Self-defence vs. Vigilantiesm (Where to draw the legal line)
- Thread starter MrBishop
- Start date
AnomalousEntity
New Member
1) It doesnt have to be "you or yours" It can be anyone witnessed to being the victim of a violent crime
2) As far as Im concerned...there is no "before" or "after"...either would be vigilante. Lethal force is only acceptable "during" (for a civilian that is.)
If its "before" there are many other actions that can be taken. House alarm, restraining order, keep a weapon handy at all times (just in case) Cell phone, etc etc the list goes on and on.
If its "after" I dont think you should do anything. At that point, it really is "up to the police".
It is not up to a civilian to try and catch a criminal, pursue the criminal, etc etc.
The civilian only has the right to act in the case of an immediate, visible, clear threat to self or others.
However...if more law abiding citizens came prepared for this..I think crime would go way down, because many/most violent attacks would be stopped immediately by those around or the victim.
2) As far as Im concerned...there is no "before" or "after"...either would be vigilante. Lethal force is only acceptable "during" (for a civilian that is.)
If its "before" there are many other actions that can be taken. House alarm, restraining order, keep a weapon handy at all times (just in case) Cell phone, etc etc the list goes on and on.
If its "after" I dont think you should do anything. At that point, it really is "up to the police".
It is not up to a civilian to try and catch a criminal, pursue the criminal, etc etc.
The civilian only has the right to act in the case of an immediate, visible, clear threat to self or others.
However...if more law abiding citizens came prepared for this..I think crime would go way down, because many/most violent attacks would be stopped immediately by those around or the victim.
AnomalousEntity
New Member
tonks said:
If you caught them "in the act". You could shoot them right on the spot. That would be acting in the defense of others and applying the same rules of self defense. Perfectly legal and moral.
ris
New Member
i think my problem with vigilantism is that it seems to exist beyond the boundaries of accepted cold, analytical justice - where the individual is tried by their peers and convicted through a process intended to ascertain truth from fiction and emotion.
vigilantism runs the risk of being a solo intervention of those assuming themselves to be societies peers, claiming to act in the common good but doing so outside the laws they claim to protect.
vigilantism runs the risk of being a solo intervention of those assuming themselves to be societies peers, claiming to act in the common good but doing so outside the laws they claim to protect.
AlphaTroll
New Member
There is a distinct difference between vigilantism and self defence.
Self-defence is probably easier to define as the act of protecting oneself and one's possessions and / or loved ones from imminent harm. IMO this can be done either passively (pro-active) or aggressively (re-active).
Passively by taking the necessary precautions to ensure that you are as safe as possible from harm - this could include the installation of alarms in your home and vehicle, tracking devices in your vehicle, guard dogs, burglar bars and even 'training' young children on what to do in cases of emergency (also having emergency contact numbers on speed dial). In the interest of broadening the scope, you might even include aspects to safeguard your neighbourhood, i.e. neighbourhood watch, where members from the same community get together to discuss methods that could be used to prevent criminal activities in their area, such as nightly patrols, having each other's numbers as emergency contact numbers, reporting suspicions at meetings.
Aggressive (or reactionary) self defence would be the physical reaction to a perceived (immediate) threat. This usually would occur when all precautionary methods used have been unsuccessful. It includes the use of firearms against intruders in the home or even physical self-defence methods (i.e. certain forms of martial arts) and even tools such as pepper spray or tazer guns against attackers. As implied, it is an immediate, instinctive reaction to what you perceive to be a danger to your life.
In either case of self-defence the object is not necessarily to kill the intruder / attacker, but rather to immobilise the person in order for you to make a safe getaway or at least disable them long enough for the proper authorities to arrive and deal with the situation.
Vigilantism in all cases is a reactionary, often violent, emotional act. Again I believe it can be divided in two categories - Immediate Vigilantism and Delayed Vigilantism.
Immediate vigilantism would be the reaction to witnessing a crime being perpetrated and taking immediate action against the person. This could include cases where a parent witnesses a child being raped. Because of the strong emotions evoked by this act the parent will not stop to consider the consequences of their deed, but will rather be lead by an instinctive urge to protect their child. Usually it is only one person that performs this type of vigilante act. It is not planned at all and I believe that is why the courts are more lenient with this sort of case.
