Vigilante Justice

[Atomoa]

Terrorism is not vigilante justice, as the goal of an attack isn't to punish those who become victims - the true target are those who are governed by fear as a result of the attack. The goal of vigilante justice is to specifically punish one or more very specific people.

When justice cannot be reached, people "take it into their own hands".

So when the US illegally comes into your country and kills a bunch of civilians - what can you do?

Sue them? Take on the US military head on? Make a protest sign? The US is free from being prosecuted for war crimes in the international court. They are untouchable and operate with impunity. All that one can do to achieve justice is by using guerilla warfare, resistance fighting - or terrorism depending on which side is making the definition.

I never said a drone strike was vigilante justice. I'd call them war crimes and suggest they provide justification for so called vigilante justice.

Frontier justice (also called vigilante justice or street justice) is extrajudicial punishment that is motivated by the nonexistence of law and order or dissatisfaction with justice

[FreeRights]

When justice cannot be reached, people "take it into their own hands".

So when the US illegally comes into your country and kills a bunch of civilians - what can you do?

Sue them? Take on the US military head on? Make a protest sign? The US is free from being prosecuted for war crimes in the international court. They are untouchable and operate with impunity. All that one can do to achieve justice is by using guerilla warfare, resistance fighting - or terrorism depending on which side is making the definition.

You're confusing the terms.

Guerrilla warfare is when unconventional use of force is applied to combatants - roadside improvised explosive devices, for example, targeting a military convoy is designed specifically for those casualties. Guerrilla warfare is a tactic, while resistance combatants/insurgents/etc is a group of people.

Terrorism is a tactic employed against non-military targets with the intent to cause fear among people besides the target.

There's a clear distinction between them that's important because how to combat each is different.

You can call unconventional warfare, roadside IEDs, or precision drone strikes war crimes if you'd like to, but they aren't particularly good examples of vigilante justice.

[Atomoa]

Terrorism is a tactic employed against non-military targets with the intent to cause fear among people besides the target.

Terrorism can be against military or logistical/institutional targets. Just ask the Nazi's in France/Poland in WWII who fought resistance terrorists. Ask the people working at the Pentagon and World Trade Center on 9/11. The Israelis call people attacking soldiers with butter knives terrorists. Of course trying to define terrorism is next to impossible - the word is actually fake and is used to demonize anyone on the wrong side of history. It only means something to be person doing the demonizing.

Im well aware that guerilla warfare is not vigilante justice, however it is used when people seek vignette justice. If you are at multiple disadvantages (this goes for social mobility, legal recourse ect), you have to use what you can against the people hurting you.

It seems to me there is no justification for terrorists motivation in your mind. No matter what injustices they endure, it won't be good enough (in your mind) when they seek out (vigilante) justice.

A little girl gets shot dead in a botched police raid and the offending officer walks free as the police force conspires to protect the officer from prosecution. The Father gets a gun and goes down to the police station and seeks vigilante justice.

A man in Syria's little girl is blown to bits by a US bomb dropped on his country illegally. The US says that "no civilians" were killed' and the US media celebrates another successful bombing by quoting Leonard Cohen. The man straps a bomb to his vest and heads down to the closest US checkpoint and seeks vigilante justice.

[What_the]

Lots of valid points. Although I'm very curious if people would feel the same way if their wife was raped, child sexually assaulted or killed, sibling murdered, etc. Just a question....

I think it's fairly safe to say that we'd all feel the same and truthfully, is one of the reasons we have the system set up the way it is e.g. impartial jury of our peers.

There's some that would murder a common thief or cut off their hand and feel justified while the rest of society would deem that cruel and unusual- or not befitting the crime.

[mexi cali]

*removed*

[mexi cali]

This is such a provocative subject and it can bring out the best and worst in people.

Vigilanteism in and of itself has merits but the undertaking of the act has to be measured.

Emotional response is rarely the correct response but it is always the first and swiftest response. Going after someone who may have committed a crime is dangerous and counter productive.

However, when a known criminal is released on a technicality or is given a soft sentence or is caught in the act, then I understand it. Not necessarily saying I condone it but I understand it. Except that I do condone it.

There have been some great vilgilante justice stories over the years where the perpetrator was heralded for doing what the legal system either could not or would not do.

The majority of society though don't want to get their hands dirty. They want others to do the hard stuff but they reserve the right to complain if their desired outcome is not presented to them.

It's far to easy to simply stand back and do nothing but there are plenty of people who can't. I am one of them. I am also one who reacts as a result of emotion and would likely wind up in hot water but I would always rather do something than nothing.

Injustice is far to prevalent in our world and far too many really bad people are not dealt with properly.

As long as we as a society believe that all human life is precious, these monsters will continue to plague us.

I don't believe that human life is by default precious. I believe that there are many whose disappearance would be the best gift they could give us.

The real issue when those who feel that vigilanteism is criminal or sinful, (whatever works), is that they come from a place where they are insulated and all they see is the result on a screen or in a newspaper. They aren't capable of understanding why this style of justice is doled out by the familys or friends of those who have been victimized. It is always different when it's one of your own.

All in all, there is no simple right or wrong answer here. It will always be a debatable issue as long as our justice system continues to operate with broken equipment and lawyers are allowed to manipulate the law to serve the guilty.

I believe in due process when it works. Vigilanteism is for when it doesn't.

[sobrohusfat]

... then I understand it. Not necessarily saying I condone it but I understand it. Except that I do condone it.

[annexi]

Pretty sure we will get some good opinions here . Should put the cons and the libs at odds . Statist vs libratarians as well .

Most of us want to see more punishment for what are deemed disturbing crimes . We see bus killer get 7 years . For example . Now that being what it is
Would u support vigilante Justice . Would u participate in a posse of good men out to do a bad thing . Is it righting a wrong . Or is it just wrong

If the justice system had failed and the vigilante-ism fit the crime, then maybe yes. Problem is the latter condition is a judgment call. Who would I trust to judge & mete punishment? Not many if any.