Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 Nov 2000 12:44:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1028 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> I think there's a big difference between an act of self defense, and
> chasing someone down after the fact.
I too think that. Self defense doesn't even need to go to court.
> Vigilante justice should not be tolerated.
Your opinion is noted and disagreed with. For two reasons:
First, I think there is nothing inherently wrong with vigilante justice, if it
is rightly applied. And I'll be first to admit that it often isn't. So those
who conduct vigilante justice should see the inside of a court room. If the
court determines it was reasonable, then that's that. If the court determines
that the vigilantes wronged someone, then a remedy for that action should be
sought.
Second, and more apropos to the discussion, I think that my example isn't so
much an example of vigilante justice, as an attempt as psychological recovery.
If my wife were raped and I knew who did it, I would retrieve them, bound in
the trunk of my car so that my wife could recover the personal power that was
stolen from her during the rape. I would only kill the moster if she proved
unable to do so on her own. And _maybe_ I wouldn't if that's not what she
wanted. Maybe.
> I know that it is a very fine line, but my feeling is that
> once a perpetrator is leaving the scene that it is vastly different from
> when the perpetrator is still on the scene (and in this case, I think
> I'd give more allowance to the police than to a private citizen, in that
> the police are expected to chase suspects, and may need to use force to
> apprehend the suspect).
So the victim needs to determine intent. If after being raped, when the rapist
turns around, the victim needs to decide if he's going for the knife on the
kitchen counter with which to kill her, or if he's turning to leave. I reject
that. _At least_ while he's on this side of the currently accepted magic line
at the doorstop, he's fair game.
And I still won't convict someone for a whole host of actions that I simply
don't believe are wrong. Regardless of the law. I wouldn't convict someone
for possession of cocaine either, even if the evidence were clear. There is
just nothing wrong with possession of cocaine.
> One case which I look back to as a definitely unreasonable use of force
> by a home owner was a case where a bunch of kids were trying to break
> into the guys house. He came to the door with a gun and they ran away.
> He hit one of them from behind and killed him.
Up until he fired, everything was good. Once he shot a fleeing punk in the
back, it was bad. I agree. He should have snuck up to the inside of the
window they were trying to open and blown the kid's head off as he climbed in.
I mean, it's not exactly the best solution to the problem, but if he really
wanted to kill a kid and have the evidence support him being free, that would
have been better.
> He was not even charged
> with a crime. I'm sorry, that isn't self defense.
Agreed. Not only is it not self defense, it isn't even some kind of imperfect
righting of a wrong. I mean, they did something very minor. Taking pictures
of them and calling the police would have made more sense.
> I think I would also give the victim more latitude if the suspect is
> know to be carrying your property (i.e. if you see him running away with
> your TV, or he's running away with the diamond ring he just forced you
> to give up.
I just think that latitude needs to be given for a ton of things. I think for
instance, that a robber fleeing with the diamond wedding ring of your deceased
spouse, is more likely to merit being shot in the back than one who is fleeing
with the $50 from your wallet that he stuck you up for. As a juror, I think
that I would be more likely to understand that kind of reaction in the former
case.
> I can certainly see where a victim may react out of passion and rage,
> and some latitude should be given for that, but there has to be
> consequences.
Well, should latitude be give, or should there be consequences? What
consequences? Is it murder to kill the guy who murdered your child? Five
minutes after the crime took place? Five years? Why? If it's based on the
fact that pain clounds your thoughts, why is one OK, but not the other? When
does the pain go away? Who gets to decide?
> Another case from down here was a kid who was coming into a convenience
> store at night, he was wearing a "toboggan" (whatever that is exactly,
I thought it was a sled.
> note that this was in the winter). The clerk blew him away out of fear -
> before he even got in the door. After the fact, they found a knife (I
That pretty clearly sounds unjustified to me.
But these cases that you're bringing up are just one person victimizing
another. For no reason. That's not what I'm claiming is justifiably
forgivable.
> Of course I expect that when we get rid of the war on drugs that the
> whole tension level of our society would drop several notches and
Yes. At least if we do so soon enough.
> I also think the cops have things a bit backward. It seems that cops
> want to accept less risk of injury than the general populace, but they
> should accept MORE risk. That is part of the job.
They get paid less than teachers. What's in it for them? As it stands, the
only reasons to become a cop are because you're a bully and that's the best way
to legally act on your urges, or because you intend to be on the take and make
good money that way. I understand that mob organizations are sending kids to
college and then getting them inserted into police and prosecution
organizations. It seems like a good strategy to me.
> of course if the cops are busting into your home without a warrant,
> more power to you if you manage to take some of them out, and of
> course an extra bonus if you manage to do so without getting killed).
Absolutely. Like David Koresh!
> I've got no problem with the citizenry being armed to the teeth, I just
> want there to be consequences if they use disproportionate force.
Me too. I just seem to have a wider tolerance in some ways.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) I think there's a big difference between an act of self defense, and chasing someone down after the fact. Vigilante justice should not be tolerated. I know that it is a very fine line, but my feeling is that once a perpetrator is leaving the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
