>Is vigilantism ever justified, morally or otherwise?
>If yes, when and where is the line drawn?
>Is vigilante violence justified to bring criminals to justice when the police/state is failing to do so such as in Mexico and various places in the Middle East?
>Is it ever justified in the sense of citizens resorting to intimidation and violence against authorities that are abusing their power?
>Is vigilante justice that results in murder (instead of assault or intimidation meant to bring a criminal to justice) the line in the sand?
>If not, is vigilantism in the form of murder where the authorities fail ever justified?
>Do you believe it should be ever be legal to patrol as a civilian vigilante to apprehend criminals until the police arrive and/or to keep an eye on police misconduct?
>Do you believe, in cases where violence or death are the result (intended or otherwise), that there is any real difference between vigilantism and terrorism?
>any real difference between vigilantism and terrorism?
Not in terms of actions, but in motivations. Since motivations can never really be known, anyone's free to spin the narrative to actions as truth. That being said, Vigilantism isn't at odds with crime, but at odds with law and order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3Hyxuf5AE
Haven't some vigilante groups in Mexico been having more success against the cartels than the police, feds and military?
>>716280
And if the law is failing at its job or abusing it's power? Is it justified to take vigilante action then?
>there are people that dress in costume and try to act like real superhero vigilantes
>mfw no face for this level of buffoonery
>>716434
Of course. But try to tell a agent of law that his institution is failing, see how far that gets you.
You might justified in my eyes, but that doesn't mean you won't have enemies. Also means those same enemies might not view you as an agent of justice where there was none. Instead, they'll see you as a larger threat to social order because you have usurped their concepts of justice for your own.
>>716422
It's a bit tricky.
When you factor in the military you have to consider which unit and what commander. When the cartels go toe to toe with the military they always lose. Period. Now maintaining the security of a certain area is a whole other subject. It depends on how badly some capo or another might want the turf. Some of the autodefensas were infiltrated by cartels and others were setup by them. To make it even trickier, some towns actually accepted defecting cartel shooters to their ranks.
For the most part, the autodefensas succeeded by a great combination of timing and target. The CT (Los Caballeros Templarios) at the time were right up there with the Zetas as the most despised criminal group and were under heavy pressure from the opposition. When the autodefensa movement became a happening thing, the cartel was spread to thin to counter in any meaningful way.
>>716554
It also depends on where you are at. I've known of a number of vigilante type actions where the police fully well knew what happened but was willing to overlook them as long as that was as far as it went.
>>716422
Only police and feds. The armed forces have been overwhelmingly successful and are about the only public servants trusted by the population at large, the cartels are just huge. Individually, most cartel hitmen are practically untrained.
>>716641
That's exactly the issue. Justification is subjective.
I personally believe marital infidelity should be a crime, and those who commit such an act should be punished. If I acted on that as a vigilante, roughing up people cheating on their wives or husbands, I would most likely not be justified in the eyes of the populace at large. That's what makes vigilantism such a dangerous proposition, because even if the law is wrong or not enforced, independent agents dispensing their own justice invites a might makes right mentality (Which in reality that's basically what law is, except more of a majority makes right mentality).
>>716676
I've heard that the cartels actually use former military soldiers as hit men and bodyguards too though.
The real question is where do you draw the line if the authorities are not getting the job done or are actively abusing their power in a criminal way themselves. Personally I think murder is the point of no return. But in some cases, certain types of vigilante activity could be warranted and not immoral despite the illegality of being a vigilante.
Would it not be morally acceptable to violently apprehend known criminals and fugitives and leave them to be arrested by the authorities if you witnessed the crime or saw local authorities turning a blind eye to it? Or if the same authorities were criminally abusing their power as has happened in some noteworthy cases over the last several years? I would say the citizen then not only has the moral right, but duty to intervene to some extent that may be more than just alerting more authorities. Physical force can be acceptable. Murder is still murder though.
It's the Batman approach as opposed to the Punisher approach, I guess.
