Vigilante justice

[jefferiah]

Believe me Black Dog. This is not the Salem witch trials. In Grand Manan the people know who is dealing. They are not that stupid. They wont go burn down a house if they heard a rumour.

That's the difference between us: I always assume people are stupid and go from there. Burning down a house and pelting the firefighters with rocks are not hallmarks of a Mensa meeting.

I see crack dealing and use everyday in front of my business. I also see all the crime associated with the business. I have given up calling the police, I got tired of them not coming, and hearing the dispatcher ask "What do you want us to do, move them to another neighbourhood?" The police have told me on several occasions, that even if they bust dealers, they are usually back on the street before they finish their paperwork. So they have simply decided to put their efforts elsewhere.

We're not talking about street dealers, though: we're talking about a "crack house" in a very small community.

This is only one story. But it happens over and over again. These guys get busted multiple times. Its nothing. They make lots of money. A little slap on the wrist now and again. Society is practically saying....here this is better than a legitimate business.

Great. And how do your personal anecdotes transfer over to the incident in Grand Manan?

The people in Grand Manan are not as dumb as you look.

[Black Dog]

You're really not helping your cause, dude.

[cybercoma]

I see both your points. Grand Manan isn't a huge place, everyone knows everybody else's business, so it may have been obvious what was going on; however, if this 'crack house' was as obvious as they say, then the police should've had no problem convicting these people. Vigilante justice cannot go unpunished because it sends a signal that trials are unneccessary and we instantly strip away the right to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. No proof is needed, just suspicion on the part of the community.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

No, actually it is quite the opposite: your participation in the Guardian Angels is proving my point. Keep it up. One step at a time.

You are taking one step away from the state and one step towards anarchy.

Not exactly, for we are the exceptions...out of Calgary's population of one million, there are now 6 people in training. Further, we all firmly believe in 'state law', and that it needs to be upheld. It is just that I feel that the police are stretched too thin to be able to be everywhere, and the courts aren't helping matters with a revolving door policy.

Without 'state law', the Guardian Angels, or any other group, would be de facto 'vigilantes', (and anarchists!) for there would only be their own laws to uphold, at their discretion (like a private police force). Beating someone with a sack of doorknobs for poor grammatical skills, like ending a sentence with a preposition or using a double negative could then be commonplace. The only way to stop them would be with a bigger, or more overwhelming force. They would also become the de facto 'dispensers of rights' in the land.

[cybercoma]

Dear Charles Anthony,

No, actually it is quite the opposite: your participation in the Guardian Angels is proving my point. Keep it up. One step at a time.

You are taking one step away from the state and one step towards anarchy.

Not exactly, for we are the exceptions...out of Calgary's population of one million, there are now 6 people in training. Further, we all firmly believe in 'state law', and that it needs to be upheld. It is just that I feel that the police are stretched too thin to be able to be everywhere, and the courts aren't helping matters with a revolving door policy.

Without 'state law', the Guardian Angels, or any other group, would be de facto 'vigilantes', (and anarchists!) for there would only be their own laws to uphold, at their discretion (like a private police force). Beating someone with a sack of doorknobs for poor grammatical skills, like ending a sentence with a preposition or using a double negative could then be commonplace. The only way to stop them would be with a bigger, or more overwhelming force. They would also become the de facto 'dispensers of rights' in the land.

These 'dispensers of rights' could then form political parties and battle each other in the streets for power and Canadian society could then be the adopted child of Middle East-style politics.

[Charles Anthony]

No they didnt know.

Your parents did not know you smoked pot. Fine.

I understand that parents can not know everything all of the time. However, a parent is responsible for raising their children. I know people who would not even DREAM of smoking pot because of one reason: their parents would kill them.

It makes no sense to think all parents instill the same standards of acceptable behavior for children. Some children try risky behavior during their childhood (a time in which they are not fully responsible for their consequences) than do other children as a direct result of how their parents raised them.

Alot of the kids with great parents do drugs. Alot of kids with terrible parents end up being very responsible because they dont want to be like them.

I believe all parents bare some responsibility for their children's outlook.

And it never occured to me until recently how ridiculous it was that these dealers we knew were in and out all the time.

Now I will make a leap: if ever your children do drugs, I will bet that you will be able to detect it before it is too late.

Grand Manan isn't a huge place, everyone knows everybody else's business, so it may have been obvious what was going on; however, if this 'crack house' was as obvious as they say, then the police should've had no problem convicting these people.

I also wonder how it is that the parents did not know their children were doing crack.

