How broken does a justice system have to be before vigilantism is moral?

[Grant]

I'm not too proud to admit that I'm far to ignorant about the ins and outs of the US Criminal Justice system to make sweeping claims about it, and I certainly wouldn't take as my education anything on television, or the internet.  If some of youse have junior detective badges, more power to you. 

[LetterRip]

By "rehabilitation" do you mean incapable of being cured (which I would agree with), or incabable even of learning better coping skills, which includes learning why it's advantageous for them to comply with the law? I see no inherent reason why a psychopath needs to be a criminal, except to the extent that they see the system as advantaging them if they break the law.

I agree, for those without impulse control and those that aren't sadistic - if they can be convinced that the risk of getting caught exceeds the expected reward, they can change their approach.  Convincing them of that though isn't very likely because it is patently untrue.  The odds of getting caught and punished are generally quite minor.

If that's the case it would seem to me like the goal would be to not make it an advantage to break the law - and the same goes for 'non-psychopaths' like boards of directors who would kill for money if they felt they could get away with it (like big tobacco).

Companies that engage in business practices or productes where there is clear harm, I'd fully expect them to have boards and executives that are psychopaths.  Of course some will not be if a rationalization can be constructedf or why the harm is neccessary or mitigated.

Or at least to convince the individual psychopath that there is at minimum equal or more advantage to staying within the law.

Sure, if you can convince them of that - great.  But it is patently untrue, crime pays great and is very low risk in general.  If you escalate penalties such that risk == reward - you essentially have to give life sentences or death penalty for petty crimes - which in turn incentivizes killing people that might be a witness to a petty crime.

It is only when psychopaths have something to lose - a well paying job or such, that the risk escalates to the point where they are disincetivized for crimes like robbery or burglarly.

[Fenring]

I agree, for those without impulse control and those that aren't sadistic - if they can be convinced that the risk of getting caught exceeds the expected reward, they can change their approach.  Convincing them of that though isn't very likely because it is patently untrue.  The odds of getting caught and punished are generally quite minor.

Well don't forget I was comparing the easy-going state with the police state as a comparison of what steps one might take to try to curb crime. I think making changes to the economic sphere to change the risk/reward schema isn't much more extreme than going hardcore police state to stop infractions. Obviously a 'tough on crime' mayor in the U.S. isn't setting up a police state, but all the same I was addressing the systemic benefit/reward spectrum as being an alternative axis to analyze as opposed to the punishment/threat axis.

Companies that engage in business practices or productes where there is clear harm, I'd fully expect them to have boards and executives that are psychopaths.  Of course some will not be if a rationalization can be constructedf or why the harm is neccessary or mitigated.

I think you may be underestimating how little outside the norm a regular person needs to be to normalize all sorts of heinous things, including war atrocities. Being among people of a certain ilk, the notion of 'some abstract people being hurt' is something easily digestible for all but the noblest people. Causing a bloodbath with your own hands would be a higher bar, and even then I don't think it's as hard to normalize as we'd hope for. I don't think writing such people off as psychopaths out of the gate does justice to what people in general are capable of.

Sure, if you can convince them of that - great.  But it is patently untrue, crime pays great and is very low risk in general.  If you escalate penalties such that risk == reward - you essentially have to give life sentences or death penalty for petty crimes - which in turn incentivizes killing people that might be a witness to a petty crime.

Well that's the thing. If you're looking at the risk/reward in terms of threat potential of the state when compared with a payout, it may indeed pay to burglarize houses or do white collar crime or whatever else. But let's say you have systems in place that people really enjoy and would not under any circumstances want to lose - then it's a different ball game. That's the main deterrent, I think, to the willingness to do things such as personally go to war, or launch a dangerous protest (such as seen in South America); when people feel they have a lot to lose it takes a lot of discomfort to get someone to risk it all. The solution seems to me to be obvious: make sure everyone has a lot to lose.

[TheDrake]

It is helpful to point out that many stores have implemented a "no chase" policy for loss prevention. Because unless you are a trained police officer, you probably should avoid trying to apprehend people. Security officers have been stabbed, sprayed with chemicals, and otherwise greviously injured over a six-pack of beer.

Do shoplifters know about which stores have no-chase policies, and does that remove a deterrent? Sure, almost certainly. That doesn't mean it isn't a better policy.

The guard, whose name was not released, told police he attempted to take the suspect into custody after a theft at the Walgreens location on Piedmont Avenue near North Avenue. Officers were called to the store shortly before 5 a.m. and found the man with a gunshot wound.

“The security guard told officers he attempted to apprehend the suspect for theft but the male fled,” a police spokesman said in a statement. “The guard fired a shot in the air to get him to stop. The male then charged the guard and the guard shot him.”

Well that seems worth it to prevent someone from getting away with those razor blades.