>>716729
They tend to be more specialized then the typical sicario. They are more valued since they are trained and experienced. Sometimes, they enlist on the behalf of some patron. So in reality they are Cartel all the way.
The original Zetas and La Linea were composed entirely of ex Military and Police.
>>716693
Marital infidelity does not compare with child molestation, rape, murder, thieving, drug dealing in the real world.
>>716766
quite a few states actually have laws on the books where anyone can use deadly force to stop a felony in progress.
>>716774
The zetas were a bit more than just common soldiers, they were a bunch of spec ops who went rogue, which is why they were able to gain power so quickly. Nowadays almost all the original members are dead.
>>716829
Yes, i can think maybe 2-3 of the original 30 are still out there. Not all were from GAFE. some were from top Infantry units and i think one or two were Military Police. Anyways, they really were a really nasty shock to the enemies of the CDG.
>>716143
there is literally nothing wrong with being a vigilante in itself, justice is justice, no matter the hand.
Getting the wrong guy is bad, but the police do that too.
>>716143
The only problem with vigilantism is that it ignores the right to a fair trial, making it far too likely for someone innocent to get punished unfairly
>>716766
Here in Mexico we have anti cartel guerrillas because the police just side with cartels.
Morally it is very acceptable to kill cartel members around here.
>Is vigilantism ever justified, morally or otherwise?
Morality is subjective, so it's a bit of a moot point. Regardless I think vigilantism is justified where the law fails severely.
>If yes, when and where is the line drawn?
Well there's no one line necessarily, because y'know. Subjective measure. Personally I'd probably draw the line at tossing firebombs and the like.
>Is vigilante violence justified to bring criminals to justice when the police/state is failing to do so such as in Mexico and various places in the Middle East?
Yes, it's the only recourse.
>Is it ever justified in the sense of citizens resorting to intimidation and violence against authorities that are abusing their power?
This one's a bit trickier. I'd say that personally in this case I wouldn't find vigilantism justified, but I could see it being acceptable in certain circumstances.
>Is vigilante justice that results in murder (instead of assault or intimidation meant to bring a criminal to justice) the line in the sand?
I wouldn't say so. Why is the state any more capable of determining whether someone lives or dies than the court of public opinion?
>If not, is vigilantism in the form of murder where the authorities fail ever justified?
Sure, given the right circumstances.
>Do you believe it should be ever be legal to patrol as a civilian vigilante to apprehend criminals until the police arrive and/or to keep an eye on police misconduct?
No, because if vigilantism was ever commonplace it would likely hinder justice.
>Do you believe, in cases where violence or death are the result (intended or otherwise), that there is any real difference between vigilantism and terrorism?
Yes, in terms of motivation and method, if not necessarily result. Even if both vigilantism and terrorism seek to spread fear in a given population, vigilantes generally don't resort to bombing civilian centers or any other methods one might commonly associate with terrorist.
>>716962
>le subjectivity xD
This meme needs to die.
>>716979
Nice subjective opinion you have there.
>>716979
Subjective
I'm honestly kind of surprised some crazy dude hasn't dressed up as Batman and gotten shanked or shot and killed yet.
>bald knobbers
>guys dressed like this were legitimate historical vigilantes
Does being a PI count close enough? Some of them use physical methods to restrain criminals until the police arrive. And they don't even need special training of licensing in some states. Some are just essentially vigilantes that are hired to do the job.
>>716143
Yes. Especially when it concerns members of your family.
>>716143
>Is vigilantism ever justified, morally or otherwise?
Only if there is no effective rule of law in the region.
This statement literally answers the rest of your questions.
>If yes, when and where is the line drawn?
It is at wherever rule of law from a legitimate authority ceases.
>Is vigilante violence justified to bring criminals to justice when the police/state is failing to do so such as in Mexico and various places in the Middle East?
Yes, because there is not rule of law in these situations.
>Is it ever justified in the sense of citizens resorting to intimidation and violence against authorities that are abusing their power?
No, because rule of law is present, even if you thieving murderous hordes of peasants happen to be getting the shit end of the law.
