Would You Make A Good VIGILANTE?

[GBlues]

Hello GBlues and thank you for taking the time to post your views. I think your view is certainly reflective of most views, my own probably included. I wonder though, have you ever felt the need to retaliate for something? No matter how petty, did you ever retaliate, even as a younger person? If so, what did you do? Act on it or suppress that desire? Your thoughts are appreciated, thank you
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Have I ever felt the need to retaliate? Well the short answer is yes. I think that most people have. Have I ever retaliated? Almost came real close once. That's the problem with vigilantism, the truth is hard to sort out. Give you a good story.

About six years ago, my little sister, calls my mom and dad's house. She was crying and really upset. She said that her inlaws wouldn't give her back her son, and that the father in law had tried to choke her. SO they meet my little sister down at the local grocery store, and sure enough she has finger marks all over her neck, where it looked like someone had tried to choke her. I get there, and I see it, and me and my dad are none to happy. So they call the cops, I'm already wanting to go stomp a mudhole in this guys ***, and my mom is holding me back, from jumping in my truck, racing up there, and just beating the hell out of this guy. Well, the cops take there pictures, and refuse to go even arrest the guy, as he was a former police officer in our town. Well, that set us right off. You couldn't twist of a string of drill pipe any better than we were. However, cooler heads prevailed, cause we wanted that man dead, and he's still alive. Here's what happened with that. My mom, told us to cool down, cause we didn't know what exactly had happened. Shorten this up, after we had cooled down and decided to just let things take there own course, we found out that my little sister, had gone up there, and started all kinds of ****, and when she left the inlaws house and called from the grocery store, she put those marks in her own neck. She had choked herself to make her story plausible. She had lied, and done that to herself. I am still remembering what she did and still in shock. She could have easily gotten a man killed, and two men thrown in prison. That is the problem with vigilantism. More often than not, it's in the heat of the moment, you get swept up, in something that isn't quite what it's supposed to be. You have to be careful, if that is your path, because, once you take a life, you can never give it back.

I learned a very valuable lesson that day and the days proceeding it. Justice is best left to the proffessionals. If your going to take matters into your own hands you had better be right. Even if you get thrown in prison at least if your right, you can live with yourself, if your not, well, in the state I live in, we still have corporal punishment, so eventually you wouldn't have to worry about living with it.

"Make sure your right, then go ahead."-Davy Crockett
Wise words from a wise man. Cause if your not, you'd better stop.
:asian:

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

To answer the thread title, "Would you make a good VIGILANTE?", perhaps the title should read, "Would you make an effective VIGILANTE?" The definitive answer is no. I am a single parent with a day job. I cannot risk bypass of the legal system, as it would be bad for my kids for me to be in jail. Also, I have no training in detective work, or the myriad of other things that an effective vigilante would require training in. Lastly, as a Catholic Christian, dispensation of vigilante justice goes against my beliefs.

Would a circumstance exist where you might take vigilante action upon yourself? I mean would you ever take retributive action at a time subsequent to an act that has harmed you or someone close? Or do you regard the idea as morally abhorrent?

Taking vigilante action is fairly dangerous, and no matter what the motive, if he or she gets caught, they will be hit very hard by the law. The legal system will brook no competition nor rival, no matter how broken, ineffective, and corrupt the legal system is.

As for a time when circumstance would warrant vigilante action, the only one that I can say with 100% certainty would be the event of a breakdown of society and entire lack of law enforcement after a cataclysmic event, such as WWIII. Kind of a Mad Max scenario, if you will.

Does a martial artist have a duty above and beyond the norm of society to suppress any retaliatory nature within themselves?

Yes, we do. Just as those who work in law enforcement or the legal system should be held to a higher standard, so to should those of us who have undertaken to learn disabling and/or deadly techniques. As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility. The greater the power, the greater one's duty to exercise it responsibly.

Or, dare I say it, would a martial artist make a good vigilante?

The average martial artist is barely qualified to defend themselves against a street tough. Also, just to consider what it would take to be an effective vigilante reveals that there are a number of skill sets that would be required that fall outside what one learns in the martial arts.

An effective vigilante is essentially fighting on two fronts. They fight against their target or targets, and they must fight against law enforcement.

The former involves knowing your target's movements, being able to shadow them without being seen by either them or others, to strike without a chance of them being able to defend themselves, and to retreat unseen.

Fighting law enforcement essentially means not getting caught. That means that the vigilante must leave no evidence of his or her identity, insure that there are no witnesses, and of course, not attract the attention of the law while performing their vigilante rounds. The police department has essentially unlimited resources to hunt down a vigilante (unlimited by comparison to that of the vigilante). The vigilante has very limited resources.