In the case of delayed vigilantism it is often the members of a community that feel betrayed or let-down by the criminal justice system. In such cases one would usually find that the perpetrators of a crime have been arrested and tried, but often found not guilty on the basis of technicalities. It is also not usually the first such event (mistrial) to take place in a community - thereby adding to the mistrust in the justice system. This serves to inflame the emotions of the community and people become eager to see justice done. Due to the time involved the vigilante acts are delayed and this therefore allows for planning (possibly not as carefully as a bank robbery would be, but more along the lines of 'If I find ....... I would do this or that to him'). These acts more often than not are exceedingly violent (sometimes resulting in the death of the 'criminal') and unjust - as if the person is not only being made to pay for whichever act he/she has committed, but rather as a vent for the frustrations with the system as a whole.
Although vigilantism is in fact also a crime, one would find that the members of a community do not always view it as such and therefore they will take pains in protecting the guilty parties. Media reports on the matter will also be more sympathetic - taking time to describe the events that lead to it and painting a picture of frustrated people having no other alternative. This adds to the belief in the end that vigilantism is a viable alternative to letting the law rule.
Self-defence is probably easier to define as the act of protecting oneself and one's possessions and / or loved ones from imminent harm. IMO this can be done either passively (pro-active) or aggressively (re-active).
Passively by taking the necessary precautions to ensure that you are as safe as possible from harm - this could include the installation of alarms in your home and vehicle, tracking devices in your vehicle, guard dogs, burglar bars and even 'training' young children on what to do in cases of emergency (also having emergency contact numbers on speed dial). In the interest of broadening the scope, you might even include aspects to safeguard your neighbourhood, i.e. neighbourhood watch, where members from the same community get together to discuss methods that could be used to prevent criminal activities in their area, such as nightly patrols, having each other's numbers as emergency contact numbers, reporting suspicions at meetings.
Aggressive (or reactionary) self defence would be the physical reaction to a perceived (immediate) threat. This usually would occur when all precautionary methods used have been unsuccessful. It includes the use of firearms against intruders in the home or even physical self-defence methods (i.e. certain forms of martial arts) and even tools such as pepper spray or tazer guns against attackers. As implied, it is an immediate, instinctive reaction to what you perceive to be a danger to your life.
In either case of self-defence the object is not necessarily to kill the intruder / attacker, but rather to immobilise the person in order for you to make a safe getaway or at least disable them long enough for the proper authorities to arrive and deal with the situation.
Vigilantism in all cases is a reactionary, often violent, emotional act. Again I believe it can be divided in two categories - Immediate Vigilantism and Delayed Vigilantism.
Immediate vigilantism would be the reaction to witnessing a crime being perpetrated and taking immediate action against the person. This could include cases where a parent witnesses a child being raped. Because of the strong emotions evoked by this act the parent will not stop to consider the consequences of their deed, but will rather be lead by an instinctive urge to protect their child. Usually it is only one person that performs this type of vigilante act. It is not planned at all and I believe that is why the courts are more lenient with this sort of case.
In the case of delayed vigilantism it is often the members of a community that feel betrayed or let-down by the criminal justice system. In such cases one would usually find that the perpetrators of a crime have been arrested and tried, but often found not guilty on the basis of technicalities. It is also not usually the first such event (mistrial) to take place in a community - thereby adding to the mistrust in the justice system. This serves to inflame the emotions of the community and people become eager to see justice done. Due to the time involved the vigilante acts are delayed and this therefore allows for planning (possibly not as carefully as a bank robbery would be, but more along the lines of 'If I find ....... I would do this or that to him'). These acts more often than not are exceedingly violent (sometimes resulting in the death of the 'criminal') and unjust - as if the person is not only being made to pay for whichever act he/she has committed, but rather as a vent for the frustrations with the system as a whole.
Although vigilantism is in fact also a crime, one would find that the members of a community do not always view it as such and therefore they will take pains in protecting the guilty parties. Media reports on the matter will also be more sympathetic - taking time to describe the events that lead to it and painting a picture of frustrated people having no other alternative. This adds to the belief in the end that vigilantism is a viable alternative to letting the law rule.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Alphatroll.... what about Reasoneable force?
If your goal in self-defence is to stop an act from happeneing (rape, murder, robbery), and you go beyond the necessary, when would you say it stops being self-defence and becomes vigilantism?
If, for instance, you witness an ongoing Rape. You run over and scream "STOP..>RAPE!!!" - the perp turns, sees you and starts penguining away...Rape is over. You've saved the victim.End of story?