>Is vigilante justice that results in murder (instead of assault or intimidation meant to bring a criminal to justice) the line in the sand?
The degree of violence instituted as justice is simply an accident to things. The true essence is whether the initiator of violence can lay claim to either authority, or the demonstration of the legitimate authority's incompetence.
>If not, is vigilantism in the form of murder where the authorities fail ever justified?
If the "authorities fail" in a proper sense, then you're without rule of law and vigilante justice is not simply "right", it's the only justice possible.
>Do you believe it should be ever be legal to patrol as a civilian vigilante to apprehend criminals until the police arrive and/or to keep an eye on police misconduct?
I think our current legal system addresses this properly, but I'll explain myself:
1) if you have to fear whether administering vigilante justice is legal or not, then you're still under rule of law, and thus it is not right and proper for you to administer justice.
1/2
>>716143
>>717521
2) Under US law, you're allowed to arrest anyone you witness committing a felony. This is sufficient right given that you exist in a society with functioning authority and rule of law.
>Do you believe, in cases where violence or death are the result (intended or otherwise), that there is any real difference between vigilantism and terrorism?
Terrorism is defined as being, essentially, political violence (id est
"warfare", since war is violence intended to bend an enemy to your political will) directed such as to inspire fear rather than directed towards crippling the enemy's physical ability to make war as exists in traditional forms of violence.
Vigilantism is administration of justice without proper authority.
They are different in essence, but their accidents may overlap in some cases.
For instance, 9/11 was not vigilantism, as it was an act of warfare, and being that it was designed to scare rather than to actually cripple US military infrastructure, it was indeed terrorism. It was not a matter of unauthorized imposition of justice, it was war.
Likewise, if I heard rumour that a man had raped someone, and then I gathered evidence, proved it, and then held a council to decide his punishment, and then hanged him, that would be vigilantism, but not terrorism, as I'm not making an act of war designed to inspire terror.
Thirdly, though, if I started killing senators for "treason" or what have you, that would be both, because I'd be waging warfare, but justifying it as an internal legal issue that I'm enforcing without proper authority.
>>716798
Nope, but your comparison highlights exactly the issue with vigilantism.
So you see someone do something bad in your eyes. You act outside the law as an agent of justice to correct this wrong. You have justified your action to yourself, but the rest of society punishes you anyway because it is not justified to them. Now there's two ways you can think of this:
>You were wrong, and the law has justly punished you for this wrong.
In this case, why be a vigilante in the first place? You've accepted that your actions are wrong, yet preform them anyway.
>You were right, society is punishing you due to codified laws rather than justice.
In this case, it's your opinion of justice vs society's opinion of it. In their eyes, you are also a criminal for acting outside the law.
Now, I would say taking the law into your hands is perfectly fine, as long as you're living by your own personal code of morality and not simply preforming the act for the act itself. You can see how doing that creates a large problem though, if everyone punished those they presumed guilty in their own way. I'm not saying acting out like this is bad, only that it leads to problems down the road because nobody can agree on right and wrong.
To use another example, the IRA bombing Englishmen. Totally justified in their eyes, while seeming to be monsters to the English. Or the murder of doctors working in abortion clinics by fundamentalists. Incredibly justified to the murders, revolting to most of society.
>>716143
Vigilantism is necessary when the state fails to fulfill its responsibilities.
>>716502
have either of these guys actually done anything? is there a record or news story of them stopping a robbery even? If they were real badass vigalentes theyd probably be doing something like ths guy instead
>>717575
Try not to be so lilly livered
Among the episodes i know of one was a crack dealer who despite repeated warnings sold to kids in the building where he lived. He was thrown off the roof. Another was of a baby sitter who was a child molester caught on video. He was shot to death.
Everyone, even the police, knew what and why it happened. No fucks were given.
Might as well add this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy
>>716143
>Is vigilantism ever justified, morally or otherwise?
Yes, not really any reason for it not to be. If I see someone being mugged then I am justified to help.
>If yes, when and where is the line drawn?
Purposely going to execute someone.
