Jedi Council Forums - Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Author	Topic: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement
nancyallen Registered: Nov '07	Date Posted: 2/6 4:57pm Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement
	Steven_R posted: Which definition of vigilantism are we using? The popular lynch mob one, or the one with concerned citizens are simply taking up some of the slack for law enforcement (e.g. neighborhood watches, the Minuteman Project)? The former, and in between the latter. Hunting child pornographers on the Internet, letter box drops warning about pedophiles, people who by rights take the law into their own hands, as much as such actions might be understandable and even agreed with. Process posted: As you already know, vigilantism is prohibited by the law. I don't know if this is because the police know of the dangers of trusting a civilian with enforcing the law, or if they are just plain jealous of other people doing their job for them. It might be a bit of both. People hate it when others do their job, or put them under the gun on their responsibility or accuse them of being culpable in their actions. Those in authority it would seem more so. However people have to be trusted if they are to enforce the law, they have to be trained, they have to show they have the discipline to do the job properly, they have to have the right personality. Process posted: Some people might argue that civilians could be biased and being a 'Vigilante' could just be a way of covering up following out on their predjudice and racism. True. How many people would form a lynch mob for flag burners? Which is one of the reasons why common sense needs to play a part, something that people lose. I'm not sure if vigilantism would be used for prejudice and racism but it might. Steven_R posted: Immigration, for example. The stories are legion of local law enforcement contacting the feds about illegal aliens and the feds doing nothing about it. Even when the cops have a known illegal alien, the alien gets cut loose because the feds just won't take custody. Now, if the local and state law enforcement is incapable of enforcing federal law, and the feds don't seem real interested in enforcing it, then what? That's part of the problem, where law enforcement is unable or unwilling to do their job. Immigration is one example. Not wanting to know about minor crimes (because a high number of crimes makes the police force look bad, too much work for something petty but still a crime, prefer something that would make them look good, ect) is another. Master_SweetPea posted: From Wikipedia A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts his/her own form of justice when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient Would this include hunting down and reporting on pedophiles? It might not fall under lynch mob violence but you have to admit part of the reason for the mail box drops is to incite people to do something stupid. Master_SweetPea posted: to be clear when I think Vigilante, or Vigilantism, I think of TMNT's Casey Jones, some crazy guy I once saw on the news who burned down a crack house, or Mavel comic's Punisher. That's the common perception of the vigilante. I'm not sure if it's the only valid one, but people do go outside the law, break the law without becoming some stereotypical homicidal crazy with rage madman. Master_SweetPea posted: Personally I think the Neighborhood watch groups, the Minutemen, and "shooting back" are common sense solutions of self preservation, NOT vigilantism. Sure it is. Why shouldn't it be? Master_SweetPea posted: So having stated my terms, I think Vigilantism creates more problems, and solves none. Taking care of yourself is YOUR job, beyond that, leave it to the professionals. I think that's very good advice. I'm not sure if it doesn't solve problems, but the vigilante very much puts it on their own head because of retribution from criminals, law enforcement, the public. king_alvarez posted: Because the simplistic view is often times akin to making sweeping generalizations about people. Does it? Really? The opposite can also be true, those who are big on freud, quote latin logical fallacies and writes essays on why someone is an ignorant moron tend to make sweeping generalizations as well. Besides, by keeping it as simple as you can you don't confuse, put off and alienate people reading. king_alvarez posted: So what solution would you suggest? Arrest people for a crime that has not been committed based on one person's word against another's? That the police do help with being able to gain information for a court order intended to protect people. Name, address, that sort of thing. That police protect someone who is under threat. A crime has to be committed for there to be an arrest but a known or suspected offender can be warned off, the police can go into a problem area and show the flag, move on those who look like they intend to cause trouble. king_alvarez posted: Um, how do you propose we determine if someone is at heart a bad person? What does that even mean to be bad at heart, or should we just take your word for it that someone is bad at heart? If you're looking for a good example how about the Columbine killers? Klebold and Harris, you listen to what they've said, the glee they evidently had in the atrocity they committed, it seems to go far beyond any revenge measure, or influence by the media. When you listen to something like 'Natural Selection. Why shouldn't I derive someone of their property? Anyone who doesn't lock it up properly ought to be shot. Natural Selection' the issue seems to go a lot further than anger at being caught committing a crime or not being allowed to do wrong and harm to others, which by itself are traits of someone who is at heart bad. Someone who feels absolutely no remorse over the wrong they do, the crimes they do, the evil they do, who do it not out of necessity, not out of making any type of statement or seeking revenge, but simply to get off on it, I think that's someone who is bad at heart. Now people will point to this, they'll point to that, saying how what Klebold and Harris did was revenge against being outcast, it was revenge against authority, they wanted to make a statement against the wrongs they feel had been committed against them. I don't know if Columbine is something you want to discuss in depth but I will say that alone shouldn't have set them off the way it did, influence by Doom, Duke, shouldn't have been enough to set them off. king_alvarez posted: Criminals break the rules, and vigilantes break the rules. The scales are different, but the philosophy is the same. Why do criminals break the rules? Out of a necessity to survive? A desire to hurt people? Because of some mental sickness, the pyromaniac? Why do vigilantes break the rules? king_alvarez posted: I'm assuming that you didn't really intend to make it sound like you're justifying murder and rape just because other people can get away with it. No, what I'm saying is why is there such outrage over someone doing the wrong thing to enforce the law, justice, whatever whereas nowhere near the anger is held for those who do seek to cause harm? It's almost as if we give the license to do it because we go off at those who try and stop them and not at them. king_alvarez posted: I think most people yearn for justice, but I don't think most people feel that justice should be determined and acted upon individually. You'd be surprised, a lot