A one time act of vigilantism is comparatively easy to perform and perhaps get away with in contrast to the act of becoming a vigilante who patrols the streets.

Ever notice that the most plausible vigilantes in the comics or television tend to be bajilionairs with unlimited resources (Batman, Ironman) or guys who live transient lives and stay on the outskirts of society (The Punisher, the A-Team)? Or have super powers that enable them to completely bypass such obstacles (Superman, Icon, Hancock)? There's a reason for that.

The bajilionaire with unlimited resources can outmatch the police believably. The transient underground guy has nothing to lose and no listed fixed location to be traced to and uses false identification and black market connections for any transactions he or she needs to perform. The vigilante with super powers, well, he or she is not bound by human limitations.

Daniel

 

[Aiki Lee]

Searcher said, "I would be a terrible vigilante. Who am I to decide what is right or wrong? No one person should have the right to decide these things."

Right and wrong are easy enough to determine. Obviously if you see someone being mercilessly beaten, that's wrong. Rape is wrong. There are things that are simply immoral no matter how one puts a spin on it. But I do believe there are some shades of gray, after all couldn't vigilantism be considered wrong? We don't want to become what we are fighting against, but we should be able to take a strong stance against that which we know to be wrong.


Jenna said, "Hey Himura K thank you for taking the time to reply. Regarding what you said above, do you not believe that people - yourself? - seek revenge when they are wronged in some way? Is this not our nature? If so do we not deserve fitting revenge? I guess it depends upon whether we feel the law has given us that revenge? What do you believe yourself, are there not times when the enaction of the law and an equitable justice for ourselves as victims are two ideas that do not match up?
Thank you again
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna"

I consider revenge to be a feeling of personal anger directed towards someone who has wronged you in order to make yourself feel better about the situation you are in. The rpoblem with this is that revenge seldom makes one feel better and tends to not care about who else gets in the way of your revenge. To me it stems from a selfish and egotistical mindset. Justice is about restoring the natural order of things and should be used as punishment only when that punishment creates a safer environment. Vengence and justice only coinside with each other on the rare occassions when the law is unable to address it. So if we lived in the wild west where there is no law, then vigilantism would be the only way to preserve the peace...but again that behavior isn't just about hurting the bad guy, it's about keeping others safe. That's where I draw the line.

Would I condemn a man who sought revenge? Depends. If the law was adequate enough to settle it then he'd be wrong, and if he involved innocent people he'd be wrong, but other than that he may be justified. It's a slippery slope.

 

[Carol]

Right and wrong are easy enough to determine. Obviously if you see someone being mercilessly beaten, that's wrong. [/color]

Is it wrong? Is it obvious?

What about this scenario...which is a true story:

A father takes his daughter, a young teen, out for a movie. They decide on a theatre near the city. The daughter asks her father if they can go out to dinner at a nearby restaurant before the movie starts, and the father agrees. After they eat dinner, they emerge from the restaurant to find that the weather that evening is quite pleasant, so they choose to leave the car where it is and walk to the theatre.

After the movie ends, father and daughter are returning to their car when they are accosted by a perp, who threatens to rape the daughter and rob the father. Some sort of physical altercation occurs between the father and the perp. The daughter, terrified, runs away from the scene and calls 911 from her cell phone. The father gets the upper hand in the scuffle over the perp. The perp fights to get away from the struggle . The perp managed to break free and run away before the police arrived, but he was eventually accosted in a nearby neighborhood.

The father and daughter used to be neighbors of mine. The unfortunate events occurred when they decided to take in a movie at a theatre near Boston some time ago. The father is a fellow that is not a big guy, but he plays for a local semi-pro sports team and keeps himself in outstanding physical condition. I don't know all the details of the situation, but it seeems possible that someone approaching the scene could see the father wailing away on the perpetrator and think that the father was the bad guy.

 

[bowser666]

Would a circumstance exist where you might take vigilante action upon yourself? I mean would you ever take retributive action at a time subsequent to an act that has harmed you or someone close? Or do you regard the idea as morally abhorrent?

Does a martial artist have a duty above and beyond the norm of society to suppress any retaliatory nature within themselves? Or, dare I say it, would a martial artist make a good vigilante?

