Sunday, April 12, 2009

Is vigilantism justified when the government has failed to enforce the law?

If so, why? What statistics prove that when the government fails to act, it becomes justified for citizens to take matters into their own hands?


Do you know how many more laws are on the books than may be enforced, do you know why, at least recently: to get around the selective enforcement laws, which many cops ignore anyway by using laws differently for different people.

When an air-traffic controller in Switzerland had no reliable radar, no phone and limited radio contact, two planes collided. One of the fathers of the victims shot the ATC although he actually had no control over events that happened. Vigilantism can go wrong. The law makes mistakes and even hangs the wrong man. Vigilantism doesnt always have the benefits of proper investigation. Hell I wish they'd make smacking kids legal then we'd have less problems than today.

I recommend finding a New Zealand book called 'Beyond reasonable doubt'. It's about a wrongfully accused. Vigilantism can go very very wrong.

To add to that, I read in yahoo.7news (Australia) that a body was found mutilated in New South Wales. Police believe around 40 youths murdered him because they thought he had a stolen cellphone. That's the ugliest side of vigilantism. The mob should never rule.

That is relative.

If the law doesn't mean anything, then the government is really just a bunch of guys who rob you in an organized fashion....

But without a government, what law do you apply?

But Thomas Jeffersen said the government must have evil action AND evil intent, which means that as long as the government is at least TRYING to do the right thing you must support it.

I'm still amazed that the parents at Columbine were made to stand outside of that school while the killers were in there killing their kids. And instead of storming the place and ending the killing, the police basically waited until the killers ran out of ammunition. I swear to God the police would have had to kill me to keep me from getting in there.

Would my actions have been vigilantism?

vigilance is justified BUT only if it does not violate he human rights of the culprits.

by this i mean , beating them inhumanly, dragging them by some vehicles and all such activities.

govt. can not catch them , ok

but if we can catch them then we should hand them over to the govt. for fair jurisdiction.

No, but it is tempting to entertain the idea of marching on a sitting Congress, tarring and feathering most of its constituents, and riding them out of Washington on a rail.

People have died to obtain the freedoms we HAVE had. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Voting has become irrelevant for the working citizens. It has become the tool of slavery for the poor and their would be masters.

No. Vigilantism is rarely justified. Most of the time it is because some hot head doesn't like the outcome of something.

I would not say justified, but I would say inevitable.

Citizens taking the matter into their own hands, is why Neocons no longer matter. It's called voting.

Nope not this time

.

Gun slinger days kind of died 120 years ago in the old west

.

When it was an accepted way of life

.

No comments:

Post a Comment