of people believe there is something wrong with the justice system, from police being afraid to act because of criminals spouting harassment to revolving door courts due to special cases, lawyers and a lack of teeth in judges. king_alvarez posted: Do you think this vigilante would have morals and beliefs about enforcement that completely match your own? Of course not, it would be stupid to believe otherwise. king_alvarez posted: Do you think those beliefs will completely match those of everyone else? Again, no. king_alvarez posted: What happens when those beliefs differ? I'm not sure what logic would say would happen so I'll use common sense and say that someone who has the facilities to enforce the law in their own way would be able to handle that not everyone would agree with their beliefs. Then again, looking at those who believe they wrote the book 'Everything I Say is Right' and the way they react when someone disagrees, gun control looks mighty good. king_alvarez posted: How would this vigilante determine if someone should be punished? Do the crime, do the time. It's not that hard, is someone does the wrong thing they should be held accountable for it. ShaneP posted: Vigilantism will likely grow though as our society becomes more fragmented, more authoritiarian, and less free. You mean how, say, after September 11 people believed certain freedoms were encroached upon and there's lot of security everywhere? I think that would be less a case of people going outside the law to fight crime and more along the lines of people rebelling against the government. -----signature----- Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Master_SweetPea Registered: Nov '02	Date Posted: 2/6 7:56pm Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement
	nancyallen posted: Would this include hunting down and reporting on pedophiles? It might not fall under lynch mob violence but you have to admit part of the reason for the mail box drops is to incite people to do something stupid. I am not familiar with the mail box drops. nancyallen posted: Master_SweetPea posted: Personally I think the Neighborhood watch groups, the Minutemen, and "shooting back" are common sense solutions of self preservation, NOT vigilantism. Sure it is. Why shouldn't it be? Again it's all perception, when I think Vigilantism, I think "angry illegal activity" maybe there needs to be an extra adjective to specifically describe activities. Such as Offensive-vigilante and Preventative-vigilante. Neighborhood Watch, The Minutemen, 99% of the NRA, etc. are what I shall from this day forward refer to as Preventative-vigilantes, people who know the rules of engagement and will not violate them. then there is the "Punisher" and Charles Bronson wannabees, who will actively seek criminals so they can attack them, I will now call them "Offensive-Vigilantes", their actions have been determined illegal by law. -----signature----- I don't like the donkeys and I don't like the Elephants http://www.lp.org "Some people never have anything except ideas Go Do it! Lucky Numbers 3, 11, 21, 31, 41, 43"
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
ShaneP Registered: Mar '01	Date Posted: 2/6 9:45pm Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement - Date Edited: 2/6 9:56pm (2 edits total) Edited By: ShaneP
	nancyallen You mean how, say, after September 11 people believed certain freedoms were encroached upon and there's lot of security everywhere? I think that would be less a case of people going outside the law to fight crime and more along the lines of people rebelling against the government. No, I don't mean that. That's different. The groups you mentioned earlier do not act outside the law. They, in fact, are supplements to existing law enforcement agencies and protocols. In fact, they rely heavily on law enforcement to do the enforcing. Most of what they do is reporting and observation. There are gaps in public law enforcement because many agencies are subject to strained budgets, less manpower, and larger areas to cover. Personally, I'd like to see more private security firms do more in society, not less(as long as those receiving the services have given their consent). I think their growth is a positive, not a negative. But that's different from vigilantes who operate outside the law. Vigilantes also thrive in public spaces moreso than private ones because accountability is usually ill-defined in a public commons, not explicit. -----signature----- It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
king_alvarez Registered: May '07	Date Posted: 2/7 7:22am Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement
	nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: Because the simplistic view is often times akin to making sweeping generalizations about people. Does it? Really? The opposite can also be true That has absolutely no bearing on my point. It's basically a red herring. That does not address whether a simplistic view is akin to making sweeping generalizations, so I'm going to completely ignore that comment. nancyallen posted: Besides, by keeping it as simple as you can you don't confuse, put off and alienate people reading. Simplifying an explanation is not the same as simplifying your view of an issue. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: So what solution would you suggest? Arrest people for a crime that has not been committed based on one person's word against another's? That the police do help with being able to gain information for a court order intended to protect people. Name, address, that sort of thing. That police protect someone who is under threat. A crime has to be committed for there to be an arrest but a known or suspected offender can be warned off, the police can go into a problem area and show the flag, move on those who look like they intend to cause trouble. This solution is more about police and law reform instead of vigilantism. I am completely for promoting changes within the legal structure in order to make the existing justice system as efficient and useful as possible. I don't know of one single person that would view this as vigilantism. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: Um, how do you propose we determine if someone is at heart a bad person? What does that even mean to be bad at heart, or should we just take your word for it that someone is bad at heart? If you're looking for a good example how about the Columbine killers? Klebold and Harris, you listen to what they've said, the glee they evidently had in the atrocity they committed, it seems to go far beyond any revenge measure, or influence by the media.... Someone who feels absolutely no remorse over the wrong they do, the crimes they do, the evil they do, who do it not out of necessity, not out of making any type of statement or seeking revenge, but simply to get off on it, I think that's someone who is bad at heart....I don't know if Columbine is something you want to discuss in depth but I will say that alone shouldn't have set them off the way it did, influence by Doom, Duke, shouldn't have been enough to set them off. Can you clarify what you mean by "heart," good or bad? Is this basically a different way of saying that someone is pure evil or inherently evil? If so, that is a premise that I do not accept. We can discuss Columbine if you like, but even then I don't think I could say definitively that those kids were bad at heart. In fact, I don't think that can be definitively said about anyone. That's not to say that I necessarily oppose the death penalty, but I don't think "bad at heart" is a good justification for it. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: Criminals break the rules, and vigilantes break the rules. The scales are different, but the philosophy is the same. Why do criminals break the rules? Out of a necessity to survive? A desire to hurt people? Because of some mental sickness, the pyromaniac? Why do vigilantes break the rules? You want the simple explanation? Criminals break the rules in order to suit their needs that could not otherwise be met within the constraints of the legal system. Vigilantes break the rules in order to suit their needs that they do not feel could be met within the constraints of the legal system. The underlying philosophy is the same; the difference is in degree. nancyallen posted: No, what I'm saying is why is there such outrage over someone doing the wrong thing to enforce the law, justice, whatever whereas nowhere near the anger is held for those who do seek to cause harm? I've never met these people that you claim hold very little anger for those who seek to cause harm. I think you're making them up. I will say, though, that while I am angered by those that seek to cause harm, I do feel vigilantes are full of hypocrisy. nancyallen posted: It's almost as if we give the license to do it because we go off at those who try and stop them and not at them. I think you're grossly misinterpreting people's views. Are you a high school student, or perhaps a college student in freshmen or sophomore year? nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: I think most people yearn for justice, but I don't think most people feel that justice should be determined and acted upon individually. You'd be surprised, a lot of people believe there is something wrong with the justice system, from police being afraid to act because of criminals spouting harassment to revolving door courts due to special cases, lawyers and a lack of teeth in judges. Do you think that people that want judicial reform also want people to take the law into their own hands? As an example, do you think that people that feel there are problems with our government also feel that the government should overthrown, as opposed to using the proper and legal channels to bring about reform? nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: Do you think this vigilante would have morals and beliefs about enforcement that completely match your own? Of course not, it would be stupid to believe otherwise. king_alvarez posted: Do you think those beliefs will completely match those of everyone else? Again, no. So what happens when this hypothetical vigilante kills someone close to you that you feel is innocent and he feels is guilty? Do you say, "thank god this righteous person was here to slaughter my child in the name of justice?" nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: What happens when those beliefs differ? I'm not sure what logic would say would happen so I'll use common sense and say that someone who has the facilities to enforce the law in their own way would be able to handle that not everyone would agree with their beliefs. I'm not concerned with what the vigilante would feel; I'm concerned with how you would feel if this vigilante tried to kill a relative or friend of yours that you thought was innocent, or at the very least, not quite deserving of death. Would you then feel obligated to kill the vigilante? nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: How would this vigilante determine if someone should be punished? Do the crime, do the time. It's not that hard, is someone does the wrong thing they should be held accountable for it. Is there burden of proof? How does he determine if someone did in fact do the crime? -----signature----- Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?" Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthKarde Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 2/7 10:17am Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement
	nancyallen posted: DarthKarde posted: I think that almost everybody sees the appeal of vigilantism on a basic level but the reality is that it is absolutely incompatable with liberty and the rule of law. I think most people are willing to overlook that in exchange to doing something about the people hurting them. For me much of the downside is the type of life a vigilante might live. That and the fear reprisal. As much as I would like for someone to be able to pull it off it's not a life anyone should live. I'm a little late replying to this but anyway. WTF! You talk as if liberty and the rule of law are just minor luxuries and not the very foundation of a free society. Do you really not see the tragic consequencies of destroying these concepts? -----signature----- The UK Independance Party - http://www.ukip.org The Freedom Association - http://www.tfa.net Better Off Out - http://www.betteroffout.co.uk Say NO2ID and the database state - http://www.no2id.net/
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
nancyallen Registered: Nov '07	Date Posted: 2/7 1:29pm Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement
	Before I answer that question, honest answer, are you all **** with me? Because it seems like once again you want to avoid the issue and resort to going on about me making things up and how no one can be bad at heart rather than actually discuss it. -----signature----- Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
king_alvarez Registered: May '07	Date Posted: 2/7 1:34pm Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement - Date Edited: 2/7 1:41pm (2 edits total) Edited By: king_alvarez
	nancyallen posted: Before I answer that question, honest answer, are you all **** with me? Because it seems like once again you want to avoid the issue and resort to going on about me making things up and how no one can be bad at heart rather than actually discuss it. Sure let's discuss it. But let's discuss what is actually said here, not what you say you think other people feel, because quite frankly, I've never met many of the types of people that you say you encounter and that you say represent the majority of people. They sure as hell don't seem to represent anyone that has posted in this thread. [added] for example: nancyallen posted: No, what I'm saying is why is there such outrage over someone doing the wrong thing to enforce the law, justice, whatever whereas nowhere near the anger is held for those who do seek to cause harm? Why do you think people don't have anger towards those that seek to cause harm? It is because they don't say it as much and as loudly as you would like? Do I really have to qualify every comment with "and oh yeah, I also hate people that seek to cause harm?" -----signature----- Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?" Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
nancyallen Registered: Nov '07	Date Posted: 2/8 4:49am Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement
	Master_SweetPea posted: I am not familiar with the mail box drops. These are something that happen every now and then, current affairs programs like to report on them. What typically happens is a pedophile moves into a neighborhood, one of the residents finds out and has a whole lot of pamphlets printed up detailing this person's criminal history, what he looks like, warning to keep children away from him, and then go around the streets delivering these pamphlets to letterboxes. king_alvarez posted: That has absolutely no bearing on my point. It's basically a red herring. That does not address whether a simplistic view is akin to making sweeping generalizations, so I'm going to completely ignore that comment. You will, of course, split petty hairs raising the issue. king_alvarez posted: This solution is more about police and law reform instead of vigilantism. I am completely for promoting changes within the legal structure in order to make the existing justice system as efficient and useful as possible. I don't know of one single person that would view this as vigilantism. No one said it was. You demanded an explanation of what I think the police should do and I gave it to you. king_alvarez posted: Can you clarify what you mean by "heart," good or bad? Someone who basically has no good thoughts, no good qualities, does no good acts, does not intend to do any good, and does not do the things they do or think the things they do for any greater purpose. Someone consumed by bad thoughts, by bad qualities, the intent to cause as much harm as they possibly can. king_alvarez posted: If so, that is a premise that I do not accept. We can discuss Columbine if you like, but even then I don't think I could say definitively that those kids were bad at heart. I contest that Klebold and Harris were bad at heart. The basis for that claim is their actions, and the thoughts they had before and during those actions, the way they carried out these actions, the enjoyment they derived from it based on survivor's reports on what they did, what they said, how they acted. Now the burden of evidence is on you to prove to me there is some good quality about them. king_alvarez posted: I've never met these people that you claim hold very little anger for those who seek to cause harm. I think you're making them up. Actually I'm not, and claiming that I'm making things up, as well as questioning my level of intelligence, is an insult. I answered that question before, if you actually pay attention to what I say and not just look for things to nitpick you'd know. Also need I remind you how upset others were when I asked for a source to what they were talking about, given they believed it to be common knowledge? king_alvarez posted: Do you think that people that want judicial reform also want people to take the law into their own hands? As an example, do you think that people that feel there are problems with our government also feel that the government should overthrown, as opposed to using the proper and legal channels to bring about reform? Live everything else people would have different opinions on the matter. Some may believe the government is corrupt and should be overthrown. Others believe there's a need for law reform specifically so that the public do not take the law into their own hands. What I believe is that the justice system needs to toughen up so that criminals are scared off doing harm so that civilians don't do it for them. king_alvarez posted: So what happens when this hypothetical vigilante kills someone close to you that you feel is innocent and he feels is guilty? Do you say, "thank god this righteous person was here to slaughter my child in the name of justice?" That's one thing I would never have to worry about, because no one close to me would be in that position. king_alvarez posted: I'm not concerned with what the vigilante would feel; I'm concerned with how you would feel if this vigilante tried to kill a relative or friend of yours that you thought was innocent, or at the very least, not quite deserving of death. Would you then feel obligated to kill the vigilante? That would depend on what evidence was provided and whether or not he could be reasoned with. king_alvarez posted: Is there burden of proof? How does he determine if someone did in fact do the crime? They would need evidence of course, otherwise everyone would be doing it. DarthKarde posted: I'm a little late replying to this but anyway. WTF! You talk as if liberty and the rule of law are just minor luxuries and not the very foundation of a free society. Do you really not see the tragic consequencies of destroying these concepts? Of course I do, I'm not as ignorant as you like to think I am. No ** we need law and order, no we'd all be ** if there wasn't any. What I'm saying is that a lot of people would happily welcome tougher measures to capture criminals, some of the surveillance that's conducted springs to mind, in order to be protect. Just as many people however would scream and bitch over the authorities overstepping their boundaries. Or take airport security, please. There was outrage over the measures used and some of the measures being discussed to prevent terrorist attacks. It was considered overzealousness by some that pencils, knitting needles and the like were not allowed. Never mind that they could be used as a weapon. -----signature----- Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
king_alvarez Registered: May '07	Date Posted: 2/8 7:02am Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement - Date Edited: 2/8 7:13am (1 edits total) Edited By: king_alvarez
	nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: That has absolutely no bearing on my point. It's basically a red herring. That does not address whether a simplistic view is akin to making sweeping generalizations, so I'm going to completely ignore that comment. You will, of course, split petty hairs raising the issue. I asserted that a simplistic view is often times similar to making sweeping generalizations. Your reply in no way challenged my assertion, but instead raised a different issue. Since that issue had no bearing on my assertion, I ignored it. nancyallen posted: No one said it was. You demanded an explanation of what I think the police should do and I gave it to you. You speak of the merits of vigilantism, but many of your examples do not reflect actual vigilantism. I think it would be more useful if you restrained your use of the word vigilante to what everyone else is going by, that is, someone that enforces the law himself without regard to legality and the proper legal channels. Police reform would not be vigilantism because it is using the proper legal channels. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: Can you clarify what you mean by "heart," good or bad? Someone who basically has no good thoughts, no good qualities, does no good acts, does not intend to do any good, and does not do the things they do or think the things they do for any greater purpose. Someone consumed by bad thoughts, by bad qualities, the intent to cause as much harm as they possibly can. Do you think there has ever existed a person that did not ever have even one good thought or good intention? Bear in mind, even bad actions can be the result of good intentions. And how can you know for sure that someone has never once had a good thought, quality, or intention? nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: If so, that is a premise that I do not accept. We can discuss Columbine if you like, but even then I don't think I could say definitively that those kids were bad at heart. I contest that Klebold and Harris were bad at heart. The basis for that claim is their actions, and the thoughts they had before and during those actions, the way they carried out these actions, the enjoyment they derived from it based on survivor's reports on what they did, what they said, how they acted. Now the burden of evidence is on you to prove to me there is some good quality about them. Bad intentions for one act that happened once in their lives does not mean that every thought or action of their entire lives was only bad all the time. I'm sure their parents could easily list some good things they had done at some point in their lives. I don't think it'd be crazy to assert that Klebold and Harris were friends with each other. So that would suggest qualities such as loyalty and affection, which are typically inherently good qualities, not evil ones. I don't think it is wise to judge a persons entire life on just one event. You are religious, are you not? Are you familiar with King Manasseh in the Bible or St. Paul the Apostle? What about Matthew 7:1? I think your judgment of people is another example of trying to simplify a complex situation into a simple generalization, which, in my opinion, is a flawed way of looking at the world. I was guessing that you were doing this as a result of lack of experience (youth) rather than because of lack of intelligence or a deliberate intent to stereotype people. