Vigilanteism and why people try to link us to it?

imported post

Vigilantism was the choice of action when this country was founded.


http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

imported post

Michigander wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

And that's the issue right there.

I carry a gun to stop a threat or threats to my life and health, or that of loved ones. And if that shooting happens to stop a murder in progress, or a rape in progress, then so be it. And if the aggressor dies as a result, I'm prepared to accept that. And perhaps, if I ever have to stop a threat in such a manner, it will send a message to other would-be assailants that armed citizens do not want to be the victims of violent crime.

Others on here feel a bit differently, and will shoot to stop threats to the well-being of property as well. Without going into that argument, even this line of thinking does not involve seeking out crime. It's defense... of property.

It's the punishment aspect that is seen as vigilanteism. I would say that the vast majority of us don't intend to punish, but just to protect life and property. This is why shooting in the back is such a contentious issue. If someone is committing a violent crime and decides to cease the attack and run away, the threat has ended, ending the justification for use of force to stop the attack. A shooting in this situation would be gratuitous and serve no legitimate purpose besides satisfying revenge. Just like property crime... if someone is running away with property, chances are that shooting the person will most likely destroy the property, either due to the impact of hitting the ground or the blood that is presumably leaking out of the thief. So, once again, revenge.

There's a BS (IMO ) argument out there that shooting fleeing criminals will prevent future crime. Unfortunately, this fails to take into account the inability of the average person to instantly know the actions another person will take for the rest of his life. Sure, that beer thief might go run off and murder someone... or said beer theif might be scared sh*tless from getting drawn on and decide on more legitimate means of getting beer in the future. There are other issues as well, but I feel that I am digressing.

At any rate, it's the attitude that gun owners take toward shooting. A bad guy's getting shot will indeed have an impact on crime. It's a matter of intent as to whether it is self-defense or vigilanteism.

imported post

johnnyb wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

No. If you shoot someone fleeing from your own house with your stuff, that's legal. If you shoot someone fleeing from your house empty-handed, or fleeing from your neighbors' house laden or not, you are going to jail.

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Click to expand...

You are allowed to PROTECT a third person's property, not RECOVER it. You are only allowed to shoot to recover your own stuff while in hot pursuit.


And on Horn; he shot when the suspects advanced toward him on his property, or so he testified.

imported post

I'll say this about the TX law: I personally would never shoot anyone just for stealing my tires or whatever. But if I really needed a set of tires so bad I felt had to steal them, I would steal them in some state other than Texas...say, Maryland or New York maybe.

But not New Jersey. I grew up in New Jersey, and regardless of the anti-gun laws I wouldn't be so foolish as to steal tires from there, either, you still might get shot, or even worse...we might not have "vigilantes" in Jersey, but we did have...other ways.

imported post

"sweatshop" -
misleading emotionally bagged slur for foreign manual/industrial labor, who are otherwise voluntarily employed at the shop in question / used by xenophobic labor unions and economic protectionists of all kinds

"whores and pimps" -
mainly derogatory terms for those engaged in the illegal market of selling sexual services.

"druggie" -
derogatory term for use against anyone who is a purchaser of certain drugs that certain people find offensive to their personal tastes / people who participate in the purchase of the same illegal products

"vigilante" -
a term for persons who like the 2 later examples bypass state prohibitions on the production of a good or service, in this case justice. And like the first term, is based mostly upon false premises about supposed evils of the practice (usually accompanied by the standard pleas for the 'need' for monopolies on the provision of law and justice) and is equally a bit of emotional heart-stringing

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

johnnyb wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

No. If you shoot someone fleeing from your own house with your stuff, that's legal. If you shoot someone fleeing from your house empty-handed, or fleeing from your neighbors' house laden or not, you are going to jail.

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Click to expand...

You are allowed to PROTECT a third person's property, not RECOVER it. You are only allowed to shoot to recover your own stuff while in hot pursuit.


And on Horn; he shot when the suspects advanced toward him on his property, or so he testified.

Click to expand...

thanks for the clearification

imported post

After hearing the 911 tapes, I believe that Horn wanted to kill someone, saw the opportunity and did it. The only reason he "got away with murder" is because a police officer witnessed the event and testified on Horn's behalf.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

ALARA- Always Let Another Run Ahead...

sorry, I just got finished with my Rad II training, and thought this was timed very well. as far as dirty6 bombs go, the problem is that in order to decontaminate everything, you've got to know that it is contaminated in the first place. A dirty bomb is simply that, it is a conventional bomb with nuclear radioactive isotopes added in. on a windy day, the particles released could possibly spread quite far. while the radiation levels wouldn't be enough on the outskirts of the contamination area, the public would be terrified. that's why terrorists want to use them. they are a tool of terror.

As for joe Horn, I still congratulate the man.

As for being a branded a vigilante, to anti's the very act of defending one's self is considered to be taking the law into your own hands, since their ideal response would be to lay down and be slaughtered like good little lambs.

they want to call us vigilante's because they don't want to call themselves voluntary victims.

IMHO

imported post

I agree. The members of this board have taught me a great deal in the past 8 months and reminded me of many other things I once knew.
Things like: the danger of militarization of police; the 4th amendment; the duty to self-defense in the writings of the founders; the dangers of being judged by current public opinion (the tyranny of the majority); the origins of modern police; etc.

I have come to believe that our (RKBA'ers) acceptance and even dependence upon police represents our very own little nanny-statism.

Do I think it politically wise to let the police handle all troubling interaction with criminals? Yes.

Do I think that specific attitude is very close to the root cause of all the struggle we have with acceptance of the RKBA and the law enforcement hassles some of our colleagues have endured? Yes.

(Let the flames commence...)

imported post

Custodian wrote:

Vigilantism was the choice of action when this country was founded.


http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Click to expand...

That is a great article - worthy of the time to read it all. Thanks for the link.