The thread topic is the question at hand.

I think for me, the real question is how far one goes as a vigilante. Does it go as far as wiping scum off the face of the earth, does it stop at simply beating them with blunt objects, or is tranquilizing them to haul them to the nearest police station to enforce a warrant the extent of it? And then the other question is who is fair game to be targeted: is it murderers and nothing else, murderers and rapists, do we throw drug dealers and child molesters in there, or what?

I can't honestly say I'm opposed to the idea of pulling a Carl Lee Hailey on an obvious murderer who escapes justice on a technicality, but I think there'd be one heck of a blurry line to take note of.

Vigilante justice has no place in a society like ours...so no?

Idk, tough question.

Tough question, indeed.

I guess if you're going to plan seeking somebody out to do whatever kind of harm, I'm not totally cool with that.

Honestly though, I can't say. I've never been in that sort of situation so who knows what I'd do?
It would be wayyyyy too easy for anybody to say "I'd never do that". But really, nobody can plan for that sort of future liability.

Is a CCW card carrying and weapon carrying individual considered a vigilante?
I think not….

However I do think that at some point in our society there will be a time when an organized secondary volunteer law enforcement will be required. Taking past police, fire, ems and retired honorable military personal as a sub-support to the local police. Trained and supervised weapon carrying neighborhood volunteer law enforcement organization. Will they be vigilante ..NO

There is a synonym for vigilante. It's called terrorist... depending on your point of view.

So to answer your question: Yes.... Or no.

It depends how far someone goes. If they go out with the intention to kill someone, it is wrong.

However if someone sees a person taking a purse off an old lady in a parking lot, and he jumps in to protect her, I don't think that they guy is a bad person.

I'm fine with vigilante justice, as long as they can be sure the person deserves it. (That's the tricky part.)

Al Bundy wrote: It depends how far someone goes. If they go out with the intention to kill someone, it is wrong.

However if someone sees a person taking a purse off an old lady in a parking lot, and he jumps in to protect her, I don't think that they guy is a bad person.

I don't really consider that vigilante justice, though...

cbus4life wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: It depends how far someone goes. If they go out with the intention to kill someone, it is wrong.

However if someone sees a person taking a purse off an old lady in a parking lot, and he jumps in to protect her, I don't think that they guy is a bad person.

I don't really consider that vigilante justice, though...

What if he chases the guy down the street, beats the crap out of him and gives the old lady her purse back?

cbus4life wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: It depends how far someone goes. If they go out with the intention to kill someone, it is wrong.

However if someone sees a person taking a purse off an old lady in a parking lot, and he jumps in to protect her, I don't think that they guy is a bad person.

I don't really consider that vigilante justice, though...

A vigilante any person that takes the law into his/her own hands. In regards to the question in the opening past, I think you can be a vigilante and be a good person.

I don't consider self defense to be "vigilante" I consider that merely "life saving measures"

Stopping a woman from getting raped, breaking up a fight, etc, those could all be considered vigilantes.

The group a few years ago that placed a citizens arrest on a guy who was exposing himself to children and trying to get them into his car on their street, they were vigilantes.

But at the same time, those actions would be considered "helping the helpless"

What I would consider to be vigilante is the guy who sees someone running down his street carrying the tv that was just stolen from his house and he shoots the guy in the back. Or the guy who confronts the convicted sex offender in the neighborhood that hasn't bothered anyone.

I dunno, I guess my answer to the question would be.... both?!

Al Bundy wrote:

cbus4life wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: It depends how far someone goes. If they go out with the intention to kill someone, it is wrong.

However if someone sees a person taking a purse off an old lady in a parking lot, and he jumps in to protect her, I don't think that they guy is a bad person.

I don't really consider that vigilante justice, though...

A vigilante any person that takes the law into his/her own hands. In regards to the question in the opening past, I think you can be a vigilante and be a good person.

No it's not.

a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

Techinically it would be someone who seeks out crime in order to bring justice.

A vigilante is someone who illegally punishes someone for perceived offenses, or participates in a group which metes out extrajudicial punishment to such a person. Often the victims are criminals in the legal sense, however a vigilante may follow a different definition of criminal than the local law.

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

cbus4life wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: It depends how far someone goes. If they go out with the intention to kill someone, it is wrong.

However if someone sees a person taking a purse off an old lady in a parking lot, and he jumps in to protect her, I don't think that they guy is a bad person.

I don't really consider that vigilante justice, though...

A vigilante any person that takes the law into his/her own hands. In regards to the question in the opening past, I think you can be a vigilante and be a good person.

No it's not.

a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

Techinically it would be someone who seeks out crime in order to bring justice.

A vigilante is someone who illegally punishes someone for perceived offenses, or participates in a group which metes out extrajudicial punishment to such a person. Often the victims are criminals in the legal sense, however a vigilante may follow a different definition of criminal than the local law.

Yes, it is. Definition 2.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vigilante

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

cbus4life wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: It depends how far someone goes. If they go out with the intention to kill someone, it is wrong.

However if someone sees a person taking a purse off an old lady in a parking lot, and he jumps in to protect her, I don't think that they guy is a bad person.

I don't really consider that vigilante justice, though...

A vigilante any person that takes the law into his/her own hands. In regards to the question in the opening past, I think you can be a vigilante and be a good person.

