• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I can't say I agree with their methods, but this cracks me up...

Last I read, lethal force was allowed to save your life or someone else's life
 
cool! And I can say I agree with their methods.

The main argument against vigilantes, often made ham-handedly on TV and in movies is they all "must" either:
- make mistakes and hurt or kill the wrong people
- go psycho and start killing people for jaywalking

Neither applies here, so yay vigilantes!
 
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
cool! And I can say I agree with their methods.

The main argument against vigilantes, often made ham-handedly on TV and in movies is they all "must" either:
- make mistakes and hurt or kill the wrong people
- go psycho and start killing people for jaywalking

Neither applies here, so yay vigilantes!
Click to expand...

Again, this is NOT vigilantism.

Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands AFTER the fact. (catching a crook after he has committed the crime and dispensing your own "justice.") Stopping a crime in progress to save your own life, or the life of another is SELF DEFENSE.
 
I'd have to ask the question: what would happen if the shooter was a cop? Most likely if a cop gave a warning and the beting continued, a shooting would result in a temporary suspension of duties and an internal investigation - but the cop would never be prosecuted. Why should anything change if you replace "cop" with citizen?

Of course I'd never advocate citizens to shoot others. But since it is done, I don't think the shooter deserves much punishment.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
cool! And I can say I agree with their methods.

The main argument against vigilantes, often made ham-handedly on TV and in movies is they all "must" either:
- make mistakes and hurt or kill the wrong people
- go psycho and start killing people for jaywalking

Neither applies here, so yay vigilantes!
Click to expand...

Again, this is NOT vigilantism.

Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands AFTER the fact. (catching a crook after he has committed the crime and dispensing your own "justice.") Stopping a crime in progress to save your own life, or the life of another is SELF DEFENSE.
Click to expand...

Technically, defending someone else isn't "self-defense" ... 😉

The official term used for that situation up here is "Justified defense of self or other"

- M4H
 
Originally posted by: dullard
I'd have to ask the question: what would happen if the shooter was a cop? Most likely if a cop gave a warning and the beting continued, a shooting would result in a temporary suspension of duties and an internal investigation - but the cop would never be prosecuted. Why should anything change if you replace "cop" with citizen?

Of course I'd never advocate citizens to shoot others. But since it is done, I don't think the shooter deserves much punishment.
Click to expand...

The cop is paid to put his life on the line, and thus is expected to use restraint when stopping a crime in progress. The average citizen is not.
 
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
cool! And I can say I agree with their methods.

The main argument against vigilantes, often made ham-handedly on TV and in movies is they all "must" either:
- make mistakes and hurt or kill the wrong people
- go psycho and start killing people for jaywalking

Neither applies here, so yay vigilantes!
Click to expand...

Again, this is NOT vigilantism.

Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands AFTER the fact. (catching a crook after he has committed the crime and dispensing your own "justice.") Stopping a crime in progress to save your own life, or the life of another is SELF DEFENSE.
Click to expand...

Technically, defending someone else isn't "self-defense" ... 😉

The official term used for that situation up here is "Justified defense of self or other"

- M4H
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah. 😛 Same thing. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top