[W:277] Florida's DeSantis moves to allow citizens to shoot looters, rioters targeting businesses

[aociswundumho]

Do you support any proactive measures to prevent vigilante style justice ?

If the vigilante gets the right guy, and the punishment he mets out is commensurate with the crime, then what's the problem?

 

[Rich2018]

If the vigilante gets the right guy, and the punishment he mets out is commensurate with the crime, then what's the problem?

Seriously, one thing that marks out the USA from a third world country is adherence to the law

One thing the Constitution says several times is "Due Process"

So it doesn't matter what you've done, you're entitles to the best legal defense possible

You question disqualifies you from ever criticizing violent protest or the breach of law. You have nothing in common with any respect for law and order.

 

[aociswundumho]

Seriously, one thing that marks out the USA from a third world country is adherence to the law

The US has a huge underground economy, something like 15% of gdp, and all of the participants are disobeying government law.

Furthermore, if you support "adherence to the law", then you believe Americans circa 1850 should have turned in runaway slaves. Is that your position?

Although I expect you will ignore the question, tell all of the forum members here that had you been alive at the time, you would have turned in runaway slaves.

One thing the Constitution says several times is "Due Process"

Yes, so a captured runaway slave would receive "due process".

You question disqualifies you from ever criticizing violent protest or the breach of law. You have nothing in common with any respect for law and order.

lol, I notice you didn't answer my question, as usual. I'll ask you again:

If the vigilante gets the right guy, and the punishment he mets out is commensurate with the crime, then what's the problem?

 

[Rich2018]

The US has a huge underground economy, something like 15% of gdp, and all of the participants are disobeying government law.

So, there's a lot of crime. That doesn't mea the USA doesn't adhere to the law, especially with a view towards due process
Without the law you have nothing
If you have ad-hoc law, you don't have a democratic country

Furthermore, if you support "adherence to the law", then you believe Americans circa 1850 should have turned in runaway slaves. Is that your position?

Slavery laws are immoral and violated the Constitution and the principal of equality. The Constitution is the highest law in the land

Yes, so a captured runaway slave would receive "due process".

No, because the USA didn't regard them as "citizens" who enjoyed the protection of the Constitution - but they should have

Slaves were property, not citizens
They had no rights

If the vigilante gets the right guy, and the punishment he mets out is commensurate with the crime, then what's the problem?

I answered it, because a mob doesn't follow due process

So it doesn't matter what their victim did. They are not legally authorized to become judge, jury and executioner.
Everyone, regardless of circumstances, in entitled to the best legal defense possible. What part of that do you NOT get ?

 

[aociswundumho]

Slavery laws are immoral and violated the Constitution and the principal of equality.

At the time, they did not violate the constitution, in fact one could argue that the constitution at least condoned slavery.

From the document itself:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

Slavery laws are immoral and violated the Constitution

Gun laws violate the constitution, but you don't have any issue with them for some reason.

Anyway, as you have acknowledged, government produced law is often immoral, and no one has any obligation to obey an immoral government law. End of story.

I answered it, because a mob doesn't follow due process

So it doesn't matter what their victim did. They are not legally authorized to become judge, jury and executioner.

A slave isn't legally authorized to run away, yet you have agreed that he should run away.

You can't have it both ways. Either we are obligated to obey the government, or we should do what we think is right. So which is it?

In the scenario I presented, the vigilante didn't do anything morally wrong. So why should he be punished?

Everyone, regardless of circumstances, in entitled to the best legal defense possible. What part of that do you NOT get ?

Even if I agreed with this absurd "argument", there is overwhelming evidence that government-run courts are simply terrible when it comes to producing just decisions. I could give you case after case after case of wealthy or politically connected individuals being treated with extreme leniency, and case after case of poor people being handed harsh prison sentences for (relatively) trivial crimes.

 

[Rich2018]

At the time, they did not violate the constitution, in fact one could argue that the constitution at least condoned slavery.

Yes they did

Did the Constitution ever specifically deny citizenship to African-Americans ?

Does not the Constitution talk about equality ?

Does the Constitution say who does and who does not benefit from the rights expressed in the BoR ?

From the document itself:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

So a slave had no right to a trial, no right to free speech, no right to bear arms, no right not to self incriminate or be free from unwarranted searches ?

The Constitution can't have it both ways
We all know that the founders were largely a bunch of slave owning racists, but the can't speak of freedom and justice for all in the same breath as the sign the document that starts "WE THE PEOPLE..."

Gun laws violate the constitution, but you don't have any issue with them for some reason.

No they don't and those that did have been struck down by the courts

Anyway, as you have acknowledged, government produced law is often immoral, and no one has any obligation to obey an immoral government law.

