Vigilantiasm . . . . .

Drumpot

Is there really something wrong with beating the Sh*t out of somebody who probably had it coming to them ?

What about that Commandment: "thou shalt take matters into thy own hands if thy feel justice hath not been strook down on thy perpetrator"

Superbus

...batman...

kieran26

only if they really had it coming......like if they re-arranged your furniture whilst you were asleep sort of thing

galwayrush

I guess the concept is practiced quite well in A.H. when an OP is ripped apart for the subject of their thread,:D

PCPhoto

meh ... poll needs another option:

"Atari Rob-uar"

It depends what the dessert is.

Ruu_Old

Just wait until my friend Wildey gets here! :mad:

Mike 1972

Atari Jaguar

mikom

Drumpot wrote: »

What about that Commandment: "thou shalt take matters into thy own hands if thy feel justice hath not been strook down on thy perpetrator"

What about Harrys law?

gd1987

mikom wrote: »

What about Harrys law?

Harry who?

Degag

Drumpot wrote: »

Is there really something wrong with beating the Sh*t out of somebody who probably had it coming to them ?

What about that Commandment: "thou shalt take matters into thy own hands if thy feel justice hath not been strook down on thy perpetrator"

What Set of Commandments do you have?

Degag

gd1987 wrote: »

Harry who?

Brown, i'd imagine. Damn good film.

mikom

Degag wrote: »

Brown, i'd imagine. Damn good film.

Wrong.
Think small screen........... and this show pisses all over Harry Brown.

Drumpot

Degag wrote: »

Brown, i'd imagine. Damn good film.

I thought he meant Dirty Harry ! ! :eek:

seraphimvc

Leprechaun Man?

Degag

mikom wrote: »

Wrong.
Think small screen........... and this show pisses all over Harry Brown.

Don't know, i'm stumped.

Harry Brown is good though!

mikom

"Harrys code" might be a more correct way of putting it for the googlers

OutlawPete

It's not a back and white issue.

In theory, vigilantism sounds cool, who doesn't wand to be Charles Bronson every now and then.

In reality though, a bunch of Muppets vying from blood can do more harm than good.

Although, the guys who started to protect the New York subway were quite impressive back in the 80's, are they still there - their name escapes me.

vibe666

everyone's favourite serial killer?

having ended up being the loser (in a big way) in my own act of vigilantism many years ago, i'd like to point out that that kind of thing is best left up to people who weren't involved in the initial reason for wanting a bit of vigilante justice.

4 weeks on remand in one of the worst young offenders institutes in the UK and 100 hours of community service was more than enough to put me off the idea of dishing out my own justice when the law failed.

in hindsight, at the time i actually knew enough people to get the job done properly without ever getting involved myself, but i let my emotions cloud my judgement and cocked the whole thing up and ended up paying a heavy price for my mistakes.

so my advice is, if you plan on dishing out some rough justice to redress the balance of a wrong done to yourself or those you love, unless you've got prior experience and know you can do a proper job, just don't do it.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Although, the guys who started to protect the New York subway were quite impressive back in the 80's, are they still there - their name escapes me.

the black panther party, although i just knew them as the black panthers from the news at the time.

mikom

vibe666 wrote: »

everyone's favourite serial killer?

Spot on.

vibe666 wrote: »

the black panther party, although i just knew them as the black panthers from the news at the time.

Was that not the Guardian angels?

OutlawPete

mikom wrote: »

Was that not the Guardian angels?

You're right, it was the Guardian Angels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Angels

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE4rJjauiso

UrbanSea

Depends what it is. Something to do with your family and friends,ya probably deserve it.
Or another thing,I really hate people who injure animals. They can't defend themselves fairly. Die bitch.

OhThePenguin

mikom wrote: »

What about Harrys law?

