Amazon.com Widgets
  • Vigilantism is what makes the law.

    When you find that something is wrong with the law, you do not wait for the thing to be recorded into the law, be allowing the victims to suffer. You will do what you can to stop the injustice for that moment, and then wait for the law to change.

    For example, when we see someone is being hurt badly with a harmless thing, we cannot interfere in the situation as a third person when we follow law strictly. If he doesn't listen when we yell at him, we choose to attack the attacker with whatever we got till he is stopped. If we do not possess the quality of vigilante, we are only allowed to shout at the attacker. At most, get beaten instead. We have to fight for a cause, when we should. Law is not divine. It is just being manipulated by people all the time. Being changed. Collective good of society is what actually matters.

  • The justice system is flawed

    In this modern era the justice system has become increasingly biased and lax. For example, Brock Turner. The Stanford swimmer who raped an unconscious woman was given a sickeningly light sentence of only six months, whereas the average sentence for rape in the United States is on average 11.8 years. Turner is a young, white man of affluent background who has probably been pampered most of his life. Also the police are actually more of a danger to society than and actual vigilante due to the excessive amount of firepower that the police are given such as armored personnel carriers, assault rifles, submachine guns, flash bang grenades, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. This has lead to the deaths of numerous unarmed minorities due to the trigger-happy tendencies of police, and when these events transpire the police are almost never punished. That being said, as the great Alan Moore once put it, " there are so many deserving of retribution ... And there is so little time"

  • It is very important

    I am the son of a police officer he is pretty good at his job, but he has told me that he believes if people could stop the people they should be able to. People should not be able top kill only subdue and hold until the police can come

  • A bit of both

    The justice system has to be enforced. People should be found guilty this way. But this can't be achieved if corruption is present in every step along the way. Criminals should be punished according to the justice system. However there are times when someone has to go outside the law in order to do the right thing. People should not be reckless any get carried away with this but sometimes there are thing which have to be done in order to protect the greater good.

  • Police are useless

    There is no justice, only justice you make yourself, i learned this over and over again the hard way. Bring forth our heroes, our next door neighbours with the balls to do something. It is wrong to rely on authorities when authorities bow down to the man with the most change in his pocket, we must bow down to the man with the most change in his heart.

  • Dieing is bad, especially slow... But some people need to....…...

    Some people deserve to die, SLOWLY not quickly, because if they kill someone who does not deserve to die then they do and I'm not talking about bank robbers ( unleast they murder someone durninga, after or before) , I'm not talking about the drunk drivers , I'm not talking about the pickpockets or the thief's, I'm talking about the tourters, I'm talking about he terrorist , I'm talking about the murders who kill in cold blood and the bloody rapist!! Prison isn't good enough for them!! They don't even deserve the mercy of the death sentence!! I know its gonna be fucking depressing for they're family, but hey that's not my problem and hey what do you think is the difference between them them and offender's victims family hey!! I asked my step parents when I was a child what they thought of vigilants and you know what they said?? Vigilantes are just as bad! Well you know what I fuck you gov!!

  • Vigilantes should be allowed to help protect the law.

    Vigilantism is good because the citizens should be allowed to take the law into their own hands. I am not saying that we should get rid of cops and have groups of random people attack criminals. I am saying that citizens should be able to help instead of always being ignored by the police. About 18 people are killed in a mass shooting stopped by police. About three people are killed in a mass shooting stopped by civilians.

  • What do you think is meant by government by the people

    Contrary to popular belief in many parts of the united states citizens have the authority to perform arrests and give tickets. The outcome of this activity is still dependent upon the findings of a court of law. This is as it should be. In some places these powers are withheld from the public while crime is ignored or supported by the government. Asserting the innate authority we possess to protect life and liberty is a good thing. Though I suppose by the strictest definition what I have described isnt vigilantyism but I use the word chosen by despots to disinfranchise the true authorities. In other words protecting our rights is good though it should not be truly lawless. Pluss im batman

  • I am batman

    I am batman
    i am batman
    i am batman
    i am batman
    i am batman
    i am batman
    i am batman
    vi am batman
    i am batman
    i am batman
    i am batman
    i am batman
    i am batman
    i am batman
    i am batman
    i am batman
    i am batman
    i am batman

  • You liberal pukes are all a bunch of commies.

    You who say that vigilante justice is bad are basically saying you would let someone kill your family and wait years for police to catch and justify them.... Really? You commies. And and and and and and and and and and and and and. That's is just to fill words.

  • Yes and NO

    I think that vigilantes can be really bad because they can hurt an innocent person. But I don't consider simply defending yourself when the threat is coming at you vigilantism. That is different. But say that a man was falsely accused of rape. He may even have evidence to prove his innocence in court. But vigilantes decided to take the law into their own hands without due process. Then they are the once destroying life.

  • It is wrong in most cases.

    Most countries have a justice system which is sufficient enough to take care of criminals. This means that everyday citizens don't have to do anything to put themselves in harms way and also in these countries, The policing authority would be well trained to deal with different types of crimes. I would only condone this in countries where the justice system in insufficient, Where the cops or justice system are corrupt or underfunded to deal with criminals. My personal definition of vigilantism is that a person goes out of their way to kill injure/kill a person and not someone who injure/kills someone because they are defending themselves.

