4 ms·

I was particularly interested by the lack of condemnation from the government. I would have expected a stronger stance. >But he's not entirely negative about t

by smeyer 11y ago

I was particularly interested by the lack of condemnation from the government. I would have expected a stronger stance. >But he's not entirely negative about the vigilante movement. In fact, rather than condemning the "Catch your thief" campaigns in their entirety, he says he actually wants to harness its energy, and endorses the notion of citizen's arrests. "Catch your thief yes, but hand him or her over to the police. Don't take justice into your own hands," he says.

userbinator 11y ago
Jose Luis Perez Guadalupe, Peru's interior minister, admits that the system does need improvement. "Basically there are problems within our police forces. Sometimes their reach is limited, there aren't enough men on the ground," he says. He probably thinks the police could use some help.
speeder 11y ago
I am from Brazil, some police departments here support vigilantism (even when it is violent, for example a cop friend of mine told me that when a small town population found out that the owner of the biggest factory raped hundreds of children, the police purpusefully ignored the riot and let the population maim the guy, because they knew that if they just arrested him, the broken justice system would release him again and allow him to do his nasty stuff again). But here the police is stronger than Peru, and the official stance that the police is supposed to pass on is that you should not even try to defend yourself (also guns got banned in 2003). Of course this does not work, specially because a rise of gratuitous murders (ie: people that murder someone else for no reason at all, one happened in my parents neighbourhood for example, where a pedestrian was walking, then he suddenly stopped, pulled a gun, shot a guy that was sleeping in his own home in the head, then concealed the gun again, and kept walking like if it was a completely normal day and nothing had happened), we don't have (that I know of) wildly popular facebook pages about vigilantism, but people DO share on their timelines targets for vigilantism, and frequently share the end result of vigilantism, every time I log in on Facebook it is a gorefest, lots of pictures of several cases around the country of thieves shot, lynched, kicked to death, guts spilling out after being knifed to death, and so on... And honestly, sometimes I share those pics too, and I want a gun too, I saw the wrong side of a gun (ie: the open end of the barrel) too many times for my taste, and the police never helps, sometimes they don't even pickup the phone (by the way: neither the firefighters, the few times I had to call a firefighter, they never came, one of those times one house, thankfully not mine, burned down). So the police tell us to "don't react", sure, I will stay standing, give the guy my stuff, and then get shot in the face, like it happened to some kid some time ago (it is a infamous case, because it was captured on camera, and the kid followed exactly what the police taught: he was in front of his house, a robber that was too young to be legally arrested showed up with a gun, the camera has no sound, so what we can see is the victim, that was coming back from school, giving his entire backpack, and contents of his pockets to the robber, then the robber starts to walk away, stops, turn around, consider the student for a moment, and shoots him in the face, then he smiles happily and walks away again).
- throwaway1967 11y ago
  > I will stay standing, give the guy my stuff, and then get shot in the face, like it happened to some kid some time ago Don't you see now why the government tells you not to react? If you were the government, what had you rather? 1) some kid or guy shoots and kills some other person, nothing is investigated, killer doesn't go to jail, so basically like nothing happened and the public servants don't need to lift a finger. OR 2) you have a gun which you use to defend yourself; you then call the police about what happened; now they're going to have to file paperwork, drive to your location, get someone to pick up that dead body, find a place to bury it, etc. In other words you've created work for these public servants! All because you care so much about your life. You heartless right-wing fascist! /s Seriously now. You shouldn't have a gun and you shouldn't want to protect yourself because <space reserved for spurious gun-control argument with statistics to make it sound like it's obvious having a gun doesn't protect you despite thousands of anecdotal evidence constituting data>. That's why you should be happy being shot in the face. Governments are gangs of criminals. Who else would want their population disarmed when it's clearly going to get them killed? Look back in history and you will find out the biggest Tyrants with the largest death counts to their names through atrocities have all instituted gun control before doing their dirty deeds. Obama is now trying to ban guns. But he's not a Tyrant! He's just going through the motions of one (like passing most executive orders out of any president) just to see how it feels.

by smeyer 11y ago

userbinator 11y ago

Jose Luis Perez Guadalupe, Peru's interior minister, admits that the system does need improvement. "Basically there are problems within our police forces. Sometimes their reach is limited, there aren't enough men on the ground," he says. He probably thinks the police could use some help.

speeder 11y ago

I am from Brazil, some police departments here support vigilantism (even when it is violent, for example a cop friend of mine told me that when a small town population found out that the owner of the biggest factory raped hundreds of children, the police purpusefully ignored the riot and let the population maim the guy, because they knew that if they just arrested him, the broken justice system would release him again and allow him to do his nasty stuff again). But here the police is stronger than Peru, and the official stance that the police is supposed to pass on is that you should not even try to defend yourself (also guns got banned in 2003). Of course this does not work, specially because a rise of gratuitous murders (ie: people that murder someone else for no reason at all, one happened in my parents neighbourhood for example, where a pedestrian was walking, then he suddenly stopped, pulled a gun, shot a guy that was sleeping in his own home in the head, then concealed the gun again, and kept walking like if it was a completely normal day and nothing had happened), we don't have (that I know of) wildly popular facebook pages about vigilantism, but people DO share on their timelines targets for vigilantism, and frequently share the end result of vigilantism, every time I log in on Facebook it is a gorefest, lots of pictures of several cases around the country of thieves shot, lynched, kicked to death, guts spilling out after being knifed to death, and so on... And honestly, sometimes I share those pics too, and I want a gun too, I saw the wrong side of a gun (ie: the open end of the barrel) too many times for my taste, and the police never helps, sometimes they don't even pickup the phone (by the way: neither the firefighters, the few times I had to call a firefighter, they never came, one of those times one house, thankfully not mine, burned down). So the police tell us to "don't react", sure, I will stay standing, give the guy my stuff, and then get shot in the face, like it happened to some kid some time ago (it is a infamous case, because it was captured on camera, and the kid followed exactly what the police taught: he was in front of his house, a robber that was too young to be legally arrested showed up with a gun, the camera has no sound, so what we can see is the victim, that was coming back from school, giving his entire backpack, and contents of his pockets to the robber, then the robber starts to walk away, stops, turn around, consider the student for a moment, and shoots him in the face, then he smiles happily and walks away again).

throwaway1967 11y ago
> I will stay standing, give the guy my stuff, and then get shot in the face, like it happened to some kid some time ago Don't you see now why the government tells you not to react? If you were the government, what had you rather? 1) some kid or guy shoots and kills some other person, nothing is investigated, killer doesn't go to jail, so basically like nothing happened and the public servants don't need to lift a finger. OR 2) you have a gun which you use to defend yourself; you then call the police about what happened; now they're going to have to file paperwork, drive to your location, get someone to pick up that dead body, find a place to bury it, etc. In other words you've created work for these public servants! All because you care so much about your life. You heartless right-wing fascist! /s Seriously now. You shouldn't have a gun and you shouldn't want to protect yourself because <space reserved for spurious gun-control argument with statistics to make it sound like it's obvious having a gun doesn't protect you despite thousands of anecdotal evidence constituting data>. That's why you should be happy being shot in the face. Governments are gangs of criminals. Who else would want their population disarmed when it's clearly going to get them killed? Look back in history and you will find out the biggest Tyrants with the largest death counts to their names through atrocities have all instituted gun control before doing their dirty deeds. Obama is now trying to ban guns. But he's not a Tyrant! He's just going through the motions of one (like passing most executive orders out of any president) just to see how it feels.