84 réponses à ce sujet

[Some Geth]

android654 wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

android654 wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

android654 wrote...

This guy is going out and committing assault over drunk fights. He's a pest, albeit a funny pest. I think that's what he was arrested for assault too. I only care if he does something big and funny enough for me to hear about it on the other side of the country. Other than that he's just some guy with a latex fetish who thought Watchmen was a docudrama.

Who watches the Watchmen?

I do, from the back row. I like sitting behind everyone on late showings. They're all too tired to talk or block the screen.

You do bring up a good point. I think a lot of people, and there are a few like this guy, watch superhero movies the way skiny kids watch Rocky. They eventually think to themselves, "HEY! I can do it too!"

And that's funny too since Watchmen only works as a comic book.

UGH. So true. Why did they think they could take a 12 book series and make it into one movie? Still, one thing they did better was the destruction of manhattan. That version mad Dr. Manhattan seem much more responsible than the space squid.

Them making a 12 book series into one movie was not the problem, the problem was that they made the movie in the first place.

[Volus Warlord]

Sure, as long as he didn't mind if I left him in a pool of his own blood if he tried to irritate me.

[Blastback]

Also, what about criminals who are genuinely mentally ill, and could be better if given treatment? How is a vigilante going to take that into account.

It sucks that guilty people get away with crimes and get to continue, but would you rather have incidents like that kid in Florida getting killed just for walking home at night?

[The Jackal]

Naughty Bear wrote...

If a vigilante was operating in your local area and in you local news it was reported the vigilante was going around and severly punishing criminals.

Not killing them but physically beating them up, the targets were sex offenders, muggers, the scum of the scum.

The vigilante however is commiting crimes him/herself, example include stalking, loitering, physical assault and grievous body harm, intruding and generally being a predator of these people.

Would you support someone like this? I have really strong views on justice and injustice is one thing that boils my blood. I would gladly support one.

This reminds me of that George Zimmerman Case. He guy who shot an unarmed teenager because he thought he looked "suspect". I don't enrose beating on nearly everyone. It's like if a person rob's a bank and someone chases him and even though that money is insuranced and Bank robber likely doing it because desperate.

It's not exactly soceity role to target people based on their crime and start beating them up. No one is perefect. Far from it. I'm sure there are tons of thing's we have done but did not get caught for. Also, a person that runs around punishing crimmials? sounds more like movie of Kick Ass.

You cannot trust in one person, who's creating a crime himself by beating up others, called assult.

[RedArmyShogun]

Uhh if they are like the dummies previously. No.

Someone like the Boondock Saints?

Give me a Hail Marry and pass the 12 gauge. Sign me up.


As to why? I have no faith or trust in local or general aw enforcement. From seeing folks walk on murder. And I mean Murder as in a guy getting his brains bashed out along side a road with a baseball bat, to rape and impregnantion of ones own child, rampet drug dealings, corruption. I can go on and on. Lets just say the one time this region was clean was when someone took some drug dealers to the swamp, put them on there knee's and single shot them in the head. I think drug use went down pretty far for a couple of years. The Cops? Hell they have trouble keeping track of things in the evidence room.

And as to anyone going "Well its just drugs" No some of these "fine folks" were beating people up, gangs had taken over what few family places there were around here, what has been labeled as "Domestic distrubances" in order to keep the feds at bay was in fact almost total racial genocide of a small community. I could really go on and on here, put a friend of mine he crossed the Haitiians and they killed all of his animals wrote voodoo crap all along his walls. Police response has always been to bull around take notes and leave.

Then again my state is pretty vigilanty. I mean half the state did support and a whole town did hide a bomber down here in the 90's for well over 10 years.

Also Jason

"You cannot trust in one person, who's creating a crime himself by beating up others, called assult. "

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Or in this case legs.

Modifié par Confess-A-Bear, 13 mai 2012 - 01:56 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Yes, and I want them (me) to be paid well, undercover.

If completely freelancer and heroic, I need more training, don't know about others. I don't want to be pawned on the streets!

Modifié par Imperial Sentinel Arian, 13 mai 2012 - 01:35 .

[Daennikus]

Yes.

I don't want to go into a discussion with you guys about this. Some people here only enjoy antagonizing others like it's their intellectual duty.

The justice system is broken. If people could all step up for themselves we wouldn't need courageous fools to do it for them. Nowadays, enlisting in any type of force with authority over the public is viewed as suicidal. Why? Why can't *good* people fight for what's right? Why is *bad* becoming the default behavior?

[termokanden]

I know I'm "proving" your point, but I do wonder why you post arguments in a discussion about it and then tell us you're too good to discuss it with us. Isn't that incredibly antagonistic in itself?

[Daennikus]

termokanden wrote...

I know I'm "proving" your point, but I do wonder why you post arguments in a discussion about it and then tell us you're too good to discuss it with us. Isn't that incredibly antagonistic in itself?

We're all complex individuals and not always willing to compromise. Make peace with it.

[Seagloom]

No. It would take astounding arrogance for a person to believe they have the right to singularly act as judge, jury, and executioner. Although the OP's stated example does not mention execution, beating people to a bloody pulp is close enough in my mind. The courts are far from flawlessly equitable; but a vigilante has the potential to do more harm with no shred of oversight keeping them in check.

