I Had a Dream I Was a Vigilante’s Sidekick

KingArthur

KingArthur

You Have Alerted the Horse
[REDACTED]
so this thread is both named after a Rancid song and pretty straightforward; how does the NMA community feel about vigilante justice, lethal or nonlethal?

Private citizens stopping mass shooters, the KKK, Phoenix Jones and the article Tonight On Dateline This Man Will Die (https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a3269/to-catch-a-predator/) are all fair game. Hopefully this doesn’t turn into a flame war.

Have fun, and I’ll weigh in myself eventually.
 
naossano said:
It almost entirely depends on the level of ineficiency of the legal system.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that; but an counterexample would be the old west; the legal system was extremely ineffective so vigilantes were allowed to roam free and lynch people as they wished; it went from anarchy to fascism in a flash.
 
It shouldn't be encouraged or allowed.

Tangentially, I always felt like superhero vigilantes like Batman and Superman were symbiotic in relation to their villainous counterparts. Mr. Glass made an observation that if he was super weak, that there must be someone on the opposite spectrum - super strong. Would The Joker exist if Bruce Wayne didn't don the cloak and mask? Would vigilantes give way to more determined and ruthless criminals? :shrug:
 
BigGuyCIA said:
It shouldn't be encouraged or allowed.

Tangentially, I always felt like superhero vigilantes like Batman and Superman were symbiotic in relation to their villainous counterparts. Mr. Glass made an observation that if he was super weak, that there must be someone on the opposite spectrum - super strong. Would The Joker exist if Bruce Wayne didn't don the cloak and mask? Would vigilantes give way to more determined and ruthless criminals? :shrug:
Click to expand...
Depends on how you look at it, because there’s three possibilities that have happened in history.

First was the “Bald Knobbers”, a group of former Union soldiers who banded together to become a counter-KKK during Reconstruction. When it became clear the KKK had better manpower, the Bald Knobbers faded into obscurity.

Second were the lethal Wild West vigilantes, who started off enforcing the law better than lawmen ever could, and actually brought peace to large swaths of the frontier for a time. Then, they became sinister; started enforcing not the law, but their own personal law and slowly but surely became the criminals themselves.

Finally, you have nonlethal (pronounced: ineffective) crime fighters like Phoenix Jones, who works with police to bring criminals in. Seems that their only use is to be maced or stabbed, because they truly accomplish nothing. I wish I could tell you that real life was like Daredevil, but in reality costumed heroes just get their asses kicked.
 
AureliusofPhoenix said:
feel about vigilante justice, lethal or nonlethal?
Click to expand...
its perfectly fine in theory. problem is with vigalante investigations and the grey area that comes with that. but like if someone was robbing a store and was shot by the guy next in line i ain't gonna be calling for his arrest.
 
Last edited:
R.Graves said:
its a good idea in theory. problem is with vigalante investigations and the grey are that comes with that. but like if someone was robbing a store and was shot by the guy next in line i ain't sheddin no tears.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair attitude I suppose. I’d be lying if I said I don’t share it
 
TheOtherManInTheRoom said:
The trouble is that, in a society where the rule of law is breaking down somewhat, vigilante justice may be an imperfect, but necessary solution to the problem. For example, London has seen a ten year high record number of stabbings, causing an outcry that has largely been ignored by politicians etc. with a seemingly far more important project to focus on (no prizes for guessing what that is.)

Thus, would vigilante justice be such a bad solution to stop young people getting killed on the streets? I doubt the cure is worse than the disease there.
Click to expand...
So, it would be the vigilantes doing the stabbing instead? Or would they do the stabbing after the criminal stabbed someone (so they're sure it's a real criminal)?
:drummer:
 
That’s a good example, and I’m sorry to hear my friends from across the pond are going through that shit.

It’s fair to assume that vigilantes would be a decent solution; but beware of the old west example. Give them too much power and bad things might happen. Now, I’m in favor of vigilantism, but I urge caution out’ve prudence and concern for people I consider my friends.
 
Alrighty; we’ve gone stagnant here, so I suppose I should give my opinions on vigilantism in an attempt to spark the convo once more (that and I promised that I’d share and Papa Arthur doesn’t go back on a promise).

First off, I am not in support of unarmed/non lethal vigilantism in the form of Phoenix Jones style shit. It doesn’t work, and it’s a good way to get yourself killed. Should it be outlawed? No, not in my opinion. If you wanna punch the guy with the gun, so long as you know you’ll probably die, I’d say that’s one of those things that govt doesn’t have a right to regulate.

So that leaves us with the only possible answer as to what I support: lethal vigilantism. And I do support that; but only in select instances. What I mean is that if we have a bunch of Punisher-type muthafuckas running around shooting up NY, it can rapidly go in the direction of possibility 2; social fascism.

I think that, when societies are being formed and in their infancy, or in dire straits like things seem to be in places across the pond, then vigilantism is necessary. When police are ineffectual, complacent, or inadequate, the law needs to be put in the hands of ordinary citizens. However, it’s a slippery slope, in that, again, option 2 can happen and vigilantes can lose their shit and just do as they like.