No it's not.

a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

Techinically it would be someone who seeks out crime in order to bring justice.

A vigilante is someone who illegally punishes someone for perceived offenses, or participates in a group which metes out extrajudicial punishment to such a person. Often the victims are criminals in the legal sense, however a vigilante may follow a different definition of criminal than the local law.

Yes, it is. Definition 2.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vigilante

Merriam is the one I would believe. Plus it's 2 vs 1 AND yours says as by avenging a crime. Merely stopping someone from robbing an old lady is not "avenging" anything.

From dictionary.com

to take vengeance or exact satisfaction for: to avenge a grave insult.
2.
to take vengeance on behalf of: He avenged his brother.

Like I said, a Vigilante seeks out to find justice in order to avenge a crime. Merely breaking up a robbery or a rape is not that. Going out and killing the guy who raped your cousin after the fact IS vigilantism

The avenging part of the definition is just an example of taking the law into your hands.

any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

Al Bundy wrote: The avenging part of the definition is just an example of taking the law into your hands.

any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

umm no, all three say that vigilantism is avenging a crime by your own hand.

the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Definition of Justice.

You can believe whatever you want, but all three say you are wrong.

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: The avenging part of the definition is just an example of taking the law into your hands.

any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

umm no, all three say that vigilantism is avenging a crime by your own hand.

the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Definition of Justice.

You can believe whatever you want, but all three say you are wrong.

How am I wrong? It says "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands" then it gives an example such "as by avenging a crime". That is only an example of a way that you can take the law into your own hands. If you see a someone committing a crime, and you take the law into your hands instead of calling the police and waiting, you have become a vigilante. In many cases I think many of us would become vigilantes, and I don't think that makes us bad people. I would like to think many of us would help a defenseless person if we were able to.

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: The avenging part of the definition is just an example of taking the law into your hands.

any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

umm no, all three say that vigilantism is avenging a crime by your own hand.

the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Definition of Justice.

You can believe whatever you want, but all three say you are wrong.

How am I wrong? It says "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands" then it gives an example such "as by avenging a crime". That is only an example of a way that you can take the law into your own hands. If you see a someone committing a crime, and you take the law into your hands instead of calling the police and waiting, you have become a vigilante. In many cases I think many of us would become vigilantes, and I don't think that makes us bad people. I would like to think many of us would help a defenseless person if we were able to.

that's not an example, it is part of the definition. :rolleyes:

It's specifying taking the law into your own hands.

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: The avenging part of the definition is just an example of taking the law into your hands.

any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

umm no, all three say that vigilantism is avenging a crime by your own hand.

the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Definition of Justice.

You can believe whatever you want, but all three say you are wrong.

How am I wrong? It says "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands" then it gives an example such "as by avenging a crime". That is only an example of a way that you can take the law into your own hands. If you see a someone committing a crime, and you take the law into your hands instead of calling the police and waiting, you have become a vigilante. In many cases I think many of us would become vigilantes, and I don't think that makes us bad people. I would like to think many of us would help a defenseless person if we were able to.

that's not an example, it is part of the definition. :rolleyes:

It's specifying taking the law into your own hands.

It is an example. If it wasn't an example, the comma and word "as" wouldn't be there.

The defintion reads "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands , as by avenging a crime"


That has a different meaning than "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands by avenging a crime"

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:

LJ wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: The avenging part of the definition is just an example of taking the law into your hands.

any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.

umm no, all three say that vigilantism is avenging a crime by your own hand.

the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Definition of Justice.

You can believe whatever you want, but all three say you are wrong.

How am I wrong? It says "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands" then it gives an example such "as by avenging a crime". That is only an example of a way that you can take the law into your own hands. If you see a someone committing a crime, and you take the law into your hands instead of calling the police and waiting, you have become a vigilante. In many cases I think many of us would become vigilantes, and I don't think that makes us bad people. I would like to think many of us would help a defenseless person if we were able to.

that's not an example, it is part of the definition. :rolleyes:

It's specifying taking the law into your own hands.

It is an example. If it wasn't an example, the comma and word "as" wouldn't be there.

The defintion reads "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands , as by avenging a crime"


That has a different meaning than "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands by avenging a crime"

LOL!!! Go on with whatever you want to think.

"as by" clearly means that there are other ways.

queencitybuckeye wrote: "as by" clearly means that there are other ways.

Everyone in my office agrees that it means "specifically". Meaning, "as by" is specifying how they are taking the law into their hands. The law is about punishment, therefore avenging a wrongdoing. Just plain stopping a wrong-doing has not punished nor avenged any wrong doing.

But what if the lady got mugged just as you arrived and you catch the thief, subdue them and take the purse back? That would be avenging, would it not?

superman wrote: But what if the lady got mugged just as you arrived and you catch the thief, subdue them and take the purse back? That would be avenging, would it not?

yeah, never said it wasn't :huh:

I'm talking about you are walking through the parking lot and you see a guy beating on an old women and you chase him off. What vengeance has been dealt? What justice have you dealt? What law have you taken into your own hands? The answer to all three above is "none".

LJ wrote:

superman wrote: But what if the lady got mugged just as you arrived and you catch the thief, subdue them and take the purse back? That would be avenging, would it not?

yeah, never said it wasn't :huh:

I never said you did, just asking a question.