Modifié par Seagloom, 13 mai 2012 - 09:29 .

[ReallyRue]

Of the wannabe-superhero variety? No.

I generally don't agree with vigilantism on principle. 'Mob justice' is a really ugly thing. Especially because it's often fuelled by media sensationalism and whatnot. If someone murdered a known rapist/murderer/whatever, I wouldn't be shedding any tears over it, but I would be concerned about where that person is prepared to stop. As much as I'd like to kill some of these criminals myself, I don't agree with people taking the law into their own hands.

[Cutlass Jack]

I wouldn't support him. If he's capable of fighting crime in the streets, then he's capable of getting off the darn couch and getting a job. I'm not running a charity organization.

[Il Divo]

If his efforts actually resulted in a decrease in crime, sure. Why not? I'd support him all the way.

[_Aine_]

There is no way for this vigilante to accurately determine innocence or guilt, so in my mind this is just another criminal looking for the most publically acceptable way to be a criminal. I believe in responsibility. The law is the law. If you want to break the law, even for the "right" reasons, and you are willing to deal with the consequences of those actions, so be it. No law against stupidity. We all wish the law was "fair". We wish the scores were always righted in the favor of the just. But they aren't. Doesn't mean we can break the law to right the universal balance *without consequence*. Accept the consequence, do what you will. Just accept you are now the criminal you wished to fight. Sometimes, people decide the greater good is worth it. Doens't mean it is without consequence. So, its a personal decision. I for one am not stupid enough to consider myself a "hero" for it (or sorry, vigilante, same thing.) if i did it. I'd just be a self-righteous pissed off criminal fighting other criminals for the greater good, but I'd be willing to pay the price for that also.

There are ways to make change and bring about justice without becoming "the man that you fear". Work the system, or fight the system, but use your brains about it.

Modifié par shantisands, 14 mai 2012 - 12:28 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

No I would not. However if the law is non-existent in practice, then I would support a community based mutual security system.

[Il Divo]

Of course, if we're looking for counter-arguments, Watchmen and especially Rorschach show us the dark side of vigilantism.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Seagloom wrote...

No. It would take astounding arrogance for a person to believe they have the right to singularly act as judge, jury, and executioner. Although the OP's stated example does not mention execution, beating people to a bloody pulp is close enough in my mind. The courts are far from flawlessly equitable; but a vigilante has the potential to do more harm with no shred of oversight keeping them in check.

Judge Dredd disagrees with you.

[Homebound]

depends if its Batman or not.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I would not support a vigilante and I would not want to become one. There is a danger with any kind of violence, whether it is for a good cause or not: Acceptance of violence. If violence is the solution for the violent problem you fight then you have become that problem. However, I can live with defense forces or law enforcement as long as they leave our human rights intact.

A superhero in comics, movies and games is attractive because he or she is idolized as being pure. That superhero usually does not become trapped in falling to the dark side. Of course there are a lot of variations which explore the edge vigilantes walk.

I understand the usefulness of a militia, but I wonder whether it has the same basic problem as a vigilante or not. The same goes for a resistance. It soon becomes fuzzy when politics and religion play a role into that. Even writing about that can become very controversial and thus the forum rules don't allow us to delve deeply into it.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 14 mai 2012 - 06:48 .

[Aerevane]

 No. It can not be upon individual judgement how to act justice. A proper process is needed to judge properly and honest.

[Lotion Soronarr]

termokanden wrote...
There's just no way I'm just going to trust some random person wearing a cape when professionals can't even get it right sometimes.

Sometiems poeple on the street know a lot more than the police do. Especially in some areas, police are not trusted and peopel dont' talk to them much. Or lie to them constantly.

So sometimes, the vigillante can know more than the police.

[Arios1570]

If this person had the ability to keep from targetting the wrong people or people who were wrongfully accused.  Basically, if this guy only targetted those who had actually done it, then yes.  I also think that genuinely horrible people should just be locked up.  For example, I heard that there was a court case where a guy backed over a kid who was riding by on a bike, during the court case, he tried to sue the parents of the kid for damage to the car.  I would have sent that man to the electric chair for suggesting that. 

[Seagloom]

Imperial Sentinel Arian wrote...

Judge Dredd disagrees with you.

Of course he would. He lives in a crap hole where any excuse to reduce human drains on their resources is acceptable.

[Il Divo]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

A superhero in comics, movies and games is attractive because he or she is idolized as being pure. That superhero usually does not become trapped in falling to the dark side. Of course there are a lot of variations which explore the edge vigilantes walk.

This is actually why I find the hypothetical question posed to be a bit of a stretch.

I don't think it's enough to simply say "Would we allow a vigilante?" That alone is to make the issue as black and white as all the claims that one person shouldn't be allowed to determine a man's fate.

The real question should be: what sort of vigilante am I supporting? Is he the kind of person who simply goes around stopping robberies, murders and muggings, aka Batman? In cases like that, I really don't see the use of violence or the threat of violence as a problem. Or is he extending his sphere to really play judge, jury, and executioner of all individuals who break the law, where it becomes far more difficult to judge?