Vigilanteism and why people try to link us to it?

imported post

vigilante


Main Entry:vig·i·lan·te
Pronunciation:\ˌvi-jə-ˈlan-tē\
Function:noun
Etymology:Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
Date:1856
: 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
— vig·i·lan·tism \-ˈlan-ˌti-zəm\ noun



I was wondering what the OC community thinks of being referred to as vigilantes? In the time I have been carrying a sidearm for my personal protection, I have been, and have seen the carrying movement labled a bunch of vigilantes by many anti' groups. Just because we carry, doesn't mean we are going to over steep he boundaries of law, and enact our own justice on anyone.
:cuss:

What are some of everyones feelings on this?

imported post

Its only vigilantism if self-defense is.

I suppose instead of deploying deadly forcewhen somebody is shooting up the shopping mall you happen to be in, you could call the police and wait for the processes of law to take care of the situation. Although, you and people around you may be dead as a result.

But then, in the United States, citizens have some authority to enforce law, make citizens arrest, and defendyourself with deadly forceso I suppose it is more properly considered alegalprocess of law to act in such a manner. So as long as your actionsare legal, it doesn't seem to measure up tovigilantism

Vigilantism typically involves extrajudicial punishment which isunrelated to self-defense. While it would be punishing to be hit by a bullet, the intent of firing the bullet is not to punish, it is for self-preservation.

Almost everyone alive would fight backin any waythey could if they felt it was their only option to avoid death or serious injury.

imported post

I'd say it breaks down like this:

99% of the anti-gun remarks about vigilanteism and gun owners/carriers/OCers is just mindless propaganda, kind of like how they enjoy calling us cowboys and wanna-be cops and such. It's just a negative word that has a slight enough similarity to us that they feel they can use it to rally around us.

The other 1% is honest concern for the "punishment" sentiment I see once in a while. Such as, shooting the fleeing beer thieves because stealing isn't right. Or, being glad that a "bad guy" is dead even when it is a bad shoot in which the "bad guy" did not instigate the shooting (see comments about the Mexican troops murdering a drug dealer in America). This is much more of a fine line, and we've discussed quite a bit where "self-defense" stops and "vigilanteism" begins.

But overwhelmingly, yes, it's just name-calling. I don't think the anti's actually bring the concept of self-defense into the picture; they just associate gun=evil=gun=criminal=gun=vigilante=gun.

imported post

Anyone reading some of the posts here can easily get that idea.

There is a situation where aman observes two men exiting his neighbors house who was out of town. He tells the 911 operator he is going to kill them. .. and he does!

Members here then post ...

"Good for Him!"

"Way to go Joe!"

"Thank you Mr. Horn for saving somone else from being victimized by these criminals."

"Good shooting and a good ending. "

"Congratulations Mr Horn.. our prayers for you were answered."

Click to expand...

It can be easily viewed by others that the members here enjoy instant justice bycitizens when lethal forcemay not have beennecessary.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are my own anddo not representmy family, friends, or my employer in any manner.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Anyone reading some of the posts here can easily get that idea.

There is a situation where aman observes two men exiting his neighbors house who was out of town. He tells the 911 operator he is going to kill them. .. and he does!

Members here then post ...

"Good for Him!"

"Way to go Joe!"

"Thank you Mr. Horn for saving somone else from being victimized by these criminals."

"Good shooting and a good ending. "

"Congratulations Mr Horn.. our prayers for you were answered."

Click to expand...

It can be easily viewed by others that the members here enjoy instant justice bycitizens when lethal forcemay not have beennecessary.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here my my own anddo not representmy family, friends, or my employer in any manner.

Click to expand...

+1 there, I was worried that I was the only one whowas a bit uncomfortable with the Joe Horn situation. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy whena legal gun owner gets the benefit of the doubt over the criminals, but I certainly don't think this situation portrayed us in the best light.

Just my $.02, cuz that's about what my opinion is worth.

imported post

By this coming out, rest assured that this site and this movement has gotten everyone's attention.

It is now a war of ideas and words.

Vigilantism will only be the first salvo of words as this movement picks up speed and more momentum.

We could counter this by saying that the detractors are: nanny staters, cringing hand wringers who sit on the side-walk rocking back and forth waiting for the government cheese to arrive, voted most likely to be a chalk-line, voted most likelyto be featured on a segment on America's Most Wanted--as a victim, or what??

Any ideas?

In a war of ideas and words you can't react--you have to be active and seem smarter that the fools attacking you.

For example: there was a OC'r making a bank deposit--a potential robber in a ski mast came into the bank, and upon seeing the open display of the firearm turned and fled.

Is this vigilantism? Not hardly.

We are in an age of lawlessness and disorder. We are in an age where our children train on murder-simulators (Grand Theft Auto). We are in an age where the government and it's LEO's are completely incapable (and in many areas unwilling) to handleor respond to violent crimes in a timely or effective manner. Period.

If vigilantism mean I won't be a chalk line--then I will be labeled a vigilante.

