Why Condemn Vigilantes?

[ClayBarham]

In the Old World, a top-down ruler managed community. Laws, courts and punishment were the sole province of the ruler. The ruler decided what was right or wrong, depending on the circumstance and who the presumed offender was. The ruler, not the people of the community itself, dominated the police, magistrates and the jails. The ruler’s primary purpose was to maintain order in the community and preserve his or her own position and safety. No other consideration topped those needs, lest someone topple and replace the ruler. The ruler ruled!

In the New World, however, no ruler was the law. Instead, the law was the ruler and police, magistrates and community leaders were required to live within the bounds set by law. Each citizen was equal under the law, and if caught violating a law, is tried in a court with a jury of his peers before a magistrate, always innocent until proven by a prosecutor and judged guilty only beyond all doubt, and punished in relation to the crime. At the foundation of this system, all lawful citizens willingly delegate part of their authority to apprehend, try and to judge others from the community. The citizen never gives up his own responsibility to the law, however. He elects representatives. They write laws and pass them by majority vote of all representatives. The citizen obligates himself to obey and secure the laws in his community. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," declared the antislavery orator Wendell Phillips in 1856. It is each citizen’s duty to be vigilant. He must protect himself, his family and his community from those who would deny life, liberty and property by breaking the laws. Because he delegates his authority does not release him from his responsibility.

Whenever a community was unable to protect itself from the law-breakers, by lack or failure of delegated authorities to function, citizens would form committees of vigilance to carry out the requirements of the law. The Committee of Vigilance formed in Virginia City, Nevada, in the early 1860’s, succeeded in hanging a murderer and threatening a hoodlum to leave the city or face the same. Following the California Gold Rush, in the rapidly growing city of San Francisco, respectable citizens formed a Vigilance Committee in 1851. By 1860, the Spanish name Vigilante described members. Both cities remained relatively crime-free from that time on. They performed the duties of citizens in the absence of those to whom the authority to keep the peace was given. Groups of vigilantes organized in other Western cities too. In Montana, a secret tribunal of citizens organized in 1860 before civil laws were in place and kept the settlements free of crime.


Most who object to the existence of vigilante committees do so because they believe only a governing authority is capable of dispensing proper justice. They carry, from the Old World; a sense of acceptance that rule comes only from the top, not the bottom. In America, the passing of a law is an act of elected assemblies, by majorities. The same citizens who might otherwise involve themselves with a committee of vigilance elect the lawmakers. How then, can they be incapable of enforcing the law? If a jury made up of citizens from the community, pass judgment on the accused, how then can they be incapable of enforcing a law?

Democrats ask you to give them the keys to your community, vesting in them the forming of law, the enforcement, judgment and punishment. They are the same ones who condemn vigilantism as a criminal and incompetent mob action dispensing brutal treatment to the innocent. It is from their arrogance, their elitism and holier-than-thou view of individuals in community that they arrive at their condemnation of vigilante movements. They may quickly draw attention, to make their point, to the so-called vigilante movement of the Klu Klux Klan following the Civil War. The Klan, however, was a movement to regain power in the Confederate States for the Democrats, punishing African Americans for becoming Republicans and seeking public office. The Klan defied the law and respect for law-abiding citizens. They were terrorists, not vigilantes.

My purpose in dredging up a long lost activity like the vigilantes is, again, to point out the way people supporting the Old World views of society see the non-elite majority, and why they position themselves always for the dictators, the few who rule the many. One has only to listen closely to the words of the 2007-2008 Democrats for how they justify a return to Old World rule, asking us to set aside individual freedom for community needs. Conservatives who stand and argue with Democrat elite are condemned as Vigilante.

[April15]

Would it be possible to give some time reference as to old and new world?

[PatrickHenry]

Clay, are you saying that Republicans (by and large) don't oppose vigilantism? That it's only the Democrats, LOL?

Committees of Vigilance function in the absence of constituted authority. If there are laws, policemen and courts, why would a society choose to have an ad hoc committee serve as the only enforcement measure?

[Deadshot]

The reason that you condem vigilantes is because

1. one person does not have the right to be judge, jury and executioner.

2. vigilantes have a bad habit of exacting to high a price, i.e. execution, for crimes.

3. vigilantes do not have the whole criminal justice system trying to back them up and make sure mistakes aren't made...and even we make mistakes!

[ClayBarham]

1. Yes you have that right when assaulted and being assaulted by a predator. You can fight back with everything available to you to save your own life, which makes you judge, jury and executioner. A good liberal would wait, however, for the real police, judge, jury and executioner, if he lived.

2. The best weapon for the Vigilante was more often tar, feathers and rail and not the rope. They ran a lot of people out of town for the bad behavior they had to endure from them. Again, these people enforced laws and were not terrorists, as Hollywood would have you believe.

3. Vigilantes come into play when the justice system has been purchased by the bad guys or didn't exist at all. If you want to know more about vigilantes, Google them and read about when they were used and how they normally functioned. Stay away from Hollywood descriptions.

I'd venture to say if you and your neighbors were being harassed and assaulted day in day out by a bunch of rowdy's the police ignored, or laughed at you when you complained, you and your neighbors might get together and give them all the heave-ho and a beating. You'd be vigilantes.

[AnnEsthesia]

You are talking two different things. A vigilante is not generally someone responding to an impending direct and dangerous threat. Someone who is doing that is a victim protecting themselves. I think you are confusing what exactly a vigilante is.

[PatrickHenry]

Clay, please respond to my question. Do you claim that only Democrats oppose vigilantism, not Republicans?

[ClayBarham]

No, not at all. Those who cannot conceive of individuals and their interests being superior to the interests of community, interests fashioned by an elite few, are not likely to appreciate anyone taking the law into their own hands. Such was not the case in top-down dictatorships. My contention is that people who do admire the legal system that grew in America would not be quick to assault those who take the law into their own hands, because law grew from those hands and responsibility for it remains there. If liberals are the ones who see community superior, then they are likely the ones who see vigilantes as criminal, like terrorists. If conservatives believe in individual liberty, then they would be more apt to OK vigilantes if they restrict their efforts to doing what they would have their delegated enforcers do, and not be terrorists.

[April15]

No, not at all. Those who cannot conceive of individuals and their interests being superior to the interests of community, interests fashioned by an elite few, are not likely to appreciate anyone taking the law into their own hands. Such was not the case in top-down dictatorships. My contention is that people who do admire the legal system that grew in America would not be quick to assault those who take the law into their own hands, because law grew from those hands and responsibility for it remains there. If liberals are the ones who see community superior, then they are likely the ones who see vigilantes as criminal, like terrorists. If conservatives believe in individual liberty, then they would be more apt to OK vigilantes if they restrict their efforts to doing what they would have their delegated enforcers do, and not be terrorists.
The legal system that was designed for America has its roots in the Magna Carta and other prior law systems. It was not built on the fly. The rules are set and are not open for vigilante interpretation.

[ClayBarham]

You mean America's legal system grew from an agreement between a king and his nobles? What happened to the ordinary slob left out of the agreement? Here I have been looking at America as a nation based upon individual rights given each man and woman by his or her Creator, not the king or his nobles. I stand corrected, I think.

[April15]

You mean America's legal system grew from an agreement between a king and his nobles? What happened to the ordinary slob left out of the agreement? Here I have been looking at America as a nation based upon individual rights given each man and woman by his or her Creator, not the king or his nobles. I stand corrected, I think.

Catos Papers were also used as a reference but i won't post them as they are to long as are the federalsist papers which explain how the constitution is to be understood and work.

Magna Carta Translation
A translation of Magna Carta as confirmed by Edward I with his seal in 1297

[Preamble] EDWARD by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Guyan, to all Archbishops, Bishops, etc. We have seen the Great Charter of the Lord HENRY, sometimes King of England, our father, of the Liberties of England, in these words: Henry by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Guyan, and Earl of Anjou, to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, Sheriffs, Provosts, Officers, and to all Bailiffs and other our faithful Subjects , which shall see this present Charter, Greeting. Know ye that we, unto the honour of Almighty God, and for the salvation of the souls of our progenitors and successors, Kings of England, to the advancement of holy Church, and amendment of our Realm, of our meer and free will, have given and granted to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and to all freemen of this our realm, these liberties following, to be kept in our kingdom of England for ever.

[1] First, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for us and our Heirs for ever, That the Church of England shall be free, and shall have her whole rights and liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the freemen of our realm, for us and our Heirs for ever, these liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of us and our Heirs for ever.

[2] If any of our Earls or Barons, or any other, which holdeth of Us in chief by Knights service, shall die and at the time of his death his heir be of full age, and oweth us Relief, he shall have his inheritance by the old Relief; that is to say, the heir or heirs of an Earl, for a whole Earldom, by one hundred pound; the heir or heirs of a Baron, for an whole Barony, by one hundred marks; the heir or heirs of a Knight, for one whole Knights fee, one hundred shillings at the most; and he that hath less, shall give less, according to the custom of the fees.

[3] But if the Heir of any such be within age, his Lord shall not have the ward of him, nor of his land, before that he hath taken him homage. And after that such an heir hath been in ward (when he is come of full age) that is to say, to the age of one and twenty years, he shall have his inheritance without Relief, and without Fine; so that if such an heir, being within age, be made Knight, yet nevertheless his land shall remain in the keeping of his Lord unto the term aforesaid.

