At the individual level, someone doing their own interpretation of Charles Bronson in the old movie "Death Wish". (just the first one) Where someone who is tired of waiting for the police to "do something" since they are constrained by technicalities like probable cause.
This is completely separate from justifiable self defense. And it is just what it is. Either Laci or Dog Gone like to use the term extra-judicial execution when discussing someone shooting someone breaking into their home. Though in this case, it would be a proper term to use.
There is actually what I feel is a pretty good example of this moving through the court system right now up my way. After being arrested and I'm assuming mirandized, he kept talking and has likely sealed his own fate. This actually took place a half hour drive from my home.
Mikeb, we discussed this incident a while ago.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies Greg. It looks like I missed that discussion because I hadn't found this fine place. I had actually went into the subject a bit deeper. A ding on me that I included too many links. I'll try to do better in the future. In the meantime, here is what I wrote in its entirety,
ReplyDeleteI've been seeing this term in the news a lot lately. We have batted it around a bit on your site, but it got me to wondering about when it becomes acceptable, or even necessary. Here is what I've been seeing,
At the individual level, someone doing their own interpretation of Charles Bronson in the old movie "Death Wish". (just the first one) Where someone who is tired of waiting for the police to "do something" since they are constrained by technicalities like probable cause.
This is completely separate from justifiable self defense. And it is just what it is. Either Laci or Dog Gone like to use the term extra-judicial execution when discussing someone shooting someone breaking into their home. Though in this case, it would be a proper term to use.
There is actually what I feel is a pretty good example of this moving through the court system right now up my way. After being arrested and I'm assuming mirandized, he kept talking and has likely sealed his own fate. This actually took place a half hour drive from my home.
http://brainerddispatch.com/news/2012-11-27/little-falls-shooting-killing-2-teens-sparks-homeowner-rights-controversy
The next level is the one we already discussed on your blog. That being the situation in Detroit and the police department's use of the Detroit 300 as a resource to help counteract the shortage of officers. We've pretty much beaten that one soundly.
Then we move up to a higher level. What happens when the law enforcement officers in an entire state become either corrupt or ineffective, or both. I'm speaking of the operations of vigilante groups in Mexico. Drug cartels set up and through the liberal use of lots of money for payoffs and large scale atrocities for those that cant be bought, effectively neutralized most levels of law enforcement.
The vigilantes started with single shot shotguns and eventually acquired more effective arms from defeated enemies. Mexican law enforcement needless to say took offence at a group daring to do the job they have been either unwilling or unable to do.
However, just recently, they seem to have legitimized the vigilante groups by renaming them a Rural Defense Corps. Whether this is an honest effort to utilize them, or a way to show them to be unqualified and bring them to heel has yet to be seen.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/28/world/americas/mexico-violence/index.html
While I have no qualms about condemning the actions of the man who will be tried on the charges brought against him this coming April, the other two instances are more problematic. The Detroit has the sanction, and support of the city police. And the groups in Mexico are quite literally occupying a vacuum caused by the lack of effective government law enforcement.
No problem from you, Sarge.
DeleteI don't see any confusion between vigilantism and the typical castle-doctrine shootings. Even when the gun owner chased the burglars down the street and shoots them two blocks away, I wouldn't call that vigilantism.
DeleteEven the Detroit 300 and those Mexican guys don't seem like vigilantes to me. I suppose if they misuse their positions they could become vigilantes, but ...
The issue is that a civilised nation has laws, which people obey. Technically, even an anarchy has rules which people are expected to know and live by without having a government to ram them down their throats. Of course, anarchic systems are basically utopian and one really ends up either with nihilism or the strong running roughshod over the weak.
ReplyDeleteThe basic point is that civilisation has rules, whether they are enforced by a government or people being civically minded enough that they do not need a government. Whatever the case, there is usually someone who will come about to make sure the rules are enforced.
The problem with vigilantism is that it skirts the rule of law, which is the concept that no man, whether king or commoner, is above the law. In other words, everyone is bound by the law. If you don't like a law, you use the system to change it.
A Constitution is supposed to be the rules by which people agree to be governed. If one claims to support the constitution, then they should abide by the rules set down by that document (or documents in the case of Britain which doesn't have a "written" Constitution, but does have a series of laws and other documents, e.g., Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, etc, which. create a constitutional system).
History has shown that even in the "dark ages" there was a system of laws and rules in Nordic societies. Otherwise, there is a breakdown of the social order.
I would add that vigilantism if allowed to go forward without any attempt to address it by a government leads to vendetta justice. The US has a tradition of this, the most famous of which was the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
To be quite honest, it should not be tolerated unless one wishes to see the collapse of your nation.
And would you really want the type of society that would lead to?
Laci, I don't know anyone here on my side who wants anarchy. We advocate for the right of self-defense. We also reserve the right to resist tyranny. Why anyone would be against those rights is beyond me.
DeleteI guess beating people up (which you advise) instead of letting the law deal with them isn't anarchy. Or invading Calif. at gun point because you don't like their democratically passed laws isn't anarchy. Or working hard to circumvent the law isn't anarchy. All criminal behaviors you support and advise should be done.
Delete