Vigilantism

[ZenMonkey47]

I think it's an established fact that we as a culture are in love with the concept of the vigilante. Practically all comic book super heroes can be considered vigilantes.

So I propose a question. Say your berg gets a Batman. Sure he dresses up like a rodent, but the guy knows what he's doing. He's practically a one man army, and his name is whispered in worried tones thought the criminal underworld. His methods may be questionable at times, but he gets results and he's as incorruptible as they come. However, for good or ill he's accountable to no one and is, in essence, denying citizens (granted not the citizens you want to be alone with in a dark alley, mind you) their rights. After all, who's to stop him coming down on you?

How would you feel about this character? Would you support him in his crusade to make life better for the honest folk or would you demand that he take off the mask and fight crime as a police officer or stop all together?

 

[rossatdi]

As long as he doesn't kill (or permanently maim) I'd be in support of him 100%.

 

[Bagaloo]

Denying citizens their rights? The right to burgle, mug, sell drugs and other illegal activities?

 

[Baby Tea]

As long as he doesn't kill (or permanently maim) I'd be in support of him 100%.

Yeah pretty much. I wouldn't agree with a punisher-esque, kill 'em all type hero.
But someone like Batman, who never kills, I could get behind.

 

[rossatdi]

As long as he doesn't kill (or permanently maim) I'd be in support of him 100%.

Yeah pretty much. I wouldn't agree with a punisher-esque, kill 'em all type hero.
But someone like Batman, who never kills, I could get behind.

I'd basically be behind most of the DC stable - Wonder Woman (killer) + Spiderman.

I'd like my city patrolled by (in order-o-preference):

1) Green Arrow
2) The Flash
3) Batman
4) Booster Gold (love that guy)
5) Superman (great but liable to attract mucho property damage)

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

If he kills/cripples etc. people then I don't want someone like that in my neighborhood. If he just knocks them out or beats them up then that's fine but I don't think someone down on their luck who (wrongly but still) decided to steal deserves to have his jaw ripped out in the name of "justice".

 

[Ultrajoe]

Dependance breeds weakness.

I would want this man training police officers to be as effective as him, or serving the force. A man that effective, even within the bounds of the law, is an engine of justice and change... a primal force. Forces are best utilized when you put them in a position to do the most good.

So while the idea of a vigilante is fine with me, i think there are better things we can do with people of such talent.

 

[vid20]

Bring on some 'Boondock Saints' love. I consider myself pretty virtuous, so i fear no retribution.

but then.. that sort of makes me a bad person doesn't it.. wanting to wish that sort of violence on others..

 

[Baby Tea]

Dependance breeds weakness.

I would want this man training police officers to be as effective as him, or serving the force. A man that effective, even within the bounds of the law, is an engine of justice and change... a primal force. Forces are best utilized when you put them in a position to do the most good.

So while the idea of a vigilante is fine with me, i think there are better things we can do with people of such talent.

Do you think that, perhaps, his presence would inspire the masses to stand up to criminals (A La the Dark Knight)? While I agree that dependence can breed weakness, I think this type of 'justice' can also be inspiring.

Criminals may be deterred by a lone vigilante, but are more likely to be deterred when they know that people certainly won't 'mind their own business'.

 

[Riicek]

As long as he doesn't kill (or permanently maim) I'd be in support of him 100%.

Yeah pretty much. I wouldn't agree with a punisher-esque, kill 'em all type hero.
But someone like Batman, who never kills, I could get behind.

I'd basically be behind most of the DC stable - Wonder Woman (killer) + Spiderman.

I'd like my city patrolled by (in order-o-preference):

1) Green Arrow
2) The Flash
3) Batman
4) Booster Gold (love that guy)
5) Superman (great but liable to attract mucho property damage)

The Flash would be pretty fucking sweet to have in your town. Every once in a while you see a red streak and feel a gust of wind.

But, in a world where humans (or sorta humans...like in Superman's case) could possibly be always noble and incorruptible, I'd be for it. Hell, it'd probably help keep me in line knowing that someone who deflects bullets could be around the corner.

 

[rossatdi]

The Flash would be pretty fucking sweet to have in your town. Every once in a while you see a red streak and feel a gust of wind.

The nice thing about The Flash is that by-and-large he resisted the 'darker and edgier' turn that heroes made after the mid-80s. He's shown (at least in the DCAU) as being actually quite friendly with most of his villains.