I would be very grateful indeed to read your thoughts. Thank you all for reading or for taking the time to post
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

Being a Martial Artist and a vigilante has about as much to do as being a Trombone player and a vigilante. The choice to be a vigilante is a separate entity. A average joe can be just as much if not a greater vigilante than a MA-ist. In fact my thought would be that vigilantism is based on many other psychological factors rather than if they are a MA-ist or not. Personally I think being a MA-ist has nothing to do with it at all.

 

[Aiki Lee]

Is it wrong? Is it obvious?

What about this scenario...which is a true story:

Hmmmm.... in this case yes I can see that this is a shade of gray, but anyone who had witnessed the attempted rape would have known without a shadow of a doubt that such behavior is wrong. If you arrive in the middle of a situation things may not be clear, but let's say you see a man stomping a toddler to death or stabbing a woman who is lying on the ground. Clearly evil, must be stopped.

In the case of the father and the rapist, if the father beats the crap out of the guy to the point where the rapist is no longer a threat and can not escape, but the father continues to beat him, then the father (though feeling justified) is now committing an unjust action and should be stopped. Peacefully if possible, forcefully if not. I'm not one to stick up for a rapist, but I'm not one for overt cruelty either.

If I saw two guys beating each other up, I'd just call the police and wouldn't do anything else unless there was an imminent threat of death or mutaliation to someone.

So basically, all I'm trying to say is that while there are some gray areas (areas best left for the law to deal with) there are situations that you can think of where there is clearly a "right" and a "wrong". If there is no police officer to stop the situation that is clearly "wrong" and you are capable of stopping it, I believe you are morally bound to putting an end to it.

 

[searcher]

As Carol has pointed out, the truth is not always so easy to determine. I have been over this countless times in CCH and personal protection classes. Trust me, it is not always cut and dry. And once you bring lethal force against another, it is a little bit late to start trying to decide if you were right or wrong.

Beter to be a good witness, then to become a murderer. And it can happen.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I am not arguing about the reasons for or against vigilantism, or why it can be a solution in some cases. There are arguments to support both sides, as is usually the case.

My argument was that you should never put anything in writing that you wouldn't want others to find out an an inconvenient time.
What you post on the internet will be online for years and years. Some of the stuff I posted 12 years ago is still online somewhere. Some archives are likely to be around for decades to come.

Especially young people are likely to make strong statements like 'If someone ever steals from me I am going to beat them into a pulp' or similar issues.
And they don't care, because they are 16 and tough as nails (so they think) and 'right is on their side'.

But then 10 years down the line they get in a self defense situation, and any competent DA is going to google accused's name with some keywords, and finds some quotes that turn his case from 'possible conviction' to 'slam dunk'.

IRS agents are already doing this over here.
Some people got caught because they were bragging on their facebook page about how they got their personal phones registered as business phones so that they did not have to pay taxes on that money. Or people who brag about 'nusiness' trips which were just holidays.

I don't disagree with your conclusions, but a couple details bear clarification......it won't be some competent DA or IRS agents that 'finds' this stuff.......it's going to be an acquaintance with a grudge that contacts them 'anonymously' and points them in the right direction.

I'll almost guarantee that an IRS agent didn't happen on anything of the sort.......someone who is an acquaintance saw an opportunity for payback, advancement, something........and did their 'duty' of contacting the IRS to anonymously report said violator.

Now, that's not a dispute of your conclusion.......if anything it should be considered a reinforcement of it.

The best way to get away with something, is to NOT TELL ANYONE about it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I would NEVER engage in an act of vigilantism........EVER, EVER EVER!

Hypothetically, though, if, in a parallel reality, a different version of me DID engage in this sort of extra-legal activity it would be something personal......THAT guy (the NOT me, me of the parallel universe) would do terrible things to someone that harmed one of my children......and then hide the body so that no one would ever find it, and not tell a soul.

But THAT is the fictional, parallel universe me, I am diametrically opposed to any such acts, and would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER do anything like that.

 

[Em MacIntosh]

When you believe in certain words, you believe in their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true or false, you believe in the hidden assumptions which express those arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes but remain most precious to those convinced. This is why we have words like "truth". It's a very self-important, assumptive word that declares you have a vantage point of objectivity. The best you can do is come up with a logically ascertained premise. Now, definitions being necessary we've come up with a beautiful word that implies logic but doesn't get bogged down in technicality. That word we call resonable. The problem is that reasonable is as subjective as "good" or "bad".

How much damage could be considered reasonable to someone who beat up your child, murdered a family member, made an attempt on your life or worse? You are in no state of mind at that point to decide what fairness, right, good, justice etc. are. You want emotional satisfaction which you have to control. Being reasonable requires you to be able to see reason.

Reason is the first casualty of passion.