All in all, I think that as societies are formed vigilantism is a necessary “evil”, but it’s an institution that should be phased out as society develops; or at least, no longer be necessary.
 
Well that's the thing about gun violence etc., when you have a whole bunch of self proclaimed 'good guys with a gun' running around acting out their childhood cowboy fantasies, bad things will happen. And bad things will happen especially on a statistical level, meaning you start to rack up those sketchy incidents all over the place.

Just read about a case where two 'good guys with a gun' shot a guy who was shooting around in a parking lot. Some people had been wounded by the shooter but nobody died in the end. The two 'good guys' shot the shooter dead just as the cops arrived on the scene and at first almost opened fire on the 'good guys' because the cops had no idea who they were, maybe they were also shooters.

What if the shooter guy hadn't even wounded anyone, what if he was just 'exercising his 2nd amendmundt' by shooting in the air or something? Is it ok to straight up execute a guy like that?

So, yea. You want a society highly saturated with guns? You'll get a bunch of wannabe 'sheriffs' running around blasting around.
 
Last edited:
MutantScalper said:
Well that's the thing about gun violence etc., when you have a whole bunch of self proclaimed 'good guys with a gun' running around acting out their childhood cowboy fantasies, bad things will happen. And bad things will happen especially on a statistical level, meaning you start to rack up those sketchy incidents all over the place.

Just read about a case where two 'good guys with a gun' shot a guy who was shooting around in a parking lot. Some people had been wounded by the shooter but nobody died in the end. The two 'good guys' shot the shooter dead just as the cops arrived on the scene and at first almost opened fire on the 'good guys' because the cops had no idea who they were, maybe they were also shooters.

What if the shooter guy hadn't even wounded anyone, what if he was just 'exercising his 2nd amendmundt' by shooting in the air or something? Is it ok to straight up execute a guy like that?

So, yea. You want a society highly saturated with guns? You'll get a bunch of wannabe 'sheriffs' running around blasting around.
Click to expand...

Hmmm would I rather of have had the 2 guys stop the shooter, then have to wait longer? OF FUCKING COURSE I WOULD, who knows what his next shot would have done. That is called self-defense, not vigilantism.

And as far as the "justice" system is going these days I find myself agreeing more and more with vigilantism. Take human trafficking, young women are being addicted to drugs, kidnapped and forced into prostitution throughout the world nowadays. I read a story recently of a mother who went to the cops after being provided the ads showing her 16 year old daughter. She shows the cops the ad and tells them she is 16, the cops go "sorry but unless your daughter comes and reports this there is nothing we can do". As a father I know right now I would be "ok fine officer" walking out of the station, rounding up a posse and arranging a "meeting". Yes there is a chance bad things could happen to me and my posse but there is also a good chance that a couple of useless wastes of skin are dead and my teen girl is not being passed around. Justice is not a government provided right, it is a natural right, much like the right to defend yourself.
 


"Not like that they don't. Not from you."

This pretty much sums my stance on it. It's fascist crap most folks that activity engage in it do so to justify their own violent behavior or their inability to handle their own emotional instability. As entertaining as folks like Frank Castle, Dexter Morgan, and Paul Kersey are, what they do is wrong and narcissistic. "I think the rules don't apply to me because something fucked up happened to me." Cry me a fucking river

'Justice is not a government provided right, it is a natural right"

Justice is not a natural right either. It's a societal construct. You want to fight crime, go through the proper channels.
 
Vigilantism is stupid and antidemocratic and vigilantes should be hanged by a mob.
 
AureliusofPhoenix said:
@joevonzombie is it that they’re narcissistic or that they feel the law is inadequate? Both are possible.
Click to expand...

You can think the law is inadequate and do something about it without going all Travis Bickle. Again, folks are using there own pain to justify their own violent behavior or inability to process their own trauma. I wasn't the least bit surprised that Phoenix Jones is also a MMA fighter.
 
GonZo_626 said:
Hmmm would I rather of have had the 2 guys stop the shooter, then have to wait longer? OF FUCKING COURSE I WOULD, who knows what his next shot would have done. That is called self-defense, not vigilantism.

And as far as the "justice" system is going these days I find myself agreeing more and more with vigilantism. Take human trafficking, young women are being addicted to drugs, kidnapped and forced into prostitution throughout the world nowadays. I read a story recently of a mother who went to the cops after being provided the ads showing her 16 year old daughter. She shows the cops the ad and tells them she is 16, the cops go "sorry but unless your daughter comes and reports this there is nothing we can do". As a father I know right now I would be "ok fine officer" walking out of the station, rounding up a posse and arranging a "meeting". Yes there is a chance bad things could happen to me and my posse but there is also a good chance that a couple of useless wastes of skin are dead and my teen girl is not being passed around. Justice is not a government provided right, it is a natural right, much like the right to defend yourself.
Click to expand...

Well the next time cops blast away some 'good guy with a gun', be sure to protest against that ish. Except if the good guy was black, then the NRA-folks couldn't care less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top