Ethics of beating the ****e outta criminals.

The Police in the Philippines have asked the public to assist them in securing a peaceful society.

The Police have asked the public to kill drug dealers and burn down their houses.

It sounds like it couldn't be true.

Here's the link.

http://www.thejournal.ie/philippines-drug-dealer-deaths-2-2950102-Aug2016/


Is it morally ok for the Philippine public to engage in vigilantism if they have been invited to do so by the police?


The Irish are weak pussies who accept any amount of bullying by insipid people like Enda Kenny.
How did it ever come to this?

seamus wrote: »

Some people are of the opinion that it's OK if innocent people are hurt or killed. Provided that the majority of those punished are guilty, then a little collateral damage is OK.

They would of course change their tune very quickly when they or a member of their family become that collateral damage.

"Nah, it's OK they beat my son to death. They made a mistake, but they otherwise do great work keeping the streets clean. God bless them".

It's cringeworthy when you speak for other people.

Could you not just let people have their own opinions without you speaking for them?

I am consistent. I am aware of what I am calling for. I am calling for it anyway.

The idea that you can tell other people what they're thinking is just bizarre. Very weird.

starshine1234 wrote: »

It's cringeworthy when you speak for other people.

Could you not just let people have their own opinions without you speaking for them?

I am consistent. I am aware of what I am calling for. I am calling for it anyway.

The idea that you can tell other people what they're thinking is just bizarre. Very weird.

So you be okay if an innocent member of your family was beaten to within an inch of there life as it works most of the time. Have you told them this. I also think the person you were replying to was asking a question rather then a blanket statement. Are you now allowed to deliver justice on him beccause he besmirched you.

mynamejeff wrote:

i dont believe that i even suggested that at any point
My point was that a definitive guilty verdict is very hard to get .

We're speaking at cross purposes. I was wondering if musketeer4 would actually say you should beat up people who have only been accused.

I just wanted to know if a toilet trained Hunan in the first world would actually think something like that.

To which they replied....

Musketeer4 wrote:

Yes I would be in favour of it against those who are accused but not convicted provided that the general opinion amongst the locals is that he did it. He may well be guilty, but it just cannot be proven for one reason or another.

Most amusing

skywanderer wrote: »

I have no faith in the Gardai, they are corrupt, paid off and bought out by political families. If the criminal is connected to a politician then you can be certain the Gardai will do nothing. What is needed is a proportionate response to the crime and I see nothing with criminals getting their just desserts because we know the liberal luvvies have our Justice system destroyed to ensure no justice is ever dished out, the corrupt legal profession backs up these liberals so they can bleed the system dry.

Duterte in the Philippines is set to restore the official death penalty over there later this year, but he unofficially started the killings since before his inauguration. Every day I like and admire this man more and more, a real Man not afraid to call it like it is, not afraid of the leftwing liberals and not afraid of the politically correct scourge of humanity; this guy knows you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

The law in Ireland is on the side of the criminals and the Gardai serve as the private security forces of the corrupt elite and as the tax collector enforcers.

That's all very well until you get fingered by one of your enemies who tells everyone you are kiddyfiddler and a mob comes around and spit roasts you over a fire despite your cries and screams of innocence as the flames consume you.

In the world you appear to want there would be human heads on the city walls and crucified corpses hanging from the trees along the roadside.

martingriff wrote: »

So you be okay if an innocent member of your family was beaten to within an inch of there life as it works most of the time. Have you told them this. I also think the person you were replying to was asking a question rather then a blanket statement. Are you now allowed to deliver justice on him beccause he besmirched you.

This type of discussion is simply ludicrous.

Anyone who says things like 'So you think...' or 'So you'd be ok with..' and then follows them up with something outrageous is simply not dicussing things fairly. They are being obtuse and bullying.

Your question is clearly rhetorical yet it is disguised as a genuine question.

Do you expect people to answer that yes, they be perfectly happy to see their family members beaten to within an inch of their life?

What is the purpose of your question?
As I said above, I consider that your question displays your deliberately obtuse attitude, and your reason for asking your question is to belittle people and their beliefs, and by so doing, you are acting like a bully.


If you object to vigilantism can you not present your arguments as arguments instead of building straw men and asking silly questions.

And to answer your silly question, yes, I am aware that in a world of vigilantes my own family could be targetted. I don't object to vigilantism for this reason.

