Vigilante justice

[cybercoma]

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.

And when I was 6 years old, I just 'knew' there was a witch living in the dark house at the end of the street.

[Charles Anthony]

Charles Anthony was wondering how people could know the dealers without knowing their kids were using drugs.

I am still wondering. You still have not given an explanation.

First of all we don't know how many kids were using drugs.

That is the fault of the adults.

Obviously they found out that some kids were using though, but before that there was somebody dealing it to them.

At this point, the parents should teach their children to refuse drugs or send their children to rehab.

Another thing he refuses to take into account is that the seller is more notorious than the buyer.

That does not remove the responsibility of the parents.

But this is a case where I think you have to understand that they broke the law with reason.

The reason: poor parenting.

Since they can not control their children or their own parenting skills, they attack the alleged drug dealer.

They didnt burn a suspected witch.

Yes, they did.

They closed down shop for a known drug dealer.

No, they were violent. They should have taught their children to say NO to drugs or send their children to rehab.

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.

Everybody knows everything but nobody knows their own children.

See, here is the problem:

What are these all-knowing parents and neighborhood vigilantes going to do when their kids go drinking in the woods? Whose house are they going to burn?

Never thought of that, did you???

What kind of adults will these children become???

[Argus]

It is not OK to skip due process.

The problem is that the term "due process" has evolved into such a long, bastardized and confused set of requirements and loopholes that it is no longer getting the job done. The lawyers have turned it into a game, where the Crown should be penalized whenever one of their "players" cross the line of scrimmage before the referees have blown the whistle.

Defending Lawyer: "Why yes, I realize that they have my client dead set to rights and that he murdred eight thousand people, but look, look, they failed to properly fill out form Nineteen-stroke-four section nine, subsection 4D in specifying the type of socks each officer would be wearing!"

Referee (Judge) You're quite right. Case dismissed.

[jefferiah]

Charles Anthony was wondering how people could know the dealers without knowing their kids were using drugs.

I am still wondering. You still have not given an explanation.

First of all we don't know how many kids were using drugs.

That is the fault of the adults.

Obviously they found out that some kids were using though, but before that there was somebody dealing it to them.

At this point, the parents should teach their children to refuse drugs or send their children to rehab.

Another thing he refuses to take into account is that the seller is more notorious than the buyer.

That does not remove the responsibility of the parents.

But this is a case where I think you have to understand that they broke the law with reason.

The reason: poor parenting.

Since they can not control their children or their own parenting skills, they attack the alleged drug dealer.

They didnt burn a suspected witch.

Yes, they did.

They closed down shop for a known drug dealer.

No, they were violent. They should have taught their children to say NO to drugs or send their children to rehab.

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.

Everybody knows everything but nobody knows their own children.

See, here is the problem:

What are these all-knowing parents and neighborhood vigilantes going to do when their kids go drinking in the woods? Whose house are they going to burn?

Never thought of that, did you???

What kind of adults will these children become???

My word, Charles. That's not a serious question is it? Do you think they would burn down a house if a kid was drinking? You know the difference. They have a crack dealer in town and no one was getting rid of him. Sure Charles, I agree teach your kids not to do drugs. But does that excuse crack dealers. Cybercoma, you know that comparison to "knowing" (thinking) someone was a witch is unreasonable too. A witch is not a business woman. You can hide drug use, or being a witch (which is not a crime now anyway). But being a dealer is much much harder to hide. In a small community with 1000-5000 people if this guy has 20 customers, everyone either knows those guys or knows someone who knows them.

[Charles Anthony]

My word, Charles. That's not a serious question is it?

I know it is hard to address the most serious issues. For example: These know-it-all parents should teach their kids to say NO to drugs and alcohol or send their kids to rehab.

Here is an other serious question: why do you quote so much of a previous quote unnecessarily?

[Remiel]

If there is a difference between this and the Salem Witch Trials, I think it is that during the Witch Trials it was the authorities doing the burning, not the vigilantes, wasn't it?

[Argus]

If there is a difference between this and the Salem Witch Trials, I think it is that during the Witch Trials it was the authorities doing the burning, not the vigilantes, wasn't it?

Well, and the fact there were no witches.

Do please make the case there are no drug dealers, and the whole notion was just mass hysteria on the part of the citizenry.

[Remiel]

I'm not really trying to argue for or against in this, Argus, just trying to point out the comparing vigilantism to the Salem Witch Trials might be ignoring that the Salem Witch Trials weren't about vigilantism, they were about self-righteous, brain-washed religious lynch mobs. The priests/ministers were the " authority " that commanded the witches to be burned/drowned. In the eyes of the people the religious leaders were essentially passing down the law. There weren't any " God police " to prosecute the " law " for them.