[4] The keeper of the land of such an heir, being within age, shall not take of the lands of the heir, but reasonable issues, reasonable customs, and reasonable servics, and that without destruction and waste of his men and goods. And if we commit the custody of any such land to the Sheriff, or to any other, which is answerable unto us for the issues of the same land, and he make destruction or waste of those things that he hath in custody, we will take of him amends and recompence therefore, and the land shall be committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fee, which shall answer unto us for the issues of the same land, or unto him whom we will assign. And if we give or sell to any man the custody of any such land, and he therein do make destruction or waste, he shall lose the same custody; and it shall be assigned to two lawful and discreet men of that fee, which also in like manner shall be answerable to us, as afore is said.

[5] The keeper, so long as he hath the custody of the land of such an heir, shall keep up the houses, parks, warrens, ponds, mills, and other things pertaining to the same land, with the issues of the said land; and he shall deliver to the Heir, when he cometh to his full age, all his land stored with ploughs, and all other things, at the least as he received it. All these things shall be observed in the custodies of the Archbishopricks, Bishopricks, Abbeys, Priories, Churchs, and Dignities vacant, which appertain to us; except this, that such custody shall not be sold.

[6] Heirs shall be married without Disparagement.

[7] A Widow, after the death of her husband, incontinent, and without any Difficulty, shall have her marriage and her inheritance, and shall give nothing for her dower, her marriage, or her inheritance, which her husband and she held the day of the death of her husband, and she shall tarry in the chief house of her husband by forty days after the death of her husband, within which days her dower shall be assigned her (if it were not assigned her before) or that the house be a castle; and if she depart from the castle, then a competent house shall be forthwith provided for her, in the which she may honestly dwell, until her dower be to her assigned, as it is aforesaid; and she shall have in the meantime her reasonable estovers of the common; and for her do wer shall be assigned unto her the third part of all the lands of her husband, which were his during coverture, except she were endowed of less at the Church-door. No widow shall be distrained to marry herself: nevertheless she shall find surety, that she shall not marry without our licence and assent (if she hold of us) nor without the assent of the Lord, if she hold of another.

[8] We or our Bailiffs shall not seize any land or rent for any debt, as long as the present Goods and Chattels of the debtor do suffice to pay the debt, and the debtor himself be ready to satisfy therefore. Neither shall the pledges of the debtor be dist rained, as long as the principal debtor is sufficient for the payment of the debt. And if the principal debtor fail in the payment of the debt, having nothing wherewith to pay, or will not pay where he is able, the pledges shall answer for the debt. And if they will, they shall have the lands and rents of the debtor, until they be satished of that which they before paid for him, except that the debtor can show himself to be acquitted against the said sureties.

[9] The city of London shall have all the old liberties and customs, which it hath been used to have. Moreover we will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, and all other Ports, shall have all their liberties and free customs.

[10] No man shall be distrained to do more service for a Knights fee, nor any freehold, than therefore is due.

[11] Common Pleas shall not follow our Court, but shall be holden in some place certain.

[12] Assises of novel disseisin, and of Mortdancestor, shall not be taken but in the shires, and after this manner: If we be out of this Realm, our chief Justicer shall send our Justicers through every County once in the Year, which, with the Knights of the shires, shall take the said Assises in those counties; and those things that at the coming of our foresaid Justicers, being sent to take those Assises in the counties, cannot be determined, shall be ended by them in some other place in their circuit; and those things, which for difficulty of some articles cannot be determined by them, shall be referred to our Justicers of the Bench, and there shall be ended.

[13] Assises of Darrein Presentment shall be alway taken before our Justices of the Bench, and there shall be determined.

[14] A Freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault, but after the manner of the fault; and for a great fault after the greatness thereof, saving to him his contenement; and a Merchant likewise, saving to him his Merchandise; and any other's villain than ours shall be likewise amerced, saving his wainage, if he falls into our mercy. And none of the said amerciaments shall be assessed, but by the oath of honest and lawful men of the vicinage. Earls and Barons shall not be amerced but by their Peers, and after the manner of their offence. No man of the Church shall be amerced after the quantity of his spiritual Benefice, but after his Lay-tenement, and after the quantity of his offence.

[15] No Town or Freeman shall be distrained to make Bridges nor Banks, but such as of old time and of right have been accustomed to make them in the time of King Henry our Grandfather.

[16] No Banks shall be defended from henceforth, but such as were in defence in the time of King Henry our Grandfather, by the same places, and the same bounds, as they were wont to be in his time.

[17] No Sheriff, Constable, Escheator, Coroner, nor any other our Bailiffs, shall hold Pleas of our Crown.

[18] If any that holdeth of us Lay-fee do die, and our Sheriff or Bailiff do show our Letters Patents of our summon for Debt, which the dead man did owe to us; it shall be lawful to our Sheriff or Bailiff to attach or inroll all the goods and chattels of the dead, being found in the said fee, to the Value of the same Debt, by the sight and testimony of lawful men, so that nothing thereof shall be taken away, until we be clearly paid off the debt; and the residue shall remain to the Executors to perform the testament of the dead; and if nothing be owing unto us, all the chattels shall go to the use of the dead (saving to his wife and children their reasonable parts).

[19] No Constable, nor his Bailiff, shall take corn or other chattels of any man, if the man be not of the Town where the Castle is, but he shall forthwith pay for the same, unless that the will of the seller was to respite the payment; and if he be of the same Town, the price shall be paid unto him within forty days.

[20] No Constable shall distrain any Knight to give money for keeping of his Castle, if he himself will do it in his proper person, or cause it to be done by another sufficient man, if he may not do it himself for a reasonable cause. And if we lead or send him to an army, he shall be free from Castle-ward for the time that he shall be with us in fee in our host, for the which he hath done service in our wars.

[21] No Sheriff nor Bailiff of ours, or any other, shall take the Horses or Carts of any man to make carriage, except he pay the old price limited, that is to say, for carriage with two horse, x.d. a day; for three horse, xiv.d. a day. No demesne Cart of any Spiritual person or Knight, or any Lord, shall be taken by our Bailiffs; nor we, nor our Bailiffs, nor any other, shall take any man's wood for our Castles, or other our necessaries to be done, but by the licence of him whose wood it shall be.

[22] We will not hold the Lands of them that be convict of Felony but one year and one day, and then those Lands shall be delivered to the Lords of the fee.

[23] All Wears from henceforth shall be utterly put down by Thames and Medway, and through all England, but only by the Sea-coasts.

[24] The Writ that is called Praecipe in capite shall be from henceforth granted to no person of any freehold, whereby any freeman may lose his Court.

[25] One measure of Wine shall be through our Realm, and one measure of Ale, and one measure of Corn, that is to say, the Quarter of London; and one breadth of dyed Cloth, Russets, and Haberjects, that is to say, two Yards within the lists. And it shall be of Weights as it is of Measures.

[26] Nothing from henceforth shall be given for a Writ of Inquisition, nor taken of him that prayeth Inquisition of Life, or of Member, but it shall be granted freely, and not denied.

[27] If any do hold of us by Fee-ferm, or by Socage, or Burgage, and he holdeth Lands of another by Knights Service, we will not have the Custody of his Heir, nor of his Land, which is holden of the Fee of another, by reason of that Fee-ferm, Socage, or Burgage. Neither will we have the custody of such Fee-ferm, or Socage, or Burgage, except Knights Service be due unto us out of the same Fee-ferm. We will not have the custody of the Heir, or of any Land, by occasion of any Petit Serjeanty, that any man holdeth of us by Service to pay a Knife, an Arrow, or the like.

[28] No Bailiff from henceforth shall put any man to his open Law, nor to an Oath, upon his own bare saying, without faithful Witnesses brought in for the same.

[29] No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

[30] All Merchants (if they were not openly prohibited before) shall have their safe and sure Conduct to depart out of England, to come into England, to tarry in, and go through England, as well by Land as by Water, to buy and sell without any manner of evil Tolts, by the old and rightful Customs, except in Time of War. And if they be of a land making War against us, and such be found in our Realm at the beginning of the Wars, they shall be attached without harm of body or goods, until it be known unto us , or our Chief Justice, how our Merchants be intreated there in the land making War against us; and if our Merchants be well intreated there, theirs shall be likewise with us.

[31] If any man hold of any Eschete, as of the honour of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boloin, or of any other Eschetes which be in our hands, and are Baronies, and die, his Heir shall give none other Relief, nor do none other Service to us, than he should to the Baron, if it were in the Baron's hand. And we in the same wise shall hold it as the Baron held it; neither shall we have, by occasion of any such Barony or Eschete, any Eschete or keeping of any of our men, unless he that held the Barony or Eschete hold of us in chief.

[32] No Freeman from henceforth shall give or sell any more of his Land, but so that of the residue of the Lands the Lord of the Fee may have the Service due to him, which belongeth to the Fee.

[33] All Patrons of Abbies, which have the King's Charters of England of Advowson, or have old Tenure or Possession in the same, shall have the Custody of them when they fall void, as it hath been accustomed, and as it is afore declared.

[34] No Man shall be taken or imprisoned upon the Appeal of a Woman for the Death of any other, than of her husband.

[35] No County Court from henceforth shall be holden, but from Month to Month; and where greater time hath been used, there shall be greater: Nor any Sheriff, or his Bailiff, shall keep his Turn in the Hundred but twice in the Year; and nowhere but in due place, and accustomed; that is to say, once after Easter, and again after the Feast of St. Michael. And the View of Frankpledge shall be likewise at the Feast of St. Michael without occasion; so that every man may have his Liberties which he had, or used to have, in the time of King HENRY our Grandfather, or which he hath purchased since: but the View of Frankpledge shall be so done, that our Peace may be kept; and that the Tything be wholly kept as it hath been accustomed; and that the Sheriff seek no Occasions, and that he be content with so much as the Sheriff was wont to have for his Viewmaking in the time of King HENRY our Grandfather.