[cherrypoptart]

Until stores with those easy going policies close down because theft is so rampant that they become unprofitable to operate. And then people will say its racists because companies don't have stores in certain areas of a city.

[TheDrake]

Yeah, that's exactly what they will say. 🙄

And yes, some small smattering of stores in areas with $5000/ month rent and filled to overflowing with desperate people may wind up closing. Totally changes my mind about killing people over soap and cigarettes.

[Fenring]

Well that seems worth it to prevent someone from getting away with those razor blades.

To be fair, the entire system of law can essentially be boiled down to "comply or we kill you." So it's not so much the death as a result of disobedience that is what's different in your example, it's just that it came from a security guard rather than a cop. What do you think would happen if someone charged a cop who was already brandishing?

Charging at anyone holding a gun who is tasked with telling you to stop stealing, is more applicable to the Darwin awards than to a discussion about vigilante justice.

[TheDrake]

Well generally I would expect a trained police officer not to fire his pistol at the sky to stop someone escaping from a trivial misdemeanor.

It's just fine to say, well that's just the criminals fault. Stupid bastard. Except that's just ridiculous. We shouldn't be okay with ending someone's life for non violent crime.

[Fenring]

It's just fine to say, well that's just the criminals fault. Stupid bastard. Except that's just ridiculous. We shouldn't be okay with ending someone's life for non violent crime.

I mean, I agree with that. But I do sympathize a little with the officers who say they don't know whether a situation is life or death or not and have to make a call. Now if the shoplifter would say "aw shucks, they caught me" and lay down the stolen thing, that's different from "imma run you down sucka". Firing a warning shot in the air is...I dunno, sounds like something Mexicans do in TV shows. But that a situation ends up fatal when a person not only breaks the law but goes as far as to reject the entire notion of having to answer to anyone, I'd say for him it was only a matter of  time.

[Grant]

Yeah, that's exactly what they will say. 🙄

True.  They're actually saying that it is due to greed that they are closing those stores, not racism. 

https://missionlocal.org/2021/03/shame-on-walgreens-neighbors-petition-store-plagued-by-shoplifting-not-to-close/

Though in New Orleans closing a store is due to a lack of commitment to the black community during a national upheaval about systematic racism. 

https://marker.medium.com/cvs-walks-away-from-revitalizing-a-black-community-a418804b568b

And yes, some small smattering of stores in areas with $5000/ month rent and filled to overflowing with desperate people may wind up closing. Totally changes my mind about killing people over soap and cigarettes.

17 Walgreens in 2 years in San Francisco.  Dunno how many CVSs.  Targets closing at 6pm.

I don't think that anybody is demanding to execute people who are stealing soap and cigarettes.  The only person I have heard about that happening to was the example you brought up, which was a guy who apparently thought it was a smart idea to charge a guy with a guy who was chasing him.  I don't believe that was the smartest move, but the smartest move was probably not trying to rob a store.  I'm not saying that the guy basically committed suicide, but in this particular case, the chain of events that led to his death was entirely due to his own choices.  I cannot fault someone for doing their job and chasing a thief.  It's a fine line between chasing, getting too close, and apprehension. 

When the community decides to stop trying to apprehend these individuals because it's racist or greedy, it is reasonable that property and business owners and residents take a larger part in crime prevention.  That's not vigilantism.  It's another aspect of self defense.  The alternative is to leave and your community slowly erodes. 

[Grant]

To be fair, the entire system of law can essentially be boiled down to "comply or we kill you."

I would say that this is a rather medieval view of law, but Thomas Moore would probably be offended.  I suppose this could be the view of law espoused by Clovis of the Franks.  Certainly not by Cicero or Plato. 

Suffice to say there are many ways the law can punish non-compliance other than death.  It is also to be said, as before, that deterrence has never been the hallmark of justice.  Unless we're talking about the Qin Dynasty and the Chinese philosophy of Legalism.  One could also draw a parallel to Machiavellian politics.   

[Grant]

We shouldn't be okay with ending someone's life for non violent crime.

I don't believe anyone is calling for that as a law.  But at that point the guard was defending himself from a violent attack from someone who might have seized their gun.  I somewhat sympathize with Mr. Criminal here, because as I said before, they are under no obligation to surrender to Batman with a pistol.  Having someone shoot into the air might have made them fear for their life and they have a right to defend themselves as well.  But I'd say charging a guy with a guy with a gun was a bad move in his case.

[TheDrake]

Google around you'll find plenty of these stories

An Indiana gas station clerk chased a shoplifter into the parking lot and shot him in the face, Indianapolis police told local news outlets.

Vincent Bibbs, a 49-year-old Speedway convenience store clerk, has been charged with murder, WISH reported.

Before midnight on June 29, Bibbs confronted Damon McClain, 49, after he spotted him putting four packs of Red Bull in a garbage bag and heading out the door without paying, the TV station reported.