No...you decide to aprehend the rapist. OK...well within the realm of legality (Citizen's arrest). You jump him and drag him to the ground. <---not self-defence anymore, Citizen's Arrest. He struggles/fights back?
You let him have it...a swift kick in the groin. Self-defence again...he was fighting you. (Or were you fighting him?) End of story?
No...emotionally charged with the witness of a rape and physically charged with the battle itself, you continue the beating. Is this it? The boundary between self-defence and vigilantism?
You beat him into unconsciousness and break a few ribs int he process. Lets say that he dies!
What crime, if any, are you guilty of?
If your goal in self-defence is to stop an act from happeneing (rape, murder, robbery), and you go beyond the necessary, when would you say it stops being self-defence and becomes vigilantism?
If, for instance, you witness an ongoing Rape. You run over and scream "STOP..>RAPE!!!" - the perp turns, sees you and starts penguining away...Rape is over. You've saved the victim.End of story?
No...you decide to aprehend the rapist. OK...well within the realm of legality (Citizen's arrest). You jump him and drag him to the ground. <---not self-defence anymore, Citizen's Arrest. He struggles/fights back?
You let him have it...a swift kick in the groin. Self-defence again...he was fighting you. (Or were you fighting him?) End of story?
No...emotionally charged with the witness of a rape and physically charged with the battle itself, you continue the beating. Is this it? The boundary between self-defence and vigilantism?
You beat him into unconsciousness and break a few ribs int he process. Lets say that he dies!
What crime, if any, are you guilty of?
AnomalousEntity
New Member
ris said:
Your talking about police officers now...
ris
New Member
i may be talking about some police officers but i will not tar an entire force by the actions of the few. it is bad enough when individuals charged with the responsibility to uphold the law go beyond it themselves, but that is never an excuse for ordinary citizens to do the same.
as gonz has said, if you don't like it then join the force yourself and do the job properly.
as gonz has said, if you don't like it then join the force yourself and do the job properly.
AnomalousEntity
New Member
ris said:
As far as having a hot head and a low IQ....its a hell of alot more than a "few" and I think you know that.
Id LOVE TO but I couldnt afford the 50% cut in pay!!!!!!!
Another reason why cops suck so bad in their expertise and abilities. (1/2 of them dont even understand the laws they are sworn to uphold)
They dont pay enough to get the good ones. The "cream of the crop" are going to work for the FBI, CIA, Secret service or NSA.
The left over morons who dont know their arse from a hole in the ground are going to wind up in the local PD.
In the situation local police/sheriffs it is the " well trained expert professional" that is the EXCEPTION AND NOT THE RULE...
AnomalousEntity
New Member
MrBishop said:
Slippery slope.
We already discussed and proved (we didnt have to, formal logic experts have already proved) that Slippery slope is an argumentative fallacy in the short term.
Your grasping at straws...going with emotion over scientific empirical data, and playing the "one scenario in a million" card to make your point
Face it...its not going to work against intelligent individuals.
It might work on the 6 o'clock news where the average level of education of the viewers is 6th grade...but it wont work here.
AlphaTroll
New Member
Bish:
As per my previous post - the goal of self defence is not only to prevent an act from happening (pro-active), but also to to prevent the act from continuing (re-active).
IMO it turns from self defence to vigilantism once the goal is no longer prevention of an act (or the continuence thereof), but rather a desire for revenge (or exacting 'justice').
If you witness an ongoing rape and rush over yelling STOP>RAPE, which then prompts the attacker to flee, thereby effectively preventing the act from continuing, then YES, you have met the objective of saving the victim. Unless there are at least two of you I believe you would probably put up a perfunctory chase after the perp, but your attention will most likely be (or should be) on the victim - ensuring that he/she is safe & not suffering from shock. You'd likely also contact the authorities and report the matter to them.
However, should you chase down and apprehend the the attacker, with the goal to detain him until the proper authorities arrive, it is not an act of vigilantism, but in fact a citizen's arrest (as you pointed out). If the rapist decides to put up a struggle (as he would - pure survival instincts) you are well within your rights to to restrain him in order to prevent injury to yourself. This cannot be seen as a criminal act as your efforts to hold him down is not for the sake of exacting revenge, but rather assisting in the upholding of the law.
