Oh man. I would love it. First of all, my town is tiny and the only real 'crime' is a bunch of high schoolers driving around smoking herb and speeding. So this batman character would basically be driving around in his bat mobile pulling kids over and taking their stash. I'm sure the cops would mind because they are bored enough as it is, and the towns people would certainly mind because of fear that the caped crime fighter would lower property values. I however would laugh every time the local paper covered more of his antics. I'm sure it would get national coverage eventually. A small town with almost zero violent crimes being protected by some caped crusader? Oh man, its almost too much.
Vigilantism
- Thread starter ZenMonkey47
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If we're talking about billionaire-in-disguise Dark-Knight Batman, then yes, I'd fully support him, 100%. (So long as he avoids killing unless absolutely necessary; we don't want just a friendly lawbreaker here)ZenMonkey47 said:
Sometimes people have to stand up for what is right, and if you have a badass vigilante like Batman that knows what he's doing, then I'd support him.
Wow. That quote was especially good- and chilling. Remind me to read Watchmen (the comic) sometime.The_Logician19 said:
I don't know, maybe defending yourself with a cane because you're elderly and you have no other self-defense weapon available? And the people that you're defending against are armed and will beat you to a bloody pulp unless you do something?Rajin Cajun said:
Are you really trying to argue that no innocent people get convicted much less arrested?Rajin Cajun said:
I am not saying the Justice System is perfect but it has gotten a lot better in the department of Violent Crimes thankfully due to DNA testing. The system is run by humans so saying there are not mistakes is a joke but the justice system only reacts to crime it doesn't prevent. Thus it is useless and only a means of control used by the State. Anyways this has nothing to do with vigilantism so stop bringing it off topic.Pseudonym2 said:
If the justice system is sometimes wrong and they have millions of dollars do you think a lethal vigilante could be anymore accurate?Rajin Cajun said:
Yes a vigilante is more accurate because he is actually witnessing crimes in progress or only going after known criminals. S/he is at least on the street actively pursuing violent criminals whereas you are comparing them to a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats. Yes I would trust a vigilante more then I would ever trust a bureaucrat.Pseudonym2 said:
Once again, what do you do when (s)he thinks you're one the violent criminals? Vigilantes don't accept trails, lawyers, or any indication of the victim's innocence?Rajin Cajun said:
They don't accept victim's innocence? Uh ok you are just going through it with the whole vigilantism=bad like they are some kind of killing machine that just slaughters anyone without forethought thus meaning any conversation with you is useless. Why would they think I am a violent criminal unless I have gotten caught doing such a crime or have been convicted before?
We should try fixing the broken system we have now instead of just trying to replace it with another potentially flawed one.
Don't get me wrong, it's a nice idea (god I've thought about it) and if someone's mugging someone in the street and you feel like head-butting the purse snatcher, feel free. But what you described would just lead to chaos. Everyone and their dog would stick their pants on their head and run around 'fighting crime'.
All it would lead to is street wars I'm afraid.....well......more street wars anyway.
Don't get me wrong, it's a nice idea (god I've thought about it) and if someone's mugging someone in the street and you feel like head-butting the purse snatcher, feel free. But what you described would just lead to chaos. Everyone and their dog would stick their pants on their head and run around 'fighting crime'.
All it would lead to is street wars I'm afraid.....well......more street wars anyway.