Generally as a society we have decided that this isn't the old west and you can't use deadly force to prevent a property crime in most jurisdictions. But if you are armed and chasing someone, you are likely to find yourself in a wrestling match.

And one of you is potentially going to get the gun involved.

Walgreens has over 9000 stores, 17 is a handful. It isn't fully clear how much the theft influenced the closings, but I admit it didn't help.

Let's say you hire enough cops to somehow be close enough by to apprehend the guy stealing red bull. Think that is more or less expensive than the dollar value of the thefts? There is a reason that most stores don't hire a security guard, the numbers don't add up to support it. Because by and large most people won't be criminals even if there is no likely penalty in the short term.

[cherrypoptart]

I wonder if riots could be considered a form of vigilantism by those who deem the justice system to be broken, for instance with the Rittenhouse not guilty verdict, and rioting is the way they take the law into their own hands.

[TheDeamon]

It's just fine to say, well that's just the criminals fault. Stupid bastard. Except that's just ridiculous. We shouldn't be okay with ending someone's life for non violent crime.

I mean, I agree with that. But I do sympathize a little with the officers who say they don't know whether a situation is life or death or not and have to make a call. Now if the shoplifter would say "aw shucks, they caught me" and lay down the stolen thing, that's different from "imma run you down sucka". Firing a warning shot in the air is...I dunno, sounds like something Mexicans do in TV shows. But that a situation ends up fatal when a person not only breaks the law but goes as far as to reject the entire notion of having to answer to anyone, I'd say for him it was only a matter of  time.

Warning shot in the air is potentially fatal for someone else not involved in the situation at all. What goes up, must come down. And Newton's going to have that bullet tumbling through the air at nearly the same speed(minus drag) that it was traveling when it left the barrel when it hits something on the ground.

[TheDeamon]

To be fair, the entire system of law can essentially be boiled down to "comply or we kill you."

I would say that this is a rather medieval view of law, but Thomas Moore would probably be offended.  I suppose this could be the view of law espoused by Clovis of the Franks.  Certainly not by Cicero or Plato. 

Suffice to say there are many ways the law can punish non-compliance other than death.  It is also to be said, as before, that deterrence has never been the hallmark of justice.  Unless we're talking about the Qin Dynasty and the Chinese philosophy of Legalism.  One could also draw a parallel to Machiavellian politics.

The more appropriate phrasing would be "Comply with the law, or we'll seize your assets, take away your freedom of movement, and make you live where we want you to for a significant portion of the rest of your life." Where in extreme cases penalities may go as far as taking your life, either accidentally or intentionally.

[edgmatt]

When people USED to get killed for looting, or for attempting to destroy someone's home or place of business, we decided, as a civilized society, that this wasn't a good way to do things.  Not that it wasn't effective but it was too draconian.  (Please remember that before we even had this level of society, this draconian one, things were even worse.  Tribes fought tribes for land, murder was a part of life...etc etc....)

So, as several posters have already posted, we turned over some of our power to the "authorities" and we had police who handled that sort of thing with arrests and jail time and fines.  And we had civilization.  And we didn't have massive riots, cause the PENALTIES for such were jail time, court time, fines, etc.

But when the people who have our authority, refuse to use it when people are looting and attempting to destroy someone's home or place of business in the name of a protest, then we have every right to defend our selves and our property, and it is not the fault of the defender if one of the looters/rioters is killed.  Particularly if the rioters/looters are armed with lethal force.

It is draconian.  It is a bad trade; a life for items/property  But it's not as bad as having civilization drop all the way back down to anarchy and small tribal warfare.

And if there is no penalty for looting, robbing, burning, destroying, than we aren't living in a "civilized" country/state.  That is anarchy.  That is warfare. 

I say this in response to anyone who makes comments like "can't be killing someone over a bar of soap and cigarettes" and are using such comments to vilify people like Kyle Rittenhouse.  The majority of people want civilization.  They want the authorities to use their authority given to them by the citizens to protect them.  But if the authorities aren't going to do that, the next best thing is for citizens to take matters into their own hands.

[edgmatt]

We shouldn't be okay with ending someone's life for non violent crime.

We aren't.

But we also shouldn't be ok with people's livelihoods and property being destroyed with no penalty. And possibly even being encouraged by the people who's very job it is to prevent such destruction.

[edgmatt]

The more appropriate phrasing would be "Comply with the law, or we'll seize your assets, take away your freedom of movement, and make you live where we want you to for a significant portion of the rest of your life." Where in extreme cases penalties may go as far as taking your life, either accidentally or intentionally.

I think there's a difference between forcing compliance and setting a standard of rules to enact civilized behavior.

I also think a lot of that difference has to do with the level of power the citizens have in making the laws.  If you have a single person creating laws on their own, then yea, your paragraph above fits.  Kings and tyrants.

If you have what the U.S. (in theory) has, with voting, 3 branches of govt, constitution, etc...it becomes much more of a contract of civilized behavior.  "We' agree to these laws and agree that they are good and just.