What I've done is gotten used to bad news. I've realized that reacting with a clouded mind is perilous at best and I've learned not to flatter myself regarding a clear mind.

If I was a multi-billionaire and could afford some gadgets I might do the batman thing but I doubt it. Bad things happen, sometimes they happen to you. That's easy enough to deal with. Watching it happen to someone you care about (and many of you MAists draw your circle as large as you can) is a lot harder to deal with.

Anyone who wants to be a vigilante is already in the wrong frame of mind, IMO.

 

[aedrasteia]

an eye for an eye...untill all are blind

 

[sgtmac_46]

an eye for an eye...untill all are blind

That's why if they take one of your eyes you take TWO of theirs.....then you still have one good eye and they are entirely blind and can't find you anymore.......that way the cycle of violence ends.

 

[Jenna]

Thank you everyone for taking the time to post your views

While I appreciate the inadvisability of vigilantism, I do feel that it is mandated because of the perception of convicted criminals being punished too lightly.

Like most of our state institutions, Our penal systems are underfunded. This underfunding invariably filters back to the courts where judges have become -or are instructed to become- less inclined to impose lengthier and perhaps more *fitting* custodial sentences. We may now be conditioned to accept 8-10 with remission for murder as an appropriate sentence, though I believe the position would be different were we the bereaved and not mere forum pundits.

I believe it is the resulting, disproportionately low custodial sentences that can foster vigilantism in victims. What I find most perverse and distasteful of all though is that at no point after the assault is the victim considered as part of the legal process. Once the facts are established, for the duration of the trial, the victim becomes no more than an artefact of evidence. Particularly, at no point after the guilty verdict is returned, does the judge seek counsel from the victim or ask the victim what punishment they would deem appropriate. Plainly this would upset the impartiality of the court and would be subject to the -albeit understandable- whims of that victim. Yet in ignoring the wishes of the victim and striving to maintain impartiality, we reach the lowest common denominator of punishment which can put a self-satisfied smile on the court's face, but which can lead to the perception by the victim of disproportionately light punishment.

I had asked if martial artists would make good -or "efficient" as someone suggested- vigilantes. I asked that for a reason. I asked it because I had thought other martial artists would be more acutely aware of injustice. Why? I am aware of a number of friends even in my own arts circle who took up the art as victims of bullying, however I guess this is too much of a leap in logic to make and it seems as someone said that we are no more likely to be an efficient vigilante than a trombone player would.

Me, I would not make an efficient vigilante. I am a coward and have no heart for it. Though I wish I did.

I am sure my arguments are flawed and I am not trying to be clever I only wanted to give my pov. Thank you for reading and again for your insight and good sense.
Yr most obdt mble srvt,
Jenna

 

[Jenna]

Hello my friend and thank you for making such clear points. You say:

How much damage could be considered reasonable to someone who beat up your child, murdered a family member, made an attempt on your life or worse? You are in no state of mind at that point to decide what fairness, right, good, justice etc. are. You want emotional satisfaction which you have to control. Being reasonable requires you to be able to see reason.

Reason is the first casualty of passion.

Can I ask you one question? What are you protecting by being reasonable in this case?

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[jks9199]

Thank you everyone for taking the time to post your views

While I appreciate the inadvisability of vigilantism, I do feel that it is mandated because of the perception of convicted criminals being punished too lightly.

Like most of our state institutions, Our penal systems are underfunded. This underfunding invariably filters back to the courts where judges have become -or are instructed to become- less inclined to impose lengthier and perhaps more *fitting* custodial sentences. We may now be conditioned to accept 8-10 with remission for murder as an appropriate sentence, though I believe the position would be different were we the bereaved and not mere forum pundits.

I believe it is the resulting, disproportionately low custodial sentences that can foster vigilantism in victims. What I find most perverse and distasteful of all though is that at no point after the assault is the victim considered as part of the legal process. Once the facts are established, for the duration of the trial, the victim becomes no more than an artefact of evidence. Particularly, at no point after the guilty verdict is returned, does the judge seek counsel from the victim or ask the victim what punishment they would deem appropriate. Plainly this would upset the impartiality of the court and would be subject to the -albeit understandable- whims of that victim. Yet in ignoring the wishes of the victim and striving to maintain impartiality, we reach the lowest common denominator of punishment which can put a self-satisfied smile on the court's face, but which can lead to the perception by the victim of disproportionately light punishment.