  • Vigilantism can mean that someone killed someone for doing a small crime.

    People get imprisoned for murder, Drug dealing etc. But vigilantism means that people get KILLED for small crimes that would usually just get house arrest or jail. If you stole a bag of chips and got killed for it, Your ghost would probably be like, "Hey! How come the people who are dealing drugs get to prison, But I'm dead! ? Huh! ? What's wrong with this justice system? "

  • There are no good way to do a wrong thing.

    Vigilantism is bad. Laws do change and constantly evolve with each new paradigm shifting crimes but that doesn't mean that in such twilight situations an ordinary joe should handle the situation. Even in those situations it is courts which will act via the law-enforcers. In times of emergency also people can act acc to a 'Good Samaritan Law'. The vigilante may have different beliefs and different understanding on the severity of punishment that s/he might mete out. . . Something that will open a pandora's box of chaos and trouble in the society. There should be clear cut laws on how courts should act, Strict profiling of Cops with body cameras, Proper Samaritan laws and complete banning of Vigilantism.

  • You may think you are batman but you are not

    Let's face it: vigilantes are criminals in a sense. I read about this mob who buried a rapper alive with the person he raped to death. Well, First of all, You can't just say oh that's what Batman would have done and you are off the hook. Second, You can't just say I THINK he did it. Then you just wasted an innocent life. Lastly, Can't you give the person a reason to speak for himself before you rip him/her to pieces?

  • Life is not a comic book, You are not batman!

    Vigilantism refers to being a Vigilante. A person like batman. We are not talking about whether or not self defense is justified or protecting the innocence. Those things are all different arguments. We are talking about the act of taking the law into your own hands and actively seeking out people who you believe to be criminals and assaulting to subdue or kill them. An example of this would be:
    If you could kill a murderer right now, You have a high level of certainty that he is a murderer, You can kill him and there will be no consequences for you, Would you do it? No one would ever know but you. If your answer is anything but a resounding NO, You need to rethink your moral system.

    This should never be allowed under any circumstance. Not only do you not have the authority to decide who lives or dies, You are also not all knowing. You can not be 100% certain the person you believe to be a criminal is actually a criminal unless you catch them red handed. Assaulting or killing innocent people even at a 1 - 100 ratio would not be a worthy trade off. Life is precious and no one should have the right to take someone else's life away. The only time vigilantism should be used to stop a criminal would be when the legal system fails. So if you have proof that the local police in your neighborhood were being payed off by a drug lord to ignore the drug dealing going on in your town, You would be somewhat justified in subduing and bringing the criminals to justice yourself. This is assuming you have first tried to alert as many people as possible of the illegal police collusion so that other law enforcement can come relieve them of their positions and protect the town corrects. And assuming you could stop the criminals without killing any of them. Knowing criminals you won't have a high likely-hood of doing that without risking your own life, Which isnt worth it.

    In conclusion, Vigilantism is not morally justified unless in the utmost lack of the law and should never be used as a method to solve problems. Alert law enforcement. They are more reliable than a single person who could get the facts wrong, Or have a bad day and take it upon themselves to hurt someone who breaks their personal belief on what constitutes right and wrong and kill an innocent person. Leave the law to the legal system, It might have some flaws and get people who are innocent wrongly convicted from time to time but I promise you they can do a better job of protecting your neighborhood or town or whole state/province than you can as an individual. Maybe in single instances with home break ins it would be justified to take the law into your own hands but like I said, Self defense is a completely different argument.

  • Vigilantes are good

    The police most of the time arrives like 20 mins late. Me and my friends (3 of us) were just walking then some kids attacked us with rocks and started to throw rocks at my friends house in which we stayed in for shelter. The police arrived 20 mins later. Here would be a good thing to have a vigilante around just to teach them a lesson

  • Why Vigilantes suck, - perfect for School Debates

    Vigilantes suck because:
    They cost the US government about $150 billion each year to deal with
    They often attack police officers when a police officer intervenes
    They use all their force and they think they are protecting people but they actually kill around 150, 000 each year and have increased the crime rate by 120. 6% in the last 5 years.

    Sources:
    timeslipsoftworks. Com › vigilantes
    https://www. Theguardian. Com › world › jul › mexico-vigilantes-violence-and. . .
    Library Archives
    Department of Agriculture and Resources
    Department of National Defense

  • Vigilantism is good

    When people are getting killed right in front of you would you just let it happen? Anyone in their right mind would at least stop the criminal before the could get away from the crime scene, Or what if someone was robbing your house would you let them steal your personal belongings? No you wouldn't you'd at least try to stop them you wouldn't just wait for police. End Of Statement.

  • No, It is a crime.

    You may like what they are doing, I do too. But it's still a crime, Murdering someone instead of putting them away or letting the police deal with the victim, The person should rot in jail, Not die. That's my point, It's not a point it's a las, End of conversation


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.