What's up with vigilantism?

I finally got to watch the original Charles Bronson classic "Death Wish" a month ago and it had me thinking "Why aren't more people doing this?"

I'll admit the guy is looking for it in most of the scenarios but if I personally were to walk through the south bronx at 3 in the morning with a fully loaded and legally registered hand gun, would I be at fault for blowing a mugger's brains out?

Recently there've been a string of ATM robberies around me. Apparently the robber threatens you with a gun that he never really produces and then proceeds to tell you to empty out your bank account.

Is this where I take initiative and plug him an extra breathing hole?

I'm not sure what the legal boundaries for self-defense or why more people (at least in NYC) aren't protecting themselves in some fashion. Crime is certainly down but we still have muggings, rapes and home invasions. The police can't be everywhere. The lesson in Death Wish was that acts of vigilantism actually DID bring crime rates down.

I also submit the case of Bernard Goetz for some insight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Goetz

Well, it's been on my mind lately. Just curious what some of you folk think.

I wouldn't get out the uility belt just yet, but I don't see any problem with people fighting back should they become the victim of a crime.

I've given this thought before. I definately agree with what you said, but the problem is that our legal system just doesn't work well enough for the people to do this type of thing. It's just like in gradeschool - if someone hits you, you're supposed to go tell on them. If you hit them back, you're the one that gets in trouble.

I'd love to see this change, but if anything, I expect it to get worse.

It's a question of proof. If society says "Hey, it's cool, cap anybody you feel threatened by," then it gives every assailant an easy out.

Legally, you have a right to defend yourself, but you have a responsibility to flee if you can do so safely, rather than respond with deadly force.

"Duty to retreat" is so stupid. If the assailant pulls a knife or some other weapon and you have a gun, SHOOT! Even if the mugger is merely insinuating he has a gun but is faking, I think it should be OK to shoot him on the grounds that you truly feel threatened. Why try to call his bluff and risk that it could be the truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burgundy

It's a question of proof. If society says "Hey, it's cool, cap anybody you feel threatened by," then it gives every assailant an easy out.

Legally, you have a right to defend yourself, but you have a responsibility to flee if you can do so safely, rather than respond with deadly force.

---

Don't listen to legal gobbledygook, go fight crime.

Take pictures and post the results here afterwards.

thats a movie, it dosent work that way in reality.

In school, if a kid hits you, you must tell the teacher...... even if he's making a bloody pulp of your face while you walk to her desk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revoltor

Well, it's been on my mind lately. Just curious what some of you folk think.

---

It's called Holloywood sensationalism. Violence with no consequence for the sake of "justice" is a foolishly childish fantasy based in revenge-minded thinking. Once people start taking the law into their own hands, where does it stop?

People have shitty judgement skills and it only becomes a matter of time before innocent parties are killed.

As for why it's a dumb idea to shoot a guy who pulls a knife; self-defense only applies when the threat is met with equal force. Pulling a gun will easily scare off any potential assailant with a knife. "I felt threatened" isn't gonna cut it when the police ask you why you gunned the guy down and unless you're a completely irresponsible asshole you will report the incident. That is unless you want a homocide investigator hunting you down.

Laws do work. The problem is that people are human.

However, let's just indulge the fantasy for a brief second. Where would you train for something like this? Even Batman had to know his shit before he started swinging from the rooftops and even then he didn't kill anybody (at least not intentionally). He just beat the living fuck out of them, left them for the cops and let fear and dread do the rest.

Certainly Spiderman would be an exception to the training rule since he was just a kid when he got his powers? Ah, but Peter Parker was superhuman, as was Clark Kent, so the training rule is void in these circumstances.

All in all, vigilantism is a dumb idea based in the false assumption that the average citizen can render sound judgement under pressure with no formal training.

What do I think? I think it's just a movie.

Keep in mind too, that teenagers who beat up "bin Laden" Arab shopkeepers and white Southerners who rounded up black people in the 1920s both think/thought they are/were vigilantes. Or like that scene in American History X when they vandalized that store.

Vigilantism is driven by rage and bloodlust rather than justice. It is as unjust and unenlightened as anything I could think of.