[Fenring]

To be fair, the entire system of law can essentially be boiled down to "comply or we kill you."

I would say that this is a rather medieval view of law, but Thomas Moore would probably be offended.  I suppose this could be the view of law espoused by Clovis of the Franks.  Certainly not by Cicero or Plato. 

Suffice to say there are many ways the law can punish non-compliance other than death.  It is also to be said, as before, that deterrence has never been the hallmark of justice.  Unless we're talking about the Qin Dynasty and the Chinese philosophy of Legalism.  One could also draw a parallel to Machiavellian politics.   

You're talking about the philosophy of law. I'm talking about its actual structure, i.e. the mechanism. If you ignore what people say about the law and just look at how it works, the functional reality is that if someone fundamentally refuses to comply, and take that all the way down the line, it will be very difficult to avoid having to kill that person. Make a flowchart, and at each branch ask yourself what would happen if the perp refused to comply with instructions and even actively resisted. Yes, it is theoretically possible to so utterly overpower and subdue someone that they can literally no longer resist; and likewise you can sedate them medically for the rest of their life. But other than that technological solution, if someone refuses to bow to your authority you will have to kill them at some point. That is the final destination of non-compliance. What you are maybe thinking of is someone who breaks the law, but then ultimately backs down and complies when surrounded by squad cars. I'm talking about if they still don't comply even then. "Comply or die" shouldn't be mistaken with "if you are ever disobedient you die." At some point or other you will have to back down and agree to do what the authorities say to get the result you are envisioning.

[TheDrake]

I feel like there's a very tenuous slippery slope argument in effect. Even in San Francisco, people are getting indicted and convicted of larceny. It tends to be policing that investigates the eventual selling of the stolen goods, which is a much safer approach for everyone than having a poorly trained security guard or clerk chase someone into the parking lot.

Indeed, if society devolved to everyone walking into stores and taking whatever they want with no potential consequence, including incarceration but also social scorn, something would have to be done about it. But that isn't happening, hasn't happened, and I would argue won't happen.

Security posted at the exits don't have to chase anyone. That's just one potential solution. Other tactics used include dye releasing merchandise tags on clothing. Surveillance that allows theft prevention to intercept people while still in the store. So many other options than armed pursuit on a public street. If it comes to that, you've already failed at your security task, have you not?

Facial recognition could be used effectively to identify and track people where they could be apprehended, asked to leave, etc. You think a casino doesn't know immediately when someone bad enters their property? With that capability, you might even make it inexpensive enough that local police could be notified and arrive on scene in time to make any difference.

I personally think that many don't want prevention, they want punishment. They want to make people pay for their trespasses. They want eye for eye justice, and they are titillated and fulfilled whenever they hear a story about a thief getting shot, because they deserve it for taking someone's property or not surrendering immediately.

[TheDeamon]

Security posted at the exits don't have to chase anyone. That's just one potential solution. Other tactics used include dye releasing merchandise tags on clothing. Surveillance that allows theft prevention to intercept people while still in the store. So many other options than armed pursuit on a public street. If it comes to that, you've already failed at your security task, have you not?

Facial recognition could be used effectively to identify and track people where they could be apprehended, asked to leave, etc. You think a casino doesn't know immediately when someone bad enters their property? With that capability, you might even make it inexpensive enough that local police could be notified and arrive on scene in time to make any difference.

Well, two options I can think of have it branching in different, but comparable directions. You go the Amazon concept store route, in which case shoplifting becomes practically impossible, but you have zero privacy as it relates to the store in question.

Or you install locking revolving doors with controlled, one-way access into and out of the store, and security vets every person leaving the store. Hard to walk out of the store with stolen merchandise if you cannot get out of the store in the first place.

Just hope they don't take to starting fires to justify emergency exit protocols being activated. (Which would be a different set of charges)

But do you really want to live in a society where the new SOP for most businesses is to force you to exit through a security door that they have total control over, and could potentially imprison you within it while they wait for the police to pick you up on the other side? Or the potential disruptions to your schedule when another customer triggers such a lockdown of the exit(s)?

[TheDrake]

Well let's be clear, procedure matches the environment.

9000 Walgreens don't have to install multiple interlocking compartments to prevent exit. Only the seventeen that had enough problems to close their doors.

The idea that it is a good trade off that we just have to keep having violent altercations so that the good citizens of every community have the most pleasant shopping experience possible seems wrong to me.

If these measures were put in place though, that might be the will of the population, that more police assets can be employed or more cases prosecuted, or maybe less privacy in public spaces.

We already see this, as coffee shops in troubled neighborhoods keep their restroom locked to prevent drug users from wandering in and using them. Ones in society at large have no need. Dressing rooms have varying policies for similar reasons, ranging from no restriction to an attendant noting every article going in or out. Those are mild annoyances for the honest customer.