ST

imported post

I'm guessing Heller's finding of an individual right will close thatstupidity loophole.

I wouldn't pay much attention to it. As all such emotional responses, it is by definition a diversion from reason.

If you have to handle such an accusation, I would recommend going to the heart of the matter--personal protection/self-defense--and make the accuser justify his antipathy to the basic human right of self-defense.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Anyone reading some of the posts here can easily get that idea.

There is a situation where aman observes two men exiting his neighbors house who was out of town. He tells the 911 operator he is going to kill them. .. and he does!

Members here then post ...

"Good for Him!"

"Way to go Joe!"

"Thank you Mr. Horn for saving somone else from being victimized by these criminals."

"Good shooting and a good ending. "

"Congratulations Mr Horn.. our prayers for you were answered."

Click to expand...

It can be easily viewed by others that the members here enjoy instant justice bycitizens when lethal forcemay not have beennecessary.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here my my own anddo not representmy family, friends, or my employer in any manner.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! The pizza robbery subject the other day pretty much resembled your example above. Well said!

imported post

smash29 wrote:

+1 there, I was worried that I was the only one whowas a bit uncomfortable with the Joe Horn situation. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy whena legal gun owner gets the benefit of the doubt over the criminals, but I certainly don't think this situation portrayed us in the best light.

Just my $.02, cuz that's about what my opinion is worth.

Click to expand...

I'll give you six cents for that one. Maybe a dime if you'll give me moment to dig around under the car seats.

You're on the mark in thinking it can be used against us, but that isn't saying much, because if they don't have a truth, the anti-self defense crowdjust makes up something. In fact all of their attacks are made up, or carefully twisted facts, and appeals to emotion. All those posters did is give them a brief break from their lying.

What the anti-self defense crowd will"forget" to include is the information that Joe Horn came back on and said, "They came at me." Something that makes no sense as a lie. He was just earlier saying he was going to kill them, feeling totally justified in doing so, then comes back on the phone nervous and scared, saying they came at him. Why say that, if two seconds earlier you were convinced you were justified in just shooting them?A personwouldn't thinkhe needed the additional justification if he already thoughthe was justified.

As to our guys, I just recognize that some people have some very strong feelings about defending property with lethal force, which I think is legal in Texas. Personally, I wouldn't, unless it was something critical to my survival.Foodduring Katrina, or my car during aterrorist strike with adirty bomb.

So who are the anti-gunners to say their opinion is an absolute? Just becausesomebody dreams up a better philosophy, who are they to demand that everybody else recognize it no matter whether that person has ever really been exposedto the philosophy or had time to examineit and decideits value for themselves.If theywere really all that philosophically advanced, the anti-gunners would recognize this and be working like mad to educate as many people as they could, rather than using a better philosophy as a weaponto tearpeople down andput others at the mercy of criminals.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Foodduring Katrina, or my car during aterrorist strike with adirty bomb.

Click to expand...

Kinda off topic, but as far as I know from PBS, and some time spent at a nuclear power plant, a dirty bomb, unless you were REALLY close by would probably not harm you if you were only in that area for as long as it took you to jog or walk out, especially provided you shed your clothing and shower off when you got out of there. As far as I know, the main effect of a dirty bomb is destroying all of the property in the area that gets radioactive material on it, but not really killing or harming many people.

imported post

As I have said before, the antis argue with emotion. Vigilante has an emotional connontation they are trying to exploit.

imported post

Michigander wrote:

Kinda off topic, but as far as I know from PBS, and some time spent at a nuclear power plant, a dirty bomb, unless you were REALLY close by would probably not harm you if you were only in that area for as long as it took you to jog or walk out, especially provided you shed your clothing and shower off when you got out of there. As far as I know, the main effect of a dirty bomb is destroying all of the property in the area that gets radioactive material on it, but not really killing or harming many people.

Click to expand...

Contaminated property is not destroyed property.

Speaking in analogies, radioactive contamination is like poo on your shoe. The poo itself is contamination, scrape it off. The poo stink is like radiation, avoid it, bag it, don't sniff anymore than you must. Clean-up and use time, distance and shielding - ALARA.

imported post

Takezo wrote:

We could counter this by saying that the detractors are: nanny staters, cringing hand wringers who sit on the side-walk rocking back and forth waiting for the government cheese to arrive, voted most likely to be a chalk-line, voted most likelyto be featured on a segment on America's Most Wanted--as a victim, or what??

Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHA. That was classic. I happen to like GTA by the way.

But I do agree about the Joe Horn thing. In fact, there was a thread here when this thing first kicked off and the majority of the posters did NOT agree that it was a good shooting. It seems that since he was cleared of any charges now people are congratulating him. Humans are goofy animals.

imported post

About the topic, we are a committe, sort of, at least we are an organised group, and we have plans to suppress crime if it should happen in a situation that effects us where a cop isn't in the immediate area to take action. We here ARE vigilant in protecting ourselves and others. Seems to me we sort of fit the definition, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

imported post

dreamcro wrote:

Iwas wondering what the OC community thinks of being referred to as vigilantes? In the time I have been carrying a sidearm for my personal protection, I have been, and have seen the carrying movement labled a bunch of vigilantes by many anti' groups. Just because we carry, doesn't mean we are going to over steep he boundaries of law, and enact our own justice on anyone.
:cuss:

What are some of everyones feelings on this?

Click to expand...

OK. A firearm saves your life by threatening to end, or actually ending, your assailant's life. When you fire, you have realized that one of you will probably die if this situation is not drastically altered, and have made the decision that you want to survive it.

Now, you have done so. Someone's dead. The antis then go "oh my god, he played judge and jury. What about the other guy? What did he do to deserve death?" because obviously he didn't kill you.

In order to defend yourself for defending yourself, you first must have had no doubt whatsoever that, if you had not fired,you would have ended up in intensive care at least. The right to survive on its most basic levelis something even the antis recognize; hey, that's why they're so against your killing the other guy.

That being established, you must then demonstrate that a gun is the only defense weapon that will, if used, reliably end the threat. About one guy in 10 is immune to pepper spray (and if you're downwind it's bad for both of you), and a taser or other stungun's usefulness is drastically reduced when the assailant is wearing thick clothing. In addition, dart-type tasers are one-shot deals; you miss, or are faced with two assailants, and it's over. Nobody is naturally immune to 9mm, it goes through most any clothing short of a bulletproof vest, and if your first shot's wide, you generally have at least five more chances as long as there is time to use them.

So, you decided that a gun would be the only thing you could rely on, and when faced with an assailant who would not back down, you shot him. That is not being a vigilante; that is protecting your right to life. Who has the greater right to life; the criminal whom you would have executed anyway for felony murder, or the law abiding citizen who can now continue to be a productive member of society? And if they said you couldn't have known you were going to die, you tell them you were there facing him down; they weren't.

Now, Horn's case involved property. He says, and the cop in the car across the street corroborated, that he only fired when the assailants crossed over onto his property moving toward him. However, he only confronted them because he felt it was wrong for them to commit burglary in front of him when he could do something about it. If he had shot them while they were hanging out the window, he'd probably be awaiting trial as they posed absolutely no danger to him personally; he would have been killing to prevent burglary of a third person who he had no duty to protect,and no interpretation of the TxPC justifies that. So, if you are in fearof loss oflife, you are virtually always justified in shooting to protect it. If you are in fear of loss of property, you better be damn sure it's worth it.

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

dreamcro wrote:

Iwas wondering what the OC community thinks of being referred to as vigilantes? In the time I have been carrying a sidearm for my personal protection, I have been, and have seen the carrying movement labled a bunch of vigilantes by many anti' groups. Just because we carry, doesn't mean we are going to over steep he boundaries of law, and enact our own justice on anyone.
:cuss:

What are some of everyones feelings on this?

Click to expand...

Now, Horn's case involved property. He says, and the cop in the car across the street corroborated, that he only fired when the assailants crossed over onto his property moving toward him. However, he only confronted them because he felt it was wrong for them to commit burglary in front of him when he could do something about it. If he had shot them while they were hanging out the window, he'd probably be awaiting trial as they posed absolutely no danger to him personally; he would have been killing to prevent burglary of a third person who he had no duty to protect,and no interpretation of the TxPC justifies that. So, if you are in fearof loss oflife, you are virtually always justified in shooting to protect it. If you are in fear of loss of property, you better be damn sure it's worth it.

Click to expand...

not in texas, he could've shot them at anytime they were commiting property crime on his or anyone else's property. even if they were running away.

i think its very important to be able to defend property with deadly force.

imported post

johnnyb wrote:

....he could've shot them at anytime they were commiting property crime on his or anyone else's property. even if they were running away.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree here. Even on the mean streets of Dodge City, you didn't shoot somebody in the back. You might grab them and lynch them, but you didn't shoot 'em in the back.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

johnnyb wrote:

....he could've shot them at anytime they were commiting property crime on his or anyone else's property. even if they were running away.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree here. Even on the mean streets of Dodge City, you didn't shoot somebody in the back. You might grab them and lynch them, but you didn't shoot 'em in the back.

Click to expand...

you might not agree with it, but i believe it is legal in texas, and other states with similiar "castle" laws. someone prove me wrong if i am, but in the horn case they were shot in the back while fleeing his yard.

imported post

I'm not saying you are wrong. I just don't think I could shoot somebody in the back unless I knew for a fact that they had just raped, robbed or killed one of my family members. Crimes against property should not carry the death penalty.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

I'm not saying you are wrong. I just don't think I could shoot somebody in the back unless I knew for a fact that they had just raped, robbed or killed one of my family members. Crimes against property should not carry the death penalty.

Click to expand...

it doesn't carry the death penalty, you will not be killed by the state for property crime.

getting killed in the commission of a property crime is not a death sentence.