>Is vigilante violence justified to bring criminals to justice when the police/state is failing to do so such as in Mexico and various places in the Middle East?
Even more so justified in these scenarios. Vigilantism is practically required. If everyone in Mexico went after the drug cartels, they would no longer exist.
>Is it ever justified in the sense of citizens resorting to intimidation and violence against authorities that are abusing their power?
Grey area... Legal avenues should be taken to remove them from power but if that fails then what you are asking about is revolution, not vigilantism.
>Is vigilante justice that results in murder (instead of assault or intimidation meant to bring a criminal to justice) the line in the sand?
Depends. If a person resists a citizen's arrest and dies as a result, then the murder is justified if it was necessary to defend the vigilante. If the vigilante goes with intent to kill the criminal then that is an assassination.
>If not, is vigilantism in the form of murder where the authorities fail ever justified?
Read above.
>Do you believe it should be ever be legal to patrol as a civilian vigilante to apprehend criminals until the police arrive and/or to keep an eye on police misconduct?
Of course. Free people should be allowed to protect their community from threats.
>Do you believe, in cases where violence or death are the result (intended or otherwise), that there is any real difference between vigilantism and terrorism?
Of course there is a difference. Terrorism is an action while vigilantism is a reaction. Terrorists seek out vulnerable targets to attack and spread fear for political purposes. Vigilantism seeks out criminals in response to a crime being broken.
Didn't this guy try to be a vigilante and end up getting arrested and forced to unmask himself after intervening in a fight and using pepper spray or something? I also hear he got stabbed once but idk if that's true.
>>719016
That costume material looks like the same shit that Burton's Batman costumes were made out of.
>patrolling in stiff rubber costume
>no agility
>can't turn head
>try to dish out vigilante justice like batman
>get stabbed
>rubber doesn't stop knives
>oh_shit.jpeg
>>717695
I recall a documentary about masked luchadors taking on the cartel.
>>719016
Yep, Phoenix Jones.
Pic related is him. He is from Texas but started his "real life superhero" life and vigilantism in Seattle. He was arrested as you said but no charges filed. And he has been stabbed and shot.
>>719016
Isn't that the retard who found out revolvers can hold more than six bullets after getting hit on the seventh shot?
Phoenix Jones is a terrible superhero/vigilante name. He deserved to get shot.
I'm gonna make a costume out of lightweight cloth, thick leather and kevlar and start patrolling. I have some training (~2 years boxing, nearly a year learning eskrima) and plan to carry a collapsible baton.
I live in Brooklyn near Brighton Beach. What are the chances I get murdered or seriously injured?
>>716143
the biggest problem people have with vigilantism is the worry that vigilantes become judge jury and executioner. Specifically the last one.
If there's a person who's deciding whether someone lives or dies who's not part of some accountable institution in positions where there's no need to kill them, then there's a problem.
>>716143
Yes. The People should be able to lynch and kill all criminals, bankers, suitists, whores and kings whenever they feel like it.
>>719351
What if they simply take the "Batman approach" and intimidate and rough up criminals and then leaving them for the LEO's to pick up instead of committing murder?
>how I imagine pro-vigilante guys.
>>719391
So if you support the kurds rather than the SAA you're an autistic superhero?
>>719397
Kurds are partisans, not vigilantes.
The autistic real super hero bullshit aside, are there any historical instances of people (either single persons or groups) actively becoming vigilantes and dishing out their brand of justice? I'm not talking about single instances where someone murders someone that did something to their family but people that randomly set out to rid a place of crime outside of the law and in secret? Closest I can find is the Bald Knobbers.
>>719391
Might just be the region I grew up in, but I always imagine vigilantes as cowboys, probably owing to the fact I see it more as a wild west thing. Superheroes never really cross my mind.
Vigilant justice is REAL justice, especially in third world shitholes.
>>719589
It's a very passioned justice that's for sure. I still remember that video of some Africans dousing a guy in gasoline and lighting him on fire for raping a girl.