If Walgreens hasn't had another store just three blocks away, it might have been worth their while to try something. It certainly would have been so if they experienced these problems at hundreds of stores.

Because the option that says shoplifters must be struck down with righteous wrath to maintain order and tranquility is what leads to incidents like those cops who broke an old lady's arm and then laughed about it. Because a woman with dementia took $14 worth off items and Walmart called in law enforcement over it.

[Grant]

You're talking about the philosophy of law. I'm talking about its actual structure, i.e. the mechanism.

Wut? 

I'm open to the idea that the mechanism may be different than the philosophy, but the idea is that the mechanism should reflect the philosophy unless the philosophy is flawed.  The mechanism of a combustion engine should adhere to the philosophies of physics and engineering.  The mechanism of science should adhere to the philosophy of science.  The mechanism of education should adhere to whatever philosophy of education you are attempting to follow.  Law is no different. 

If you ignore what people say about the law and just look at how it works, the functional reality is that if someone fundamentally refuses to comply, and take that all the way down the line, it will be very difficult to avoid having to kill that person. Make a flowchart, and at each branch ask yourself what would happen if the perp refused to comply with instructions and even actively resisted. Yes, it is theoretically possible to so utterly overpower and subdue someone that they can literally no longer resist; and likewise you can sedate them medically for the rest of their life. But other than that technological solution, if someone refuses to bow to your authority you will have to kill them at some point. That is the final destination of non-compliance.

Who is this mystical rebel?  It's like you're saying jails won't work without the threat of death. 

Let's go down the flow chart you suggest.  Johnny Jaywalker is approached by Barney Fife about his jaywalking.  Halt while I write you a jaywalking ticket.  Johnny Jaywalker refuses to comply and starts running.  Barney can either light the guy up and Johnny can ride the lightning of a tazer, or Barney can tackle the dude after he calls in for backup.  It happens.  Have you ever watched Cops?  That's 90% of the show is tasering or tackling.  Then you get handcuffed and taken to jail.  From that point on, every time you do not wish to comply, you get tackled, tasered, and handcuffed.  When you get to prison, they just throw your ass in solitary for a week.  There is no threat of death involved.  Violence, yes.  Execution, no. 

This theory is totally divorced from reality.  At the very worst you can have a hunger strike or a prison riot.  Threat of death is still unnecessary. 

The only time death is threatened is in other life threatening situations.  That's it.  It's also there for punishment and deterrence for particularly heinous crimes such as murder, rape, treason, etc.  Law may contain an element of violence, but that doesn't mean you skip automatically to death penalty. 

At some point or other you will have to back down and agree to do what the authorities say to get the result you are envisioning.

I've been there.  I've been in both jail, and I've been on the street watching the police work.  If someone is unarmed you do not have to kill them if they do not comply with the law.  You just light them up, tackle them, and beat the *censored* out of them.  That's the real mechanism.  After you get thrown in a cell, you can not comply all you want and just rot in there.

[Fenring]

I've been there.  I've been in both jail, and I've been on the street watching the police work.  If someone is unarmed you do not have to kill them if they do not comply with the law.  You just light them up, tackle them, and beat the *censored* out of them.  That's the real mechanism.  After you get thrown in a cell, you can not comply all you want and just rot in there.

If you wanted to amend my general statement (which was intended to be brief) into "comply or else you will be beaten up and possibly killed" that would be fair enough. The main point is that there is always the threat of significant violence backing up any law, which if the police are very effective may result in mere incapacitation for non-compliance. I was mainly contesting the idea that enforcement of the law shouldn't be employing such levels of force against people for shoplifting. My point was that if someone is ignoring the law that is really the only recourse.

[TheDrake]

There is always threat when any amount of pursuit or force. Perpetrators wind up choked to death, they get hit running into traffic, they fall down stairs, tasers have stopped hearts.

I've given the example of breaking off vehicular pursuit because of the possibility of innocent death or death to officers. That doesn't mean, hey let's forget all about enforcing laws. Those people can be identified in most cases and dealt with later.

They'll get caught shoplifting when the opportunity isn't as dangerous. They'll likely commit other crimes and get caught, especially the organized rings.

There's a reason why most security guards aren't armed. Too much can go wrong.

And I understand that I'm making a case that is slightly hyperbolic. If I had a store I might not choose a zero pursuit policy. I'm just saying that it's not out of the question, and certainly if what a clerk observed was someone dashing out the door with a Snickers then it's not worth anyone's time to vault the counter and try to apprehend her.

[TheDrake]

And Arbery's killers are going away for a long time. Despite the fact that he had dirty toenails.

[Grant]

And Arbery's killers are going away for a long time. Despite the fact that he had dirty toenails.

All this talk about how the American justice system is messed up or crooked, yet it seems to have worked pretty well recently. 