[36] It shall not be lawful from henceforth to any to give his Lands to any Religious House, and to take the same Land again to hold of the same House. Nor shall it be lawful to any House of Religion to take the Lands of any, and to lease the same to him of whom he received it. If any from henceforth give his Lands to any Religious House, and thereupon be convict, the Gift shall be utterly void, and the Land shall accrue to the Lord of the Fee.

[37] Escuage from henceforth shall be taken like as it was wont to be in the time of King HENRY our Grandfather; reserving to all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Templers, Hospitallers, Earls, Barons, and all persons, as well Spiritual as Temporal, all their free liberties and free Customs, which they have had in time passed. And all these Customs and Liberties aforesaid, which we have granted to be holden within this our Realm, as much as appertaineth to us and our Heirs, we shall observe; and all Men of this our Realm, as well Spiritual as Temporal (as much as in them is) shall observe the same against all persons in like wise. And for this our Gift and Grant of these Liberties, and of other contained in our Charter of Liberties of our Forest, the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, Knights, Freeholders, and other our Subjects, have given unto us the Fifteenth Part of all their Moveables. And we have granted unto them for us and our Heirs, that neither we, nor our Heirs shall proc ure or do anything whereby the Liberties in this Charter contained shall be infringed or broken; and if anything be procured by any person contrary to the premisses, it shall be had of no force nor effect. These being Witnesses; Lord B. Archbishop of Cant erbury, E. Bishop of London, J. Bishop of Bathe, P. of Winchester, H. of Lincoln, R. of Salisbury, W. of Rochester, W. of Worester, J. of Ely, H. of Hereford, R. of Chichester, W. of Exeter, Bishops; the Abbot of St. Edmunds, the Abbot of St. Albans, the Abbot of Bello, the Abbot of St. Augustines in Canterbury, the Abbot of Evesham, the Abbot of Westminster, the Abbot of Bourgh St. Peter, the Abbot of Reading, the Abbot of Abindon, the Abbot of Malmsbury, the Abbot of Winchcomb, the Abbot of Hyde, the Abbot of Certefey, the Abbot of Sherburn, the Abbot of Cerne, the Abbot of Abbotebir, the Abbot of Middleton, the Abbot of Seleby, the Abbot of Cirencester; H. de Burgh Justice, H. Earl of Chester and Lincoln, W. Earl of Salisbury, W. Earl of Warren, G. de Clare Earl of Gloucester and Hereford, W. de Ferrars Earl of Derby, W. de Mandeville Earl of Essex, H. de Bygod Earl of Norfolk, W. Earl of Albermarle, H. Earl of Hereford, J. Constable of Chester, R. de Ros, R. Fitzwalter, R. de Vyponte, W. de Bruer, R. de Muntefichet, P. Fitzherbert, W. de Aubenie, F. Grefly, F. de Breus, J. de Monemue, J. Fitzallen, H. de Mortimer, W. de Beauchamp, W. de St. John, P. de Mauly, Brian de Lisle, Thomas de Multon, R. de Argenteyn, G. de Nevil, W. de Mauduit, J. de Balun, and others.

We, ratifying and approving these Gifts and Grants aforesaid, confirm and make strong all the same for us and our Heirs perpetually, and, by the Tenour of these Presents, do renew the same; willing and granting for us and our Heirs, that this Charter, and all and singular his Articles, for ever shall be stedfastly, firmly, and inviolably observed; although some Articles in the same Charter contained, yet hitherto peradventure have not been kept, we will, and by Authority Royal command, from henceforth firmly they be observed. In witness whereof we have caused these our Letters Patents to be made. T. EDWARD our Son at Westminster, the Twenty-eighth Day of March, in the Twenty-eighth Year of our Reign.

[ClayBarham]

And everybody lived happily ever after, still never knowing the benefits of individual liberty as who had the guts to defend it?

[bobbylien]

Liberty does not entitle you to take the law into your own hands.

[ClayBarham]

If you created the law, through representatives you elected, and you serve on juries to convict, why then should you no longer be responsible for the law and its enforcement? Where, in our legal system, has the citizen been excluded from the responsibility to keep his or her community free of lawbreakers? You certainly do have the right to take the law into your own hands if the delegated authorities are not available or doing their job. It is how you do it that separates right from wrong, responsibility from irresponsibility. Don't forget, you can always make a citizen's arrest, and in the case of a misdemeanor, if you saw it, you are the only one who can make the arrest.

[Deadshot]

1. Yes you have that right when assaulted and being assaulted by a predator. You can fight back with everything available to you to save your own life, which makes you judge, jury and executioner. A good liberal would wait, however, for the real police, judge, jury and executioner, if he lived.

That is not a vigilante, it's someone defending themselves. The idea that you can't tell the difference is scary.

2. The best weapon for the Vigilante was more often tar, feathers and rail and not the rope. They ran a lot of people out of town for the bad behavior they had to endure from them. Again, these people enforced laws and were not terrorists, as Hollywood would have you believe.

But we don't run people out of town or tar and feather. If they've done wrong we arrest them, plain and simple. So we simply don't need the tar and feather brigade anymore.

BTW, I wouldn't trust that the tar and feather crowd would be just. Vigilantes also tarred and feathered blacks for being to "uppitdy" and women of illrepute. Let's let Justice handle our criminals.

3. Vigilantes come into play when the justice system has been purchased by the bad guys or didn't exist at all. If you want to know more about vigilantes, Google them and read about when they were used and how they normally functioned. Stay away from Hollywood descriptions.

You assume I'm talking from a Hollywood perspective, I'm not. I'm a police officer, I'm speaking from a Law Enforcement perspective. Vigilantes are great in a place with no law. Where is that place in the United States? I would like a specific town or city.

I'd venture to say if you and your neighbors were being harassed and assaulted day in day out by a bunch of rowdy's the police ignored, or laughed at you when you complained, you and your neighbors might get together and give them all the heave-ho and a beating. You'd be vigilantes.


And if I was one of the ones beaten, I'd call the cops, show them the damage done and get those "vigilantes" in trouble. The law would be on my side.

BTW, who in the name of Christ would want to use vigilante tactics and beat people for being rowdy? What are you some sort of villian in a 1980's music video?:madlaugh:

[bobbylien]

I think you are getting the idea that you are able to defend yourself mixed up with vigilantism. Defending yourself means you have the right to resist criminal acts perpetrated against you with REASONABLE force, you can't shoot a guy for walking on your lawn unless you have sufficient reason to believe he is going to harm you or someone else. Whether or not you had sufficient reason is up to the police and if they decide to charge you, a jury of your peers.
I can't seriously believe you are advocating for vigilantism. Its just completely ridiculous. The idea of vigilantism isn't that that person is going to protect himself but that he will seek his own justice for the crime as well. Its just completely ridiculous.

I have a question for those of you who believe you should be able to shoot someone who is stealing your car. Alright...
Say you and your wife are walking down the street and a guy comes up and steals your wifes purse. Well, say that purse has $30,000 in it(and you know he knows that). Would you then be justified in shooting that person as he(yes, i'm sexist damn it!) runs away? Have you ever heard of the retreat doctrine?

Here is another possible situation..
What if Dave is a panhandler who approaches Sue's car and touches it against her wishes? Perhaps it would be obvious to most observers that he had no intention of entering the car, but what if Sue panics and thinks he is a carjacker?

It is of no help to say that the law was not designed to permit her to use deadly force under those circumstances: after Dave is dead and Sue is facing criminal and civil penalties, the damage has already been done.

Is it worth the risk? We all know how trigger happy many rednecks are these days, are we really going to give them the right to kill someone if they think their property is in danger? Thats just ridiculous, the law has always said that people have the right to use deadly force when and only when they feel their life is in jeopardy. Its completely ridiculous.

Don't forget, you can always make a citizen's arrest, and in the case of a misdemeanor, if you saw it, you are the only one who can make the arrest.
You just don't get it, the idea of vigilantism is that someone takes the law into their own hands not just by stopping the crime but by avenging it as well.

[ClayBarham]

Vigilantes were usually law-abiding folks who got sick and tired of bullies, thieves and killers running loose in town with no one to stop them. Perhaps the constable was hiding, or was in the employ of the bad guys, whatever, he just didn't do his duty. So, a group of the good folks got together and persuaded the bad guys to leave, possibly at the point of a few guns with a rope as incentive. They were enforcing law. Now, if you are seeing the bad guys forcing themselves on the good folks, you should not be calling them vigilantes, but terrorists. There is a difference between the two. Normally, we think of a sheriff, constable, police officer or whatever you want to call them, doing their job when called upon by a complaint, but if they do not show up or are no longer present, the citizens who hire them and who send people to government to write laws have to do the job themselves. Are you implying those citizens must endure the criminal acts without any show of resistance if no delegated authority is around? Or, are you taking the liberal position that people cannot be trusted managing their own affairs?

[April15]

Vigilantes were usually law-abiding folks who got sick and tired of bullies, thieves and killers running loose in town with no one to stop them. Perhaps the constable was hiding, or was in the employ of the bad guys, whatever, he just didn't do his duty. So, a group of the good folks got together and persuaded the bad guys to leave, possibly at the point of a few guns with a rope as incentive. They were enforcing law. Now, if you are seeing the bad guys forcing themselves on the good folks, you should not be calling them vigilantes, but terrorists. There is a difference between the two. Normally, we think of a sheriff, constable, police officer or whatever you want to call them, doing their job when called upon by a complaint, but if they do not show up or are no longer present, the citizens who hire them and who send people to government to write laws have to do the job themselves. Are you implying those citizens must endure the criminal acts without any show of resistance if no delegated authority is around? Or, are you taking the liberal position that people cannot be trusted managing their own affairs?