On one hand, I love the idea of swift and unerring justice against evil acts, on the other hand though it's sort of difficult to ensure a mob doesn't take it too far.
Every city should have at least one costumed vigilante. To keep an eye on police brutality and to apprehend criminals that they catch in the act.
Timothy McVeigh is the archetypal vigilante, and he was very effective
>>716143
The people should not fear their government.
The government should fear the people.
Short term: yes.
Long term: no.
Once you fatally undermine the rule of law, it's really difficult if not impossible to build it back up, at least without going through a stage of extreme state repression to put people back into the habit of following the rules.
>>719553
If I lived in a society being wrecked by organized crime, like modern Mexico or southern Italy decades past, I'd at least consider going full-Punisher if I had the skills.
Would it be that difficult, for example, to identify and kill gang members? You could post about your doings anonymously on social media, warn all gangsters to move away or get out of that line of work or the same fate will befall them.
>>716143
>>Is vigilantism ever justified
Absolutely.
When the government, funded by the citizen, refuses to, or is incapable of, providing law and order, then it is not only the RIGHT, but the DUTY of the citizen to do so themselves.
>>716143
"Vigilantism" is almost always justified in a historical light.
Modern western countries are extreme in the statist sense of anything that isn't directly supervise by an elected / appointed official being vigilantism.
Most people know who the shit people are in their communities, and people have always known how to get rid of people bad for their communities.
If anything the hyper statist / federalist ideal of "justice" allows for a much deeper corruption of justice.
As the state at the federal level is much further removed and does not always have the interest of those wronged put first.
>>720718
>If anything the hyper statist / federalist ideal of "justice" allows for a much deeper corruption of justice.
One of the reasons "governments" hate "vigilantism" is the fact that it takes away their power, which they often use for their own personal purposes instead of for society as a whole.
They often times INTENTIONALLY allow criminals to terrorize citizens as a political tool, which is why citizens have a duty to be armed and prepared to defend themselves, their communities, and to forcibly remove corrupt officials if necessary.
>>720757
Cite a modern example where 'community justice' didn't devolve into self-interested organized crime.
It would be great if people could manage themselves without the state doing everything for them, but it just doesn't seem possible in practice.
The state works exactly because it's remote; the remoter the better. That's what insulates it from the manipulation of self-interested local people. In most cases it seems the 'closer to the people' government gets, the more corrupt it gets.
>>720775
>Cite a modern example where 'community justice' didn't devolve into self-interested organized crime.
Large scale examples of protection of property: Any given hurricane, notably Katrina. L.A. riots.
Examples of personal protection: Any number of cases where citizens take up arms and use them to defend their lives and homes.
You seem to think that "government" has a monopoly on the use of force, and that it's free of corruption.
It doesn't.
> In most cases it seems the 'closer to the people' government gets, the more corrupt it gets.
History has shown the exact opposite, in that governments have willingly murdered millions of their fellow citizens that they deemed to be "unfit" for both ethnic AND political reasons.
See: NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, 19th century U.S.A., and countless others...
I'm sure the people murdering innocent police officers under the veiled justification of the BLM movement and systemic brutality consider themselves righteous vigilantes.
Isn't a community neighborhood watch essentially a limited form of vigilantism? And they're pretty common.
>>716693
>I personally believe marital infidelity should be a crime
It is though.
>>716143
Yes. Yes to all of it.
Now another question to people who think that "the authorities" have any sort of moral high ground or right to justice.
If you live in a state with capital punishment, what if anything is the difference between vigilante justice of any force level, and state justice?
Also ask this question if you live in a state that justifies any use of lethal force in any situation. How is law enforced by the gun different that justice enforced by violence?
>>719575
Probably. Like how I imagine vigilantes as being state leaders or authorities who just say fuck it to legal read tape and start up extra-judiciary hit squads to take out bootleggers and the like.
>>720874
>Large scale examples of protection of property: Any given hurricane, notably Katrina. L.A. riots.
>Examples of personal protection: Any number of cases where citizens take up arms and use them to defend their lives and homes.