But it has to be mentioned that two DAs screwed up the Arbery case and it wouldn't have gone anywhere except that video was leaked.  Reason for pause and consideration. 

[TheDrake]

And Arbery's killers are going away for a long time. Despite the fact that he had dirty toenails.

All this talk about how the American justice system is messed up or crooked, yet it seems to have worked pretty well recently. 

But it has to be mentioned that two DAs screwed up the Arbery case and it wouldn't have gone anywhere except that video was leaked.  Reason for pause and consideration.

Justice working well against the DA also, so far

Must be pretty awkward when the DA gets booked and arraigned. "Good to see you again, judge. Cocktails after? No? Oh, that's right, I'm a pariah now."

[alai]

I would say that this is a rather medieval view of law, but Thomas Moore would probably be offended.

I assume you mean More the renaissance lawyer and politician, rather than Moore the Irish balladeer.  Though I suppose he was born in the middle ages, by the trad definition.

Suffice to say there are many ways the law can punish non-compliance other than death.

But if you take the "Non-Aggression Principal" reasoning to a sufficiently iterated degree -- and its enthusiasts never fail to -- then you argue that all law is ultimately enforced by violence, and the logical endpoint of such violence is death.  So being taxed even 1c is just the thin end of a very large wedge.

[msquared]

Life in prison with no parole for the father and son, life in prison with parole for the driver.

[TheDrake]

There goes the neighborhood! Without these brave vigilantes and the chilling effect on anyone who might replace them, the poor residents will see all property rights disappear and a complete descent into anarchy!

[cherrypoptart]

More likely it just encourages people to not get involved.

That won't translate into a total collapse of society but it does give criminals another advantage.

[rightleft22]

More likely it just encourages people to not get involved.

That won't translate into a total collapse of society but it does give criminals another advantage.

If involvement = physically engagement  (in a non life and death situation) good lesson to learn
That does not discount involvement = informing authorities of concern, documenting, viding, lots of things that don't require a gun.
I know that requires the skill of discernment and in a world in which everything is all or nothing such discernment only gets in the way.
Add the trend towards the one bad apple is all you need in order to throw out all the apples reasoning.... 

They saw the world as they were and acted, going from A to D without considering B or C options, creating the very thing they feared....

[cherrypoptart]

Realistically though, you call the cops and don't get involved and you can pretty much count on nothing happening. You're just going to be totally wasting your time. They'll file a report and forget about it. Something like this? Trespassing in a home under construction? The police have rapes and murders and drug dealers and fatality car accidents to work on; think they'll worry about trespassing? They won't. Won't give it a second thought. So just let it keep happening by reporting it over and over again, relying on the police to stop it which they won't do or get involved and get life in prison without parole.

[alai]

More likely it just encourages people to not get involved.

Which people?  And involved with what?

That won't translate into a total collapse of society but it does give criminals another advantage.

Clearly not.  The felons went to prison.  The alleged perpetrator of a misdemeanor that the local cop intended to deal with by a warning is dead.  Which criminals are being advantaged in this scenario?

Extra credit for more "shady" foghorns blown in any reply.

[TheDrake]

More likely it just encourages people to not get involved.

That won't translate into a total collapse of society but it does give criminals another advantage.

Well, this is what you said previously, so if in this case you think this will only lead to a mild advantage for petty non-violent criminals, how would you reconcile the two views?

Not only do you not fix the broken windows but you stop doing anything meaningful about serious everyday crime. It just leads to constant escalation. The criminals will take it as far as society lets them, and then some. Give them an inch and they will take it a mile, a Magnificent Mile even.

Constant escalation sounds to me a lot like a descent into anarchy. This slippery slope argument was part of the previous discussion.

There are lots of other ways to prevent someone from wandering onto your construction site, starting with a fence. Having video cameras that send an alert and you go over there while the trespassing is still happening. Installing motion triggered floodlights. I've got ways of preventing someone breaking into my house other than the threat of having a neighbor chase them down in the street. You could in fact get involved, even those guys could. All they had to do was not approach the guy. If they stay fifteen feet away and yell at him to stay out of their neighborhood, nobody dies and maybe the guy doesn't want to push them further.

If you want to prevent someone from stealing something expensive from a construction site, there's a lot of other tips for them. Among them are taking your stuff with you, locking it up, etc. You familiar with parking garages? Anyone can wander into them, they aren't even trespassing. There's some threat of theft, it is recommended to lock your car and stow or take all valuables with you. It isn't necessary to have the Garage Vigilante Club chasing people down who they suspect might have broken into a car. Police also aren't going to investigate those things. It's not a big deal.

[cherrypoptart]

"It isn't necessary to have the Garage Vigilante Club chasing people down who they suspect might have broken into a car."

