Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics Ain't This America Vigilantism - why isn’t it illegal?

One of the main factors in both the Arbery and Rittenhouse cases involves vigilantism. And a lot of the chatter among wingnutters, particularly in the Rittenhouse case, is supportive of “cleaning house of the Lefty scum” without the annoyance of having to follow the law - heroic citizens righteously just doing what is right. Give ‘em a medal fer chrissakes!

Vigilantism is not illegal - taking the law into your own hands is not against the law, “citizen’s arrest” is a real thing, even though, like self-defense, how do you know if it’s justified? If a citizen tries to stop a criminal, and the criminal fears harm, and kills the citizen, isn’t that self-defense? According to the KR case it is.

Allowing lethal stand-your-ground style self-defense and vigilantism are both pathways to violent anarchy and chaos. They are the antithesis of government.

Standing up to thugs and bullies and thieves seems to be sort of ingrained into the human psyche. Knowing when you're outgunned and need to back down is also a useful survival instinct. We are practically hard-wired to defend ourselves under duress. And sometimes can't be held responsible for our actions.

Vigilanism on the other hand is like Neighborhood Watch where volunteers keep an eye on the streets at night because police patrols are few and far between. Back when I had teevee I remember Sherriff Gunsmoke used to just deputized Festus and Gomez when the LEO force was shorthanded. It's the most honorable thing a fellow can do...stepping up and protecting property and rights when they are threatened.

Pathways to chaos and violence? Antithesis to government? Seems both are simply phenomena that happen on a personal level and at a societal level.

I am, yet again, a bit confused. It seems that if police kill the unarmed they get hung out to dry. On the other hand, if you are not the police you get to kill the unarmed?

That makes no sense, I must be wrong?

Yer gonna hafta bone up on boneheadedness if ya want to argue like a wingnut...that was pathetic! Not a single nod to the 2nd, or acknowledgment that Festus and Gomez warn't red-blooded, patriotic, independent goddam vigilantes! Vigilantes don' need no stinkin' Marshal to deputize 'em...

Smoke 'em if ya got 'em in yer sights!!!

I'm not arguing like a wingnut, I'm trying to see any logic in what you said.

Defending yourself is the antithesis of government and leads violent anarchy?

Civilians protecting life and property from rioting mobs is a bad thing?

I think maybe the rioting mobs might be closer to violent anarchy and the antithesis of government than someone protecting private property. But YMMV.

Probably has something to do with the difference between "well regulated militias" (might be like Marshal Dillon and his deputies) and unregulated wingnuts (vigilantes, acting as police, judges, and executioners) taking the law into their own hands.

I never gave an opinion on rioters. But I suppose they are much like vigilantes in that they think unregulated aggression and force is a good and productive endeavor for concerned citizens to pursue.

Do you think folks taking their guns out to 'enforce' on others is a trend that we want to see grow? Like the Georgia vigilantes?

No. Do you think rioting in the streets is a trend we want to see grow?

I thought I addressed that in my last post, but to be clear, "No'.

It might be a good thing, but young Kyle's vigilantism went in the opposite direction and turns out the math shows on balance a negative number on his protection scorecard. Same with the Georgia boys.

Suppose there had been some regulation on vigilantes, say like you need to get a 'Vigilante permit' from local government before you get to go be an enforcer - I can think of quite a few conditions that I would attach to permission, such as proof of having received a certain amount of appropriate training, along with a list of possible liabilities that a permitted vigilante could face if things went sideways. Though probably we wouldn't call a certified vigilante a vigilante anymore - might call them 'deputies' instead.

I haven't followed either case closely. But my take on the Georgia Boys was that they saw a N-word in their neighborhood, armed themselves, chased him and ultimately killed him.

In Kenosha a mob saw an armed man chased him attacked him and some were ultimately killed.

Suppose there had been some regulation on rioting, say like you need to get a rioting permit. Training in rioting and disarming teenagers without getting killed....

Then would the rioters also be deputies?

Laws are already in place regarding weapons and the open or concealed carry thereof and of their lawful use. Laws are in place regarding damage to private property. Regulations as it were.

Regulations that apply the same to everyone.

The armed man was a boy who went to Kenosha with a “semi-automatic hunting rifle” ostensibly to protect life and property from rioters - I think that fits the definition of a vigilante. It went sideways due to a number of causes.

Protests are already regulated, but law enforcement wasn’t controlling it - neither was Rittenhouse, in fact he escalated it. That’s why I think vigilantism needs to be regulated in the need for public safety.