These are all one-off events. Nobody (sane) denies it's a good idea to protect yourself if the police are unavailable at the time.
What I'm asking for is an example where over time this doesn't turn into plain mafia criminality. I don't think there is one: people will ALWAYS cave to temptation.
>>722737
I grew up in places where things were taken care of quite a bit without calling the Police as that was considered anathema for certain matters.
All things considered, the area is just fine.
>>722737
>....people will ALWAYS cave to temptation.
That's not true.
There's actually people out there that have enough personal discipline to do the "right thing" regardless of the circumstances. The "everyone is a shitbag" meme is promoted BY shitbags to justify their shitbag behavior and lack of personal discipline.
There's plenty of people that work in government that are honest, but they are the enemy of the shitbags that exist in government, and are treated accordingly. There's plenty of everyday citizens that are also honest, and they too are the enemies of the shitbags out there.
The problem is finding the good ones, and putting them in the right positions, but the good ones don't want the hassle of having to deal with shitbags.
>>722781
The difference is within government there is (in a functioning state) a way to find and dispense with corrupt people (appeal to higher authority, elections, courts, etc.)
But if you leave justice up to individuals, what's to keep the corrupt in line? In a free-for-all it seems pretty obvious that the most ruthless will prosper.
>>717397
Not necessarily. PI's still follow and answer to the rule of law.
>>716422
As a Mexican from the exact border town between Cartellandia and that one guy's autodefensa autonomous region of Michoacan, the militias are the only reliable force so long as they are resilient to psychological warfare. This is rather easy to do so long as the body is not retarded to begin with. Everyone else wants to divide and conquer you. Everyone saying otherwise is retarded or trying to conquer you.
>>719298
don't carry a baton fag you'll get arrested if you ever use it.
>>722799
>The difference is within government there is (in a functioning state) a way to find and dispense with corrupt people
All the murdered Jews and political rivals of the German NAZI party, Stalinist Russia, and the Cambodian Khmer Rouge wouldn't agree with you, and neither do I.
Once government gets fully corrupted, it usually takes revolution and war to get rid of it because the corrupt assholes control the TREASURY, which means they can pay the military and a police force to serve their corrupt purposes. That's why government should be limited, and the citizens armed in a manner that they can overthrow that shit WHEN it eventually becomes fucked up, and you can bet your ass it WILL eventually get fucked up.
>But if you leave justice up to individuals, what's to keep the corrupt in line?
Individuals.
Pic related.
So are you saying Batman is completely unrealistic? I don't want to live in a world where billionaires can't dress up like giant bats and beat the living shit out of criminals.
>>716143
>Is vigilantism ever justified, morally or otherwise?
If the purpose is for the common defense against attacks on life and property, yes.
>If yes, when and where is the line drawn?
To act solely during the crime. If after, it is no defense, it's revenge.
>Is vigilante violence justified to bring criminals to justice when the police/state is failing to do so such as in Mexico and various places in the Middle East?
Yes.
>Is it ever justified in the sense of citizens resorting to intimidation and violence against authorities that are abusing their power?
Yes.
>Is vigilante justice that results in murder (instead of assault or intimidation meant to bring a criminal to justice) the line in the sand?
Not if death is the result of a reaction to legitimate defense.
>If not, is vigilantism in the form of murder where the authorities fail ever justified?
As well as in self-defense.
>Do you believe it should be ever be legal to patrol as a civilian vigilante to apprehend criminals until the police arrive and/or to keep an eye on police misconduct?
Yes.
>Do you believe, in cases where violence or death are the result (intended or otherwise), that there is any real difference between vigilantism and terrorism?
Vigilantism, at best, and in its proper sense, is an organized form of legitimate defense of a third party. How the hell could this be considered terrorism?
>>725462
Some forms of vigilantism are based on using terror to deter crime. Which is, by definition, a form of terrorism. If not the same as typical terrorism.
Pretty sure anyone that thinks it's a good idea to play superhero-style vigilante will end up beaten, shot, stabbed or all three and dead. Fancy costumes make an easy target.
Yes.
