decided to hunt them down and attack them, then you've crossed the line. Once the immediate threat to your family has passed any further action is vigilantism.

[uppityperson]

32. exactly. thank you.

I'm getting off Du again for a while. Don't need to stresses of this fine and wide group of people. Time to focus on more positive stuff. maybe check news here but time to walk away from this. Thanks for what you write.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. Under castle doctrine, which some variant is law in most states you can

shoot an intruder even if there is no evidence of them having a weapon. Some consider that a capital penalty for a property crime, the resident being judge/jury/executioner, or a gross violation of what self defense should be in a civilized nation. Thus my comment about it being gray for some.

Several strident anti castle doctrine posters here on DU

[TK421]

21. I voted for option#3...but who is Bonson? Did he have a burner named after him?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. That was Bunsen

[uppityperson]

29. damn my sdylixa, Bronson, Charles Bronson

[Lyric]

23. As a rule, it is better to let the law handle such things.

However, there is no such thing as a rule that doesn't have an occasional exception.

As for me, if that had been MY child, I'd have done exactly the same thing (except I'd have called the cops on him first, so he couldn't walk away) and accepted whatever legal consequences came of it as the price I paid for the privilege of punishing him with my own two hands.

It's kind of like civil disobedience. The point of CD is not to break the law and get away with it. The point is that sometimes the punishment you get for breaking the law is WORTH IT.

[Balbus]

27. Other: it is when I'm the vigilante

[TK421]

31. only when the law is wrong n/t

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[GreenStormCloud]

34. That depends.

If, in a society, civil order has broken down to the point that there is no functioning government and anarchy rules, then vigilance committees can be a first step in resorting order and lead to a functioning government.

Since America has a functioning government with a criminal justice system then there is no excuse for vigilantism.

Self-defense is NOT vigilantism

[Condor30303]

36. Heck of a strawman....

You ask an ill defined question, and set the questions up to frame a response you want.

I did not poll, but my answer is you should be able to defend your self, home, and family from threats. In fact given a bad enough situation you should band together with your neighbors to defend your community.

This does not say that you should be able to create the threat, nor do I defend just anyone perception of a threat, but then again you framed the question in a way to control the response.

I can give all sorts of examples of people pulling together to defend themselves that would be acceptable to DU, for instance the Warsaw uprising. Then again if I want to play your game I can also give lots of example of repugnant vigilantism.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

37. If you come into my house with out my permission with the aim to hurt me or mine....

...I will not hesitate to shoot you. And I will not feel bad about it. I wouldn't give it a second thought.
Duckie

[TK421]

43. you are a HUMAN HATER!!@!@$&*@T(TR

You are an EVIL PERSON!!@222 GARGOYLE!! SLYKNICK#@!

[Lunabelle]

46. I hate humans as much as you do, I guess

I will kill you if you break in to my sanctuary.

[flvegan]

48. Hey there.

Good to see you around. Regardless of the folks responding, what you stated isn't vigilante...whatever. It's just a response. Legal in most cases. Defensable in court in 99% of situations.

But then, I bet, I just bet, you knew that. LOL!

[YellowRubberDuckie]

55. I DO live in a MAKE MY DAY LAW state, you know...

As do you, I believe. =)
Thanks for the nod, flvegan. I have always loved your little peapickin' heart. You're the least douchey vegan I have ever met. LOL :hug:
One more thing: If I were to get a hold of someone who raped or molested one of my loved ones or me, they probably would die. If Skip did, it would be a definitive thing.
Duckie

[saras]

39. Vigilantism is NOT AT ALL the same thing as defending yourself

Personally I think vigilantism is only justified when the authorities themselves are corrupt, and only against the corrupt authorities and their representatives.

If justice has failed so completely that there are no functional authorities, then your time would be better used forming a government and police that run by agreed-on rules than by letting the aggrieved decide what crimes call for what penalties.

But yes, I think vigilantism would have been perfectly justified in the case of, say, Enron, or the current banking fiasco. But not just because you don't like someone and suspect they might commit a crime in the future.

[TK421]

44. .........................

but it worked in Death Wish! :shrug:

[Lunabelle]

45. Maybe

Call me a horrible person, but I wouldn't cry if someone "vigilantied" Casey Anthony.

[white_wolf]

47. I wouldn't cry either, but I'd certanly expect that person to be arrested

tried, and if found guilty sent to prison. We have a court system for a reason and those who disregard need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Vigilantism is a dangerous crime since it promotes making each man a law unto himself and risks breaching the social contract.

[Lunabelle]

52. true that

[Lucian]

49. Sometimes, yes.

The world isn't black and white, everybody. Sometimes it's justified.

[Fascist_America]

50. Demends on the situation

Sometimes it is the only logical choice left to people.

[Little Star]

51. Other...

From Wikipedia:

Ken Rex McElroy (June 1, 1934 – July 10, 1981) was a resident of Nodaway County, Missouri, near the town of Skidmore. Known as "the town bully",<1> his unsolved (as of 2011) murder became the focus of international attention. Over the course of his life McElroy was accused of dozens of felonies, including pedophilia, rape, arson, hog and cattle rustling, and burglary.<2>

In all, he was indicted 21 times, but escaped conviction each time, except for the last.<2><3> In 1981, McElroy was convicted of shooting and seriously injuring the town's 70-year-old grocer, Ernest "Bo" Bowenkamp, the previous year.<1> But McElroy successfully appealed the conviction and was released on bond, after which he engaged in an ongoing harassment campaign against Bowenkamp, the town Church of Christ minister, and other individuals who were sympathetic to Bowenkamp. He appeared in a local bar, the D&G Tavern, armed with a semi-automatic military rifle and bayonet, and later threatened to kill Bowenkamp.<1><4> The next day, McElroy was shot to death in broad daylight while he sat with his wife, Trena, in his pickup truck on Skidmore's main street.<2> Evidence indicated that he was struck by bullets from at least two weapons, in front of a crowd of people estimated to be between 30 and 46.<1> To date, no one has been charged in connection with McElroy's death.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy


Though it is rare sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do!

[ThomWV]

54. Where is the simple choice to answer "Yes"

When the people we authorize to enforce the laws we insisted be in place will not then it is the duty of the citizen to uphold the law. So, yes, at times vigilantism is justified.