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.
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.