Revenge?

[Light]

And, by the way, please check on and think about vigilantism ....it's not what you think it is. It's bascally people defending their homes, lives and cities ...not hanging suspects from a tree!

Baron Max

Hmmmm... I believe you are the one that needs a check on the term, Max.

I did look it up and found exactly what I had expected. Try this on for size from Wikipedia:

"In modern terms, a vigilante is anyone who takes the law into their own hands. Vigilantes often operate in secret. The term vigilante stems from the name "Vigiles Urbani" given to the nightwatchmen of Ancient Rome who were tasked with fighting fires and keeping a lookout for runaway slaves and burglars."

"Vigilantes have a reputation for 'bringing justice' to the wrong person. They usually act without conclusive evidence, and when they act they don't go at length in determining the identity of their target. They often harm innocent people accidentally, such as killing a passerby in a shootout; or because they are in some way related to the people they want to punish. They also tend to punish disproportinately harshly, such as killing a shoplifter."

"Nowadays vigilantism not only occurs on the streets but also in schools. As a result of bullying and authority figures who fail to enforce the rules, angered students often find in vigilantism a violent way to restore the missing order."

 

[Baron Max]

Hmmmm... I believe you are the one that needs a check on the term, Max.

"In modern terms, ...

Sure, that comes from the old western movies! And note, please, that it says "In modern terms...." But also note how the term came into existence.

But that's not really the issue as far as I'm concerned. I'm also a bit concerned that that was the only thing in my post(s) that you saw fit to respond to??? Does that mean that you agree with all the rest of it?

Baron Max

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

I understand, Chi, but it's no problem to call the cops without giving a name.Nobody will ever know who did it, it could just as easily been someone from out of town that happened to see it and called it in. There's all kinds of way to get that stuff done.

Yeah, I got you about the age groups, thing is though, taking it on yourself to "fix" it is more like a kid than an adult that knows better how to handle it - just like I explained above.

its not the fact that nobody will know i snitched i just cant do it, maybe you just dont understand but thats cool, hmm im just different to you so is everyone in my area, its not civil here,


peace

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Defending yourself and extracting revenge are separate actions.

no actually, we were defending our blocks, defending our area, ok i dont expect many suburban people to be able to accept what im saying, in alot of areas where many of the people on here are from, the most violence you get is something like a fist fight, or kids vandalising property, an occasional stabbing or robberry, we have people shooting up the place on a regular basis, people having big group wars and battles, turf wars over drug territory, condensed high rise building style population with hardly any green areas, just bricks bricks and bricks, people just drugged up, fiends over the street homeless people left right and center, poverty, everyone on government benifits/walfare/JSA so much street robberys, even get tons of teenagers shooting young kids and random people and recording it on there camera/videa cell/mobile phones, its called "slap happy" it started with people assulting other people just to record it and send around to people, then it got worse and people sart stabbing people then shooting, assulting old and young, so many crack addicts here aswell, people think london is some kind of fairy tale, no tourisst ever goes to the real parts of london, only go to central london. our government hides our social problems to other countrys.


peace

 

[Light]

Sure, that comes from the old western movies! And note, please, that it says "In modern terms...." But also note how the term came into existence.

But that's not really the issue as far as I'm concerned. I'm also a bit concerned that that was the only thing in my post(s) that you saw fit to respond to??? Does that mean that you agree with all the rest of it?

Baron Max

Yes, I know how it came into existance and the meaning today is just as it was before. Being "vigilant" and being a "vigilante" are two greatly different things. The first just means being alert while the second is lawless behaviour.

As to the rest of your previous post, I do agree but only up to a certain point. Taking the law into one's hands has never been a good solution and almost always compounds the problems.

 

[Baron Max]

Taking the law into one's hands has never been a good solution and almost always compounds the problems.

Neighborhood watch programs are a resounding success here in the Dallas area and have cut crime in those neighborhoods significantly. The major problem isn't "taking the law into their own hands", as it is the boring drudgery of patrolling the area -- few people want to do it for very long. And thus the watch program dies and the crime returns!