I had asked if martial artists would make good -or "efficient" as someone suggested- vigilantes. I asked that for a reason. I asked it because I had thought other martial artists would be more acutely aware of injustice. Why? I am aware of a number of friends even in my own arts circle who took up the art as victims of bullying, however I guess this is too much of a leap in logic to make and it seems as someone said that we are no more likely to be an efficient vigilante than a trombone player would.

Me, I would not make an efficient vigilante. I am a coward and have no heart for it. Though I wish I did.

I am sure my arguments are flawed and I am not trying to be clever I only wanted to give my pov. Thank you for reading and again for your insight and good sense.
Yr most obdt mble srvt,
Jenna

I think you may want to do some basic research before you decide that vigilantism is called for...

You'll probably find that you're starting from a faulty premise. Incarceration rates are actually UP, not down. That's before you get into issues like rehabilitation vs. incapacitation.

You also don't seem to understand something about the criminal justice system and how it works. The actual injured party isn't the real "victim" in a criminal offense in the sense of being the wronged party. We as society are the wronged party; the offender violated our laws in the particular person of the injured party in the offense. This is different than the civil system, where the matter is between the two parties directly. It's a very common confusion -- but the criminal justice system isn't really about getting justice for the victim or about making the victim whole. It's about making everyone safer and making SOCIETY whole. If the victim gets their stuff back or their medical bills paid, it's almost a happy accident.

That's why many states and jurisdictions have programs to provide assistance and aid to victims. These programs often can help cover medical costs, recoup lost wages, provide counseling or referrals, and lots more. For one example, see Virginia's program.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I will preface my comments by stating that you make some very good points. I do not want you to feel that I am picking apart your post: I wanted to respond to and address what you said without multiple postings.

While I appreciate the inadvisability of vigilantism, I do feel that it is mandated because of the perception of convicted criminals being punished too lightly.

Perception is the key word here. Before a person or person decides to take the law into their own hands for this reason, they would need to know if it is simply perception, fanned by what is a very corrupt and very sales oriented news media or is it factual?

For the record, I do believe that the justice system of the US (cannot speak for other nations) is inefficient, corrupt, and broken. But even so, it varries from state to state.

I still have no interest in vigilantism. I express my concerns regarding this at the polls instead: the unpunnished criminals that concern me most are the many (not all) who hide under the auspices of government and who's high court often works to undo the will of the people, hiding behind the much overused word, unconstitutional.

Like most of our state institutions, Our penal systems are underfunded. This underfunding invariably filters back to the courts where judges have become -or are instructed to become- less inclined to impose lengthier and perhaps more *fitting* custodial sentences. We may now be conditioned to accept 8-10 with remission for murder as an appropriate sentence, though I believe the position would be different were we the bereaved and not mere forum pundits.

As long as capital punishment is such a hot button in the US, the only alternative is lengthy prison sentences, which are often undermined by that most anathema of mechanisms, parole.

I believe it is the resulting, disproportionately low custodial sentences that can foster vigilantism in victims. What I find most perverse and distasteful of all though is that at no point after the assault is the victim considered as part of the legal process. Once the facts are established, for the duration of the trial, the victim becomes no more than an artefact of evidence. Particularly, at no point after the guilty verdict is returned, does the judge seek counsel from the victim or ask the victim what punishment they would deem appropriate. Plainly this would upset the impartiality of the court and would be subject to the -albeit understandable- whims of that victim. Yet in ignoring the wishes of the victim and striving to maintain impartiality, we reach the lowest common denominator of punishment which can put a self-satisfied smile on the court's face, but which can lead to the perception by the victim of disproportionately light punishment.

Actually, I think that this is preferable. Different victims have a different sense of outrage. If the victim was the determining factor of the punishment, the result would be greatly varying punishments for the same crime. Some people feel that everything should get the death penalty, others do not feel that anyone is responsible for their own actions.

There has to be an objective measure in the dealing out of punishment. The best way to insure that the justice system is indeed just is for the citizenry to be informed about who they vote for. In the US, outside of the supreme court, judges are elected. Very few people can even name their congressman, let alone a circuit judge. Everyone pretty much knows who's running for president, governor of their state, and maybe the US senate. Compratively few know the members of their state government. Citizens' apathy in this area results in an apathetic and corrupt government.

In short, those of us who have the rights to vote for our own leaders need to take a look in the mirror before taking to the streets in black spandex and a cape.

I had asked if martial artists would make good -or "efficient" as someone suggested- vigilantes. I asked that for a reason. I asked it because I had thought other martial artists would be more acutely aware of injustice. Why? I am aware of a number of friends even in my own arts circle who took up the art as victims of bullying, however I guess this is too much of a leap in logic to make and it seems as someone said that we are no more likely to be an efficient vigilante than a trombone player would.

I do not recall who mentioned the trombone player, but I'm the one who said 'effective', as opposed to good or even efficient. The defense of one's self or immediate friends/family against either a bully or an assailant is a very different matter than taking the fight to the bully or the assailant. The first involves them coming to you. The second involves you actually seeking them out and tracking their movements, laying in wait, and setting up a scenario by which the criminal is unable to fight back and witness are avoided. I daresay that a police detective would be far better equipped to be an effective vigilante than a citizen.

As for the trombone player, I suppose that it depends upon how well he or she can strike with a trombone.

Me, I would not make an efficient vigilante. I am a coward and have no heart for it. Though I wish I did.

Having no heart for vigilantism does not make you a coward. And efficiency has nothing to do with bravery. Nor does effectiveness.

I am sure my arguments are flawed and I am not trying to be clever I only wanted to give my pov.

I have yet to see anyone present a completely unflawed arguement. There are people who make careers out of argueing. These people call themselves laywers. They train night and day in their chosen profession. Far more so than any martial artist that I know. My brother is a lawyer, and he spends far more time lawyering than I do kendoing. Needless to say, his lawyering skills are probably better than my kendo skills.

Besides, this is a discussion, not an arguement. And I think that you do raise good and valid points.

Daniel

 

[GBlues]

Thank you everyone for taking the time to post your views

While I appreciate the inadvisability of vigilantism, I do feel that it is mandated because of the perception of convicted criminals being punished too lightly.

Like most of our state institutions, Our penal systems are underfunded. This underfunding invariably filters back to the courts where judges have become -or are instructed to become- less inclined to impose lengthier and perhaps more *fitting* custodial sentences. We may now be conditioned to accept 8-10 with remission for murder as an appropriate sentence, though I believe the position would be different were we the bereaved and not mere forum pundits.

I believe it is the resulting, disproportionately low custodial sentences that can foster vigilantism in victims. What I find most perverse and distasteful of all though is that at no point after the assault is the victim considered as part of the legal process. Once the facts are established, for the duration of the trial, the victim becomes no more than an artefact of evidence. Particularly, at no point after the guilty verdict is returned, does the judge seek counsel from the victim or ask the victim what punishment they would deem appropriate. Plainly this would upset the impartiality of the court and would be subject to the -albeit understandable- whims of that victim. Yet in ignoring the wishes of the victim and striving to maintain impartiality, we reach the lowest common denominator of punishment which can put a self-satisfied smile on the court's face, but which can lead to the perception by the victim of disproportionately light punishment.

I had asked if martial artists would make good -or "efficient" as someone suggested- vigilantes. I asked that for a reason. I asked it because I had thought other martial artists would be more acutely aware of injustice. Why? I am aware of a number of friends even in my own arts circle who took up the art as victims of bullying, however I guess this is too much of a leap in logic to make and it seems as someone said that we are no more likely to be an efficient vigilante than a trombone player would.

Me, I would not make an efficient vigilante. I am a coward and have no heart for it. Though I wish I did.

I am sure my arguments are flawed and I am not trying to be clever I only wanted to give my pov. Thank you for reading and again for your insight and good sense.
Yr most obdt mble srvt,
Jenna

Well, Jenna the answer to your question is no. Martial Artists would not make good vigilantes and here's why. First and foremost, when you talk about dealing with violent criminals, you have to remember that they play by different rules. THey don't learn to duel. THey learn to kill, using violence. So as a hero-vigilante you would have to be willing to totally and completely wreck the human body. In other words, start at one spot in a confrontation and continue to destroy specific targets on the criminals body, until you took him to a non-functional state. Whether that be unconscious or dead. Most martial artists learn to duel. Our arts inherantly are designed to make both practitioners better. Ok, so while this great in a sport application, in a true violent situation it's not so good. The idea isn't to make your opponent better, it's too totally make life altering changes in his body, and attitude.