I get it, don't worry, looks like we're the only two people on boards who watch dexter

Edit: 3 people, didn't see vibe's reply...

vibe666

mikom wrote: »

Was that not the Guardian angels?

lol, that'll teach me to not read my own links!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Harrie Brown

toomevara

Just what is a "vigilantiasm"? Is it blowing your bags after meting out some rough justice? Just as a point of information....?

Damo123

Drumpot wrote: »

Is there really something wrong with beating the Sh*t out of somebody who probably had it coming to them ?

What about that Commandment: "thou shalt take matters into thy own hands if thy feel justice hath not been strook down on thy perpetrator"

No not a chance. I know too many people who have gotten beatings and punishments for things they didnt do. The vigilantes, after being found to be in the wrong, their attitudes are simply "well if he wasnt hanging around with the ones who did it then he wouldnt have got beat up". What in the FCUK sort of logic is that..????????

WHatever chance of making prison or whatever harsher for the ones proven, 100% to be guilty. Id be very supportive off that. But only if the person is proven without a shadow of a doubt to be guilty.

But with this current attitude in Ireland you seem to be guilty of a million different crimes just because you were wearing a tracksuit and standing around on a corner drinking a few cans... It really pisses me off.

karlog

Damo123 wrote: »

But with this current attitude in Ireland you seem to be guilty of a million different crimes just because you were wearing a tracksuit and standing around on a corner drinking a few cans... It really pisses me off.

Yes you more than likely are guilty

Damo123

karlog wrote: »

Yes you more than likely are guilty

That proves my point. It would be a very shameful day if you became a vigilante.

Vigilanties, from what I can see, just assume guilt. They think its ok to beat the sh*t out of someone and leave them in a pulp because they were wearing the wrong clothes or associate with the wrong people. Nazi Germany anyone..

Riddle101

The thing about vigilantism is, is that it's sort of a contradiction to itself. People going around and beating the sh!t out of people who break the law, is somewhat similar to people going around and beating the sh!t out of someone because they're breaking the law. Therefore the vigilante himself/herself becomes a criminal as well, and therfore they too are breaking the law. I guess you could say that in them believing they're doing good, their self-righteousness makes them forget what they are, or they simply don't care.

Nonetheless, do I believe in vigilantiasm? Well i'm a semi-supporter in it. I do believe in vigilantiasm in the sense, of trying to fight crime and helping the communities. But I don't believe in how it's usually done over here where most vigilantees end up becoming thugs themselves.

dubtom

I would take justice into my own hands if it involved my family,someone hitting a family member or some such, wouldn't join a gang of vigilante's though, well, perhaps if they were the rest of my family out to get the offender I would, although I doubt that would happen.

Precious flower

Vigilantism seems like at good idea at the start I'm sure you're protecting your community etc but I think eventually that person can loose sight of what they doing and could end up killing someone for some petty crime or asking for protection money and threatening to injury people otherwise. I definitely think the law should be changed in Ireland. If someone breaks into your home you should be able to protect yourself (within reason I suppose) after all they are trespassing on your property.

Damo123

Precious flower wrote: »

I definitely think the law should be changed in Ireland. If someone breaks into your home you should be able to protect yourself (within reason I suppose) after all they are trespassing on your property.

I believe you will find that you can protect yourself if you are attacked by an intruder. But if someone breaks into your house that doesnt give you an automatic right to assualt them. 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Magill

Damo123 wrote: »

I believe you will find that you can protect yourself if you are attacked by an intruder. But if someone breaks into your house that doesnt give you an automatic right to assualt them. 2 wrongs dont make a right.

so we have to wait for an intruder to attack us before we can do something ? i know if some1 ever broke into my house i'd much rather take them by suprise than confront them straight up. People shouldn't have to wait to be attacked to protect they're family/pocessions, you know what, **** that ****, i would do exactly what is required of me as the man of my house.

The law system in this country is an absolute failure.

Riddle101

Damo123 wrote: »

I believe you will find that you can protect yourself if you are attacked by an intruder. But if someone breaks into your house that doesnt give you an automatic right to assualt them. 2 wrongs dont make a right.