You and many seem to have the idea of "vigilante" groups being beer-drinkin', gun-totin', wild men of the west, but that just ain't so. Most, if not all of us have completed several hours of instruction from the police, as well as riding in patrol cars to observe basic techniques of surveillance and observation. Some of can LEGALLY carry handguns, but it's surely not the norm. Most are "armed" with cell phones.

But as I mentioned, it's not a glamorous task and it's boring as hell and it seems as tho' you're doing it all for nothing ....until you stop! Then the crime returns. At some point, in most large cities, the citizens are simply going to have to take some action on their own. The cops simply can't cover all of the city at once ...it's simply impossible. And worse, the scumbags know it and all they have to do is wait a little while and the cops will move on and they can move in.

In the "olden day", people were much more apt to do whatever was necessary to help the police. Now, it seems to me, they do more to hinder the police than to help ....and yell and scream that crime is taking over their city and that the cops aren't doin' enough. That's ridiculous! It's THEIR city, not the cops'!

Baron Max

 

[Light]

Neighborhood watch programs are a resounding success here in the Dallas area and have cut crime in those neighborhoods significantly. The major problem isn't "taking the law into their own hands", as it is the boring drudgery of patrolling the area -- few people want to do it for very long. And thus the watch program dies and the crime returns!

You and many seem to have the idea of "vigilante" groups being beer-drinkin', gun-totin', wild men of the west, but that just ain't so. Most, if not all of us have completed several hours of instruction from the police, as well as riding in patrol cars to observe basic techniques of surveillance and observation. Some of can LEGALLY carry handguns, but it's surely not the norm. Most are "armed" with cell phones.

But as I mentioned, it's not a glamorous task and it's boring as hell and it seems as tho' you're doing it all for nothing ....until you stop! Then the crime returns. At some point, in most large cities, the citizens are simply going to have to take some action on their own. The cops simply can't cover all of the city at once ...it's simply impossible. And worse, the scumbags know it and all they have to do is wait a little while and the cops will move on and they can move in.

In the "olden day", people were much more apt to do whatever was necessary to help the police. Now, it seems to me, they do more to hinder the police than to help ....and yell and scream that crime is taking over their city and that the cops aren't doin' enough. That's ridiculous! It's THEIR city, not the cops'!

Baron Max

I believe you're still using the terms incorrectly, Max. Citizen's Watch groups are "vigilant" as I said - meaning alert and watchful. They only rarely take any kind of direct action. Vigilantes, on the other hand, are quick to take action and usually still do with little regard to some of the consequences.

It may very well be that in Texas the term is used quite differently than in most parts of the country. I can see that, many things are that way.

I agree with all the rest of your post.

Also, Chi had no way of knowing this, but for many years I was very often in "less desirable areas." I had a permit and carried a gun. Thankfully, I never had to even draw it. But if I had, it still would have been on-the-spot-defense only rather than going out and looking for trouble.

There have also been a few cases of vigilante cops (outside of the movies) that fit my usage of the word. Fellows that acted outside and beyond the bounds of the law. Not the "Dirty Harry" type - just guys that take it to the extreme. Don't misunderstand, I think that most of them do an excellent job even though very often their hands are tied by some very illogical restraints. And it's a dangerous job. I wouldn't want to even be one making a routine traffic stop. There's no way to know what's waiting for you in that vehicle as you approach it.

 

[Light]

-Mahatma Gandhi


It's hard to argue against that logic. I wholeheartly agree with Light's position on this thread.

Thank you. It's nice to see that someone understands what I'm trying to say.

 

[water]

It's damn easy to be a holy man high up on a mountain.
Philosophizing about revenge and self-defense is neat, as long as your own ass isn't at the stake.

 

[Light]

It's damn easy to be a holy man high up on a mountain.
Philosophizing about revenge and self-defense is neat, as long as your own ass isn't at the stake.

Yeah, right, Water.

If you're talking to me, I was at risk in the places I mentioned.

And again, if you're talking about me I really don't need your snide remarks. Have you noticed that I dropped all conversation with you in other threads? You got your wish - I'm leaving you alone because my first impression of you was correct, you are NOT someone i want to know or even be associated with in the most remote way. Mainly because you are just plain too bitter.