If their children broke a window, how would the deal with that???

I think part of the problem with parents dealing with their children doing drugs is precisely an internal family matter. It requires the parents accepting (or refusing) responsibility for their children. It is easier to attack the drug dealer.

Not exactly, for we are the exceptions...out of Calgary's population of one million, there are now 6 people in training.

Next year, I will trolling for an article in the paper that says "once Calgary started with only 6 people but now the numbers have grown to..."

Keep going, keep going.

Further, we all firmly believe in 'state law', and that it needs to be upheld.

That point is moot. You do not need to believe in state law.

It is just that I feel that the police are stretched too thin to be able to be everywhere, and the courts aren't helping matters with a revolving door policy.

Closer, closer.

Without 'state law', the Guardian Angels, or any other group, would be de facto 'vigilantes', (and anarchists!) for there would only be their own laws to uphold, at their discretion (like a private police force).

I will not stop you.

Beating someone with a sack of doorknobs for poor grammatical skills, like ending a sentence with a preposition

Ouch!!!

Kudos. Good shot.

The only way to stop them would be with a bigger, or more overwhelming force.

I agree.

These 'dispensers of rights' could then form political parties and battle each other in the streets for power and Canadian society could then be the adopted child of Middle East-style politics.

The pen is more powerful than the sword.

[jefferiah]

I see both your points. Grand Manan isn't a huge place, everyone knows everybody else's business, so it may have been obvious what was going on; however, if this 'crack house' was as obvious as they say, then the police should've had no problem convicting these people. Vigilante justice cannot go unpunished because it sends a signal that trials are unneccessary and we instantly strip away the right to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. No proof is needed, just suspicion on the part of the community.

I am not supporting what these people did. But I think is a symptom of this problem I am talking about. You hit the nail on the head with this statement " should've had no problem convicting these people". This is what I am referring to that is so ridiculous. I am not saying the cops are bad either. But if you remember my afore-mentioned examples you will see there is something wrong with the penal system when dealers get away with it.

[blueblood]

I see both your points. Grand Manan isn't a huge place, everyone knows everybody else's business, so it may have been obvious what was going on; however, if this 'crack house' was as obvious as they say, then the police should've had no problem convicting these people. Vigilante justice cannot go unpunished because it sends a signal that trials are unneccessary and we instantly strip away the right to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. No proof is needed, just suspicion on the part of the community.

The cops had a problem, it's called due process which means all sorts of loopholes and hoops, and it takes the teeth out of the police force. There was much more than suspicion on the part of the community, also cops also arrest people on suspision, and it's up to the cops to prove their decision on suspicion in court, thats what they are there for. This is not the Salem witch trials here, the townspeople made a decision to go through with this based on their situation and it resulted in a crack house disappearing, BRAVO!!!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

The pen is more powerful than the sword.

Very well, meet me behind the school at 3:00 pm, you bring the pen and I'll bring the sword.

That point is moot. You do not need to believe in state law.

Ahhh, but I do believe in it, or at least in it's neccesity, so are my actions not more in line with 'voluntary communism' than 'voluntary cooperative anarchy'?

I believe all parents bare some responsibility for their children's outlook

I believe that this should read 'bear some responsibility'...note to self, pencil in-Charles Anthony, one heavy sack beating

[Electric Monk]

There is a danger...

Villager: (very slowly, with pauses between each word)

If...she...weighs the same as a duck......she's made of wood.

Bedevere: and therefore...

(pause)

Villager: A Witch!

All Villagers: A WITCH!

[cybercoma]

I see both your points. Grand Manan isn't a huge place, everyone knows everybody else's business, so it may have been obvious what was going on; however, if this 'crack house' was as obvious as they say, then the police should've had no problem convicting these people. Vigilante justice cannot go unpunished because it sends a signal that trials are unneccessary and we instantly strip away the right to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. No proof is needed, just suspicion on the part of the community.

The cops had a problem, it's called due process which means all sorts of loopholes and hoops, and it takes the teeth out of the police force. There was much more than suspicion on the part of the community, also cops also arrest people on suspision, and it's up to the cops to prove their decision on suspicion in court, thats what they are there for. This is not the Salem witch trials here, the townspeople made a decision to go through with this based on their situation and it resulted in a crack house disappearing, BRAVO!!!

So, if you were arrested and for one reason or another got off because the cops didn't follow due process (pick any example: searched without a warrant, didn't allow access to a lawyer, was not informed of being under arrest, etc..), do you feel it's ok for your neighbours to come and burn your house down?

[Charles Anthony]

It is not OK to skip due process.

Very well, meet me behind the school at 3:00 pm, you bring the pen and I'll bring the sword.

My pen will win.

That point is moot. You do not need to believe in state law.

Ahhh, but I do believe in it, or at least in it's neccesity, so are my actions not more in line with 'voluntary communism' than 'voluntary cooperative anarchy'?

Call them what you want. This question reminds me of a seemingly well-intentioned but poorly designed Libertarian Purity Test by Bryan Caplan. It asks a series of political questions each with different weights. The last question is stupid:

Would you call yourself an "anarcho-capitalist?"

Yes / No

What you call your actions or yourself is irrelevent.

You could believe that you were making the world a better place

You could also believe that you had no choice.

You could also be struck with illuminating wisdom and realize that the you were supplying in a previously monopolized market.

You might also believe that you were acting in your own self interest.

Fear not, your membership card will still be waiting.

I believe all parents bare some responsibility for their children's outlook

I believe that this should read 'bear some responsibility'...note to self, pencil in-Charles Anthony, one heavy sack beating

Yes, sir. I will write it out 100 times so that I do not forget. If I have it ready for next class, can I avoid the beating?

You hit the nail on the head with this statement " should've had no problem convicting these people". This is what I am referring to that is so ridiculous. I am not saying the cops are bad either.

I would consider the possibility that he was not guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I would rather he be left alone than to convict him without proof or due process.

But if you remember my afore-mentioned examples you will see there is something wrong with the penal system when dealers get away with it.

Maybe this is a wake-up call to parents: they should watch their kids more carefully.

All Villagers: A WITCH!

You make a good point.

From our distant vantage point, it is not fair to automatically assume that this alleged crack-dealer was truly a crack-dealer.

I find it very difficult to accept these two views:

1) everybody in Grand Manan knows everything that is going on

2) parents can not possibly know everything their kids are doing

I believe that the parents were also battling internally with the fact that their children chose drugs -- they just took it out on the dealer.

[blueblood]

I see both your points. Grand Manan isn't a huge place, everyone knows everybody else's business, so it may have been obvious what was going on; however, if this 'crack house' was as obvious as they say, then the police should've had no problem convicting these people. Vigilante justice cannot go unpunished because it sends a signal that trials are unneccessary and we instantly strip away the right to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. No proof is needed, just suspicion on the part of the community.

The cops had a problem, it's called due process which means all sorts of loopholes and hoops, and it takes the teeth out of the police force. There was much more than suspicion on the part of the community, also cops also arrest people on suspision, and it's up to the cops to prove their decision on suspicion in court, thats what they are there for. This is not the Salem witch trials here, the townspeople made a decision to go through with this based on their situation and it resulted in a crack house disappearing, BRAVO!!!

So, if you were arrested and for one reason or another got off because the cops didn't follow due process (pick any example: searched without a warrant, didn't allow access to a lawyer, was not informed of being under arrest, etc..), do you feel it's ok for your neighbours to come and burn your house down?

Oh boy, the old how would you like it if you were a criminal routine, the lefty trump card... I am not a criminal so it's a pretty messed up question. of course I don't WANT my house burned down, nobody does that's why I obey the law and don't grow crack in it. If in your hypothetical situation that did happen, I am always not going to WANT my house burned down but if the neighbours are that pissed about it and burned it down I'm shit out of luck. that's their perogative, and that's why I follow the law and don't piss off the neighbours so bad stuff doesn't happen to me. It's with that attitude that our prison system is a JOKE, and you can bet your ass if I was homeless I'd be committing some crimes, a free gym and TV and a warm place to stay with regular meals sure beats living on the streets.

[cybercoma]

Oh boy, the old how would you like it if you were a criminal routine, the lefty trump card... I am not a criminal so it's a pretty messed up question. of course I don't WANT my house burned down, nobody does that's why I obey the law and don't grow crack in it. If in your hypothetical situation that did happen, I am always not going to WANT my house burned down but if the neighbours are that pissed about it and burned it down I'm shit out of luck. that's their perogative, and that's why I follow the law and don't piss off the neighbours so bad stuff doesn't happen to me. It's with that attitude that our prison system is a JOKE, and you can bet your ass if I was homeless I'd be committing some crimes, a free gym and TV and a warm place to stay with regular meals sure beats living on the streets.

So the pre-requisite to having your house burned down is having pissed off neighbours. Or do the neighbours have to be pissed off about you breaking the law?