Are you referring to th old west or today?

[Mayberry]

I have a question for those of you who believe you should be able to shoot someone who is stealing your car. Alright...
Say you and your wife are walking down the street and a guy comes up and steals your wifes purse. Well, say that purse has $30,000 in it(and you know he knows that). Would you then be justified in shooting that person as he(yes, i'm sexist damn it!) runs away? Have you ever heard of the retreat doctrine?
Justified? Absolutely. $30,000 is a lot of green, I don't care if you're Bill Gates! "Retreat Doctrine" be damned, and it recently was here in Texas, thank goodness. If some S.O.B. swiped $30,000 from me, you're damned straight I'd cap his a$$! Hell, if it was $300 I'd drill him. I bust my arse for what I've got, and I'm not going to let anyone steal from me. What if Dave is a panhandler who approaches Sue's car and touches it against her wishes? Perhaps it would be obvious to most observers that he had no intention of entering the car, but what if Sue panics and thinks he is a carjacker?
The perception of a crime possibly occurring versus one that actually has are two entirely different things Bobby. I would have to see a weapon before I presumed a carjacking. Sue could just roll up her windows and lock her doors. If "Dave" had a tire iron, a club, a pistol.... well that's another story. Is it worth the risk? We all know how trigger happy many rednecks are these days, are we really going to give them the right to kill someone if they think their property is in danger? Thats just ridiculous, the law has always said that people have the right to use deadly force when and only when they feel their life is in jeopardy. Its completely ridiculous.
Here we go with the rednecks again.:rolleyes: You know what Bobby? I have given my blood, sweat, and tears for everything I own. I have gotten it all, such as it is, through good, honest, hard work and sacrifice, and if somebody comes along and tries to steal from me, you're damn right I should be able to shoot their ass on the spot. And I wouldn't hesitate to do so either. Do you own a home Bobby? Do you have a family? My family has to do without day in and day out in order to pay the bills and taxes. So if some miserable son-of-a-b!tch comes along and tries to steal what little we have, I'd kill his a$$ in a heartbeat. I've worked too hard, and given up too much just to watch it walk away. The "law" favors the goddamned criminal more than the honest person more and more every day, and it makes me sick. So, in some cases, I can sympathise with the vigilante. A case in point: A neighbor's boat was "tagged" some months ago. My neighbor knew who did it, but the cops did nothing about it. So my neighbor went to the bum's place and busted the windshield out of the ba$tard's car, and left him a little love note. I have no problem at all with that. When "justice" fails you, you have to get your own. I live by a "live and let live" policy, but if someone screws with my life, I'll take my revenge, one way or another.

[April15]

I have a question for those of you who believe you should be able to shoot someone who is stealing your car. Alright...
Say you and your wife are walking down the street and a guy comes up and steals your wifes purse. Well, say that purse has $30,000 in it(and you know he knows that). Would you then be justified in shooting that person as he(yes, i'm sexist damn it!) runs away? Have you ever heard of the retreat doctrine?
Justified? Absolutely. $30,000 is a lot of green, I don't care if you're Bill Gates! "Retreat Doctrine" be damned, and it recently was here in Texas, thank goodness. If some S.O.B. swiped $30,000 from me, you're damned straight I'd cap his a$$! Hell, if it was $300 I'd drill him. I bust my arse for what I've got, and I'm not going to let anyone steal from me. What if Dave is a panhandler who approaches Sue's car and touches it against her wishes? Perhaps it would be obvious to most observers that he had no intention of entering the car, but what if Sue panics and thinks he is a carjacker?
The perception of a crime possibly occurring versus one that actually has are two entirely different things Bobby. I would have to see a weapon before I presumed a carjacking. Sue could just roll up her windows and lock her doors. If "Dave" had a tire iron, a club, a pistol.... well that's another story. Is it worth the risk? We all know how trigger happy many rednecks are these days, are we really going to give them the right to kill someone if they think their property is in danger? Thats just ridiculous, the law has always said that people have the right to use deadly force when and only when they feel their life is in jeopardy. Its completely ridiculous.
Here we go with the rednecks again.:rolleyes: You know what Bobby? I have given my blood, sweat, and tears for everything I own. I have gotten it all, such as it is, through good, honest, hard work and sacrifice, and if somebody comes along and tries to steal from me, you're damn right I should be able to shoot their ass on the spot. And I wouldn't hesitate to do so either. Do you own a home Bobby? Do you have a family? My family has to do without day in and day out in order to pay the bills and taxes. So if some miserable son-of-a-b!tch comes along and tries to steal what little we have, I'd kill his a$$ in a heartbeat. I've worked too hard, and given up too much just to watch it walk away. The "law" favors the goddamned criminal more than the honest person more and more every day, and it makes me sick. So, in some cases, I can sympathise with the vigilante. A case in point: A neighbor's boat was "tagged" some months ago. My neighbor knew who did it, but the cops did nothing about it. So my neighbor went to the bum's place and busted the windshield out of the ba$tard's car, and left him a little love note. I have no problem at all with that. When "justice" fails you, you have to get your own. I live by a "live and let live" policy, but if someone screws with my life, I'll take my revenge, one way or another.


I can only say that I don't harbor the same resentment that you do. Then again I have always been the biggest person in any crowd. So maybe I don't have the midget mentality.

[bobbylien]

Vigilantes were usually law-abiding folks who got sick and tired of bullies, thieves and killers running loose in town with no one to stop them. Perhaps the constable was hiding, or was in the employ of the bad guys, whatever, he just didn't do his duty. So, a group of the good folks got together and persuaded the bad guys to leave, possibly at the point of a few guns with a rope as incentive. They were enforcing law. Now, if you are seeing the bad guys forcing themselves on the good folks, you should not be calling them vigilantes, but terrorists. There is a difference between the two. Normally, we think of a sheriff, constable, police officer or whatever you want to call them, doing their job when called upon by a complaint, but if they do not show up or are no longer present, the citizens who hire them and who send people to government to write laws have to do the job themselves. Are you implying those citizens must endure the criminal acts without any show of resistance if no delegated authority is around? Or, are you taking the liberal position that people cannot be trusted managing their own affairs?
If the police aren't available then surely a jury of your peers wouldn't convict you of anything, if the police charge you that is. It all depends on the unique circumstances of the case. This is why you vote for your state Attorney General and district attorney, the prosecutors office has the say when it comes to prosecuting you or not. If they see clearly that you acted within the realm of reason, then you won't be charged with a crime for defending yourself or your friends. If these vigilantes are rising up to do something that is against the law then they will be prosecuted for it and if you don't like that, change the law and elect judges who support your views.

Justified? Absolutely. $30,000 is a lot of green, I don't care if you're Bill Gates! "Retreat Doctrine" be damned, and it recently was here in Texas, thank goodness. If some S.O.B. swiped $30,000 from me, you're damned straight I'd cap his a$$! Hell, if it was $300 I'd drill him. I bust my arse for what I've got, and I'm not going to let anyone steal from me.
That is against the law and I can assure you that if you killed a man over $300, you would be prosecuted, even under Texas 'law.' A man in this country is given the right to due process and that can't happen if we allow people to shoot anyone who commits a crime. How are we going to decide whether or not the person was guilty if we can't hear his side of the story? That kind of vigilantism represents the end of our justice system as we know it.
Do we set a dollar amount at which you can shoot someone? Where does it end? Could you shoot someone for stealing your soda?

The perception of a crime possibly occurring versus one that actually has are two entirely different things Bobby. I would have to see a weapon before I presumed a carjacking. Sue could just roll up her windows and lock her doors. If "Dave" had a tire iron, a club, a pistol.... well that's another story.
The point of the story is that the woman overreacted and jumped to conclusions quickly which one would have to do to stop a carjacking.
But if the crime has already happened then aren't you playing the role of judge, jury and executioner? You are seeking out your own justice for a crime which is vigilantism and completely against the law.

I have given my blood, sweat, and tears for everything I own. I have gotten it all, such as it is, through good, honest, hard work and sacrifice, and if somebody comes along and tries to steal from me, you're damn right I should be able to shoot their ass on the spot. And I wouldn't hesitate to do so either.
I'm sorry but the law has always said that the health of you or your family must be in danger to use deadly force. I'm sure you work hard for what you have but I'm sorry to say that its irrelevant in this situation. You really shouldn't take everything so personally dude. That kind of thinking will put you on the fast track to a heart attack.

So if some miserable son-of-a-b!tch comes along and tries to steal what little we have, I'd kill his a$$ in a heartbeat. I've worked too hard, and given up too much just to watch it walk away. The "law" favors the goddamned criminal more than the honest person more and more every day, and it makes me sick.
Then you fix the law to make it legal, if ever there was a place that would legalize the kind of justice you are pushing its Texas(if they haven't already).
I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't be able to defend your possessions but you must try other things before using deadly force. You can't adopt the shoot first and think later philosophy. Consider saying, stop or I'll shoot first. The use of deadly force has to be justified and in the case of losing money, its not. Certainly not as the first option, there are other options when you are holding a gun and the invader has no weapon.

So, in some cases, I can sympathise with the vigilante. A case in point: A neighbor's boat was "tagged" some months ago. My neighbor knew who did it, but the cops did nothing about it. So my neighbor went to the bum's place and busted the windshield out of the ba$tard's car, and left him a little love note. I have no problem at all with that. When "justice" fails you, you have to get your own. I live by a "live and let live" policy, but if someone screws with my life, I'll take my revenge, one way or another.
I'm sorry but revenge has no business in our justice system. As for what your friend did, you certainly must understand why people can't go around taking justice into their own hands all the time don't you? If the law doesn't help you, it is your job to fix it, not break it. Unless your life is in danger obviously.
I have a question for you, should the police just shoot at anyone committing a crime or should they pursue other venues first? Shooting people isn't always the way to deal with a situation.