Or not even breaking into a car, just stealing the catalytic converters off of them. Not a big deal. Just call the police. They won't do anything but you can use the police report to file your insurance claim, pay your $500 deductible and get it fixed every nine months or so as it gets stolen over and over again. You could park in your garage but that's where your home gym is now during covid. You could rent another garage in your apartment complex but that's $150 a month. It's cheaper to just pay the deductible once every nine months. You could just leave it unfixed and drive around without a catalytic converter with a loud and stinky car, kind of amused with the idea of the catalytic converter thieves coming around again and again looking under there and getting annoyed that this guy still hasn't fixed it yet so they could steal it again.

[rightleft22]

"It isn't necessary to have the Garage Vigilante Club chasing people down who they suspect might have broken into a car."

Or not even breaking into a car, just stealing the catalytic converters off of them. Not a big deal. Just call the police. They won't do anything but you can use the police report to file your insurance claim, pay your $500 deductible and get it fixed every nine months or so as it gets stolen over and over again. You could park in your garage but that's where your home gym is now during covid. You could rent another garage in your apartment complex but that's $150 a month. It's cheaper to just pay the deductible once every nine months. You could just leave it unfixed and drive around without a catalytic converter with a loud and stinky car, kind of amused with the idea of the catalytic converter thieves coming around again and again looking under there and getting annoyed that this guy still hasn't fixed it yet so they could steal it again.

If you choose to go beyond the report and enter into a confrontation that then goes badly that is also covered under the law. Screw that up and your accountable. A opps... I had the best of intentions, I assumed he was quality because well (insert justification not proven) and besides cops don't do anything, the system is broken... isn't a defense.  If it was the system would be truly be broken and you would have created the very thing you fear.
 
This is not the case you want to pin your fight on. They were wrong, thier method of engagement was wrong and provocitive and anyone with any ability of discernment could recognize how such method of engagement might go wrong and badly. The broke the Law. 

You can't have is both ways if you are a LAW and Order believer. As you judge so you will be judged. Be careful what you wish for.

[msquared]

But how can I legally kill a person of color if I am not able to do this? What other options do I have?  (sarcasm)

[rightleft22]

I don't understand the reasoning as it concerns the Rule Of Law especially as so often applied by those on the far right which appears to be when it suits them?

The black man confronted by white men with guns in a pickup  (never seen that go wrong before) 

The men that killed him are presumed innocent because of thier good intentions even after being proved guilty in a court of law, the black man still presumed quality without opportunity to prove otherwise... 

The system is broken because on one hand some people are presumed guilty until proven innocent while others are presumed innocent until no further action required.... But who in this scenario is responsible for that???

The system you argue is broken and your solution is to break it even more?
Law and Order but only when it suits your tribes perceptions of justice and who deserves it. That sad thing is you are not blind to the contradictions within your arguments or how, if applied equally, what such a Rule of Law would lead to.  So Why?

[TheDrake]

Same point. Ever seen anyone lugging a catalytic converter out of a parking garage? I'm sure its happened but its not something we have to worry about as a society, and the answer certainly isn't to question every stranger in the neighborhood, unless they have a toolbox and a wheelbarrow. A straight up old-timey car alarm will tell everyone in the neighborhood if somebody is banging around on a catalytic converter. There is a place for prevention in neighborhoods, it involves neighborhood watch. There's a reason they don't call it neighborhood chase. Or neighborhood apprehend.

There was a relatively popular set of videos where somebody was stealing packages - a common thing that also overwhelms the ability of law enforcement to pursue. He had door camera footage of the culprit and a license plate - police said forget it, the package is not worth enough. He took matters into his own hands. Not running around the neighborhood in tactical gear playing Citizen Cop, but by placing decoy packages that threw out glitter and a terrible odor when opened. Not every kind of deterrent needs to involve knocking people to the ground and manhandling them.

Non-violent revenge and deterrent, glitter bomb 4.0

Hilarious and really slick engineering.

[msquared]

I love Mark Rober.  You should check out his squirrel obstacle courses.

[alai]

I don't understand the reasoning as it concerns the Rule Of Law especially as so often applied by those on the far right which appears to be when it suits them?

Sounds like you understand it just fine!

[cherrypoptart]

So the big problem is they confronted him with guns.

Better to confront criminals unarmed, and he was a criminal because he was caught on video trespassing multiple times.

Yeah, like this:

https://abc13.com/katy-freeway-shooting-theft-victims-chase-suspects-civilian-4/10830791/#:~:text=According%20to%20Houston%20police%2C%20the,trucks%2C%20stealing%20the%20catalytic%20converter.&text=The%20two%20witnesses%20chased%20the,Dairy%20Ashford%2C%20according%20to%20HPD.

Confronted them without guns, boxed them in with their vehicles just like Arbery, oh but this time not a problem because they didn't have guns, the criminals did and started shooting at them. Brilliant.

[rightleft22]

So the big problem is they confronted him with guns.

Better to confront criminals unarmed, and he was a criminal because he was caught on video trespassing multiple times.

Your right trespassers = criminal = death penalty
You apply the label criminal without due process and chase down a black man in a big old pickup with weapons at the ready.
No problem
But the black man reacts to the sistuation in the moment and he's dead

Law and Order requires the men who did the killing to be accountable.  Opps they got it wrong, they can not prove the man deserved a death sentence off to jail they go.

The rule of Law you wish to rule others by can only end one way wild west chaos. Be careful what you wish for As you Judge and Confront so you will be judged and confronted. Hope it turns out better for you....

[TheDrake]

So the big problem is they confronted him with guns.

Better to confront criminals unarmed, and he was a criminal because he was caught on video trespassing multiple times.

Yeah, like this:

https://abc13.com/katy-freeway-shooting-theft-victims-chase-suspects-civilian-4/10830791/#:~:text=According%20to%20Houston%20police%2C%20the,trucks%2C%20stealing%20the%20catalytic%20converter.&text=The%20two%20witnesses%20chased%20the,Dairy%20Ashford%2C%20according%20to%20HPD.

Confronted them without guns, boxed them in with their vehicles just like Arbery, oh but this time not a problem because they didn't have guns, the criminals did and started shooting at them. Brilliant.

Again, don't try to physically restrain anybody with or without guns. You're not an old west posse. Stay on your property. Call police. If they get away with it, so be it. Is this a better scenario if the witnesses roll out with a arsenal and there is still a shoot out with the mother and child nearby, just more bullets going in two directions?

At best, they might have followed at a safe distance and kept them in sight while on the phone with 911. In this case, the guys had property damage but chased the criminals off and kept their converters. Take the win.

How do you stop catalytic converter theft in Houston? Like this maybe.

HPD officer hurt in chase with accused catalytic converter thieves in NW Houston

Thieves often go after catalytic converters overnight, in places where they don't suspect anyone will be, like the city-owned lot the thieves targeted early Friday morning.

Little did they know, police were undercover, patrolling the lot near the Northwest Freeway and Bingle.

Houston police say undercover officers witnessed three men steal catalytic converters from city-owned vehicles in the lot.

When the officers tried to stop them, the thieves fled, prompting a chase, which ended near the Southwest Freeway and Beechnut, according to HPD.

The men ran off on foot and police pursued.

One officer was injured as a result. Police say he was clipped by another patrol car, injuring his knee.

Let's see what USA Carry says about chasing criminals.

After a crime is committed, even if it involves armed robbery, once a criminal actor flees the situation the crime is over. Your desire for retribution or revenge has nothing to do with it in the eyes of the legal system. Once the threat is over, the justification for lethal force is over. If you pursue a fleeing criminal that just stole something from you, the law now sees you as the aggressor that is starting a separate fight. You might not like it, but this is how the law views the circumstance.

Being the aggressor that starts the problem is never good for you under the scrutiny of the legal system. Upon making contact with a fleeing criminal actor, you will be held accountable for any force that transpires. If everything goes well and you tackle and detain a robber or shoplifter you may be hailed a good Samaritan. What if things get violent and you end up using force? What happens if that action results in significant injury or death for the fleeing criminal? You may face severe legal repercussions.

Chasing criminals, in general, is a no-go for the citizen. Not only is it incredibly dangerous for all involved, but it is also legally precarious. Unless the fleeing criminal has an innocent person in their hands, there is no legal justification for it. In the event of witnessing a robbery or shoplifting, be a good witness. That means call the police, and provide a good description, if possible. Leave the task of chasing criminal actors to those in uniform.

[alai]

Better to confront criminals unarmed, [...]

"Confront criminals."  You're really not seeing the self-dealing and double standards going on here, are you?  Or really not caring, it's hard to tell which.

How do you think you should be treated if someone else supposedly suspects you of a crime?  Let's suppose this crime is a misdemeanour which an officer of the law would deal with by...  telling you not to do that again, even supposing you actually did it in the first place.

Then let's compare the distance between that answer, and your "what kind of violent posse to organise for these shady characters we'd don't want in our neighbourhood" approach to this case.

and he was a criminal because he was caught on video trespassing multiple times.

You should experiment with some knowledge of common law jurisdictions, where the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system.  As opposed to whatever authoritarian wild-west model it is you're apparently living in.

[alai]

Law and Order requires the men who did the killing to be accountable.  Opps they got it wrong, they can not prove the man deserved a death sentence off to jail they go.

Legal standard isn't quite "deserved" either, much as these White Fright cases turn into a defamation-fest about the worthiness of the victim.

ObSpecFic:  "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

The rule of Law you wish to rule others by can only end one way wild west chaos. Be careful what you wish for As you Judge and Confront so you will be judged and confronted. Hope it turns out better for you....

The Golden Rule is such old hat.  The Shady Rule is much more popular these days!

[msquared]

Again, please tell me how I can kill a POC with out consequences if I am not able to act like a posse?