If they have to be pissed about you breaking the law, then is it not necessary to have it proven that you're breaking the law? We have something setup for this, it's called the courts.

There's no reason to allow vigilantes.

[geoffrey]

This question reminds me of a seemingly well-intentioned but poorly designed Libertarian Purity Test by Bryan Caplan.

59...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

QUOTE(theloniusfleabag @ Dec 6 2006, 08:30 PM)

Very well, meet me behind the school at 3:00 pm, you bring the pen and I'll bring the sword.

My pen will win.

When? I'll even grant you some extra time, (in reverse, to a time before the 'pen') back to the chiseled cuniform of the Sumerians. In this time... the pen has denounced the sword, and the pen has glorified the sword. The pen has declared the sword illegal, and other times the pen has announced the sword's intentions.

Never, though, has the sword become considered 'passe' because of the pen.

Kind of reminds me of a cartoon I once saw, "Red Meat" by Max Cannon. Crazy Earl was reminiscing about childhood. He said something like "I remember when I was a kid, we used to pretend to be knights, with a garbage can lid for a shield, and a plunger for a sword." Then he said, "Man, you gotta work pretty hard to kill a kid with a plunger."

[Charles Anthony]

If in your hypothetical situation that did happen, I am always not going to WANT my house burned down but if the neighbours are that pissed about it and burned it down I'm shit out of luck. that's their perogative,

No. That is NOT their perogative. That is reckless.

So the pre-requisite to having your house burned down is having pissed off neighbours. Or do the neighbours have to be pissed off about you breaking the law?

Both forms of instances of retaliation are outrageous.

There's no reason to allow vigilantes.

Agreed.

poorly designed Libertarian Purity Test by Bryan Caplan.

59...

Anybody who answered "No" to even one of the first 63 questions is NOT a libertarian. Freedom is all or nothing.

My pen will win.

When?

En garde.

I'll even grant you some extra time, (in reverse, to a time before the 'pen')

It has already begun.

Never, though, has the sword become considered 'passe' because of the pen.

I may fall but my pen will be caught by an other. Therein lies the supremacy of the pen. Furthermore, the thirst for freedom can not be quenched.

"Man, you gotta work pretty hard to kill a kid with a plunger."

In which case I would rather call the Red Berets to my rescue!

[blueblood]

Oh boy, the old how would you like it if you were a criminal routine, the lefty trump card... I am not a criminal so it's a pretty messed up question. of course I don't WANT my house burned down, nobody does that's why I obey the law and don't grow crack in it. If in your hypothetical situation that did happen, I am always not going to WANT my house burned down but if the neighbours are that pissed about it and burned it down I'm shit out of luck. that's their perogative, and that's why I follow the law and don't piss off the neighbours so bad stuff doesn't happen to me. It's with that attitude that our prison system is a JOKE, and you can bet your ass if I was homeless I'd be committing some crimes, a free gym and TV and a warm place to stay with regular meals sure beats living on the streets.

So the pre-requisite to having your house burned down is having pissed off neighbours. Or do the neighbours have to be pissed off about you breaking the law?

If they have to be pissed about you breaking the law, then is it not necessary to have it proven that you're breaking the law? We have something setup for this, it's called the courts.

There's no reason to allow vigilantes.

If we're relating me to what happened in Grand Manan, it was set in stone that the law was broken and the cops had their hands tied, on comes the mob. Why are you so scared about justice being served? It's not like the townspeople do this on a regular basis, the law wasn't going to solve the problem, they did and crack dealers got what was coming to them. If this is what it takes to shut down crack houses, townspeople taking and administering justice swiftly, fairly, and harshly then I welcome it. What makes an appointed judges opinion and judgement matter more than townspeople? I consider both their minds equal. I wonder if the cops are still investigating the guys for being crack dealers...

[cybercoma]

Swiftly and harshly maybe, but you provide NO evidence that it was done fairly. 'Mob mentality' is NOT equivalent to a fair trial. I bet all of these emotionally charged citizens sat down and sorted through all the evidence before deciding to pass judgement on whomever owned this property. Vigilantes aren't allowed for a reason and if you can't wrap your mind around why we would have laws against this sort of this sort of thing, then nothing I say will change it for you.

[guyser]

.

If we're relating me to what happened in Grand Manan, it was set in stone that the law was broken and the cops had their hands tied, on comes the mob. Why are you so scared about justice being served? It's not like the townspeople do this on a regular basis, the law wasn't going to solve the problem, they did and crack dealers got what was coming to them. If this is what it takes to shut down crack houses, townspeople taking and administering justice swiftly, fairly, and harshly then I welcome it. What makes an appointed judges opinion and judgement matter more than townspeople? I consider both their minds equal. I wonder if the cops are still investigating the guys for being crack dealers...