[Mayberry]

I can only say that I don't harbor the same resentment that you do. Then again I have always been the biggest person in any crowd. So maybe I don't have the midget mentality.
Conceited anyone? You can take your "midget mentality" and stick it where the sun don't shine. If you want to line up to be a victim, be my guest. But my family and our property will be protected.


Vigilantes were usually law-abiding folks who got sick and tired of bullies, thieves and killers running loose in town with no one to stop them. Perhaps the constable was hiding, or was in the employ of the bad guys, whatever, he just didn't do his duty. So, a group of the good folks got together and persuaded the bad guys to leave, possibly at the point of a few guns with a rope as incentive. They were enforcing law. Now, if you are seeing the bad guys forcing themselves on the good folks, you should not be calling them vigilantes, but terrorists. There is a difference between the two. Normally, we think of a sheriff, constable, police officer or whatever you want to call them, doing their job when called upon by a complaint, but if they do not show up or are no longer present, the citizens who hire them and who send people to government to write laws have to do the job themselves. Are you implying those citizens must endure the criminal acts without any show of resistance if no delegated authority is around? Or, are you taking the liberal position that people cannot be trusted managing their own affairs?
If the police aren't available then surely a jury of your peers wouldn't convict you of anything, if the police charge you that is. It all depends on the unique circumstances of the case. This is why you vote for your state Attorney General and district attorney, the prosecutors office has the say when it comes to prosecuting you or not. If they see clearly that you acted within the realm of reason, then you won't be charged with a crime for defending yourself or your friends. If these vigilantes are rising up to do something that is against the law then they will be prosecuted for it and if you don't like that, change the law and elect judges who support your views. What if the Sherriff just started his term? Recall elections take time. Are you supposed to live with crime and lawlessness in the mean time?

Justified? Absolutely. $30,000 is a lot of green, I don't care if you're Bill Gates! "Retreat Doctrine" be damned, and it recently was here in Texas, thank goodness. If some S.O.B. swiped $30,000 from me, you're damned straight I'd cap his a$$! Hell, if it was $300 I'd drill him. I bust my arse for what I've got, and I'm not going to let anyone steal from me.
That is against the law and I can assure you that if you killed a man over $300, you would be prosecuted, even under Texas 'law.' A man in this country is given the right to due process and that can't happen if we allow people to shoot anyone who commits a crime. How are we going to decide whether or not the person was guilty if we can't hear his side of the story? That kind of vigilantism represents the end of our justice system as we know it.
Do we set a dollar amount at which you can shoot someone? Where does it end? Could you shoot someone for stealing your soda? Not for a soda, but if I was mugged for $300, you're damn skippy. Self defense is fortunately not against the law in Texas.

The perception of a crime possibly occurring versus one that actually has are two entirely different things Bobby. I would have to see a weapon before I presumed a carjacking. Sue could just roll up her windows and lock her doors. If "Dave" had a tire iron, a club, a pistol.... well that's another story.
The point of the story is that the woman overreacted and jumped to conclusions quickly which one would have to do to stop a carjacking.
But if the crime has already happened then aren't you playing the role of judge, jury and executioner? You are seeking out your own justice for a crime which is vigilantism and completely against the law. If the guy already got away, then you are right. But if the crime is in progress, then "Sue" has every right to blast the bastard. It is self defense.

I have given my blood, sweat, and tears for everything I own. I have gotten it all, such as it is, through good, honest, hard work and sacrifice, and if somebody comes along and tries to steal from me, you're damn right I should be able to shoot their ass on the spot. And I wouldn't hesitate to do so either.
I'm sorry but the law has always said that the health of you or your family must be in danger to use deadly force. I'm sure you work hard for what you have but I'm sorry to say that its irrelevant in this situation. You really shouldn't take everything so personally dude. That kind of thinking will put you on the fast track to a heart attack. Irrelevant?!! I am supposed to stand by while somebody steals from me, when I am in a position to stop it? I don't think so bud!!! Let me tell ya, the heart attack would come from standing by while someone rips me off!!!

So if some miserable son-of-a-b!tch comes along and tries to steal what little we have, I'd kill his a$$ in a heartbeat. I've worked too hard, and given up too much just to watch it walk away. The "law" favors the goddamned criminal more than the honest person more and more every day, and it makes me sick.
Then you fix the law to make it legal, if ever there was a place that would legalize the kind of justice you are pushing its Texas(if they haven't already).
I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't be able to defend your possessions but you must try other things before using deadly force. You can't adopt the shoot first and think later philosophy. Consider saying, stop or I'll shoot first. The use of deadly force has to be justified and in the case of losing money, its not. Certainly not as the first option, there are other options when you are holding a gun and the invader has no weapon. As I said earlier, the "chink chink" of chambering a round will most likely send an intruder running, and I would certainly allow that to work before I fired on someone. As far as losing money not justifying the use of force, I beg to differ.

So, in some cases, I can sympathise with the vigilante. A case in point: A neighbor's boat was "tagged" some months ago. My neighbor knew who did it, but the cops did nothing about it. So my neighbor went to the bum's place and busted the windshield out of the ba$tard's car, and left him a little love note. I have no problem at all with that. When "justice" fails you, you have to get your own. I live by a "live and let live" policy, but if someone screws with my life, I'll take my revenge, one way or another.
I'm sorry but revenge has no business in our justice system. As for what your friend did, you certainly must understand why people can't go around taking justice into their own hands all the time don't you? If the law doesn't help you, it is your job to fix it, not break it. Unless your life is in danger obviously.
I have a question for you, should the police just shoot at anyone committing a crime or should they pursue other venues first? Shooting people isn't always the way to deal with a situation.
Shooting should always be a last resort. But if someone has my boat hooked up and is fixin' to take off with it, you're damn right I'll shoot. Tires first to stop them. Then if they come at me, I'll shoot them next. Nobody is going to take what's mine. When you come by things the hard way, you'll defend them, no question. Like I told Viola, if you want to line up to be a victim, be my guest. But I'll never be one, and you can mark my words. If I get busted for it, so be it. But here in Texas, I won't, because I'll be justified under the law, and I wouldn't have it any other way. God Bless Texas.

[ClayBarham]

Back to the purpose of the post, that each American is responsible for laws and justice, and we delegate, not give up, that responsibility to people we feel will be more efficient and correct. That means, Americans hire the police, form the Grand Juries, people the courts and jails, and work on the bases that it is a better thing that a bad guy goes free than an innocent be condemned, leading to innocence presumed until tried and found otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. All of that belongs to us, our responsibility, and we should never give it up. If we give it to those we delegate it to, then they will rule us and not we them. So, get lost in the minutiae if you will, but the core idea of who has ultimate responsibility impacts on our liberty.

[Deadshot]

Conceited anyone? You can take your "midget mentality" and stick it where the sun don't shine. If you want to line up to be a victim, be my guest. But my family and our property will be protected.

Fine protect your family and property. BUT, if the bad guys get away, you let the Police hunt them, not you.

What if the Sherriff just started his term? Recall elections take time. Are you supposed to live with crime and lawlessness in the mean time?

Example please. Preferably one from the last 50 years. I think you've been watching to many John Wayne movies.

Not for a soda, but if I was mugged for $300, you're damn skippy. Self defense is fortunately not against the law in Texas.

Self defense isn't against the law anywhere. But there a difference between self defense and over reaction.

If the guy already got away, then you are right. But if the crime is in progress, then "Sue" has every right to blast the bastard. It is self defense.

You're probably right here, but this has nothing to do with vigilantes. If afraid for your life, use of deadly force is allowed.

Irrelevant?!! I am supposed to stand by while somebody steals from me, when I am in a position to stop it? I don't think so bud!!! Let me tell ya, the heart attack would come from standing by while someone rips me off!!!

Again, this has nothing to do with vigilantes. If someone breaks into your home, NO ONE knows if they're there for your stuff or your life, so deadly force is allowed.

As I said earlier, the "chink chink" of chambering a round will most likely send an intruder running, and I would certainly allow that to work before I fired on someone. As far as losing money not justifying the use of force, I beg to differ.

Here you start to get into a possible legal quandry. In your home, fine gun the dude down, no problem. Guy's pointing a weapon, knife - gun - whatever, and you feel your life is threatened, again, gun him down. But I would be leary of using the defence or letting people here you say, "I'd kill anyone that tried to take any money from me." It will get you into trouble.

Shooting should always be a last resort. But if someone has my boat hooked up and is fixin' to take off with it, you're damn right I'll shoot. Tires first to stop them. Then if they come at me, I'll shoot them next. Nobody is going to take what's mine. When you come by things the hard way, you'll defend them, no question. Like I told Viola, if you want to line up to be a victim, be my guest. But I'll never be one, and you can mark my words. If I get busted for it, so be it. But here in Texas, I won't, because I'll be justified under the law, and I wouldn't have it any other way. God Bless Texas.


In all states you have the right to protect what's yours. Now a person driving off in your boat, in the scenario you laid out above (i.e. you shot out their tires, then they came after you) there's no jury that would convict you.

But none of this is about vigilantes, it's about defense. It's when YOU decide to go hunt the guys that stole your boat and exact revenge that is a problem. Not defense. At least not for me.

[bobbylien]

Shooting should always be a last resort. But if someone has my boat hooked up and is fixin' to take off with it, you're damn right I'll shoot. Tires first to stop them.
Exactly, there are other ways to deal with the situation. Don't you think the police would be able to catch the guy though? I mean rather than killing the guy you could be on the phone and tell the cops exactly what the boat looks like and what he and his vehicle look like. You can't give me a reasonable scenario where shooting a guy about to take off with your boat is justified.