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: I've never met these people that you claim hold very little anger for those who seek to cause harm. I think you're making them up. Actually I'm not, and claiming that I'm making things up, as well as questioning my level of intelligence, is an insult. I answered that question before, if you actually pay attention to what I say and not just look for things to nitpick you'd know. Also need I remind you how upset others were when I asked for a source to what they were talking about, given they believed it to be common knowledge? I would not classify something as common knowledge if no one that you're talking with understands what you're saying. I think it's safe to assume that no one here feels little anger towards those that seek to cause harm. Perhaps suggesting that you're making them up was a bit severe, but I still believe that you're misinterpreting people's feelings. I don't know of anyone with those feelings, and I wouldn't be surprised if no one else here has met such a person either. So where are these people that you're talking about? Just claiming they exist isn't going to be enough to further your argument. You might as well talk about evil unicorns. nancyallen posted: What I believe is that the justice system needs to toughen up so that criminals are scared off doing harm so that civilians don't do it for them. I think you'd have a better time arguing this point if you separated this idea from vigilante action taken outside the bounds of legality. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: So what happens when this hypothetical vigilante kills someone close to you that you feel is innocent and he feels is guilty? Do you say, "thank god this righteous person was here to slaughter my child in the name of justice?" That's one thing I would never have to worry about, because no one close to me would be in that position. Um, you don't think involuntary manslaughter is possible for someone that you know? nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: I'm not concerned with what the vigilante would feel; I'm concerned with how you would feel if this vigilante tried to kill a relative or friend of yours that you thought was innocent, or at the very least, not quite deserving of death. Would you then feel obligated to kill the vigilante? That would depend on what evidence was provided and whether or not he could be reasoned with. Ok, I think you're missing my point here; perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Suppose that John kills someone. It was accidental, but no one can prove that it was accidental. Victor the vigilante feels that it was intentional murder, so he goes to avenge the death of his friend and kills John in order to satisfy justice. John's brother Jim feels that John did not deserve to be killed, so he goes out to kill Victor. Victor's brother Vince then hunts down Jim. Jim's brother Jake hunts down Vince...etc. Do you see where this is heading? The legal system, with all of its flaws, is at least an agreed upon code of morality and enforcement. When people rely solely on their own sense of morality, disagreements will always arise, and someone will always need to be avenged or brought to justice. It's a never ending cycle. What you end up with is mob wars and gang wars that perpetuate long past the initial crime. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: Is there burden of proof? How does he determine if someone did in fact do the crime? They would need evidence of course, otherwise everyone would be doing it. That's what the court system is for. If there is not enough evidence for the courts to proclaim a guilty verdict, I would be hesitant to trust someone's personal requirements for evidence. nancyallen posted: What I'm saying is that a lot of people would happily welcome tougher measures to capture criminals, some of the surveillance that's conducted springs to mind, in order to be protect. Just as many people however would scream and bitch over the authorities overstepping their boundaries. Or take airport security, please. There was outrage over the measures used and some of the measures being discussed to prevent terrorist attacks. It was considered overzealousness by some that pencils, knitting needles and the like were not allowed. Never mind that they could be used as a weapon. I think this is a valid argument to discuss. As I mentioned before, I think it would be a more productive discussion if this idea were separated from the idea of vigilante action outside of the existing legal system. -----signature----- Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?" Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
nancyallen Registered: Nov '07	Date Posted: 2/10 7:49pm Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement
	I just want to make a comment before answering your comments, don't worry I think you'll like this. You asked before if you really have to qualify every comment with "and oh yeah, I also hate people that seek to cause harm?" Have you heard the story of Galileo and Da Vinci? I'll briefly explain for those who don't. Galileo said to everyone he could that the sun didn't move, the Earth did. The church hated that and tried to shut him up and when they failed they killed him. But he was right...Da Vinci, who the church loved, found the same thing Galileo did and it was only after he died that they found out he wrote 'the sun does not move' in one of his dusty old books, something which he should count himself lucky was not lost forever. Now I'm not saying we should all act like Galileo did but if there is something I believe to be worth emphasizing on, criminal morality for example, I'll emphasize on it. king_alvarez posted: You speak of the merits of vigilantism, but many of your examples do not reflect actual vigilantism. I think it would be more useful if you restrained your use of the word vigilante to what everyone else is going by, that is, someone that enforces the law himself without regard to legality and the proper legal channels. Which is what something such as mail box drops and hunting down pedophiles on the Internet is. king_alvarez posted: Police reform would not be vigilantism because it is using the proper legal channels. I never said it was. king_alvarez posted: Do you think there has ever existed a person that did not ever have even one good thought or good intention? Bear in mind, even bad