1."A vigilante is a person who violates the law in order to exact what they believe to be justice from criminals" As some will already know, I recently 2.moved to england. Others may also have read 3. and 4.. If you have not, please take a momment to do so. So as the story continues, the police keep calling to say, 'There is not much we can do.' So it made me think. Is an otherwise normal person or persons, who spends nights prowling the streets for criminal activity and then brings justice to wrong doers, really that farfetched? I think that it's quite reasonable. I'm not the only person this type of crime has happened to, and it's growing in frequency. So do you think the government should be the ones to prevent crime? Or could a third party anonymous, witness a crime, then bring justice to those who attacked/ raped/ murdered innocent people? My opinion is yes, a vigilante would do a city with high crime rates, good.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vigilante
2. http://www.staredit.net/topic/4891/
3. http://www.staredit.net/topic/5957/
4. http://www.staredit.net/topic/6530/

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 5 2009, 7:53 am by Vrael. Reason: Requested by shocko

That would only bring further chaos to the society. Allowing a vigilante would mean allowing murder for justice. Murder is not justice. And because of this, the government would only see it as 'more chaos' then 'more order'. Since the government would like to maintain order, it will never allow vigilantes.

People only like vigilantes when they feel like being ones themselves or when they see someone they can relate to (and for whom they can set aside respect for the rule of law in the process) wanting to being one.

I don't agree on the death penalty, but I would feel safer knowing there were people watching me. And if I were attacked again, they'd be there to stop it. Another good refference would be 1.V for Vendetta. Though he was out for revenge on the government for their crimes, he did protect Evey at the start.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_(film)

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 4 2009, 6:27 pm by Shocko. Reason: clarity

Vigilantes make for good fictional characters, yes. But what ultimately stops me from thinking they would actually be a good idea is that people are attacked based on the impressions of one flawed individual (or a few of them), who could be mentally ill or flat wrong about their assumptions. Osama bin Laden probably views himself as a vigilante.

I'm not entirely sure I read that correctly. Please confirm this, but are you saying the vigilante or vigilantes could do more harm than good, due to their perception of wrong and right caused by mental illness, misterpretation and/ or assumptive judgements?

Or, were you saying. The person commiting the crime, could fall under said conditions?

If said vigilante was to disarm, capture or prevent these crimes. Opposed to killing the criminal. Would society be more supportive of this person? Would you?

Under normal circumstances vigilantism is barbaric and flows with the mentality that "might makes right". By normal circumstances I mean when all persons are treated without favor and laws reflect the idea that all people are equal. In this environment one can use truth and logic to come to a fair conclusion between 2 persons or parties.

Unfortunately I have no experience with any place that has these 'normal' conditions. More times than not the corporate elite have a bias in their favor, so only when the scale of corruption is truly magnificent(Enron, Bernie Mac, etc) do we see their bias not be enough to save them. So as long as you don't over do it you can rest easy. I think vigilantes are necessary for these people.

If the Columbine-type martyrs weren't just a little bit smarter, and a little less selfish they could have been heroes. They finally had enough of the bullshit of society and took it out on the wrong people. They should have been looking at the bigger picture of lower-class suffering as a result of disproportional wealth that spawns most of the evil we see everyday. When they asked themselves "why to the rich kids get away with everything?" they stopped "cuz they're jerks!" instead of asking why they they're jerks. It's like sitting under an apple tree and getting pissed about apples constantly falling on your head. What they've done is get rid of a few of the apples, would should be doing is shopping at the fucking roots that are the cause of these apples.

I'm sick of turning on the news and hearing stories of workers going postal on their fellow employees, and students killing better-off students. I want to start hearing stories about a lone sniper who picked off a bank CEO because his family was forced from their home after their mortgage increased for no reason. I want the radio to tell me on while I'm driving to school that a senator was mysteriously assassinated days after a report came to light detailing how he embezzled millions of tax payers dollars. Vigilantism just isn't where it needs to be.

However one wonders how ex-CEO executive Fred Goodwin that lead RBS to the ground is still allowed a pension of £703 000 annual 1. What does one need that much money for? I live on £6500 annual currently. I agree a man like this needs stopping, but so do the low lifes on the streets who leach tax pounds and do not work or pay tax pounds, but then take their quality of life out on innocents.