So imagine your ,"J-The Super Martial Artist Vigilante", and you hear about this crack house down the way. The cops have been in and out of that place several times, and no one ever gets busted. In this scenario we'll say that the cops are viewed as corrupt by the general populace. SO you decide to take matter into your own hands. You get dressed up into your coolest ninja outfit, with all the nifty little weapons. Even taking a few firearms with you, and you begin to stealthly make your way down to this crack house, where there are always people, and they are always partying. Your prey for the most part have all either been to prison or heading that way one day. THey are selling drugs to kids in your neighborhood, and they deserve to be punished. So you've made your way to the house, it's noisy and loud. You should be able to sneak in unnoticed. So you make your way across the street utilizing the shadows, so you are certain that no one has seen you. Now, you are left with a decision. Go in through the front door, the back door, or one of the windows. We'll just say that in this scenario you decide your good enough that you can go busting through the front door. You know that they are probably armed, but your a martial artist well trained in the warrior arts. So you go busting down the front door blasting it open with a side kick. As you step through the door, and pull your guns and just start mowing bad guys down. People begin to scatter, and run for their lives. Then it all changes and a bullet goes zipping past your head. You look to your left, and see that at least one of them had the fore thought to beging fighting back. So you go diving over a couch, and all hell breaks loose. Your in an all out gun fight, there is more than one with guns, and they aren't afraid to use them. WHile in the initial attack that you started, you may have shot and killed a few, in the initial shock, that's over with. THey are shooting back now, and it's not very pretty. Your pinned down by assault weapons fire, you can't even get your head off of the floor, because of all the lead flying around. Now, you've wasted all of your ammo, and your out. So you throw your guns down, and pull out your sais. Hey you've seen this done in the movies, you know you can get to them before they can shoot you. So you reach down grab a handful of guts, and go flying over the couch, where you are subsequently shot to death. It is later found out in the news that you were a nut job vigilante want a be, who busted into an undercover officers, undercover pad, and killed several innocent individuals, including a few children that were shot from your stray bullets going through the walls striking them in there beds. You were killed by the officer and several of his gang member contacts that he was wroking on getting information from, and working his way to the real threat, their bosses.

You think "J-the super martial artist" in this example made a good vigilante? Probably not. He wasn't batman that is for sure, and damn sure didn't just blow the drug house up, like the punisher would have. He or She, went in there and got people killed including themselves. Unfortunately that is more than likely the case. Even if a martial artist were to be able to get into a hand to hand combat fight, with several gang members. All it takes is to watch a few prison fights, to realize they aren't playing by the same rules, and your dueling isn't going to be as effective as you want it to be. In order beat a violent person in a fight, you have to just as violent to win. That's it. Most martial artists are content to just live normal lives, having never been in a real confrontation, and believe that what they are being taught or teach is good enough. And for the common bar fight, or social setting it is. But when you step out of the social spectrum into there world it's a whole nother ball game. It's not block this punch, parry here, strike the rib cage, he bends over, strike to the back of the neck and it's over. It's rupture testicles, break his ankle, break his rib cage bruising internal organs, snap arm, crush wind pipe, and go home. Anything less is putting yourself in a position to get seriously injured or killed. Especially if you want to be a vigilante martial artist. You can't duel, you just have to attack, because your not a police officer with back up, you have nobody to call for help, and the good guys even if they do show up, are going to appreciate you taking matters into your own hands. I hope this helped with your question.

Humblest of intentions.

 

[Aiki Lee]

As Carol has pointed out, the truth is not always so easy to determine. I have been over this countless times in CCH and personal protection classes. Trust me, it is not always cut and dry. And once you bring lethal force against another, it is a little bit late to start trying to decide if you were right or wrong.

Beter to be a good witness, then to become a murderer. And it can happen.

Not always easy to determine yes, but in other cases it is perfectly clear. If a man runs into a groccery stroe and starts stabbing a cashier, there is no gray area.

"Beter to be a good witness, then to become a murderer." True, but the only thing evil needs to triumph is for good men (and women) to do nothing. I'd rather kill an evil man then allow that man to kill an innocent person.

 

[chinto]

under the right circumstances, I would be able to be very vengeful. Ido not know that I would for others, but for myself and my loved ones, perhaps.

as to the rules.. um not sure what you mean. the rules in any fight is come out alive and as unhurt as you can.

If its serious enough to walk the vengeance trail, then well the scruples are no longer valid for that situation. HAVOC has been called and you can make the bed and turn out the lights, lady mercy will not be home that night, or till it is done.

that said, the provocation would have to be extreme! and the other recourse's expended. But if the provocaton was enough, and no recourse was available.. could not say for sure, but I suspect HAVOC would indeed be the cry.

 

[Jenna]

Hey Daniel Thank you so much for taking the time to reply in such a considered way

Perception is the key word here. Before a person or person decides to take the law into their own hands for this reason, they would need to know if it is simply perception, fanned by what is a very corrupt and very sales oriented news media or is it factual?

