I’m assuming Grumman was referring to the recent death of Jonathan Ferrell.
‘When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.’
According to The Free Legal Dictionary:
A Wikipedia article says vigilante justice is ‘is extrajudicial punishment that is motivated by the nonexistence of law and order or dissatisfaction with justice. The phrase can also be used to describe a prejudiced judge. Lynching and gunfighting are considered forms of frontier justice.’
Note that vigilante justice refers to extralegal dispensation of a penalty for a crime., and a vigilante is someone who punishes someone without having the legal authority to do so. There is a difference between imposing a penalty for a crime, and arresting a person who has committed a crime. When a person or a group imposes a punishment upon an alleged criminal, that is vigilante justice. If a person who is not a law enforcement officer apprehends an alleged criminal and turns him over to authorities, that is not vigilante justice; it is citizen’s arrest.
Your perception that this is a case of ‘vigilante justice’ is incorrect. It is a case of a citizen acting under common law and state law. The shooter attempted to detain the armed robbers after having called law enforcement. His intention was to detain them and to turn them over to the police, after which they would face trial in the state’s legal system. It was only after the robbers attempted to kill him that he shot them, so that was an instance of justifiable homicide by reason of self-defense.
Suppose you are walking along the street, minding your own business, and you witness someone snatching a woman’s purse. You tackle him as he tries to run by you, and you sit on him until police arrive. Is that ‘vigilante justice’? Or is it a citizen’s arrest? If the latter, how is it different from the case under discussion?
Oddly enough I never had to call the police for any reason when I lived in a rural area and could expect a response time measured in tens of minutes. However, when living in the city I’ve had to call them numerous times and only once have they arrived quickly enough to stop a physical altercation in progress. (Apparently when you tell the nice 911 operator that there are 16-20 young males between the ages of 14 and 19 brawling in your front yard that gets their attention.
I’m not knocking the police as in most cases where I’ve called them they did arrive in a reasonable amount of time. But they can’t be everywhere at once and a lot can happen between the time I call and the seconds or minutes that pass until they arrive. I would agree that most Americans have ready access to assistance from law enforcement but even then the police are unlikely to arrive in time to help you if you’re being assaulted.
By that definition even a simple act of self-defense is vigilantism. Vigilantism is illegal in Mega City One but self-defense isn’t.
Point of order, Judge Dredd doesn’t execute people for robbery because the death penalty in Mega City One only exists for assisting hostile powers during a time of war and for interfering with a Judge while he or she is protecting the security of Mega City One. Judge Dredd would have issued a warning and gunned them down only if they tried to murder him.
Shooting armed robbers instead of fleeing the scene is stupid. It’s also fully justifiable. He saw them committing a felony, he saw them wielding guns to do so, it was perfectly reasonable for him to consider them a threat to his life.
One follows inherently from the other. Unless there is some legal punishment for them doing this, then it follows that they can do it. If there is some legal remedy if this happens, his post did not mention it.
The closest he got to arguing any punishment was saying that they’d be fired. But he made no argument about what would happen if the police chief chose not to fire them.
I can come up with some ideas, like maybe the police chief is elected or is hired by an elected official, meaning that the people can hold him accountable by elections, but that argument was not made in the post.
And, frankly, I don’t agree with a word of it. The idea that the police couldn’t get anything done if they had to deal with the possibility of a lawsuit is stupid. Doctors deal with it just fine without being legally allowed to be negligent. Cops should just have a form of malpractice insurance.
That this didn’t happen is yet another reason I do not like the United States justice system. It would be so nice to be governed by rational people instead of people looking for loopholes.
As noted in Cheesesteak’s post: ""And in Pennsylvania we have always followed the common law rule that** if the felon flees and his arrest cannot be effected without killing him, the killing is justified.**” However, we narrowed the types of felonies for which the rule was applicable and held that:
from this date forward the use of deadly force by a private person in order to prevent the escape of one who has committed a felony or has joined or assisted in the commission of a felony is justified only if the felony committed is treason, murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, arson, robbery…"
Apology accepted.
Hmm, I do not agree with this definition. Resisting someone attacking you would fit this definition. As would running away.
I am trying to determine if that statement is indeed Bull Shit or if it is accurate.
As for Travvon Martin, I was not there and do not know what happened. A jury decided that it was justified. I choose to not second guess the jury.
As far as the shooting of Renisha McBride, That is wrong. She did nothing to threaten the shooter. He is out of line. She should still be alive.
If he was unsure of her, or was thinking that she may have been in cahoots with some thugs. Thugs that may have been hiding in the bushes waiting for her to gain access to his house. Then he should have told her to wait, as he had the police coming to help her. According to him they were already on their way.
I have in the past let a young teen girl into the house with my wife and I. It was dark and snowing. After I locked the door behind her we determined that she did need help. We then helped her out. We got her a warm drink, some clean dry cloths, and we called her mom and dad. She was stuck in the snow and out of gas. I went with her dad and we got her car unstuck and full of gas. That was just being neighborly.
It is not the only reason I approve of the shooting of these thugs, but it is an important part of the reason. Another important part of the reason would be that the thugs were drawing their weapons. It is not logical to stop thugs from breaking the law by breaking the law to stop them.
That’s funny…I hope it is. This kind of stuff needs to be repeated. What’s wrong with 'wild west brand of justice" scenarios?
It is justice, by your own words. Is the ‘wild’ part offensive? Is the ‘west’ part offensive?
Justice was meted out. The shooter saved a lot of trouble for a lot of good people. Two POSes are dead.
Life is funny.
It’s not “justice” and that fact that you’re ignoring the word “unnecessarily” in B. Serum’s post is bothersome. Shooting someone who is going to shoot you is one thing. Provoking them into drawing so that you have an excuse to shoot them is another. I don’t want armed idiots looking for reasons to kill people in the name of justice; that’s a recipe for more and more bloodshed.
Not that the above necessarily pertains to the case at hand, but vigilantism can create more problems than it solves.
Nah, it’s the same thing. Someone committing an armed invasion is going to shoot you. Even if they are turning to apparently leave, they are going to shoot you. Even if they weren’t going to shoot you, you should assume they are going to shoot you. It would be incredibly stupid to just stand there and let them shoot you when you had safer options.
Sure, the worst case scenario is that they are going to shoot you if they have guns.
I don’t believe is was justice, since there was no jury involved, but it is good that there are two less thieves in the world.
Justice does not always involve a jury. Nor is what a jury does always justice.
Attorneys would disagree. 
Perhaps it was justice, but not Justice.
Well hey, tuition ain’t gonna pay for itself.
:eek: I’ve been to Bangkok and know what kind of kinky things you guys are into.