No one is worried about justice served. Just who may be doing it , and why. That is why it is best kept for the local police.

What if those same townspeople decided in some religious vigor that my house was deemed a "bad place" . Trust me, I know some parents that would feel that way . Should they be allowed to burn it down?

These people, and IF they are crack dealing scum, deserve to be processed as we all should. Vigilante mob be damned, they are not Judge Jury and Executioner .

An appointed judge's opinion does matter more than townspeople as he was sworn to uphold the law. He has been appointed due to his obvious understanding of law, the rules and the sentnces.

Yes the townspeople and the judges have equal minds, just that one is more equal than the other.

[blueblood]

No one is worried about justice served. Just who may be doing it , and why. That is why it is best kept for the local police.

This mob actually handed out fair justice in this case, they handled it correctly and efficiently. Sometimes when the local police fail to provide protection we must protect ourselves, nothing wrong with being self reliant. Don't get me wrong, if a mob burns down a guys house cause he's a minority then the mob should go to jail for sure.

What if those same townspeople decided in some religious vigor that my house was deemed a "bad place" . Trust me, I know some parents that would feel that way . Should they be allowed to burn it down?

This wasn't decided in religious vigor, that town probably had very little to no crime before those crack dealers became a scourge on their community, are you a scourge on your community, im thinking not. If you are I feel sorry for you and the mob can burn if it wants to.

An appointed judge's opinion does matter more than townspeople as he was sworn to uphold the law. He has been appointed due to his obvious understanding of law, the rules and the sentnces.

Yes the townspeople and the judges have equal minds, just that one is more equal than the other.

Just because he swore to uphold the law doesn't mean squat. The townspeople knew that running a crack house and dealing drugs was wrong, why do we need a judge to determine that. Im sorry my respect for judges opinions went out the window when the judge from Kwebeck let the pedophile/child porn guy off with a slap on the wrist saying it was "too harsh" had he lived in a small town, he might not have engaged in that in the first place and if he was caught by the townspeople then who knows... That everyone is equal but some are more equal than others liberal BS just doesn't fly.

Swiftly and harshly maybe, but you provide NO evidence that it was done fairly. 'Mob mentality' is NOT equivalent to a fair trial. I bet all of these emotionally charged citizens sat down and sorted through all the evidence before deciding to pass judgement on whomever owned this property. Vigilantes aren't allowed for a reason and if you can't wrap your mind around why we would have laws against this sort of this sort of thing, then nothing I say will change it for you.

This was done fairly, there was a town meeting on it, there would have been talk in the coffee shop and other local hangouts forever. this wasn't done on a whim I can assure you of that. I'm sorry that you can't accept that people can take care of themselves. Let me put it for you this way, a guy in my town deals drugs to little kids, the cops can't find hard evidence, some tough guys knock his ass out and scare the bejesus out of him -> problem solved. I like living in a place where I don't have to lock my house, don't have to lock my truck, i can even leave my truck idle on the main drag anytime of the day, I like the feeling of safety, and it's because we take care of each other and solve our own problems that I get that luxury, you city boys should try it sometime.

[cybercoma]

Oh, there was a town meeting. That makes it better.

Thank God they burned those witches in Salem too.

[jbg]

Oh, there was a town meeting. That makes it better.

Thank God they burned those witches in Salem too.

But if the "authorities" are too stretched to do anything, what to do?

[jdobbin]

But if the "authorities" are too stretched to do anything, what to do?

Burn the witches!

[jefferiah]

Oh cmon this isnt the witch trials and you know it. These people never raided anything before. Dealers in places like this are notorious. Charles Anthony was wondering how people could know the dealers without knowing their kids were using drugs. First of all we don't know how many kids were using drugs. Obviously they found out that some kids were using though, but before that there was somebody dealing it to them. Another thing he refuses to take into account is that the seller is more notorious than the buyer. The seller is involved in every transaction that takes place. Do you remember the names of every customer at Wal Mart and yet forget the name of the store? Anyways you are right that they did wrong and that the law has to punish them for this. But this is a case where I think you have to understand that they broke the law with reason. They didnt burn a suspected witch. They closed down shop for a known drug dealer. What they call "alleged" in the papers is "known" to the people who live there. If you live in the neighbourhood you know who the Godfather is.