Then if they come at me, I'll shoot them next.
Yes, because you would be defending yourself.

I am 100% positive that you would and should be locked up for shooting someone running off with $300, even in Texas that is ridiculous. You know what this kind of thinking will do? It will make the criminals more violent, make them shoot first and ask questions later. You might see a drop in non-violent crimes but you will certainly see violent crime rates go up, not to mention accidental shootings with this mentality.
If a criminal knows you could shoot them for stealing your wifes purse then they will probably kill you and your wife. Criminals will surpass any bars set for them if it means they think they can get away with it.

In the end though, all of these situations are dealt with based on the facts of that individual case.

[PatrickHenry]

Back to the purpose of the post, that each American is responsible for laws and justice, and we delegate, not give up, that responsibility to people we feel will be more efficient and correct. That means, Americans hire the police, form the Grand Juries, people the courts and jails, and work on the bases that it is a better thing that a bad guy goes free than an innocent be condemned, leading to innocence presumed until tried and found otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. All of that belongs to us, our responsibility, and we should never give it up. If we give it to those we delegate it to, then they will rule us and not we them. So, get lost in the minutiae if you will, but the core idea of who has ultimate responsibility impacts on our liberty.

You get some rep for this, Clay...

Core idea: "We the People rule."

[bobbylien]

Yes clay, the people do have the ultimate say in our criminal justice system but thats not vigilantism. Vigilantism is people who go out and seek their own justice for a specific crime, many times vigilantes act out of rage.

[ClayBarham]

You are describing terrorists. You have seemingly adopted the view of Hollywood on Vigilantism. You are saying that people in the past should have rolled over and submitted to criminals if they didn't have police around to help them, and I am saying Americans didn't build town and cities with that in mind. I have a dog, Omega in the pack, who rolls over whenever the more aggressive dogs come close. That's an Old World response for people, simply to get on your knees and beg for mercy from the bully. However, this was the core of the post that Americans didn't go on their knees, but put up a fight against injustice, even when the police were corrupt and captive of the bad guys. Viva Vigilante.

[PatrickHenry]

That's an Old World response for people, simply to get on your knees and beg for mercy from the bully. However, this was the core of the post that Americans didn't go on their knees, but put up a fight against injustice, even when the police were corrupt and captive of the bad guys. Viva Vigilante.
Do you like the movie, Silverado?

[bobbylien]

You are describing terrorists. You have seemingly adopted the view of Hollywood on Vigilantism. You are saying that people in the past should have rolled over and submitted to criminals if they didn't have police around to help them, and I am saying Americans didn't build town and cities with that in mind. I have a dog, Omega in the pack, who rolls over whenever the more aggressive dogs come close. That's an Old World response for people, simply to get on your knees and beg for mercy from the bully. However, this was the core of the post that Americans didn't go on their knees, but put up a fight against injustice, even when the police were corrupt and captive of the bad guys. Viva Vigilante.
The points you are making aren't relevant in a society with an established police presence everywhere. Vigilantes are only necessary when the police can't help you, not when you don't agree with the way the police go after the criminals. You have the right to defend yourself and apprehend a criminal, you cannot however punish that criminal yourself when the police are available.
Are you sure you know the meaning of the word Vigilante?

[Mayberry]

The points you are making aren't relevant in a society with an established police presence everywhere. Vigilantes are only necessary when the police can't help you, not when you don't agree with the way the police go after the criminals. You have the right to defend yourself and apprehend a criminal, you cannot however punish that criminal yourself when the police are available.
When the police are crooked, as they are here, and they're forced to implement the agendas of crooked politicians, then the "established police presence" isn't much use, is it. Under these circumstances, the police can't, or won't help you.

[bobbylien]

Then you must elect politicians who aren't corrupt. You can't go against the law because you disagree with it.

[Mayberry]

Then you must elect politicians who aren't corrupt. You can't go against the law because you disagree with it.
Easier said than done. The "good ol' boy" network re-elects the same low lifes year in and year out. When term limits come up, they just swap positions. It'll take a generation to drain this swamp, and even then, the good ol' boys are busy grooming their next generation.

[bobbylien]

Local politics usually work that way, especially in the more rural areas.

[Mayberry]

Local politics usually work that way, especially in the more rural areas.

Corpus, at 300,000, is hardly rural. Though the county is just as bad. Incidentally, the former mayor is now the county judge. Just an illustration of what I said.

[Deadshot]

Local politics usually work that way, especially in the more rural areas.

Corpus, at 300,000, is hardly rural. Though the county is just as bad. Incidentally, the former mayor is now the county judge. Just an illustration of what I said.


How, in posts in the same thread, do you expect to be taken seriously when you talk about the greatness of Texas and thank God that you live there, then turn and tell us that Texas is full of lawmen you don't trust and many places are corrupt...I just don't get it.

[cassandra]

Of course vigilantes should be condemned. They think they are judge, jury and executioner. They play by their own rules and they are the only one who knows them.

[bobbylien]

How, in posts in the same thread, do you expect to be taken seriously when you talk about the greatness of Texas and thank God that you live there, then turn and tell us that Texas is full of lawmen you don't trust and many places are corrupt...I just don't get it.
Being corrupt doesn't mean the politicians don't love their guns!

[ClayBarham]

Cassandra, you are describing terrorists, not vigilantes. Quit looking at them along Hollywood standards. Keep in mind that ordinary people make laws or send representatives to make law. Ordinary people serve on juries, grand and petite. To describe ordinary people as mean and callous just doesn't jibe with our history, though it does with Hollywood.

[bobbylien]

Keep in mind that ordinary people make laws or send representatives to make law. Ordinary people serve on juries, grand and petite.
Once again, you are describing the role of the CITIZEN. Vigilantism, by definition, is one or a group of people who go out and seek justice for a particular crime and pay no attention to the law. The whole idea is that they seek justice as THEY see fit at the time.
There is a very obvious reason why ordinary citizens aren't allowed to seek retribution for crimes committed against them on their own. Citizens must act in accordance with the laws that they set before they are enraged.

Cassandra, you are describing terrorists, not vigilantes.
Explain to me how her description is that of the terrorist and not of the vigilante. You just keep repeating the same crap over and over.

[AnnEsthesia]

This is an interesting read:

VIGILANTISM, VIGILANTE JUSTICE, AND VICTIM SELF-HELP

The word vigilante is of Spanish origin and means "watchman" or "guard" but its Latin root is vigil, which means "awake" or "observant." When it is said that someone is taking the law into their own hands, this usually means that they are engaging in vigilante activity, or vigilantism, although sometimes the phrase "taking the law into your own hands" is used to describe what some people call a "secret police" force. The phrase does not make for a good definition. Everyone seems to have an opinion about what vigilantism is, but few people have taken the trouble to define it (Johnston 1996). Worse yet, those of us who teach criminal justice and criminology often warn about the dangers of vigilantism without really understanding or explaining why, and the field of criminal justice is way too silent on this topic, gladly substituting state-by-state comparisons on gun ownership and self-defense for real research on the nature and dynamics of vigilantism.

For better understanding, it's important to obtain some theoretical perspective on vigilantism. From a legal perspective, lawyers sometimes call it extra-judicial self-help, and this perspective may or may not (depending upon your point of view) lend itself to promising new approaches in the sociology of law (Black 1983). Philosophers, like French (2001), frequently equate it with vengeance, and tie it into some sort of definition that sounds like it came from a treatise on ethics -- vigilantism being the righting of a criminal wrong by wrongful means. A recurring theme in philosophical treatises is that the sooner we recognize vengeance as an essential part of our inner human nature, the better. Sociologists are almost always silent on the topic, perhaps because the behavior is not mundane enough, as there seems to be an emerging convention in the last couple of decades where sociologists study the ordinary and criminologists study "rare events." Criminologists, like Zimring (2003), don't really study vigilantism per se. They only study it as a side issue whenever it seems convenient to tie in America's vigilante tradition to something else, like capital punishment. A review of the literature would indicate that there is a good deal of consensus on the fact that vigilantism and a vigilante tradition exist, but there also appears to be no adequate theoretical framework from which to analyze the phenomena in systematic fashion.

To be sure, the study of vigilantism involves some complexities. There are a vast number of controversial issues associated with vigilantism. To list some examples would include Good Samaritan laws, the Right to Resist Arrest, Self-Defense Doctrine, the Militia Clause of the Constitution, the Concealed Handgun Debate, Road Rage as a form of Vigilantism, and Digilantism (getting back at Internet deviants by "digital vigilantism"). On the Internet, there are vigilante groups who claim to be the "true" vigilantees getting back at the "false" vigilantees, and it can become quite confusing who is the real "vigilante." Not many of these complex issues will be discussed here, not because they are unimportant, but because new forms of vigilante behavior are constantly emerging, and it is of primary importance, beforehand, to obtain an adequate conceptualization of basic vigilantism.

DEFINING VIGILANTISM

Brown (1975) attempted to define vigilantism, saying it represented "morally sanctimonious" behavior aimed at rectifying or remedying a "structural flaw" in society, with the flaw usually being some place where the law was ineffective or not enforced. This is a complex socio-legal definition. It treats vigilantism as a societal reaction and not as a social movement. It also implies that the phenomenon of vigilantism will be short-lived since once a flaw is remedied, there is no reason to continue, and in any event, "sanctimonious" morality is unlikely to be sustainable. For criminological purposes, this definition treats the vigilante the same as the criminal. Both are victims of the same social forces, the same "structural flaw," and vigilantes are the victim of a flawed society in the same way a criminal can be considered a victim of society. The difference, of course, is that the criminal is an enemy of society while the vigilante acts as a friend of society. The notion that VIGILANTES ARE VICTIMS of society seems to be a dominant thrust in criminological thought on the subject.