Can I ask you, would you be happy to see your family members unfairly targetted by the Gardai, and set up or framed for serious crimes involving guns and explosives?
Are you happy to see genuine and honest guards being hounded out of the force and their lives being destroyed?
All of those things have happened with our corrupt Gardai.
I want serious criminals dealt with properly instead of them being let off

starshine1234 wrote: »

The vigilantes decides which crimes are allowable. I'm not a vigilante and so I cannot tell you which crimes. I suspect a vigilante would say whatever crime they want.


Whatever level of justice the vigilante decides is appropriate. The vigilante decides.


This depends.
Under the official legal system probably no action is taken.
If you are a vigilante then you decide on everything.




Are you surprised by my answers?
How else could your questions have been answered?

Did you intend your questions to be rhetorical questions?



Now, I have some questions if you don't mind.

Who decides that people like Martin Callinan should be above the law?
Who decides that genuine Guards like Maurice McCabe should be persecuted and villified?
Should 45,000 illegally removed penalty points be ignored?
Who within the Guards decided to allow 100,000 tractors to be untaxed?
Was that person exercising lawful authority or were they acting in a criminal manner?

Was I expecting different answers? No but was hoping there could have been

Now to your question.

1. Nobody should be above the law.
2. No whistle blowers if they are guards or whatever should be villified or persecuted.
3. No penalty points should be ignored (Except if you are trying to get someone to hospital) and all the Gardai and above should be reprimanded for doing so.
4. Answer to 3 is the same as 3. with however allowed tractors, cars etc go insured.
5. Not sure I would say they were acting in a criminal manner however I would say all should be severally reprimanded with losing there jobs regardless of it they say everyone does it so I did.

Now were you expecting different answers well for the first 4.

Please tell me because I answered like I did I should support vigilantes

Pkiernan wrote: »

10 year sentence from 2008 ....gotta love left wing liberal douchebags and their caring attitude towards prison time...

Remissions have more to do with a shortage of space in prisons.

RustyNut wrote: »

What if that innocent member of your family was raped to within an inch of their life and the system couldn't/wouldn't bring the perpetrator to justice?

I be as mad a hell and wish bad things on the person or persons but no will not resort to vigilante justice.

Wigglepuppy wrote: »

A person simply cannot know until in the situation. And to respond to another poster: not all vigilantes just want social media likes or notoriety in their community. Some want to get revenge on someone who wronged them or a loved one dreadfully, or they are living in an area where people are being terrorised by a minority of scum and they have simply had enough.

It is poor form to cast doubt on the sincerity of all of them.

Please define getting even on someone who did you wrong please.

Plus how do you know I have never known someone who has had something done to them and because of whatever circumstances got away. Because I have was deeply earth cursed the justice system the judge the lawyer. But I would not resort to vigilante justice

I will agree there would be people who do it not for like but for what they think is a moral reason.

Wigglepuppy wrote: »

A person simply cannot know until in the situation. And to respond to another poster: not all vigilantes just want social media likes or notoriety in their community. Some want to get revenge on someone who wronged them or a loved one dreadfully, or they are living in an area where people are being terrorised by a minority of scum and they have simply had enough.

It is poor form to cast doubt on the sincerity of all of them.

it's not poor form. it's accurate what i stated. trouble makers and thugs who want fame and likes.

Wigglepuppy wrote: »

I've seen that tactic here before of pretending not to know the answer to something. You know full well that there are heinous crimes committed against innocent people, e.g. assaulting a child, breaking into an elderly person's home and attacking them.

How can you know? I don't think I would either but I cannot know until in the situation and some people are so atrocious it is in the only thing that will make them stop.

one can usually know as they will know their personality and how they will behave.

martingriff wrote: »

I be as mad a hell and wish bad things on the person or persons but no will not resort to vigilante justice.

I take my hat off to you. Your a stronger person than me, I would inflict those bad things on them.

Having said that I wouldn't agree with vigilantism per se but when it's my family I am responsible.

I was around when the concerned parents against drugs were a thing, the textbook definition of vigilantes. They came about because of the complete inaction of the state to combat the heroin epidemic in the inner city in the 80's.

Everyone knew who the dealers were, where they operated and how they operated. The Guards were told who was dealing, where, when and how they were dealing but for whatever reason these dealers appeared to be left to it. More and more young people were getting sucked into heroin, taking it, selling it and in a lot of cases both. Something had to be done but the state had bigger fish to fry at the time so the mob was born.

This crowd who were well intentioned were quickly hijacked by the provos and used for their purposes and it was only then that the authorities decided something needed to be done but not before plenty of innocent people were kicked out of their homes or worse and more were recruited by the provos.

The point I'm making is that a vacuum will be filled and if people feel that they can't depend on the state to give them security and justice they will take it upon themselves and that's not likely to end well.