Mexico legalizes vigilantes

[Batousaii]

MEXICO CITY — Mexico essentially legalized the country's growing "self-defense" groups Monday, while also announcing that security forces had captured one of the four top leaders of the Knights Templar drug cartel, which the vigilante groups have been fighting for the last year.
The government said it had reached an agreement with vigilante leaders to incorporate the armed civilian groups into old and largely forgotten quasi-military units called the Rural Defense Corps. Vigilante groups estimate their numbers at 20,000 men under arms.

* And yet the Mexican government DARES condem the USA for it's desire to retain an armed citizenship, hypocrisy at it's best.

[video=youtube_share;TGICQHSjf6w]http://youtu.be/TGICQHSjf6w[/video]


http://news.msn.com/world/mexico-legalizes-vigilantes-nabs-cartel-leader

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/governor-signs-pact-to-legalize-vigilantes-in-west-mexico

 

[Grim_Night]

and this affects Washington state how?

 

[Grapeshot]

and this affects Washington state how?

It doesn't - moved it to General Discussion.

 

[Batousaii]

Grim? Really?… yer a thread Nazi?... Good job … I wouldn’t have guessed.

• My point of the thread, is how we as Americans, dealing with our own types of cartels; Bloods, Crips, MS13, Folks, even Arian Nation etc. etc. Where certain parts of our own state (yes that’s WA State) have allot of death and destruction at the hands of criminal elements, and how we ourselves may have to resort to similar in the future if our own state of affairs doesn’t change… I personally think this article gives allot of food for thought, a forewarning of sorts. It’s happening to our neighbors, and our economy isn’t getting better… This could be us we we dont get our sh!t straight.
• So in that sense – YES, it has to do with us here in WA, or any state for that matter.
• Last, if you don’t like my thread… doors over there... I dont go in to your thread and flip you crap.

Grapeshot, Thank you for moving the thread. Politely done I can handle...rudeness or snide comments however is uncalled for.I didnt appreciate the snark... To be honest, thats exactly why my activity/involvement here has slowed down. I still come read, but my posts are sparse, and likely sparser yet since not much has changed it seems.

 

[Citizen]

Grim? Really?… yer a thread Nazi?... Good job … I wouldn’t have guessed.

• My point of the thread, is how we as Americans, dealing with our own types of cartels; Bloods, Crips, MS13, Folks, even Arian Nation etc. etc. Where certain parts of our own state (yes that’s WA State) have allot of death and destruction at the hands of criminal elements, and how we ourselves may have to resort to similar in the future if our own state of affairs doesn’t change… I personally think this article gives allot of food for thought, a forewarning of sorts. It’s happening to our neighbors, and our economy isn’t getting better… This could be us we we dont get our sh!t straight.
• So in that sense – YES, it has to do with us here in WA, or any state for that matter.
• Last, if you don’t like my thread… doors over there... I dont go in to your thread and flip you crap.

Grapeshot, Thank you for moving the thread. Politely done I can handle...rudeness or snide comments however is uncalled for.I didnt appreciate the snark... To be honest, thats exactly why my activity/involvement here has slowed down. I still come read, but my posts are sparse, and likely sparser yet since not much has changed it seems.

+1 It gives a great example of how people can cooperate under arms. I don't think anybody said so, but those are basically the Mexican militia preserving their security and freedom (from the drug criminals).

I can see your point about the snarky comment. If it were allowed, I'd point out the moderator's jumping on the same bandwagon. If I were allowed to say so, I'd highlight his failure to see the obvious point. About the only thanks to be offered is for moving the thread to General Discussion where it will get more exposure, which of course wasn't his motive for moving it as evidenced by the remark he quoted and his own comment.

 

[Grapeshot]

+1 It gives a great example of how people can cooperate under arms. I don't think anybody said so, but those are basically the Mexican militia preserving their security and freedom (from the drug criminals).

I can see your point about the snarky comment. If it were allowed, I'd point out the moderator's jumping on the same bandwagon. If I were allowed to say so, I'd highlight his failure to see the obvious point. About the only thanks to be offered is for moving the thread to General Discussion where it will get more exposure, which of course wasn't his motive for moving it as evidenced by the remark he quoted and his own comment.

Should have said, "It effects Washington no more or no less than any other state." The application to all states is equal and was the sole reason for moving it.

The question was legitimate and the OPs intent and reference to gangs etc. was not clearly made initially, but changes nothing insofar as where the thread should reside.

No jumping on any band wagon unless you are riding one. Suggest you not go there.

 

[OC for ME]

Well.....does not WA have some provision in the law that do not hinder too greatly "vigilante" groups for common self defense? I thought that the subject was broached some time ago in the WA sub-forum, could be wrong, or wrong state. Anyway, so, if it is true that WA does have some provision in the law for a "Rural Defense Corps", then this is specific to the WA sub-forum. I would be surprised if all of the other 57 states have such a provision in their statutes.....which they do not!!

Move this thread back to the WA sub-forum where it belongs, a "Rural Defense Corps", as identified in the op, is not permitted under Missouri law.

But, I could be wrong, except the MO law part, that is.

 

[Grapeshot]

Well.....does not WA have some provision in the law that do not hinder too greatly "vigilante" groups for common self defense? I thought that the subject was broached some time ago in the WA sub-forum, could be wrong, or wrong state. Anyway, so, if it is true that WA does have some provision in the law for a "Rural Defense Corps", then this is specific to the WA sub-forum. I would be surprised if all of the other 57 states have such a provision in their statutes.....which they do not!!

Move this thread back to the WA sub-forum where it belongs, a "Rural Defense Corps", as identified in the op, is not permitted under Missouri law.

But, I could be wrong, except the MO law part, that is.

Some do have such provisions - Virginia is one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Defense_Force

Also Georgia and Colorado references were easily found.

"Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 22 states, plus Puerto Rico, have active SDFs with different levels of activity, support, and strength."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Good find Shannon! Been following what has happened there isn't it funny how government always acts after the citizens do, in manners like these.

 

[OC for ME]

Some do have such provisions - Virginia is one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Defense_Force

Also Georgia and Colorado references were easily found.

"Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 22 states, plus Puerto Rico, have active SDFs with different levels of activity, support, and strength."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

I do not dispute that this is a interesting discussion. I dispute that citing "defense forces" of the several states is the equivalent of sanctioning vigilantism, retroactively giving them legitimacy, which is what the op is regarding.

The government said it had reached an agreement with vigilante leaders to incorporate the armed civilian groups into old and largely forgotten quasi-military units called the Rural Defense Corps.

Do you contend that the VDF is the equivalent of the now legitimized RDC in Mexico?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurales

I contend that no American militia was ever intended to be a Ruales equivalent.

But, since you make such a contention , I retract my call to move this thread back to the WA sub-forum.

 

[Grapeshot]

I do not dispute that this is a interesting discussion. I dispute that citing "defense forces" of the several states is the equivalent of sanctioning vigilantism, retroactively giving them legitimacy, which is what the op is regarding.

Do you contend that the VDF is the equivalent of the now legitimized RDC in Mexico?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurales

I contend that no American militia was ever intended to be a Ruales equivalent.

But, since you make such a contention , I retract my call to move this thread back to the WA sub-forum.

No they are not mirror images - no vigilantism here, but it is people preparing to defend their own turf.

 

[OC for ME]

No they are not mirror images - no vigilantism here, but it is people preparing to defend their own turf.

You are correct. But, your examples are state action in response to a threat, calling upon the people to come to the aid of the state. MO does have such a provision.

In Mexico, the state did nothing to "protect" the people because of the symbiotic relationship between drug cartels and the state, at least as far as the vigilantes were concerned. The only reason the Mexican government came to an agreement is because there are/were ~20,000 "former" vigilantes, well armed vigilantes by the way, doing what the state did not do, fight crime.

How would your state government deal with that large a segment of the population fed up with their government? It seems that the Mexican government chose to embrace their fellow citizens and provide them legitimacy. I suspect that our government(s) would choose a "slightly different course" here in de Estados Unidos.

There is only one thing that can even be remotely comparable in my view, armed citizens will only take so much from their government, or tolerate inaction by their government only for so long.

How about this, ~20,000 armed citizen, well armed citizens by the way, fed up with their governments inaction regarding the war on drugs, band together and start dealing with the crime and criminals. What do you think the state will be tasking the militia to do, assist the ~20,000 fed up citizens, or smash the lawless violent vigilantes? I'll wager that a call into the federales for assistance is not far removed from the order to mobilize the militia.

Night and day my friend, night and day.

 

[acmariner99]

My only problem with this is now the vigilante groups are under the authority of the elements they are trying to operate independently of. They also have to register their weapons with the army in order to keep them. Sounds like Mexico is slightly embarrassed about the effectiveness of a citizenry under arms - not to mention the actions of the Mexican gov't may curtail their effectiveness, worst case scenario, even stop it altogether. The Federal police and the Army are the least corrupted agencies in Mexico IMO, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were still prevalent.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

321.51 State defense force authorized. (1) AUTHORITY
The adjutant general may establish a plan for organizing a military force to be known as the “state defense force.” The governor, or adjutant general if designated by the governor, may organize the state defense force, which may include an aviation unit, if all or part of the national guard is called into federal active duty. The state defense force shall be a uniformed force distinct from the national guard, composed of commissioned or assigned officers and enlisted personnel who volunteer for service. A person who is on active duty in the U.S. armed forces, including the active reserve components, may not serve in the state defense force. A person in the retired or inactive reserve may serve in the state defense force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_State_Defense_Force

Didn't Obama threaten to try to charge with treason a bunch of Governors for setting up their State Defense Forces? I remember seeing something about it but didn't bother to find out the details. Edit: Apparently not - http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/governors.asp

 

[stealthyeliminator]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/governors.asp

Hm thanks. I updated my post to include the link you provided as to hopefully prevent the rumor from spreading as a result of my post.