Political scientists (Rosenbaum and Sedberg 1976) and psychologists (Marx and Archer 1976) have serious disagreements over the definition of vigilantism. Political scientists are much more likely to categorize it as a subtype of political violence (i.e. "establishment violence") and would treat hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan as vigilantes. Psychologists, as well as some criminologists (Johnson 1996), are much more likely to consider the vigilante's noble motive and premeditation toward curbing evil as important, making it the ultimate act of good citizenship (i.e. "autonomous citizenship"). Culberson (1990) also points out the importance of distinguishing between domestic terrorism -- which seeks to harm the social order; and vigilantism -- which seeks to help the social order (i.e. "popular sovereignty"). The notion of VIGILANTE AS GOOD CITIZEN appears to have some currency in the literature. Vigilante violence is the opposite of revolutionary violence as vigilantism always seeks to restore order or preserve the status quo. Sometimes, it is often said that vigilantism is always conservative.

HISTORY OF VIGILANTISM

American vigilantism arose in the Deep South and Old West during the 1700s when, in the absence of a formal criminal justice system, certain volunteer associations (called vigilance committees) got together to blacklist, harass, banish, "tar and feather," flog, mutilate, torture, or kill people who were perceived as threats to their communities, families, or privileges (Karmen 1968). By the late 1700s, these committees became known as lynch mobs because almost all the time, the punishment handed out was a summary execution by hanging. In some states, like South Carolina, these mobs had exotic names like the Regulators. During the 1800's, most American towns with seaports had vigilante groups that worked to identify and punish suspected thieves, alcoholics, and gamblers among recently arrived immigrants. The state of Montana, however, holds the record for the bloodiest vigilante movement from 1863 to 1865 when hundreds of suspected horse thieves were rounded up and killed in massive mob action. Texas, Montana, California, and the Deep South, especially the city of New Orleans, were hotbeds of vigilante activity in American history.

Vigilantism seemed to die down after 1909 in America, but was resurrected in what some experts (Brown 1975) call neo-vigilantism in the 1920s and pseudo-vigilantism in the 1970s. Neo-vigilantism includes the anti-abortionist movement, subway and neighborhood crime patrols, border security groups, and what might be best described as a variant of bounty hunting for criminal fugitives. The lynchings of Mexicans and African-Americans during the 1920s, as well as more recent vigilante activity against immigrants are a type of neo-vigilantism. Pseudo-vigilantism technically refers to controversial cases of self-defense, like the Bernhard Goetz incident, in which a citizen kills somebody in self-defense in anticipation of an attack. In the 1980s, and to some extent before then (Campbell & Brenner 2000), vigilantism arose in Third World countries in the form of "death squad" paramilitaries. In the 1990s, cyber-vigilantism emerged where so-called "ethical" or "white hat" hackers go after sexual predators, terrorists, spammers, auction frauds, and copyright infringers on the Internet. For example, some activist groups are involved in anti-terrorism, and other activist groups pose as "honeypot" targets for child molesters.

The "crime" of vigilantism is not expressly prohibited by law. What constitutes the "crime" in vigilante activity is the underlying crime that is committed in conjunction with vigilante activities. In charging the vigilante, the federal government and most states attempt to make a distinction between whether the underlying crime is a felony or misdemeanor. The most common sentence if the underlying crime is a misdemeanor is probation. Reduced charges, such as third-degree murder or manslaughter, are common when the underlying crime is a felony, the most common sentence being ten years in prison.

THE VIGILANTE PROFILE

There is no definitive demographic profile of the typical vigilante, other than middle class status, which is the usual socio-economic characteristic. A number of different age groups, genders, or ethnicity are likely to be engaged in vigilantism. It is an extremely common phenomenon in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In America, there is a tendency for middle-aged white males to be involved in it, but this characterization is only based on the history of lynching, which is probably the most studied form of vigilantism. Newer forms of vigilantism, such as cyber-vigilantism, for example, suggest a younger profile, but there hasn't been any real research. The most common aspect behind all types of vigilante activity is that it may be a male or masculine phenomena. While it is possible that some vigilantes have the same cop "wanabe" mindset as serial killers (Ressler & Burgess 1985), it is more likely that the psychological mindset of a vigilante develops from engaging in behavioral experiments with it. It is significant that one of the first things that a vigilante does is stake out their target, stalk their victim, and engage is a whole lot of brooding and premeditation. This is what separates vigilantism from self-defense. Vigilante behavior is premeditated, while self-defense is spontaneous. The Bernhard Goetz subway shooting incident in 1984 was not a case of vigilantism for this reason. The planned intent to do harm is what makes vigilantism criminal behavior since the vigilante's very reason for being is to do serious bodily harm or kill (which is conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, murder, or other felonies).

There are two main types of vigilantes: the lone wolf; and the instigator. The lone wolf is commonly portrayed in the media, but the more common and classical type is the instigator. A lone wolf is likely to be disorganized, and easily caught or killed. Sometimes, a lone wolf is seeking martyrdom or "suicide by cop." However, the vast majority of lone wolves abandon their plans and channel their energies into some other type of self-protection, such as arming themselves with guns or taking up some activist cause. On the other hand, an instigator is the kind of person who is not only well-organized themselves in their preparations, but they involve others (a significant other, a small group, or sometimes a mob) in their plans. This is the classic vigilante profile -- one who instigates a posse, gang, crew, or mob into action. Vigilantism as a group activity is much more common than vigilantism as a solitary activity.

The organization of vigilante activity is quite often sporadic. Certainly, some organized training exercises are usually held, and despite the vigilante leadership's best efforts, membership always seems hard to maintain. A vigilante group frequently lacks support, and all that usually remain are "hard-core" members who typically refer to themselves as "death squads," the "inner elite," or something like that. Vigilante groups are not hate groups. Hatred is not what binds the membership together. What keep them united is their common interest in the (sometimes) necessary use of force (or extreme measures) in the hands of private citizens. Some members are interested in joining the vigilante group only because they are interested in military or law enforcement work, and/or plan to become soldiers or law enforcement officers. When they do become soldiers or officers, this is ideal for the vigilante group because such members are receiving training from the government. Most such members, however, withdraw or abandon their vigilante connection soon after the influence of government service presents them with ethical and professional conflicts.

Another typical pattern of vigilante group activity is the quest for recognition of legitimate status. Vigilantes will often try to incorporate themselves as a private security firm or a non-profit organization. They will try to be recognized by the local sheriff so they can march in local parades or have a booth at the county or state fair. They will try to be recognized by the Chamber of Commerce. They will try to be recognized a part of the state militia, or the militia movement nationwide. Others will avoid any association with the militia movement because they consider them domestic terrorists or "terrorists next door." In any event, an organized vigilante group will frequently have a website, and it will eventually try to do fund-raising through that website. The vigilante quest for legitimacy can lead to some unusual allies and bedfellows, but the more rational vigilante groups will avoid extremists and fanatics, and the even more rational groups, such as the well-known Guardian Angels, will have extensive rules of engagement where non-lethal force is used (even though their charter permits deadly force). Legitimacy can sometimes be achieved by appearing to be better than the government. The story of the Guardian Angels is instructive in this regard. Formed in February 1979 by a young night manager of a Mcdonald's restaurant in the Bronx named Curtis Sliwa, an unauthorized anti-crime patrol, first calling themselves "The Magnificent Thirteen Subway Safety Patrol," became known as the Guardian Angels. Sporting red berets, they stepped into subway cars and took up positions near the door. Newspapers and television stations carried frequent reports on them, and the fact that the police so obviously resented the Angels' presence only added to their glamour and respectability.

Established vigilante groups will usually be one of two kinds: crime control vigilantes; or social control vigilantes. This is a distinction made by Johnston (1996) based on Brown's (1975) typology of classic and neo-vigilantes, and the two kinds of groups are by no means mutually exclusive. The crime control vigilante group seeks to punish those whom they believe are factually guilty of criminal wrongs (e.g. thieves, outlaws, fugitives from justice), and in this sense are simply playing the role of bounty hunter except that the bounty hunter is concerned for legal guilt, not factual guilt. The social control vigilante group seeks to repair some transgression in the social order that threatens to affect the communal quality of life, values, or sense of honor (e.g. illegal immigrants taking jobs away from average workers, ethnic males who threaten to seduce wives and daughters away, anything that makes one's children run away). In Islamic societies, the practice of "honor killing" when a female member of the household shames the family name is a quite widely-tolerated vigilante activity. Vigilante groups that go after drug dealers would be an example of a mixed type, since they are probably equally concerned about the crime of drug dealing as they are about their children getting hooked on drugs. The social control group is probably the most dangerous type because they might contemplate assassination of a political leader in the name of social order. The crime control group is usually caught up in a retaliation cycle at the local level whenever they perceive an act of injustice to occur.

THE VIGILANTE MINDSET
These are all romantic notions that feed an appetite for punishment more than an appetite for vengeance.

Punishment is the foundational matter of justice, and those who deserve punishment also deserve to pay (lex salica) or receive some kind of harm equal to the harm they have done (lex talionis). Unfortunately, lex talionis cannot be uniformly applied to every human harm committed. That is the reason we have a system of laws and courts -- to sort out the particulars and differences between a criminal who deliberately commits a crime and one who accidentally commits a crime. Also, lex talionis cannot possibly deal with extreme types of crime, such as the genocide of thousands of people. What would the vigilante do in this case? Kill the deserving party thousands of times over? Nor is vengeance satisfying. Almost anyone who's ever thought about it knows than vengeance is an un-tempered emotion like fear, lust, and anger. Justice and punishment should NOT be guided by banal, primitive, un-tempered emotions. Instead, we normally try to moderate or temper our feelings when thinking about how to punish somebody.

