Can Vigilante Justice Be Justified?

I've been having this arguement with my friends for the past week or so, and most of them agree that vigilante jusitce when it benefits society can be justified, and I agree.

Such as in the case of a civilian taking up a gun and killing a drug lord, he's just helping the rest of us by wiping out a dreg on society. I can see no real problem with a civialn taking up arms against bad people such as rapists, drug dealers/drug lords, child abusers, child molestors. One may say that we ruin all respect for the law but we don't, its just getting the cop's job down faster.

If someone murders someone who would be defined as a criminal I see no harm in that, but of course if someone murders someone who is not defined as a criminal then that is wrong.

Sometimes vigilante justice does more justice than police action.

I am all for defending yourself with whatever force you feel necessary, but am kinda leery of first strike justice. If the person was a danger to you or someone else at the time I would tend to support it. But just to run around killing people you think might be drug dealers is another thing all togather.

That is where the misconceoption comes into, I am not saying pick up a Magnum and shoot everyone that looks at you the wrong way. What my point is if you have some sort of evidence and you believe he is a drug lord, with whatever evidence you have that is reasonable, like you've seen him do it. In some aspects it is not first strike since they already did something wrong, may not have been directly against you, but in most cases they did strike first. If a drug lord was living on my block I'd want to see him dead, and I'd do it myself if I knew he was a drug lord and that he would be a threat to my family.

Why would this "drug lord" be a threat to your family? And if he wasnt one before he would be after you tried to kill him. I am willing to bet you live within a few blocks of a drug dealer right now but I would not suggest trying to shoot him.

Since with drug lords comes things that many do not want such as drug addicts, violent people walking the streets, and crime. I do not want my children growing up in an area with a person such as a drug lord or addict. I also do not want my children to fall under the influence of people like him or hard drugs (assuming that I did have children).

I know a dealer, I get along with him. Would I kill him, no since he has done nothing. I am saying if the dealer or lord did something that was wrong such as selling drugs to minors or murder that it would be justifiable for a civilian to take action and it does not nessecarily have to be murder.

Vigilatne Justice is acceptable in extreme circumstances, yes. Where I live I carry a knife due to insreasing reports of violent attacks/muggings so I really don't feel safe. Yes, I carry a knife, but I have no intention of using it unless abosolutley necessary. I would first try to just leave the area and get away. I don't want to get into voilent conflict at all.

See I am not saying, that its right to go out and kill people. Only if you have reasonable proof to do so such as, lets use a movie character. Frank Booth, from Blue Velvet, would you want someone like him in your neighborhood? No, I would'nt think its right to just go out and kill him but if he began to do wrong then I can see killing him.

vigilante justice can NEVER be justified, no matter the cause, evidence possessed, or motive of the vigilante. Its a slippery slope, people. The simple truth is that an ordinary citizen vigilante does not have the power, access or time to compile a solid legal case against someone, so most likely, this vigilante will just go on a hunch (as in the drug lord example above) and kill or hurt that person. However, what if the vigilante was wrong? what happens then?

also, we do already have vigilante justice. Its called the police force. Everyone knows that police are thick as theives. If one decides to get back at some perp who has escaped conviction a few times despite being guilty, the others will back that cop up. We already have enough killers with badges on our streets. We don't need more killers minus the badge.

If the man was wrong then it would still be murder, I am not promoting going out and shooting people just that sometimes vigilante justice can be justified. If scum was in your neighborhood, I'm sure most people would not want it there. But I am not saying strike first, wait for them to make themselves known and go after him. Let the bad guys make the first move.

So Zapata we should just let criminals and scum walk our streets and not take up arms against it? Because lets be honest if someone commited an act against one of my loved ones and got away with it, for whatever reasons I would want to see justice delivered to him, either its me going after him or someone else justice must be served.

[edit on 12-16-2004 by JediMaster]

Originally posted by JediMaster
So Zapata we should just let criminals and scum walk our streets and not take up arms against it?

Who gets to decide what 'scum' is and what isn't? You? The guy next door with a magnum and an axe to grind? Justice must be enforced ACROSS THE BOARD. Not according to each individual person's definition. This is the foundation of our legal system, that everyone gets a fair and impartial trial. Are you impartial if you thought someone was selling smack to kids on your block?

I don't understand why drug dealers are in the same sentence with rapist and molestors. Drug dealing is a money crime. It should be treated like insider trading or embezzling. Instead, drug dealers are mentioned in the same sentence as rapist (violent crime) and molestors (violent crime). Drug dealing is not a violent crime. Those convicted of drug dealing are known as nonviolent offenders. People have a right to decide what kind of drugs they want to take. Drug dealing shouldn't even be illegal.

As for the topic: Any taking of human life is wrong and unjustified....THOU SHALT NOT KILL. I don't think he could have said it any simpler.

Drug dealing may not be violent but with drug dealers come unsvaory things, such as killings, drug fiends running around, gang wars, gangs. If you lived in an area where there are a lotof drugs and drug pushers, lords, and gangs you'd know what I am talking about. And one of the main targets after whores and thugs are childred. I for one do not want to see it get any easier for someone to peddle drugs to kids. Is the current war on durgs working, hell no but that is besides the point.

I am not saying "Kill the innocents", but I am proposing the idea of the thought that the killings of wrongdoers can be justified and I think it can, once they make themselves known.

Originally posted by JediMaster
If you lived in an area where there are a lotof drugs and drug pushers, lords, and gangs you'd know what I am talking about. And one of the main targets after whores and thugs are childred.

I live smack dab in the middle of meth lab heaven, not to even mention Pot Growers. I would bet that over half of my neighbors have one or both going on. I am not talking about the nickle bag sellers I am talking about cooking a hundred pounds of crank or growing a ton or more pot. None of them have "gang wars" or hang out around grade schools trying to git your third grader hook to turn them into Child Prostitutes. How many "drug lords" have shootouts in your neighborhood? Other than a few cases this is pure Hollywood and government propaganda BS. You could be living right next door to one and never know it. The ones around these hills are the perfect neighbors they stay on their property and I stay on mine and we wave at each other as we pass.

The only people the ones I know about bother, is people sticking there nose where it don't belong. My advice to you would be not to try what you are talking about because of the nature of the business they are usually armed and Paranoid. Have you heard of "feeding the Fishes" on the Godfather? Around here they call it feeding the Hogs. Of course you are free to do whatever you want but by messing with them YOU are placing your family in MUCH more danger because when they come for you they might shot your wife and kids by mistake, and if left alone I am willing to bet you wouldn't even know they were there.


I truly am not trying to be condescending just trying to tell you that pursuing this Idea will get you dead or locked up for a long time, if this is just a mental exercise then good but please don't try this at home



[edit on 21-12-2004 by Amuk]

Originally posted by JediMaster
I am not saying "Kill the innocents", but I am proposing the idea of the thought that the killings of wrongdoers can be justified and I think it can, once they make themselves known.

In this country folk are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, which means if you kill one of these "wrongdoers" without giving them the benefit of defending themselves--you are killing an innocent. Besides, God (and I don't know if you are a believer or not tis irrelevant really) didn't make the distinction you are trying to make.

I believe in using whatever force is needed to protect your self but combing the streets looking for "Bad Guys" is not the way to go. Where do you stop? Do you shoot the pot dealer down the street? Who passes judgment on who lives and who dies? If you are assaulted by someone be my guest and blow his head off but "hunting for Evildoers" is best left to Batman

Hey I ain't gonna go out and do it. Lets get that straight.

I am not in some fancy schamncy place. I am not in a place where you can go out after 7 PM by yourself and be left alone. Its a place where we need the scum cleaned away. A lot of places are similar. Is it a hair off of my ass if 50 drug pushers get killed, no. I don't want them, and nobody should want degenerative people like that. If we got someone with the testicular fortitude to go out or maybe even a few people, to go out and get the scum it'd be a better place.

The mistake you are making is assuming that I am saying "take a gun and blow every suspicious guy's freaking head off'. No I am saying that if you have justifiable evidence and reason to kill someone who would be deemed as a threat to society, or a degenerative person by the law, then you should not be persecuted as harshly. If you make a mistake, you should still go to jail. Never did I say go out and kill every person who looks at you wrong. My whole point is that, someone killing a bad person can be justified.

I understand what you mean Jedi. I still don't agree. If you believe that someone has committed a crime you should turn that person into the proper authorities. And I'm also of the belief that no one is beyond God's grace. Everyone can be saved no matter their sin. To kill another human being is to take away something God given. It can never be tolerated or justified, imo.

I see your point Saph, but a problem is that the American justice system is, a lack of a better word, crap. Our courts focus more on the rights and justice of the bad guy than the victim. I'm not saying go back to the Middle Ages get rid of the whole "innocent before guilty" but in many many cases the bad guy goes free. There was a case where a child killer/molestor went free because he got his laywer to convince to jury and court that the little girls he molested were being fed fabricated lies, and I believe they had a mistrial. I will need to find the book, but that is the basic jist. And also, sometimes you cannot turn him in due to lack of tangible evidence or some other legal matter. Elliot Ness knew Capone was doing bad stuff but he had no evidence, and they ended up getting him on tax evasion.

Yes redemption can come to all but only those who accept it. I do not believe that people like Tim Mcveigh, Hitler, or a local of my town, George Banks, can be saved. You can only go down the dark path so far before you get lost in it, and lose the light. Sure maybe Hitler could've have redeemed himself or Banks, but that is not going to bring justice to those they killed.

Originally posted by JediMaster
My whole point is that, someone killing a bad person can be justified.

you are still missing the most important consideration in this debate: to justify vigilante justice, the target must be a 'bad' person who is doing bad things, and must be labeled as such somewhere in the proceedings for your views to make sense. However, if just anyone can be a vigilante, who gets to decide who the bad people are?

Zapatta, I never once said let it go let it go and do not do anything.

A bad person would be one as defined by the law such as a molestor, killer, rapist etc. If they kill someone who would not be defined as that then that is still murder.

Zappatta, what is the big problem with having or killing rapists,murderers, child molestors etc?