But declaring a law to be immoral is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone to cherry pick which laws to obey
You must demonstrate that a particular law is immoral

A slave isn't legally authorized to run away, yet you have agreed that he should run away.

That would be their decision, but one I would support should they chose to do so
But again, it would be in line with the Constitution - the highest law in the land

You can't have it both ways. Either we are obligated to obey the government, or we should do what we think is right. So which is it?

You obey the law
Should you decide one is immoral, you should be at liberty to challenge it

In the scenario I presented, the vigilante didn't do anything morally wrong. So why should he be punished?

Absolutely he did something wrong
He should be punished because what he did was legally, and morally wrong
No-one should be judge, jury and executioner - everyone deserves the benefit of due process and the best legal defense possible

It's what marks out out as different from savages

We can ONLY justify punishing anybody by the law and adherence to it. Without the law, we have no justification to punish anyone

Even if I agreed with this absurd "argument", there is overwhelming evidence that government-run courts are simply terrible when it comes to producing just decisions. I could give you case after case after case of wealthy or politically connected individuals being treated with extreme leniency, and case after case of poor people being handed harsh prison sentences for (relatively) trivial crimes.

So what ?
Are you justifying vigilante justice because it's more evenly balanced than the courts ?

The legal system of the USA is broken, so let's form a lynch mob and just hand them ?
Or in the case of last Wednesday, let's just kill the politicians we don't like and crown one we do.

For what it's worth I've discussed ways to fix the US criminal justice system. Getting rid of juries would be a good start IMO.

 

[aociswundumho]

No they don't and those that did have been struck down by the courts

No, CCW permits, for just one example, are a clear 2A violation. The whole idea of requiring a government permit to exercise a constitutionally protected right is absurd.

But declaring a law to be immoral is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone to cherry pick which laws to obey
You must demonstrate that a particular law is immoral

Well, for starters, if a law prohibits you from doing something that does not harm anybody else, or damage anyone else's property, then it's immoral.

You obey the law
Should you decide one is immoral, you should be at liberty to challenge it

What do you mean by "challenge it"? What if the government-run court will not hear your case, as it was with runaway slaves?

Absolutely he did something wrong
He should be punished because what he did was legally, and morally wrong

What did he do that is morally wrong?

Remember, you already agreed that disobeying government law, in and of itself, is not morally wrong, e.g. a runaway slave.

No-one should be judge, jury and executioner - everyone deserves the benefit of due process and the best legal defense possible

Suppose a woman is raped and severely beaten by a man, but she lives. Several months later after she recovers from her injuries, she finds the man who beat and raped her and she kills him.

So she got the right guy, and in my book, the punishment fits the crime (might be a little too much, but it's close enough). She did what the government "justice" system is suppose to do, but probably wouldn't.

What exactly is the problem?

We can ONLY justify punishing anybody by the law and adherence to it. Without the law, we have no justification to punish anyone

That is utter nonsense, and only someone completely indoctrinated would believe it.

So what ?
Are you justifying vigilante justice because it's more evenly balanced than the courts ?

Government-run courts are your standard, and they suck donkey dick, hence I don't understand your vehement objection to vigilantism.

For what it's worth I've discussed ways to fix the US criminal justice system. Getting rid of juries would be a good start IMO.

The adjudication part is bad, but even worse is that the law produced by government is simply awful, for the same reason cars produced by government are awful.

 

[Rich2018]

No, CCW permits, for just one example, are a clear 2A violation. The whole idea of requiring a government permit to exercise a constitutionally protected right is absurd.

I guess you could argue that
The Constitution says citizens can bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed
Yet the government (state and federal) place restrictions on this by saying HOW you must bear arms

Requiring gun owners to wear a high visibility vest, alerting people (and law enforcement) that they're carrying a gun, wouldn't violate the 2nd Amendment though would it ?

Well, for starters, if a law prohibits you from doing something that does not harm anybody else, or damage anyone else's property, then it's immoral.

So cruelty to animals is OK ?
Laws for the conservation of wildlife, trees and the protection of the environment are immoral ?

What do you mean by "challenge it"? What if the government-run court will not hear your case, as it was with runaway slaves?

So what if you live in a non-democratic dictatorship ?

What did he do that is morally wrong?

Take the law into his own hands
Undermine the rule of law and order
Aside from the fact the vigilante justice usually has only one or two punishments. What does the Constitution say about cruel and unusual punishments

Subverting law and order, the denial of due process is immoral all by itself
Why are you such a fan of mob rule and vigilante justice ? Didn't you see on Jan 6th what mob rule looks like ?
I suspect you'd squeal for the law and due process if you were the mob's victim

Suppose a woman is raped and severely beaten by a man, but she lives. Several months later after she recovers from her injuries, she finds the man who beat and raped her and she kills him.

She goes to jail
Life without parole - vigilante justice is abhorrent to any civilized society

So she got the right guy...

So what ?
She undermined the law. That rapist is absolutely entitled to due process and the best legal defense possible

...and in my book, the punishment fits the crime

And you'd be willing to accept the woman's word that it was justified ?
That is stupid beyond words

That is utter nonsense, and only someone completely indoctrinated would believe it.

Nope, the rule of law is paramount to civilization
To say otherwise is stupid beyond words

Government-run courts are your standard, and they suck donkey dick, hence I don't understand your vehement objection to vigilantism.

Courts should be run by the judiciary
The judiciary should NOT be viewed as part of the government - ever.[/quote][/quote]

 

[bluesmoke]

Just in case you were going to mention Africa or South/Central America, I specifically said:

"Developed, Westernized countries that is" (that excludes countries in Eastern Europe that haven't really become true democracies yet)

Please read back




Then do you subscribe to the policy of:

Locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, or

Do you support any proactive measures to prevent vigilante style justice ?




Really ?
So why are the FBI investigating the conduct of as many as SEVENTEEN Capitol policemen and TWO have been suspended ?

2 Capitol Police officers suspended and at least 10 more under investigation for alleged roles in riot

Two US Capitol Police officers were suspended and at least 10 more are under investigation for their behavior during last week's assault on the Capitol, and federal agents will look at whether current and former law enforcement officers played a role in the riot.

www.cnn.com

My reference includes “Developed, Westernized countries…” Your excuse doesn’t hold water.

There are 11 countries of Eastern Europe that are considered democracies. Like the US, they are considered “flawed democracies”. To what degree they are westernized doesn’t matter. I already proved my point and refuted your counterclaim as being irrelevant.

The proactive measures I support against vigilantism are the likes of as appears to be unfolding with investigation of the DC Capitol Police whom may have given support to those in the recent Capitol insurrection, and other police whom support vigilantism. BTW, vigilantism is, by its nature, proactive itself. Such as publishing online list of child molesters, etc.

Those DC police are being investigated because there is evidence that they weren’t doing their job. I thought that self-evident. That doesn’t mean they had all the resource to have done their job correctly in the 1st place, which is fact as I stated, or that had they the resources to begin with that they would have exhibited such failure as those 17 may have done.

 

[Rich2018]

My reference includes “Developed, Westernized countries…” Your excuse doesn’t hold water.

It should not just include developed countries but only include them

There are 11 countries of Eastern Europe that are considered democracies. Like the US, they are considered “flawed democracies”. To what degree they are westernized doesn’t matter. I already proved my point and refuted your counterclaim as being irrelevant.

So what ?
It just means they're getting there

How soon before you could call them "developed, Westernized countries" remains to be seen

The proactive measures I support against vigilantism are the likes of as appears to be unfolding with investigation of the DC Capitol Police whom may have given support to those in the recent Capitol insurrection, and other police whom support vigilantism. BTW, vigilantism is, by its nature, proactive itself. Such as publishing online list of child molesters, etc.

Vigilantism is anything but proactive. It is as reactive and a knee jerk reflex and publishing lists of released child molesters (or sex crimes generally) is not helpful either
If they're a threat to society, they shouldn't be released, if they're judged as not, they should be , but not have to live with a "scarlet letter" or targets on their backs. Because some self righteous vigilante will try to kill them

Those DC police are being investigated because there is evidence that they weren’t doing their job....

More than that, there is evidence that they collaborated with the insurrectionists.

 

[bluesmoke]

It should not just include developed countries but only include them



So what ?
It just means they're getting there

How soon before you could call them "developed, Westernized countries" remains to be seen



Vigilantism is anything but proactive. It is as reactive and a knee jerk reflex and publishing lists of released child molesters (or sex crimes generally) is not helpful either
If they're a threat to society, they shouldn't be released, if they're judged as not, they should be , but not have to live with a "scarlet letter" or targets on their backs. Because some self righteous vigilante will try to kill them



More than that, there is evidence that they collaborated with the insurrectionists.

Nothing about “developed, Westernized countries” refutes what I said. You’re going off into the weeds.

“So what?” is right. Like I said, it doesn’t matter. You brought it up. Nothing about what you said on that point refutes my point regarding vigilantism.

That something is proactive does not mean it is a good or the right action to take.

You should research the diff btx proactive and reactive. If I’m concerned about something, research the subject, and prepare for it that includes using what I’ve learned to take an action, that’s being proactive. If people react to what I’ve done solely based on my action, that’s being reactive.

You’ve done nothing but make accusation of me you haven’t proved while at the same time being unable to refute what I’ve said. Even something so simple as “proactive” vs “reactive”. See you on another thread.