[Charles Anthony]

the Salem Witch Trials weren't about vigilantism, they were about self-righteous, brain-washed religious lynch mobs. The priests/ministers were the " authority " that commanded the witches to be burned/drowned. In the eyes of the people the religious leaders were essentially passing down the law.

Excellent example.

It makes not sense to generalize by promoting The Law or anything derived from "society" or some other abstraction.

extracted from

The Feminizing of Western Civilization thread.

I enjoy this topic and I am putting this here:

First and foremost is that we have the absolute right to defend ourselves. If a armed man comes into my home im not going to wait for the police to get there its either me or him. (him) I would kill anyone who came into my home shooting.

I absolutely agree we do have the right to defend ourselves, when attacked directly, if possible that is.

I absolutely disagree with vigilante justice. We should phone 911, rather than try to solve the problem alone.

I do not interpret the above as a promotion of vigilante justice. They are promoting self-defense. They are not the same.

Is self-defense immoral?

Several thousand years ago, individuals defended themselves as they could. Nowadays, we don't. We organize ourselves and hire police or armies to defend ourselves.

Wrong. Nowadays, people defend themselves all of the time. Police and armies can not defend everybody.

I don't agree with this "citizen justice" argument. That's fine for citizens who are strong but what about short, thin citizens or citizens in wheel chairs? A civilized society creates institutions to protect itself and peacefully resolve disputes. Individuals did not defeat Hitler; we did it together.

Again, it is not justice. It is self-defense.

What benefit does an individual have to abstain from self-defense?

A society where everyone has a gun is no society at all. Individual gun ownership is no guarantee of democracy; it's just a guarantee of wasteful competition.

A guarantee? Ridiculous.

A society where everyone has the RIGHT to own a gun is not a guarantee that everyone WILL carry a gun. Everyone is not going to have a gun delivered to them.

Should individuals have the right to have RPGs or Tactical Nuclear Weapons? How far should we go in allowing individual firepower?

Mu.

Individuals should have the right to acquire all of the rocket-propelled grenades and tactical nuclear weapons they can afford. Big deal! Fearing individuals will get their hands on maximum firepower is nonsense and is as valid as fearing an international banking world takeover. The cost and logistics of buying or manufacturing or maintaining both rocket-propelled grenades and tactical nuclear weapons are exorbitant. It is no wonder that Statesmen are the only ones who deal in such markets.

Who would sell weapons-grade plutonium or uranium to an individual?? Me? You?

I would expect that the suppliers in such markets are highly selective.

First and foremost is that we have the absolute right to defend ourselves. If a armed man comes into my home im not going to wait for the police to get there its either me or him. (him) I would kill anyone who came into my home shooting.

Moderate American, what gives you the right to be police, judge, jury and executioner.

-- the right to self-defense.

A civilized society does not give any single person the right to impose justice.

Members of a moral society do not balk at the right to self-defense.

The association between self-defense and justice is the same as the association between walking on the ground and crushing micro-organisms underfoot.

But as I say above, we defeated Hitler by organizing ourselves. If we use your logic that individuals should fight criminals, Hitler would have won. It takes concerted effort to defeat bad people. And that's why IMV, phoning 911 is a good thing.

That is not the logic.

[White Doors]

Charles

Could not the vigialntes argue self defence?

The drug dealers were exposing their children to harm....

Also, police INVESTIGATE crime. They do not have a mandate to prevent crime.

[Charles Anthony]

Could not the vigialntes argue self defence?

The drug dealers were exposing their children to harm....

Actually, they did argue that and a jury of their peers found them guilty of weapons offenses. Personally, I believe their argument of self-defense breaks down primarily because the children wilfully bought and took drugs while living under their parents' roof. Violence against the alleged drug-dealer was not necessary.

Also, police INVESTIGATE crime. They do not have a mandate to prevent crime.

Agreed. In our current State of affairs, somebody else has to do that.

[guyser]

They do not have a mandate to prevent crime.

Agreed. In our current State of affairs, somebody else has to do that.

How then does "attempted _______" fit in to the no mandate mentioned ?

(IE could be murder) The crime is not commited but planned.

[Charles Anthony]

How then does "attempted _______" fit in to the no mandate mentioned ?

In the grand scheme of things, I would say it fits in like a drop in a bucket.

It is certainly not a rational reason to expect people to abstain from defending themselves.

(IE could be murder) The crime is not commited but planned.

I wonder what the victims of successfully-attempted and failed-prevented murders think about that. Hmmm?

[jbg]

Also, police INVESTIGATE crime. They do not have a mandate to prevent crime.

Tell that to Mayors Guiliani and Bloomberg of New York. Their arrests of people for "life style" crimes such as squeegeeing people's cars, turnstile jumping, etc. was aimed at preventing crime by nailing people who were likely to be wanted for other things. Seems to have worked.