Now - do you understand "bug off?"

 

[water]

Yeah, right, Water.

If you're talking to me, I was at risk in the places I mentioned.

And again, if you're talking about me I really don't need your snide remarks. Have you noticed that I dropped all conversation with you in other threads? You got your wish - I'm leaving you alone because my first impression of you was correct, you are NOT someone i want to know or even be associated with in the most remote way. Mainly because you are just plain too bitter.

Now - do you understand "bug off?"

*pssst*

With monsters in your head, it is easy to see them everywhere else.
Pissiness makes you look ugly, Light.

I wasn't talking to you, but on topic. And if you want to leave me alone, then why don't you?

 

[Baron Max]

I wasn't talking to you, but on topic. And if you want to leave me alone, then why don't you?

Water, you should know full well that when you make a statement on a public forum, you are, essentially, addressing the entire group who can read that statement. I understand that things can get a little "personal" sometimes, but doesn't that happen in real life, too? At a party, if you stood up and made a statement about some issue, would it surprise you when someone from the other side of the room comes over and asks you questions?

One of the things that bothers me about people like you is that they always retreat into "idealism" and thus basically avoid any admission of the real world. It's easy to make idealistic comments about how "good" criminals are, etc, but that simply ignores the fact that they've just murdered a gazillion people and cut them up into little, tiny pieces!! Idealism tries to show that, even with all of that horror, the criminal is "really" a nice, moral person!! They AREN'T ...and the sooner we realize that, the better human societies will become.

Baron Max

 

[water]

Water, you should know full well that when you make a statement on a public forum, you are, essentially, addressing the entire group who can read that statement. I understand that things can get a little "personal" sometimes, but doesn't that happen in real life, too? At a party, if you stood up and made a statement about some issue, would it surprise you when someone from the other side of the room comes over and asks you questions?

Of course not.

One of the things that bothers me about people like you is that they always retreat into "idealism" and thus basically avoid any admission of the real world. It's easy to make idealistic comments about how "good" criminals are, etc, but that simply ignores the fact that they've just murdered a gazillion people and cut them up into little, tiny pieces!! Idealism tries to show that, even with all of that horror, the criminal is "really" a nice, moral person!! They AREN'T ...and the sooner we realize that, the better human societies will become.

What idealism? I am so full of anger I could kill a few, but I also doubt how far this will get me. My own ass it at the stakes, and so I find abstract debates about revenge idealistic. Like I said, it's easy to be a holy man high up on a mountain.

 

[Baron Max]

I'm sorry, Water! Really ....I misread your post and, worse, thought that you were one of the other posters who's been so high and mighty and idealistic.

Please, please ...accept my apology. Now excuse me while I go kick myself in the ass a few times.

Baron Max

 

[antifreeze]

first, i would like to say that the introductory scenario isn't exactly an example of revenge per se. just chasing off some assholes. but on the topic of revenge, i am divided. not every act against you should be grounds for vendetta, but in special cases i am all for acts of vengeance. they put yours in the hospital, you put theirs in the morgue. and fuck the police, they won't help you. they are too constricted by bureaucracy and legal "red tape". not once have the police helped those i cared for when they were in their darkest hour. and i will grant that this is often not the case, but if your new-found enemy is arrested, stands trial, and is found guilty, what will you get then? justice. but not satisfaction.

 

[Baron Max]

Some people actually have the wrong idea about the role of the police. Their role, "To Protect and Serve" is NOT actually intended to protect the individual from crime, but to apprehend a criminal so he can't do it again to SOMEONE ELSE in that society. If the cops arrest, and the courts convict, a murderer, that action does NOTHING for the victim or the victim's family, but it DOES help the remaining members of that society from having to worry about that particular murderer killing again.

If you want protection from crime, you can't depend on the cops for it! First, it's actually NOT their job. But most importantly, they can't protect everyone at once ...that's foolish and ignorant to even consider. So if you want to be protected from crime, YOU have to protect YOURSELF ....no one else can or will do it.