actions can be the result of good intentions. And how can you know for sure that someone has never once had a good thought, quality, or intention? It would have to be shown to me that they do, and it has yet to be shown to me in the case of Klebold and Harris. king_alvarez posted: Bad intentions for one act that happened once in their lives does not mean that every thought or action of their entire lives was only bad all the time. Can you find one good, decent, nice quality in them? king_alvarez posted: I'm sure their parents could easily list some good things they had done at some point in their lives. Name one. Go on, name one. king_alvarez posted: I don't think it'd be crazy to assert that Klebold and Harris were friends with each other. So that would suggest qualities such as loyalty and affection, which are typically inherently good qualities, not evil ones. That would depend on how you would class their friendship. Were they really friends or two people who united for a common goal? king_alvarez posted: I don't think it is wise to judge a persons entire life on just one event. But we do, all the time. You judge me as some uneducated neocon nutter when you don't know a thing about me. Same as I would judge others based on what I see from them. king_alvarez posted: You are religious, are you not? Hmmm, when it suits me. Though the thought of me being religious would probably horrify those who actually are. king_alvarez posted: Are you familiar with King Manasseh in the Bible or St. Paul the Apostle? What about Matthew 7:1? I am, in simple terms it's a warning on not to judge others otherwise you too will be judged. When we look at the passages we learn that we should not judge as though we ourselves are above judgment. Take, for example, the atheist who judges all those who follow religion as deluded. What judgments can be made of the atheist? Is he arrogant? Belittling? Condescending? Double slandered? Egotistical? He may be all those things and yet he places himself above theists. king_alvarez posted: I was guessing that you were doing this as a result of lack of experience (youth) rather than because of lack of intelligence or a deliberate intent to stereotype people. And how old, exactly, do you think I am? king_alvarez posted: I would not classify something as common knowledge if no one that you're talking with understands what you're saying. Not everyone knows about something like the protester who was buried alive by a bulldozer, or details about Charlie Beckworth at Desert One or who Dan Capel, Steve Hartman and Everett Barrett are. king_alvarez posted: Perhaps suggesting that you're making them up was a bit severe, but I still believe that you're misinterpreting people's feelings. I don't know of anyone with those feelings, and I wouldn't be surprised if no one else here has met such a person either. So where are these people that you're talking about? What about how people who get upset over things that the government does, security laws for example? What about outrage at the armed forces because of Iraq? What about Klebold's and Harris' anger at law enforcement because they were caught in committing a crime? king_alvarez posted: Um, you don't think involuntary manslaughter is possible for someone that you know? That is, but you didn't say that. As I pointed out before a vigilante who has the capacity to carry out retribution for crime would logically have the capacity to rationalize the difference between manslaughter and murder. king_alvarez posted: [quote=nancyallen][quote=king_alvarez]I'm not concerned with what the vigilante would feel; I'm concerned with how you would feel if this vigilante tried to kill a relative or friend of yours that you thought was innocent, or at the very least, not quite deserving of death. Would you then feel obligated to kill the vigilante? Again, the vigilante would have to be certain of their facts. That's why people such as those who try and warn their neighbors about a pedophile living in their midst are frowned upon, as they might get it wrong, and what if someone does something stupid like form a lynch mob? king_alvarez posted: Do you see where this is heading? The legal system, with all of its flaws, is at least an agreed upon code of morality and enforcement. Of course it does, in fact if you look I've made numerous comments speaking out against vigilante action. king_alvarez posted: I think this is a valid argument to discuss. As I mentioned before, I think it would be a more productive discussion if this idea were separated from the idea of vigilante action outside of the existing legal system. Well, it is. Discussion on the tougher measures law enforcement can take are completely separate from any form of vigilante action, to make that point clear. -----signature----- Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
king_alvarez Registered: May '07	Date Posted: 2/11 8:01am Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement
	nancyallen posted: Now I'm not saying we should all act like Galileo did but if there is something I believe to be worth emphasizing on, criminal morality for example, I'll emphasize on it. That's fine that you want to emphasize certain things. What I'm saying is that just because someone doesn't say something or emphasize it as much as you do, that does not mean that they don't believe it. In other words, don't assume that just because people aren't speaking up for vigilantism as much as you are, that automatically means they aren't angry with those that commit crimes. nancyallen posted: Which is what something such as mail box drops and hunting down pedophiles on the Internet is. What part of this is illegal? If done within the bounds of legality, I wouldn't classify that as vigilantism. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: Police reform would not be vigilantism because it is using the proper legal channels. I never said it was. Ok, fair enough. Then I think that for the sake of clarity, this discussion should be limited to only vigilante actions or non-vigilante actions, but not both. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: Do you think there has ever existed a person that did not ever have even one good thought or good intention? Bear in mind, even bad actions can be the result of good intentions. And how can you know for sure that someone has never once had a good thought, quality, or intention? It would have to be shown to me that they do, and it has yet to be shown to me in the case of Klebold and Harris. Hmmm, so you assume people are inherently evil unless proven otherwise? I guess my worldview is just the opposite, sort of. I don't know how we can bridge that gap if that's the premise you start with. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: Bad intentions for one act that happened once in their lives does not mean that every thought or action of their entire lives was only bad all the time. Can you find one good, decent, nice quality in them? Well, I don't know them, but I don't automatically assume that one "evil" act means that a person is completely evil. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: I'm sure their parents could easily list some good things they had done at some point in their lives. Name one. Go on, name one. You think that their parents despised them all throughout their lives? I suppose that's possible, but I'm not going to just assume something just because it supports the way I want to view the world. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: I don't think it'd be crazy to assert that Klebold and Harris were friends with each other. So that would suggest qualities such as loyalty and affection, which are typically inherently good qualities, not evil ones. That would depend on how you would class their friendship. Were they really friends or two people who united for a common goal? Do you know what their friendship consisted of? How can you make a judgment without knowing? You seem awfully comfortable making generalizations about people. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: I don't think it is wise to judge a persons entire life on just one event. But we do, all the time. No we don't. At least, some of us don't. Sure, we may make judgments about people, but we don't typically judge a person's entire life based on just one event. nancyallen posted: You judge me as some uneducated neocon nutter when you don't know a thing about me. Here again you are making assumptions based on what you want to believe about my views rather than on what I've actually stated. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: Are you familiar with King Manasseh in the Bible or St. Paul the Apostle? What about Matthew 7:1? I am, in simple terms it's a warning on not to judge others otherwise you too will be judged. When we look at the passages we learn that we should not judge as though we ourselves are above judgment. Take, for example, the atheist who judges all those who follow religion as deluded. What judgments can be made of the atheist? Is he arrogant? Belittling? Condescending? Double slandered? Egotistical? He may be all those things and yet he places himself above theists. Nice way of deflecting the point to another controversial argument. I won't comment on the side point. What we can learn from the stories of Manasseh and Paul is that despite their committing many horrible atrocities, God still saw the good in them, even though it wasn't evident to the people around them. Matthew 7:1 emphasizes this point as it shows that all people sin, and really it is only God that is qualified to judge the goodness of a person's heart. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: I was guessing that you were doing this as a result of lack of experience (youth) rather than because of lack of intelligence or a deliberate intent to stereotype people. And how old, exactly, do you think I am? I don't know, which is why I was asking for clarification. The reason I asked is because it seems like many of your views of humanity and the people here in this thread are based on misconceptions, and I was hoping it was due to inexperience rather than stubborness or bigotry. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: I would not classify something as common knowledge if no one that you're talking with understands what you're saying. Not everyone knows about something like the protester who was buried alive by a bulldozer, or details about Charlie Beckworth at Desert One or who Dan Capel, Steve Hartman and Everett Barrett are. You missed my point. You can't make a claim about some condition or general attitude of humanity and then assert that it is common knowledge if no one else seems to agree with the statement. nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: Perhaps suggesting that you're making them up was a bit severe, but I still believe that you're misinterpreting people's feelings. I don't know of anyone with those feelings, and I wouldn't be surprised if no one else here has met such a person either. So where are these people that you're talking about? What about how people who get upset over things that the government does, security laws for example? What about outrage at the armed forces because of Iraq? What about Klebold's and Harris' anger at law enforcement because they were caught in committing a crime? How do these examples show that people aren't angry about those that seek to cause harm? nancyallen posted: king_alvarez posted: Um, you don't think involuntary manslaughter is possible for someone that you know? That is, but you didn't say that. As I pointed out before a vigilante who has the capacity to carry out retribution for crime would logically have the capacity to rationalize the difference between manslaughter and murder. So the vigilante would have to witness the crime? Even then, just witnessing the crime may not be enough. nancyallen posted: Again, the vigilante would have to be certain of their facts. If a vigilante did exist, how would you know that he was acting only when certain of the facts? I'd rather not have to take only his word for it. nancyallen posted: Of course it does, in fact if you look I've made numerous comments speaking out against vigilante action. And you've made many comments arguing the benefits of vigilantism. My argument is that those benefits don't actually exist. -----signature----- Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?" Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Lowbacca_1977 Title: Senate Moderator Registered: Jun '06	Date Posted: 2/11 1:36pm Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement - Date Edited: 2/11 4:11pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Lowbacca_1977
	nancyallen posted: Galileo said to everyone he could that the sun didn't move, the Earth did. The church hated that and tried to shut him up and when they failed they killed him. Just a small point... the church did NOT kill Galileo. king_alvarez posted: You speak of the merits of vigilantism, but many of your examples do not reflect actual vigilantism. I think it would be more useful if you restrained your use of the word vigilante to what everyone else is going by, that is, someone that enforces the law himself without regard to legality and the proper legal channels. Police reform would not be vigilantism because it is using the proper legal channels. One of the difficulties there is that not everyone uses that definition. Case in point would be the Minutemen group that sets up watches of the border. All they do is sit there with binoculars and a phone and call the border patrol whenever they see a group crossing the border and they've been frequently labeled as vigilantees not just by activist groups but by the media and elected officials.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
king_alvarez Registered: May '07	Date Posted: 2/11 2:36pm Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement - Date Edited: 2/11 2:38pm (1 edits total) Edited By: king_alvarez
	Lowbacca_1977 posted: king_alvarez posted: You speak of the merits of vigilantism, but many of your examples do not reflect actual vigilantism. I think it would be more useful if you restrained your use of the word vigilante to what everyone else is going by, that is, someone that enforces the law himself without regard to legality and the proper legal channels. Police reform would not be vigilantism because it is using the proper legal channels. One of the difficulties there is that not everyone uses that definition. Quite true, which is why I was seeking to clarify the definition (or at least agree upon the usage) based on the way it seemed to be used in this thread. The dictionary definition was posted earlier, and I was trying to reduce some of the ambiguity. -----signature----- Because there are no story-book romances, no fairy-tale endings. So before you run out and change the world, ask yourself, "What do you really want?" Because life... is not a movie. Everyone lies. Good guys lose. And love... does not conquer all.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedi_Cyana Registered: Apr '02	Date Posted: 2/14 9:54pm Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement
	Not to be a jerk with a one-liner, but isn't vigilantism faintly similar to facism? -----signature----- Literature is where I go to explore the highest and lowest places in human society and in the human spirit, where I hope to find not absolute truth but the truth of the tale, of the imagination of the heart.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
nancyallen Registered: Nov '07	Date Posted: 2/16 5:04pm Subject: RE: Vigilantism and it's effect on law enforcement
	king_alvarez posted: nancyallen posted: What I'm saying is that just because someone doesn't say something or emphasize it as much as you do, that does not mean that they don't believe it. In other words, don't assume that just because people aren't speaking up for vigilantism as much as you are, that automatically means they aren't angry with those that commit crimes. If you look I haven't been speaking up for vigilantism, in fact I've spoken at length against it. king_alvarez posted: What part of this is illegal? If done within the bounds of legality, I wouldn't classify that as vigilantism. I'm fairly certain it's not actually illegal, but there is a crime called incitement. Basically, advertising that someone is a pedophile in the hopes that someone will go to this person's address and do something, that would be illegal. It's one of the reasons why mail box drops are very much frowned upon. Another reason would be these well meaning mothers, they're amateurs, haven't got the legal grounds, haven't got the knowledge of how to deal with any repercussions that might occur. king_alvarez posted: Ok, fair enough. Then I think that for the sake of clarity, this discussion should be limited to only vigilante actions or non-vigilante actions, but not both. What about the new thread Nazis, would it be okay by them for such issues to be discussed in another thread or would they prefer it be kept here? king_alvarez posted: Hmmm, so you assume people are inherently evil unless proven otherwise? No, I judge people based on what I see from them. You want an example? Okay, George Bush. I thought he was good in light of 9/11 (how many people were barking orders and taking command the second they learned of the attacks? How many people thought not to convey the image of panic by just running out of the room, like some claim Bush should have done?) yet he's stupid, and dangerous, because of Iraq. If you go back to Klebold and Harris I assume they are inherently evil because that is the only side that has been shown of them, the only side that they have portrayed. As a matter of fact I would even say they are worse than someone like Bin Laden, at least he has a cause, Columbine on the other hand was evil for the sake of evil. king_alvarez posted: Do you know what their friendship consisted of? How can you make a judgment without knowing? You seem awfully comfortable making generalizations about people. Maybe because it's true, seeing as how you have been unable to prove any qualities that would make anyone think Klebold and Harris are anything less than the way they have been condemned. king_alvarez posted: Here again you are making assumptions based on what you want to believe about my views rather than on what I've actually stated. Does that mean you go back on your accusations? king_alvarez posted: Nice way of deflecting the point to another controversial argument. It's the truth, unless you'd like to try and prove otherwise. king_alvarez posted: I don't know, which is why I was asking for clarification. The reason I asked is because it seems like many of your views of humanity and the people here in this thread are based on misconceptions, and I was hoping it was due to inexperience rather than stubborness or bigotry. Klebold and Harris again? You might like to watch the Zero Hour documentary on Columbine, look at some of the things they said and wrote prior to the shootings, then try and prove me wrong on what you claim are misconceptions on my part. king_alvarez posted: You missed my point. You can't make a claim about some condition or general attitude of humanity and then assert that it is common knowledge if no one else seems to agree with the statement. So everyone here knows about, say, the protester who was buried alive by a bulldozer, as had been claimed? What's true for me has to be true of everyone else, or do some people get special treatment? king_alvarez posted: How do these examples show that people aren't angry about those that seek to cause harm? Some people protest the security measures put into place after September 11, and the ones that prevented the London hijackings, even to the point where they completely ignore the terrorists attack and put all their focus on condemning these security measures. Same for Iraq, you know people went over their as human shields to stand in the way of allied attacks, a rather extreme example of those who are against the war in Iraq who completely ignore Saddam's atrocities and place all their condemnation on Bush (for the record, I view the ramifications such as the political and world view fallout have been too severe to make the war worth it). As for Klebold and Harris, I posted their condemnation at law enforcement for not letting them cause harm. I'll put it here again, unedited from the documentary I mentioned, you might get more of an idea. "Isn't America supposed to be the land of the free? How come if I'm free, I can't deprive some ** dumb of his possessions if he leaves them in the front seat of his van, in plain sight, in the middle of nowhere, on a night? Natural selection. should be shot." Lowbacca_1977 posted: Just a small point... the church did NOT kill Galileo. Ah, the story was from memory. My point stands, if I think something needs to be emphasized I'll emphasize it, and if that's something people don't like I make no apologies about that. Lowbacca_1977 posted: One of the difficulties there is that not everyone uses that definition. Case in point would be the Minutemen group that sets up watches of the border. All they do is sit there with binoculars and a phone and call the border patrol whenever they see a group crossing the border and they've been frequently labeled as vigilantees not just by activist groups but by the media and elected officials. That's right. So, being in charge and all, should we continue discussion on people such as the Minutemen group, what police can do to kerb vigilante action, ect be discussed here or open up a new thread and concentrate all our efforts here on Punisher types? Jedi_Cyana** posted: Not to be a jerk with a one-liner, but isn't vigilantism faintly similar to facism? No, don't worry about that at all. I've never heard the idea before but, faintly similar to fascism? You're thinking the type would be those who seek to control things? They have control issues, they need to have control over things? It fits. Vigilantes, particularly the full boil Charles Bronson types, are focused, committed, obsessed even, on their single minded determination to try and control those they see doing wrong. Yeah, I'd go with it being faintly similar to fascism, both fascists and vigilantes are control freaks. -----signature----- Even as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, for God is with me.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »