im sure this has been done before but i watched the boondock saints recently and loved it. (watch it if you haven't.) and i was just wondering if they were doing good by killing mobsters. me personally agree with the idea but i just want to see what other people think. so do you agree that the killing of bad people is right or wrong??
Poll: Vigilantes and the killing of mobsters
- Thread starter cutecuddely
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, there is a police force for a reason, it just makes people pretentious and thinking it is they who know the real right from wrong. Through murder, when criminals kill it's wrong, but when vigilantes do it it's justice. That logic is just self-righteous to me.
No. Once you kill them, you become no better than them. If a vigilante starts fighting crime because they view it as intrinsically wrong, then by killing criminals they are also commiting a wrong-doing. There is no justification for vigilantes to murder people.
Do you have any idea how much I laughed when I read your comment and looked at your avatar?b3nn3tt said:
OT: Well... It's a tricky question. I don't want people to take the law in their own hands, but at the same time it's frustrating as fuck when the police can't do anything about some of these scumbags because the law prohibits them. But, no, there shouldn't be vigilantes runnin' around killing people.
hahaha exactly what i was thinking.Ultrajoe said:
personally i believe criminals shouldn't fall under the protection of the law.
i'm more for criminals killing criminals though, decent people shouldn't really involve themselves with such things unless it's their job.
It's wrong. Vigilantes who only arrest "bad guys" to take them to the proper authorities are a little more palatable. But still, no.
no but feel free to knock them out or floor them.
also if you want to be a vigilante you might as well dress up like the god damn Batman.
also if you want to be a vigilante you might as well dress up like the god damn Batman.
The ends do not justify the means. This might seem a naive concept to someone who has lost due to criminal action but think about it. Vigilantism is not a form of order, it is an act of anarchy. Society is based strictly on order and it is the very criminals who reject this order, the law, who promote anarchy. That is why vigilantes are no better than the criminals they kill.
Now if the vigilante were to apprehend criminals through non-lethal means or provide assistance to the police to apprehend them, then that would be okay. We also have the notion that we should remain vigilant to help defend against crime. In this idea all citizens have a duty, the responsibility to watch and report criminal actions to the authorities and to aid in police investigations.
Now if the vigilante were to apprehend criminals through non-lethal means or provide assistance to the police to apprehend them, then that would be okay. We also have the notion that we should remain vigilant to help defend against crime. In this idea all citizens have a duty, the responsibility to watch and report criminal actions to the authorities and to aid in police investigations.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,170
- 143
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
I agree with this, we have a generally fair (not perfect but then nothing is) court system which has been refined over hundreds of years to dispatch justice as fairly as possible. No vigilante could ever replicate this, and I think only a very few crimes are worthy of death.Aircross said:
I'd say it depends. If you see a man kill your family then sure, take the law into your own hands and kill him. Though I only say that because the police would simply put him in jail for an allotted time and not kill him. In the US I'd let the state handle it.
You're assuming large groups and organization however. Considering the typical reaction of authorities in Russia or Mexico is to shoot on sight in the case of organized criminals I don't know if it really matters who's doing the shooting.BobDobolina said:
What's more I have a hard time saying what's right or wrong. I want to believe in society, but there are places where the arbitrators of the law are corrupt and the promise of order offers no comfort. Our principals of justice are all very well and good when we're not living under the blanket of misery these men create. We shouldn't hold the entire world to US standards, which considering their near complete inability to punish the super-rich are lacking themselves.
If you want vigilantes running around, you'd better hope you don't get charged with any crimes. If convicted, you'll go to jail, and if acquitted, you'll get killed by vigilantes. I guess in that case, it's a matter of whether you'd rather have guilty people occasionally walk free or have innocent people occasionally get slaughtered for something they didn't do. The real killer is that neither people nor the law can always be right about who is guilty and who is innocent.
Sure. Best way to deal with mobsters is two Irish guys with guns. ^^cutecuddely said:
**pauses**
Wait a second - has anyone in London actually looked at that mobster's body? Everyone seems to be blaming the cops (why is it bad for cops to kill a mobster in a fire fight?), but what if it was actually some Saint's copy-cats? Or one of those super-hero vigilantes who seem to be taking notes from Kick-Ass?