 

[000Ronald]

I remembered a couple of years ago my grampa was reading various newspapers when he came across an interesting story. An sixty-something year old man had just cashed his social security check. A trio of gangsters, one seventeen, one eighteen, one twenty, all three armed with guns, decided they were going to jump him and take his money. Now this man had been in the military when he was younger, and had gone through special forces training; as a result, he was able to disarm the three and beat the shit out of them with nothing but a cane and a wooden leg; and when I say beat the shit out of them, I mean it. They were sent to the hospital, and stayed there for several days. He then called the cops, told them that someone had gotten hurt in his front lawn, and continued to walk home.

What happens afterwards I'm not certtain of; I'd like to think that a certain amount of time had elapsed, but it may have been that the cops got him as soon as he had gotten home. In either case, the old man ends up in jail charged with the assult of the three young men.

The defense argues the three young men had been (and had admitted to) robbing the elderly outside this bank for some time; they just happened to have assaulted the wrong man, and had been put in their place. The old man had defended himself, no more, and he has a right to do that. The prosecution argues that the man had overstepped the bounds of self-defense and crossed into vigilanism. He had used his special forces training and weapons on hand to administer his own law, which he had no right to do. They even pointed to the defense; he put them in their place they said. What right did this man have to put them in whatever place they thought he should be? Was that his job? Did he have a badge that said he had the right to uphold the law? If not, how was this his place? Even if these young men deserved what they got, it was not his place to give it to them, and therefore he was in the wrong.

The prosecution won, and the old man ended up paying for the three robbers well being until his dying day two months later. To my knowledge, his children and grandchildren are still paying for their well-being.

My point? What we think is a moot point. People have made their descision. If a sixty year old man doesn't have the right to defend himself from three young men with guns just because of a cane and a past with the special forces, then there's no way the great majority of people will be willing to belive that someone is in the right just because he's only seeking out lawbreakers. Who is he to administer the law? This isn't England or France or Australia, either; this happened in The US; the backwards, racist, violent US, where everybody, fucking everybody, has a gun, whether they do or not. These are the people that are saying "You don't have the right to defend yourself."

Apologies if this seems theatric, but this is the way it was presented to me; by my grandfather, a sixty-six year old man with special forces training and a walking stick.

"And they will look up from their slime; the polititians, and the whores and they will shout 'Save us!' and I will look down on them and I will whisper, 'No.'"

-from Watchmen by Alan Moore.

 

[Dechef]

Screw the Batman, give us a Dirty Harry!

 

[rossatdi]

I remembered a couple of years ago my grampa was reading various newspapers when he came across an interesting story. An sixty-something year old man had just cashed his social security check. A trio of gangsters, one seventeen, one eighteen, one twenty, all three armed with guns, decided they were going to jump him and take his money. Now this man had been in the military when he was younger, and had gone through special forces training; as a result, he was able to disarm the three and beat the shit out of them with nothing but a cane and a wooden leg; and when I say beat the shit out of them, I mean it. They were sent to the hospital, and stayed there for several days. He then called the cops, told them that someone had gotten hurt in his front lawn, and continued to walk home.

What happens afterwards I'm not certtain of; I'd like to think that a certain amount of time had elapsed, but it may have been that the cops got him as soon as he had gotten home. In either case, the old man ends up in jail charged with the assult of the three young men.

The defense argues the three young men had been (and had admitted to) robbing the elderly outside this bank for some time; they just happened to have assaulted the wrong man, and had been put in their place. The old man had defended himself, no more, and he has a right to do that. The prosecution argues that the man had overstepped the bounds of self-defense and crossed into vigilanism. He had used his special forces training and weapons on hand to administer his own law, which he had no right to do. They even pointed to the defense; he put them in their place they said. What right did this man have to put them in whatever place they thought he should be? Was that his job? Did he have a badge that said he had the right to uphold the law? If not, how was this his place? Even if these young men deserved what they got, it was not his place to give it to them, and therefore he was in the wrong.

Well that's the law isn't it. Because it stops you killing people for attempting to mug you. The robbers were obviously criminals and should have certainly been tried for attempted robbery. But assault with a weapon comes higher up the scale of crimes.

In terms of cost would the man have been better off being mugged? Probably. Would he have been better off knowing when to stop with the beating? Definitely.

The law of proportionality exists the give balance. Obviously we're dealing with a special case here, and to be honest the judge must have been some kind of idiot or the lawyer was very slick.

 

[000Ronald]

Well that's the law isn't it. Because it stops you killing people for attempting to mug you. The robbers were obviously criminals and should have certainly been tried for attempted robbery. But assault with a weapon comes higher up the scale of crimes.

In terms of cost would the man have been better off being mugged? Probably. Would he have been better off knowing when to stop with the beating? Definitely.