My dad used to tell me, if someone ever hit me. I should hit them back. But what if I knew he was going to hit me, should I just wait to be punched, and in turn the guy hitting me would get the advantage over me. That somewhat mirrors this argument in away, because basically it means we have to wait to be attacked. The problem I see with this, is if you have to wait to be attacked, one of three things could happen. (1)He attacks and seriously hurts you, (2)He dosen't attack but escapes with all his loot and you, who's still waiting to be attacked, will be stuck waiting for the Gardaí instead which by then the robber will have got away, and you may not see your stuff again. (3)He hurts a family member. There are of course other ways that the situation could turn out, but in the end. I think confronting the robber is at best, better then just waiting to be attacked or doing nothing.

Damo123

Riddle101 wrote: »

My dad used to tell me, if someone ever hit me. I should hit them back. But what if I knew he was going to hit me, should I just wait to be punched, and in turn the guy hitting me would get the advantage over me. That somewhat mirrors this argument in away, because basically it means we have to wait to be attacked. The problem I see with this, is if you have to wait to be attacked, one of three things could happen. (1)He attacks and seriously hurts you, (2)He dosen't attack but escapes with all his loot and you, who's still waiting to be attacked, will be stuck waiting for the Gardaí instead which by then the robber will have got away, and you may not see your stuff again. (3)He hurts a family member. There are of course other ways that the situation could turn out, but in the end. I think confronting the robber is at best, better then just waiting to be attacked or doing nothing.

I know what your saying Riddle. **I MYSELF THINK** from the guards/law standpoint if someone broke into your house (given hes not a kid), if you were to hit him a few slaps nothing would come out off it. And its always his word against yours on whether or not he went to attack you.

But the thing people always forget is, you dont have an automatic right to attack him just because he broke into your house.

Secondly if he attacks you or your family then you can defend yourself, but again it has to be reasonable. You cant just beat him so hes within an inch of his life or left in intensive care for 6 months or a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

And aswell chances are if you were to beat him that badly you would end up in worse trouble then he ever would have for his breaking and entering.

Bonito

You should all be carrying an emergency supply of a can of whoop ass at all times. And toothpicks, don't forget the toothpicks.

stovelid

In theory, it's good when communities rise up against people who terrorize their own, especially when there is a policing vacuum. Worst thing about it though, is that it's often bad people getting punished by people who are often just as bad.

That said, I don't like it when respectable types wring their hands in the broadsheets over people who get battered for terrorizing their own communities - communities that the respectable types never have to live in themselves.

quicklickpaddy

If someone broke into my house I don't think I'd have a problem hitting them over the head with something very heavy.

On the other hand, I wouldn't seek someone out afterwards or consciously go around trying to protect my area or anything.

There can be a fairly slim line between pre-emptive self-defence and vigilantism

Btwndeyes

we need be ninja and anticipate they're assault then use they're force against them!! hehe

Drumpot

As far as I am concerned, somebody breaking into myself loses some of their statuary rights. .

I had this discussion with a friend before and he asked "what if they are just drunk and made a mistake". "what if they had no intention of harming you". .

Thats fine with me. . But lets look on this on the flip side. I wake up in middle of the night with my wife beside me and my baby boy in the next room. I hear some noise down below. .

My first reaction. Goto my son with my wife. My second reaction is to grab a weapon of any sort. My third reaction is to call the cops. . If, for any reason the person who breaks in approaches me, Im taking them down anyway possible. I will assume they want to rape my wife and kill my child . . I would rather be in jail for protecting my family then be killed or worse still survive an attack that my family members are not so lucky in.

If you approach any member of my family when you break into my house, be prepared to be attacked. Once you come up the stairs, all bets are off.

I hate the thought of injurying anybody to be honest, but I think we are all capable of doing serious damage to a person breaking into our home. I would do anything to protect my family.