The vigilante knows it is not vengeance they seek, nor even some lending of respectability to the spirit of vengeance. The vigilante is no avenger. The vigilante simply wants punishment, or just deserts, and they want it swift and sure. The only problem is that vigilante justice is sometimes too swift and too sure. Vicious beatings and on-the-spot executions do not fit the crime. The only purpose that vigilantism serves is to turn the tables on those criminals who make victims out of people. Vigilantes desperately want to avoid thinking of themselves as victims, so they become victimizers themselves. Vigilantes ultimately become criminals, and they also must rationalize their criminal behavior in the strongest terms possible -- self-defense, social defense, lex talionis, natural law, patriotism, religion, honor --- all the time claiming that they are engaging in the most law-abiding behavior or duty there is -- the duty to preserve the sacred right to protect one's self. It is a frontier ethic of survival and self-responsibility. If no one else will do anything, especially the legal system, then it is the red-blooded duty of any honest patriot to act, to kill-or-be-killed, to take a stand and do one's part. It takes a certain kind of over-zealousness to commit illegal acts in the name of do-it-yourself justice, and until more ethnographic research is done (as many experts have called for), we will not know exactly how the vigilante mindset develops. Vigilantism represents a serious threat to democracy and the rule of law. It is deserving of more study.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/300/300lect10.htm

[Deadshot]

Cassandra, you are describing terrorists, not vigilantes. Quit looking at them along Hollywood standards. Keep in mind that ordinary people make laws or send representatives to make law. Ordinary people serve on juries, grand and petite. To describe ordinary people as mean and callous just doesn't jibe with our history, though it does with Hollywood.


If she's looking at them in the, in your opinion, "bad" Hollywood standards, then by what standards are you looking at them? Don't go back 100 years or more and give me examples of when the country was expanding an one Teddy Roosevelt begged to be on a vigilante team. Give me a recent example, past 25 years, of where vigilantes here in the USA did good. Surely you can find a few examples of your version of vigilantism from 1982 that show how great it is.

[cassandra]

Cassandra, you are describing terrorists, not vigilantes. Quit looking at them along Hollywood standards. Keep in mind that ordinary people make laws or send representatives to make law. Ordinary people serve on juries, grand and petite. To describe ordinary people as mean and callous just doesn't jibe with our history, though it does with Hollywood.


Please explain to me how these two groups are different.

[Mayberry]

Local politics usually work that way, especially in the more rural areas.

Corpus, at 300,000, is hardly rural. Though the county is just as bad. Incidentally, the former mayor is now the county judge. Just an illustration of what I said.


How, in posts in the same thread, do you expect to be taken seriously when you talk about the greatness of Texas and thank God that you live there, then turn and tell us that Texas is full of lawmen you don't trust and many places are corrupt...I just don't get it.
I said Corpus is full of lawmen that I don't trust, not the whole state! I have great respect for the DPS Troopers, the Texas Rangers.... it's just the CCPD that is riddled with corruption. I can't speak for other cities though.

[ClayBarham]

I guess my problem is I am citing the Vigilante movement much as Brown in 1975 per AnnEsthesia's fine definition, in that I narrow it down to a period in history which does include California, Nevada and Montana, where men of good character, fed up with rampant lawlessness, got together as committees of vigilance and put a top to it. By bringing in the KKK, a terrorist group serving the Democratic Party in the Reconstruction Era of the South, you muddy the waters. A fictional character like Zorro would better describe to lone wolf vigilante, than John Brown of some grand wizard of the KKK. But, I am bored with the subject, since so many see anyone who takes his law enforcement responsibility to heart, staying within the law, as a rogue, I will simply rest my case.

[micfranklin]

The reason that you condem vigilantes is because

1. one person does not have the right to be judge, jury and executioner.

2. vigilantes have a bad habit of exacting to high a price, i.e. execution, for crimes.

3. vigilantes do not have the whole criminal justice system trying to back them up and make sure mistakes aren't made...and even we make mistakes!


Vigilantes also have a tendency to keep certain criminals from being problems in the future.

[bobbylien]

Vigilantes also have a tendency to keep certain criminals from being problems in the future.
But how do they do this?

[ClayBarham]

Fear!

[bobbylien]

Unusually harsh punishments don't stop crime. Its what the Nazis and Stalin used and crime was still rampant. Crime will always the be there and the only way to stop it is to put rehabilitation and crime prevention over punishment.
If someone knows he can be shot for stealing $300 then he isn't going to risk his life stealing only $300. That is true but instead of going for the small cheese he will go after something big and kill everyone that gets in his way because hes going to die anyways. Desperate people will turn to crime to fix their problems, thats just how it works.

[AnnEsthesia]

No, vigilantes just make sure that criminals will be fully armed and ready to shoot.

[ClayBarham]

Maybe you are using too wide a brush in your condemnation of vigilantes. If you were living in the West say, two hundred years ago, in a settlement consisting of individuals working hard to produce a great life for themselves, their families and their community, and some drunken oafs rode into town, started bullying people, shooting up the place, you might be willing to join with a group in a committee of vigilance to get together and run them out of town to save the town, if there were no willing and able peace officer to do it. What would be the alternative? Turn the other cheek a few times and let them take the town and everything and everyone in it? This is exactly what those committees did. They acted like a town council when it hires a peace officer, establishes a court and a jail, to control crime. Are they also bad? Should they, instead, wait for the King and his people to come over from Britain to control crime? Are you saying that anything individuals do for themselves is evil and outrageous?

[BoogyMan]

But Clay, to not condemn vigilante action shows approval of the creation of a floating standard of justice.

[ClayBarham]

But, in a small community in the West in the 1800's, a "floating" system of law enforcement may be all that is at hand. If a small group of honest citizens have to "deputize" themselves to clean up the town, because no one else will do it, and they need to protect their families and property, why not? Should they really just roll over, on their backs, and submit? That's what the folks in the Old World did when faced with a force stronger than they.

[Elrathin]

But, in a small community in the West in the 1800's, a "floating" system of law enforcement may be all that is at hand. If a small group of honest citizens have to "deputize" themselves to clean up the town, because no one else will do it, and they need to protect their families and property, why not? Should they really just roll over, on their backs, and submit? That's what the folks in the Old World did when faced with a force stronger than they.


We are not in the 1800s now and the difference in population of one of those small towns is extremely small compared to a city of today. Too many mistakes can (and in the past) have been made and many innocent people were killed or injured because of it.

Vigilante Justice does not care about facts, only punishment. And in that case, mistakes are made and more innocent people die or are injured.

[ClayBarham]

OK, you woke me up. Now I know we are no longer in the 1800's. Thanks. Also, I see where you get your "facts" on vigilantes from the movies, and I cannot argue with Hollywood fictional accounts. But, again, I return to the core of the post, which is we, as individuals, never give up our responsibility for making and enforcing the law. Yes, we delegate it, but if no one shows up for the job, it is still ours. In the past, the past, it was often necessary for good folks to do the job. The problem with so many people today is they see the people who are supposed to make and enforce laws as a special group which must be accorded reverence far and above ordinary people, as if we are attracted to Old World royalty once again. I go along with Tom Paine, in saying that our Creator never created a special group of people to whom we ordinary folks must bow.

[Mayberry]

Let me give you an example of "vigilante" justice. Recently, some "taggers" saw fit to "decorate" a neighbor's $30,000 boat. After an afternoon of buffing and swearing, myself and several neighbors spent the night "on stakeout", mostly due to the police department's apathetic response to my neighbor's complaint, which consisted of an officer begrudgingly taking my neighbor's statement and taking off in a huff. We caught the little bastards attempting to tag another neighbor's RV, and while they were "setting up", we relieved their car's tires of their air, and did a little tagging of our own on their car. After having taggers hit 5 neighbors in as many nights, our little bit of "vigilante" justice has kept us "tag free" for 3 weeks now. I don't expect to see them come back anytime soon.

[ClayBarham]

Congratulations. You got it. Only problem is, some respondents here are going to say you violated their civil rights, not that yours aren't important, maybe. In any case, you won.

[Elrathin]

Also, I see where you get your "facts" on vigilantes from the movies, and I cannot argue with Hollywood fictional accounts.


Yep because NOONE EVER has been wrongfully hurt by vigilante justice right? Every time Vigilante Justice has been done, it has been correct and without error right?

I'll give you an example of vigilante justice.

A friend of mine was dating a girl which he decided that it wasn't going to work out so he broke it off with her. Her being pissed off, she went to her brother and told him that my friend raped her. Well her brother, along with several friends, decided to pay my friend a visit to give him some "vigilante justice".

Well after she had heard he was in the hospital from the "Justice" she broke down and finally told her brother the truth.

Yep fine example of Vigilante Justice eh? :rolleyes:

[ClayBarham]

So, you are saying there were no law enforcement officers, courts and jails, that they were all out in the wilds with no organization of government and they simply felt there was no choice but to take the law in their own hands, or were those so-called vigilantes just criminals? This kind of thing happens a lot in crowded communities, where the kid tells his big brother some other kids beat him up, and the big brother and his friends decide to employ their own justice....and you refer to that as vigilante? It has no relationship to my post or anything I've said so far. It says you are not thinking about the conditions on which vigilantes performed or who they were. Back to Hollywood History classes.