All-in-all, I think the police do a pretty damned good job ...especially considering that we tie their hands with liberal red tape and lenient courts and laws. We've given criminals more "rights" than the police and the courts. Criminals often get set free due to some minor technicality in procedure ...even tho' all of the evidence necessary to convict him is presented.

Baron Max

 

[Light]

Some people actually have the wrong idea about the role of the police. Their role, "To Protect and Serve" is NOT actually intended to protect the individual from crime, but to apprehend a criminal so he can't do it again to SOMEONE ELSE in that society. If the cops arrest, and the courts convict, a murderer, that action does NOTHING for the victim or the victim's family, but it DOES help the remaining members of that society from having to worry about that particular murderer killing again.

If you want protection from crime, you can't depend on the cops for it! First, it's actually NOT their job. But most importantly, they can't protect everyone at once ...that's foolish and ignorant to even consider. So if you want to be protected from crime, YOU have to protect YOURSELF ....no one else can or will do it.

All-in-all, I think the police do a pretty damned good job ...especially considering that we tie their hands with liberal red tape and lenient courts and laws. We've given criminals more "rights" than the police and the courts. Criminals often get set free due to some minor technicality in procedure ...even tho' all of the evidence necessary to convict him is presented.

Baron Max

Baron, what you're proposing looks good on the surface, but looking deeper it has some very serious implications.

First, let me say that I agree that we've hamstrung the police and the entire system of law and order. And I also find nothing wrong with protecting your family and property against break-ins.

But now let's look at what you are advocating. It seems you would have everyone armed and dealing with crime/criminals on their own - everywhere they came across them.

The end result of such a thing would be a tremendous step backwards in civilization. It would create anarchy. Every single citizen would them become "a law unto themselves" and would have the role of being policeman/judge/jury/executioner.

Granted, our present system has MANY flaws. But I would take it just as it is any day over your idea.

 

[Baron Max]

But now let's look at what you are advocating. It seems you would have everyone armed and dealing with crime/criminals on their own - everywhere they came across them.

Where did I say that? Or in what sentence did you read that gave you the idea that I even implied that?

Every single citizen would them become "a law unto themselves" and would have the role of being policeman/judge/jury/executioner.

No! And again, I didn't say that at all or even imply it. If an armed citizen does something that's against the law, then he should be prosecuted UNDER the law! Protecting oneself/family is NOT the same as going out hunting down criminals and executing them .....and nowhere, anywhere, have I ever advocated such actions.

Granted, our present system has MANY flaws. But I would take it just as it is any day over your idea.

Well, I can see why!!!! You didn't read/comprehend what *I* wrote, you just made up your own horror story, then responding with the above comment.

Try reading my post again, think about it some, then respond to that post and to your understanding of it. Please, don't make up something and then respond ....it's not nice, plus it's misleading as hell.

Baron Max

 

[water]

Baron Max,

Apology accepted.

 

[Light]

Where did I say that? Or in what sentence did you read that gave you the idea that I even implied that?



No! And again, I didn't say that at all or even imply it. If an armed citizen does something that's against the law, then he should be prosecuted UNDER the law! Protecting oneself/family is NOT the same as going out hunting down criminals and executing them .....and nowhere, anywhere, have I ever advocated such actions.



Well, I can see why!!!! You didn't read/comprehend what *I* wrote, you just made up your own horror story, then responding with the above comment.

Try reading my post again, think about it some, then respond to that post and to your understanding of it. Please, don't make up something and then respond ....it's not nice, plus it's misleading as hell.

Baron Max

My sincere apologies, Max, I didn't realize I was "making up something."

When I read this: "If you want protection from crime, you can't depend on the cops for it! First, it's actually NOT their job. But most importantly, they can't protect everyone at once ...that's foolish and ignorant to even consider. So if you want to be protected from crime, YOU have to protect YOURSELF ....no one else can or will do it"

That's the way I took it. It appeared that you were saying the police could not handle the job so it was up to the individual citizens.

So... taking it back more or less to the original context of this thread, just how far CAN the individual citizen go in protecting himself? Where does he draw the line?