I agree completely with you, Daniel. My point would simply be that all we have *is* our perception. Even armed with the facts, we, as the victim, might still have a perception of injustice. If you yourself or one of your loved ones is harmed and, by some good fortune the attacker is apprehended, tried, convicted, but then given a two-month custodial, at that point in time, the fact that prison sentencing rates are up -or even that prison term times are rising, and which is a different statistic- that fact will not necessarily assuage your sense of injustice if you had felt that more severe punishment was mandated. So, while I could not agree more with you that perception of injustice in an individual case is not a universal notion, still for that individual, their perception of their own situation is all they have and having a system telling you that your attacker's punishment is fair can feel like mere rhetoric or banality.

I still have no interest in vigilantism. I express my concerns regarding this at the polls instead.

I certainly appreciate this, Daniel. Forgetting the dubious ethical argument, vigilantism on the part of an individual who feels belittled by the legal process is for the most part unfeasible and at best a life-ruining gamble. I wonder would you agree though that it is easy to postulate on what we would do or would feel without actually being in that situation? I just mean that although there is a great margin of error in an individual's vigilantism ie. getting the wrong man or enacting their own disproportionate punishment in return- still, I cannot condemn the idea of that individual's instinctive desire for retribuation.

As long as capital punishment is such a hot button in the US, the only alternative is lengthy prison sentences, which are often undermined by that most anathema of mechanisms, parole.

Exactly. I understand that ultimately, no matter how it is dressed up, parole is a function of penal budget. And I have no issue with that. And but remission and early release, in my opinion, could increase the perception of the law's perverse focus on the offender and on its lacking consideration for the victim, and that in turn could fuel that inherent desire in the individual for seeking their own retribution. Just an opinion.

Actually, I think that this is preferable. Different victims have a different sense of outrage. If the victim was the determining factor of the punishment, the result would be greatly varying punishments for the same crime. Some people feel that everything should get the death penalty, others do not feel that anyone is responsible for their own actions.

There has to be an objective measure in the dealing out of punishment. The best way to insure that the justice system is indeed just is for the
citizenry to be informed about who they vote for. In the US, outside of the supreme court, judges are elected. Very few people can even name their congressman, let alone a circuit judge. Everyone pretty much knows who's running for president, governor of their state, and maybe the US senate. Compratively few know the members of their state government. Citizens' apathy in this area results in an apathetic and corrupt government.

In short, those of us who have the rights to vote for our own leaders need to take a look in the mirror before taking to the streets in black spandex and a cape.

I certainly take all your points Daniel and but I think that in any democracy "we only have ourselves to blame", whilst a plain fact, may not be the ultimate consolation to an individual who feels let down by legal process. Same goes for "if the system's flawed, change the system". And but again, I take your points and I am seeking no argument with you my friend

I am not advocating vigilantism in so many words, rather I am simply attempting to present the opinion that I understand the motivation for vigilantism and I was trying to communicate that. Hands up, plainly, I am a thoroughly unresearched and uneducated layperson, albeit perhaps versed as "the individual" referenced.

I do not recall who mentioned the trombone player, but I'm the one who said 'effective', as opposed to good or even efficient. The defense of one's self or immediate friends/family against either a bully or an assailant is a very different matter than taking the fight to the bully or the assailant. The first involves them coming to you. The second involves you actually seeking them out and tracking their movements, laying in wait, and setting up a scenario by which the criminal is unable to fight back and witness are avoided. I daresay that a police detective would be far better equipped to be an effective vigilante than a citizen.

Of course. In no way would I suggest that any individual, martial artist or trombone player would make a better punitive agent than a trained law enforcement officer or for that matter, legal representative. My point, without wanting to appear too facetious would be that professionals are human nonetheless. Doctors can prescribe incorrect doses, pilots can set altimeters incorrectly, whatever. We can all get it wrong -as can the legal system- regardless of our perception of correctness, fairness, equity. And of course the same goes for the vigilante. You might argue that there is more chance of a vigilante getting it wrong. No argument from me on that.

I am certainly not being critical of any particular section of the legal system - we all have jobs to do and for the most part, we do them as best we can. I do feel that the system itself however displays a disregard for the victim that verges on the untouchable ivory tower of aloofness.

I have noticed on my travels a sense of fighting equity in martial artists. I am sure you will know what I mean. We know when to hit. And but we also seem know when to stop hitting. Violent attacks can leave individuals feeling the need for violent retribution. I guess that was the kind of point I was thinking of with regard to a martial artist making a more effective vigilante: martial efficiency, restraint and respect as contradictory as those might initially appear in the realm of vigilantism.

I just want to thank you again, Daniel for presenting your points in such a considered, open and polite way
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna