Ah yes. Classic “Everyone deserves a fair trial, until I think they’ve done a bad enough crime, in which case I’ll activately cheer for that right being taken away”.
Vigilante justice is NEVER acceptable. Until someone has been justly tried, and convicted they innocent in the eyes of the law. Period, and no exception.
You people cheering this on, and encouraging have on your hands the blood of every single innocent person who was ever killed or assaulted by a vigilante.
lawless ‘I am the law not you’ narcissist types who think rules don’t apply to them (ex: rich people, republicans, sovereign citizens etc)
dumbasses who think they know shit because they’re insane (ex: pizzagate guy, qanon murders)
people with real grievances the law can’t or won’t address. (Luigi Mangione, Charlie Kirk’s killer)
Imo, #3 is the only kind that I’ve seen people who aren’t psychopaths express support for and its not just because #3 is more valid but its also because #3 is often carried out against the folks who are in the #1 group so its often a type of vigilante vs vigilante crime.
Plus everybody I’ve seen expressing support for #3 would be far happier if the legal system did the work instead of a vigilante.
Gary Plauche is another person who took justice into his own hands
He did what needed to be done.
Hero
100% justified
I can’t remember a thing, but i do remember at one point we all gave a standing ovation.
Yep would done the same or worse to that fucker.
No, people are absolutely condoning this. In some cases they’re even celebrating it. “Most people” might not, but the people being criticized, the ones in this thread, absolutely exist and are doing exactly what they’re being criticized for.
Vigilante justice is NEVER acceptable. Until someone has been justly tried, and convicted they innocent in the eyes of the law. Period, and no exception.
Devil’s advocate: Judicial systems throughout history have had varying levels of success. If a person repeatedly commits murder and is not held to account by the justice system, is it not acceptable for someone to kill them? The net result would be lives saved
There have been many instances throughout history where a person repeatedly commits unspeakable crimes, but is guaranteed immunity from whatever justice system exists in their society. Do you think it’s entirely unacceptable for them to receive vigilante justice?
Millions of North Koreans suffer and die under the Kim regime. If a vigilante were to assassinate him, millions of lives would be saved. Do you still contend it is unacceptable to do so? Keep in mind, everything Kim Jong Un has done is perfectly legal under the North Korean judicial system
If you question that interpretation of the result, let’s invoke Godwin’s Law. If one of the early assassination attempts on Hitler had been successful, WW2 could have been avoided (or at least made far more one-sided), saving tens of millions of lives. Would vigilante justice have still been unacceptable to you?
Seems incredibly amoral to state it’s preferable to allow a genocide than to extra-judicially murder the one perpetuating the genocide
So you’re saying the victim of a crime should get to act as judge jury and executioner ?
Like I’m sorry you had to go through that, but how would you feel it your child was falsely accused of murder, and then revenge killed by a family member of a victim at trial.
There’s a reason we don’t allow vigilante justice.
Ah yes. Classic “Everyone deserves a fair trial, until I think they’ve done a bad enough crime, in which case I’ll activately cheer for that right being taken away”.
Vigilante justice is NEVER acceptable. Until someone has been justly tried, and convicted they innocent in the eyes of the law. Period, and no exception.
You people cheering this on, and encouraging have on your hands the blood of every single innocent person who was ever killed or assaulted by a vigilante.
Vigilantism has 3 common sources:
lawless ‘I am the law not you’ narcissist types who think rules don’t apply to them (ex: rich people, republicans, sovereign citizens etc)
dumbasses who think they know shit because they’re insane (ex: pizzagate guy, qanon murders)
people with real grievances the law can’t or won’t address. (Luigi Mangione, Charlie Kirk’s killer)
Imo, #3 is the only kind that I’ve seen people who aren’t psychopaths express support for and its not just because #3 is more valid but its also because #3 is often carried out against the folks who are in the #1 group so its often a type of vigilante vs vigilante crime.
Plus everybody I’ve seen expressing support for #3 would be far happier if the legal system did the work instead of a vigilante.
I did a research report on vigilante justice and the social factors that make it more likely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5az_rOTb0E
Yep, #3 is a sad necessity due to the gaps and inequities in our legal system.
Court room justice over mob justice any day.
Just remember more blood has been shed in wars under the shouts of “justice” or “god”…than all other spoken reasons combined. Very dangerous concepts.
Look mate, for most people this squarely falls under “I don’t condone it, but I understand it.”
Excerpts from this thread:
No, people are absolutely condoning this. In some cases they’re even celebrating it. “Most people” might not, but the people being criticized, the ones in this thread, absolutely exist and are doing exactly what they’re being criticized for.
Devil’s advocate: Judicial systems throughout history have had varying levels of success. If a person repeatedly commits murder and is not held to account by the justice system, is it not acceptable for someone to kill them? The net result would be lives saved
There have been many instances throughout history where a person repeatedly commits unspeakable crimes, but is guaranteed immunity from whatever justice system exists in their society. Do you think it’s entirely unacceptable for them to receive vigilante justice?
Millions of North Koreans suffer and die under the Kim regime. If a vigilante were to assassinate him, millions of lives would be saved. Do you still contend it is unacceptable to do so? Keep in mind, everything Kim Jong Un has done is perfectly legal under the North Korean judicial system
If you question that interpretation of the result, let’s invoke Godwin’s Law. If one of the early assassination attempts on Hitler had been successful, WW2 could have been avoided (or at least made far more one-sided), saving tens of millions of lives. Would vigilante justice have still been unacceptable to you?
Seems incredibly amoral to state it’s preferable to allow a genocide than to extra-judicially murder the one perpetuating the genocide
This dude was literally currently at trial for murder. That argument might apply AFTER someone has been wrongly acquitted.
This logic is literally NEVER applicable inside a court room, before the verdict has been read.
*gestures broadly*Got any dead kids? No? Then kindly STFU until you’ve experienced such pain. Yes, I am qualified to speak on this subject you lucky SOB.
So you’re saying the victim of a crime should get to act as judge jury and executioner ?
Like I’m sorry you had to go through that, but how would you feel it your child was falsely accused of murder, and then revenge killed by a family member of a victim at trial.
There’s a reason we don’t allow vigilante justice.
Your feelings are more important than everyone else’s because…?