5 ms·

Society does take an active role through police, fbi, etc etc Vigilantes are criminals too so society takes an active role in pursuing and punishing them as we

Society does take an active role through police, fbi, etc etc Vigilantes are criminals too so society takes an active role in pursuing and punishing them as well.

willcipriano 2y ago
That only works if you aren't in a: Anarcho-tyranny A stage of governmental dysfunction in which the state is anarchically hopeless at coping with large matters but ruthlessly tyrannical in the enforcement of small ones https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64594123 https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64594123 Then you get your door kicked in for not paying taxes on $50 venmo transaction, or saying the wrong thing online but when there is a school shooter (or presidential assassin) the cops wait for them to finish while they play with their phones.
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  thanks for that example, it really paints a picture of the impotence of the state, tho watching the video it's easy to blame the failure on the hundreds of individuals that didn't take action, but they are meant to be the vangaurd; we handed the monopoly on violence to these people and for what?
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  While it is true that the justice system is often used to disproportionately hurt the poor, nobody is getting their door kicked in for not paying taxes on a venmo transaction.
  - shermantanktop 2y ago
    Civil forfeiture is roughly similar.
    - UncleMeat 2y ago
      Civil asset forfeiture is indeed horrible and often used to basically just steal from the poor. It is also totally different than having your door kicked down for failing to pay taxes or being arrested for saying the wrong thing online.
      - shermantanktop 2y ago
        Sure, but it does match the GP’s point about tyrannical enforcement against small violations. The examples GP provided weren’t apt, you pointed that out, I’m providing another one. Red light ticket revenue funding small town budgets is another. Brake-light rationales for traffic stops…I could go on. The key is what you pointed out, that these are never used against the elite class.
themaninthedark 2y ago
We deem vigilantes criminals because we have no way to hold them accountable if they infringe on someone's rights. Society is supposed to take an active role, but sometimes they have other priorities. Big companies getting hacked or scammed make headlines and generate FBI action. People like me, not so much.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Unless I'm mistaken, we vigilantes are deemed criminals because it is, ironically, against the law to enforce the law on someone else without being granted that authority by the state. Its still not quite accurate to deem vigilantes as criminals though. Unless they've been charged and convicted they aren't technically a criminal.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    > it is, ironically, against the law to enforce the law on someone else without being granted that authority by the state. Not sure why that's "ironic". Seems reasonable. Only people trained and accountable should be doing things that would violate people's civil rights and take away their freedom or possessions. Obviously the reality of our legal systems fall far short of ideal, but IMO vigilantism is not the answer to that. > Its still not quite accurate to deem vigilantes as criminals though. Unless they've been charged and convicted they aren't technically a criminal. You sound like the kind of kid who would put their hand an inch from their sibling's face and constantly utter "not touching! still not touching!" and think that you were "technically" not breaking the rules, so your behavior was ok.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      > Not sure why that's "ironic". Seems reasonable. Only people trained and accountable should be doing things that would violate people's civil rights and take away their freedom or possessions. Maybe ironic wasn't a great fit there, I stand by the rest of the comment though. I blame Alanis Morissette for my inability to recognize irony accurately. > You sound like the kind of kid who would put their hand an inch from their sibling's face and constantly utter "not touching! still not touching!" and think that you were "technically" not breaking the rules, so your behavior was ok. There's a legal definition of "criminal". Is it being an annoying little brother to think definitions are important?

Society does take an active role through police, fbi, etc etc Vigilantes are criminals too so society takes an active role in pursuing and punishing them as well.

willcipriano 2y ago

That only works if you aren't in a: Anarcho-tyranny A stage of governmental dysfunction in which the state is anarchically hopeless at coping with large matters but ruthlessly tyrannical in the enforcement of small ones https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64594123 https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64594123 Then you get your door kicked in for not paying taxes on $50 venmo transaction, or saying the wrong thing online but when there is a school shooter (or presidential assassin) the cops wait for them to finish while they play with their phones.

jazzyjackson 2y ago
thanks for that example, it really paints a picture of the impotence of the state, tho watching the video it's easy to blame the failure on the hundreds of individuals that didn't take action, but they are meant to be the vangaurd; we handed the monopoly on violence to these people and for what?
UncleMeat 2y ago
While it is true that the justice system is often used to disproportionately hurt the poor, nobody is getting their door kicked in for not paying taxes on a venmo transaction.
- shermantanktop 2y ago
  Civil forfeiture is roughly similar.
  - UncleMeat 2y ago
    Civil asset forfeiture is indeed horrible and often used to basically just steal from the poor. It is also totally different than having your door kicked down for failing to pay taxes or being arrested for saying the wrong thing online.
    - shermantanktop 2y ago
      Sure, but it does match the GP’s point about tyrannical enforcement against small violations. The examples GP provided weren’t apt, you pointed that out, I’m providing another one. Red light ticket revenue funding small town budgets is another. Brake-light rationales for traffic stops…I could go on. The key is what you pointed out, that these are never used against the elite class.

themaninthedark 2y ago

We deem vigilantes criminals because we have no way to hold them accountable if they infringe on someone's rights. Society is supposed to take an active role, but sometimes they have other priorities. Big companies getting hacked or scammed make headlines and generate FBI action. People like me, not so much.

_heimdall 2y ago
Unless I'm mistaken, we vigilantes are deemed criminals because it is, ironically, against the law to enforce the law on someone else without being granted that authority by the state. Its still not quite accurate to deem vigilantes as criminals though. Unless they've been charged and convicted they aren't technically a criminal.
- kelnos 2y ago
  > it is, ironically, against the law to enforce the law on someone else without being granted that authority by the state. Not sure why that's "ironic". Seems reasonable. Only people trained and accountable should be doing things that would violate people's civil rights and take away their freedom or possessions. Obviously the reality of our legal systems fall far short of ideal, but IMO vigilantism is not the answer to that. > Its still not quite accurate to deem vigilantes as criminals though. Unless they've been charged and convicted they aren't technically a criminal. You sound like the kind of kid who would put their hand an inch from their sibling's face and constantly utter "not touching! still not touching!" and think that you were "technically" not breaking the rules, so your behavior was ok.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    > Not sure why that's "ironic". Seems reasonable. Only people trained and accountable should be doing things that would violate people's civil rights and take away their freedom or possessions. Maybe ironic wasn't a great fit there, I stand by the rest of the comment though. I blame Alanis Morissette for my inability to recognize irony accurately. > You sound like the kind of kid who would put their hand an inch from their sibling's face and constantly utter "not touching! still not touching!" and think that you were "technically" not breaking the rules, so your behavior was ok. There's a legal definition of "criminal". Is it being an annoying little brother to think definitions are important?