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7921778.stm

Do NOT blame the lower class even a little like you just did. The corrupt society built on greed made them that way. It's like yelling at a kid for not knowing his abc's when his school or parents never gave a dam to teach it to him.

Perhaps, but who watches the watchmen? (Someone had to say it.)

Speaking of which, I would suppose that Rorschach is more realistic than either V or Batman.

Actually, regarding a vigilante and public support, you might want to read about Bernhard Goetz. I wouldn't have convicted him if I were on his jury, either.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 4 2009, 9:22 pm by Mini Moose 2707.

I don't know about vigilantes... I think it would be awesome to have them, but I don't think they would be all too effective. What I really see is a one or two man militia. So, no. I'd feel safer, but I don't think it would be effective.

Or perhaps, from the vigilante's point of view, the mentality is that heinous crimes are being committed and the government or "powers that be" are insufficient to put a stop to these crimes, and the situation is so bad that the value of taking matters into his or her own hands supercedes the negatives wrought by any legal consequences, or the consequences of fighting criminals, such as death.

I think they took it out on the right people (from their point of view). I bet they never interacted with the CEO of Enron, but rather with the "lower class", or "everyday folks like you and me" like I like to think of them. Maybe these kids were stuck in the bullshit of society, but did the CEO of Enron really have anything to do with that? I think not. It seems much more likely that trauma from a bad family, social ostracization by their peers, neglect, loneliness, and other forms of abuse led to their outbreaks. I could be wrong, but I doubt those kids were mad at Enron's CEO because he spit on them or something.

The lower class has just as much to do with corruption as the upper class. If no one accepted bribes, looked the other way when something funny was happening, hurt others for spite or accepted corruption, how would the upper class get away with anything? If no one takes their money, they can't buy their way out of it, and justice is blind (judges may not be, but if they didn't accept bribes then it wouldn't matter). It's certainly a shame that some people never had the opportunities that others have, and if someone accepts a bribe to feed his wife and kids they have my greatest sympathy, but there are still plenty of cases where the lower class is to blame, I bet. And as to the corrupt society built on greed? Sure, people are greedy, but our (american) society was founded on the principles of the equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Social equality under an unbiased law. Our "greedy society" is certainly a contributing factor, but it's really not the whole picture. We still have our own free will (despite what people in the adjacent topic of said name may claim ) and for the most part, a body to do things with. It's certainly rough to get going, but you can always get a job at mcdonalds.

So me, you, Moose, BeDazed, and many other members of SeN 'have just as much to do with corruption as the upper class", how? Is it my fault that the CEO's of AIG and other large corporations fucked themselves over through Derivative financial exchanges E.G. Investing Fraud/Error and have caused the massive amounts of debt they are in? Is it our fault as citizens, that we invaded Iraq based on faulty Intelligence? Is it our fault that during the 80s we invaded Panama?

How in the hell do you come up with such whacky logic?

Seriously though, care to give me some extremely reliable sources on how we can blame Lower-Class Americans who make under $38,000 for corruption in American Corporate entities, and government???

Pardon me, I have been ambiguous. It is not only the fault of the lower class, and it is not necessarily the fault of any member of the lower class, I merely meant that we cannot exclude them from the problem. It isn't your fault that the CEO's of AIG did one thing or another, unless it actually is and you know them personally and have compelled them to do something of course, but what I said doesn't imply that every member of the lower class is at fault, only that there are members who are at fault.

.....You ignored my question and stated the same thing without backing up your side....

The irony just killed me. And, BTW, let it be know that it takes two to tango.

I have not ignored your question, I have clarified my ambiguity, which renders your question answered, if you'll take the time to read through again.

No shit?


How is repeating yourself and wording things differently, answering a question? Guess i'll have to quote myself:

The situational irony actually falls upon you.

And an example of corruption in government as a result of the lowerclass is prevelant in "A Clockwork Orange."

The no shit comment was about the 'two to tango'.

And I've been meaning to check that flick out. I need to.