The law of proportionality exists the give balance. Obviously we're dealing with a special case here, and to be honest the judge must have been some kind of idiot or the lawyer was very slick.

His "weapon" was a cane. A fucking cane. A cane he had to use because he had lost part of his leg fighing for people's right to be free. A fucking cane.

And the three gangbangers had guns. He wouldn't have known that if they hadn't tried to use them.

Another thing; if someone pulls a weapon on me, be it a gun or a knife or a hachet, I am going to beat them to a bloody pulp. I am going to beat them like I hope to God the have never been beaten before. I'm going to do it to protect myself; because if you pull a weapon on someone, you're going to use it, and you're going to use it to kill them, and I'm not going to let someone end my life without one hell of a fight.

Another thing; can I assume you're against vigilanism? Your overall tone seemed to imply as much.

Apologies for the excess prophanity; it's the subject, I think.

P.S: My understanding of the law as it is; if someone attempts to use leathal force against you, then you have the right to respond in kind.

 

[Steve Dark]

Old Man defends self and goes to prison for it.

This just completely sickens me. He was outnumbered and they had GUNS. It's things like this that just go to show that what is right and was is lawful can be two very different things.

 

[jewru]

i definitely wouldn't lose any sleep over it. actually it would be nice for some one to clean up the crack houses in my neighborhood ,

oh check this story out, a bunch of pissed off fishermen beat the shit out of some crack dealers and burn their house down
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=8aa0f377-649d-419f-bbfb-148690a5ce6d&k=6615

 

[rossatdi]

Well that's the law isn't it. Because it stops you killing people for attempting to mug you. The robbers were obviously criminals and should have certainly been tried for attempted robbery. But assault with a weapon comes higher up the scale of crimes.

In terms of cost would the man have been better off being mugged? Probably. Would he have been better off knowing when to stop with the beating? Definitely.

The law of proportionality exists the give balance. Obviously we're dealing with a special case here, and to be honest the judge must have been some kind of idiot or the lawyer was very slick.

His "weapon" was a cane. A fucking cane. A cane he had to use because he had lost part of his leg fighing for people's right to be free. A fucking cane.

And the three gangbangers had guns. He wouldn't have known that if they hadn't tried to use them.

Another thing; if someone pulls a weapon on me, be it a gun or a knife or a hachet, I am going to beat them to a bloody pulp. I am going to beat them like I hope to God the have never been beaten before. I'm going to do it to protect myself; because if you pull a weapon on someone, you're going to use it, and you're going to use it to kill them, and I'm not going to let someone end my life without one hell of a fight.

Another thing; can I assume you're against vigilanism? Your overall tone seemed to imply as much.

Apologies for the excess prophanity; it's the subject, I think.

No actually, I all for it. However that must be an unusual case. I know for example in Scotland the limit of self-defence is up to and including whatever you're being threatened with.

If you could link the story I'd love to read it. Generally speaking I thought the law generally is once a threat has been removed/halted then you can't just kick 'em a few times for revenge (because at that point it becomes assault, which grants the initial attacker self-defence rights, and becomes circular).

 

[000Ronald]

If you could link the story I'd love to read it. Generally speaking I thought the law generally is once a threat has been removed/halted then you can't just kick 'em a few times for revenge (because at that point it becomes assault, which grants the initial attacker self-defence rights, and becomes circular).

I can't; the story was told to me two years ago by my grandfather who read it from a newspaper which was likely from another state. I wouldn't even begin to know where to look.

Apologies for the above.

 

[olicon]

Another thing; if someone pulls a weapon on me, be it a gun or a knife or a hachet, I am going to beat them to a bloody pulp. I am going to beat them like I hope to God the have never been beaten before.

To tell you the truth, the only groups of people in the world who would say and do such a thing are gamers and people who receives special force training. But I support it. You shouldn't take ANY risk when your life is on the line. We have an old saying where I live--don't beat a snake with a broom, but cut their heads off and burn it. In other words, don't give anyone who is trying to hurt you a chance to do so.

But back to the original topic. Fictional universe seems to have 2 types of vigilantes: Those that respond to crises, like Super Man, and those that go out and actively hunt down people they suspect are doing something, like Kira (from Death Note). The Super Man type is cool--they don't judge a person before they meet him. But Kira type..I wouldn't want one in my town, simply because they care more about "upholding justice" than helping people.

And I elect the Power Puff Girls to protect my town. Cuz, you know, there's more of 'em and they seem to be very nice most of the time. Of course they have been known to go out and beat up Mojo or Him just out of spite..but at least they're sugar, spice, and everything nice most of the time.