Following from the manner you described (in which the rapist is apprehended), it is probable that he would still be on the ground. Therefore any struggle he might put up would likely be in the form of him attempting to shrug you off or roll free from under you. Thus, if you 'let him have it - a swift kick to the groin' it is no longer self defence really, as you would have to stand up to deliver that kick. This indicates two things: a) He was tiring or had given up the fight (why else would you get up and allow him the opportunity to run?) and b) He is no longer an immediate threat to you.
By delivering that kick you have (even if inadvertently) moved from self defence to vigilantism. Because of the adrenaline rushing through your body from the chase and the struggle, I think the kick would at best be an impulsive gesture - an almost instinctive reaction to 'punish' the most sensitive part of him and in a way disarm him (after all - his penis is his weapon of choice) (immediate vigilantism).
If you do continue with the beating it clearly indicates that your aim is no longer to uphold the law, but is in fact driven by the need for revenge (or 'justice') - your act no longer serves to protect you or the victim, but is now focussed on seriously injuring the rapist and preventing him from ever doing such a thing again. And no - this is not self defence, due to the fact that you have carried on beating him (for a considerable time it would seem if he had lost consiousness) and he was lying on the ground, unaware of what was going on, you have become the aggressor.
This is also no longer a case of using reasonable force in the interest of justice, but is in fact a criminal act. If he survives it would probably be labelled Assault with intent to cause grevious bodily harm. Should he die it's Culpible homocide or manslaughter in the very least.
Coming back to your question about reasonable force: The use of force can only be considered reasonable if it's aim is to assist in the carrying out of justice (as prescribed by the law) - not if it is used as a tool of revenge.
As per my previous post - the goal of self defence is not only to prevent an act from happening (pro-active), but also to to prevent the act from continuing (re-active).
IMO it turns from self defence to vigilantism once the goal is no longer prevention of an act (or the continuence thereof), but rather a desire for revenge (or exacting 'justice').
If you witness an ongoing rape and rush over yelling STOP>RAPE, which then prompts the attacker to flee, thereby effectively preventing the act from continuing, then YES, you have met the objective of saving the victim. Unless there are at least two of you I believe you would probably put up a perfunctory chase after the perp, but your attention will most likely be (or should be) on the victim - ensuring that he/she is safe & not suffering from shock. You'd likely also contact the authorities and report the matter to them.
However, should you chase down and apprehend the the attacker, with the goal to detain him until the proper authorities arrive, it is not an act of vigilantism, but in fact a citizen's arrest (as you pointed out). If the rapist decides to put up a struggle (as he would - pure survival instincts) you are well within your rights to to restrain him in order to prevent injury to yourself. This cannot be seen as a criminal act as your efforts to hold him down is not for the sake of exacting revenge, but rather assisting in the upholding of the law.
Following from the manner you described (in which the rapist is apprehended), it is probable that he would still be on the ground. Therefore any struggle he might put up would likely be in the form of him attempting to shrug you off or roll free from under you. Thus, if you 'let him have it - a swift kick to the groin' it is no longer self defence really, as you would have to stand up to deliver that kick. This indicates two things: a) He was tiring or had given up the fight (why else would you get up and allow him the opportunity to run?) and b) He is no longer an immediate threat to you.
By delivering that kick you have (even if inadvertently) moved from self defence to vigilantism. Because of the adrenaline rushing through your body from the chase and the struggle, I think the kick would at best be an impulsive gesture - an almost instinctive reaction to 'punish' the most sensitive part of him and in a way disarm him (after all - his penis is his weapon of choice) (immediate vigilantism).
If you do continue with the beating it clearly indicates that your aim is no longer to uphold the law, but is in fact driven by the need for revenge (or 'justice') - your act no longer serves to protect you or the victim, but is now focussed on seriously injuring the rapist and preventing him from ever doing such a thing again. And no - this is not self defence, due to the fact that you have carried on beating him (for a considerable time it would seem if he had lost consiousness) and he was lying on the ground, unaware of what was going on, you have become the aggressor.
This is also no longer a case of using reasonable force in the interest of justice, but is in fact a criminal act. If he survives it would probably be labelled Assault with intent to cause grevious bodily harm. Should he die it's Culpible homocide or manslaughter in the very least.
Coming back to your question about reasonable force: The use of force can only be considered reasonable if it's aim is to assist in the carrying out of justice (as prescribed by the law) - not if it is used as a tool of revenge.