You obviously would have to be very exact in determining when "justice" should be served, but I think there is merit to the concept.
For example, I think most reasonable people would agree that O.J. Simpson needs to be taken out. On the flip side, Jack Ruby carried out a public service.
I know a lot of people on this board will see me as some sort of sociopath, but I just get sick of the bad guys getting off easy.
Why should OJ be taken out? Did he do something to you? Was he convicted of killing someone? Didn't think so...idiot. Before you think about taking someone else out, take yourself out first.
you're sort of an idiot. Way more bad guys get off and way more good guys get hurt with vigilante justice than with the system we have now. Vigilante "justice" is just a crappy version of what we have now.
huh? wrote:
Why should OJ be taken out? Did he do something to you? Was he convicted of killing someone? Didn't think so...idiot. Before you think about taking someone else out, take yourself out first.
No, Juice didn't do anything to me, but it does stick in my craw that he got away with lopping off the heads of Ron and Nicole. Oh, wait, I forgot that he's scouring golf courses across the land for the real killer.
I'll just put you down your vote as being in favor of criminals getting away with murder. Thanks.
frank. wrote:
you're sort of an idiot. Way more bad guys get off and way more good guys get hurt with vigilante justice than with the system we have now. Vigilante "justice" is just a crappy version of what we have now.
Sorry, Weiner...errr...Frank, but you're the idiot. At the very least you conveniently passed over my acknowledgement of the need to be very "exact" in the science.
Done properly, vigilante justice ensures that criminals always get what's coming to them when the convoluted legal system fails. If you disagree, then I'll just put your vote down as being in favor of crime going unpunished. Thanks.
At work one night, there was an argument going on about how many appeals deathrow inmates get. Some co-workers were adamant that upon the guilty verdict being handed down, the accused be taken outside and hung. No appeals and that if a few innocent people were offed, well, that's just another reason to keep your nose clean. I asked what if it was their kid who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and incorrectly accused and tried. Would you want them to not have an appeals option. A lot of back-pedalling and spewage of vague scenarios were produced after that but they were still pretty certain that if the "correct" person was found guilty, fry 'em fast. A little bit scary if you ask me.
progression wrote:
At work one night, there was an argument going on about how many appeals deathrow inmates get. Some co-workers were adamant that upon the guilty verdict being handed down, the accused be taken outside and hung. No appeals and that if a few innocent people were offed, well, that's just another reason to keep your nose clean. I asked what if it was their kid who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and incorrectly accused and tried. Would you want them to not have an appeals option. A lot of back-pedalling and spewage of vague scenarios were produced after that but they were still pretty certain that if the "correct" person was found guilty, fry 'em fast. A little bit scary if you ask me.
Granted, there are exceptions to every rule. But again using O.J. Simpson as an example, here is a guy who was clearly guilty of murder and got away with it. He needs to go down.
Here's another example: Several years ago in the city where I live, a gunman went into a Denny's restaurant and created a hostage situation. He went on to kill a few people and, in the end, he waltzed out and went to trial. There was absolutely no question about who did the crime and it was OBVIOUSLY CLEAR that the guy had killed people, so why didn't someone simply execute before he even got in the back seat of the police car? To do otherwise was a waste of time and taxpayers' money. Period.
At the risk of answering a troll. Vigilante "justice" has been inacted in our past. Why don't you do a quick search of lynchings in the south before you go on spewing half thought out ideas. The vigilante is often not a single individual, but a mob. Most of the time mobs are not a desirable scenario. As for the guy that shot up a Denny's and walked out. I'd be willing to bet the trial was an open and shut case and he was properly sentenced.
"WE COULD KILL EVERYONE!"
while i don't think Boondock Saints-style vigilante justice is something you really want to start in a country that actually has a criminal justice system (flawed though it may be), when i read things like this i would have absolutely no qualms about flying to africa, picking up an AK-47 and hunting these motherf***ers down:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/world/africa/07congo.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Charles Bronson wrote:
huh? wrote:Why should OJ be taken out? Did he do something to you? Was he convicted of killing someone? Didn't think so...idiot. Before you think about taking someone else out, take yourself out first.
No, Juice didn't do anything to me, but it does stick in my craw that he got away with lopping off the heads of Ron and Nicole. Oh, wait, I forgot that he's scouring golf courses across the land for the real killer.
I'll just put you down your vote as being in favor of criminals getting away with murder. Thanks.
That's cute. The simple mind of someone who does not understand the law. OJ never murdered anyone. I can go down to the courthouse in LA and find the documents to prove it to you. NOT GUILTY! Anyway, you're obviously not much of a reader. I'm certain if we did things your way (old West style with no law) you're the first pansy that would get his ass shot for touching someone's kid inappropriately.
Charles Bronson wrote:
For example, I think most reasonable people would agree that O.J. Simpson needs to be taken out. On the flip side, Jack Ruby carried out a public service.
Jack Ruby completed the coverup. Oswald was a patsy
Do you guys actually believe that OJ is innocent?
qxzc wrote
That's cute. The simple mind of someone who does not understand the law. OJ never murdered anyone. I can go down to the courthouse in LA and find the documents to prove it to you. NOT GUILTY! Anyway, you're obviously not much of a reader. I'm certain if we did things your way (old West style with no law) you're the first pansy that would get his ass shot for touching someone's kid inappropriately.
Any proof the paper documentation provides is a mere technicality and you know it. The moronic verdict rendered by the juror notwithstanding, O.J. was guilty and still walked. There is no question.
BTW, it's interesting that the inappropriate touching of children is immediately comes to your mind. For the sake of your community, I hope your name is on a current list of known sexual deviants. Maybe some justice will be carried out on you, pervert!
Oh no, he's using bold letters now. Someone is angry. Btw, I don't "believe OJ is innocent." I know OJ is innocent. Sorry guys, it's not a technicality. Everyone makes the stupid technicality argument until it's the overzealous police and prosecutors up against them. Then it becomes, "they violated my rights." So shut up with it.
Oh, and the remark I made about touching children wasn't projection on my part. It was actually grounded in the reality that a lot of serial killers, child molesters, etc. are obsessed with the law (even though they are not lawyers, legislators, or police officers--think the BTK guy). You seem to fall in this category quite nicely.
qxzc wrote:
Btw, I don't "believe OJ is innocent." I know OJ is innocent. Sorry guys, it's not a technicality.
So you are the "real" killer then?
qxzc wrote:
I know OJ is innocent. Sorry guys, it's not a technicality.
If I go out and kill someone, but due to lack of evidence I am found "not guilty", does that mean that I am "innocent" in your world?
cereal killer wrote:
qxzc wrote:I know OJ is innocent. Sorry guys, it's not a technicality.
If I go out and kill someone, but due to lack of evidence I am found "not guilty", does that mean that I am "innocent" in your world?
How dumb are you people? The original poster here said OJ is a murderer. He is wrong. OJ was found not guilty of murder. End of issue. In my world, which is based on the rule of law, OJ is not guilty of murder. Did OJ kill his crackhead ex-wife and her lover? Maybe. NO ONE really knows except OJ and two dead assholes. But did he murder them? No. I personally think Marcus Allen had something to do with it.
qxzc wrote:
How dumb are you people? The original poster here said OJ is a murderer. He is wrong. OJ was found not guilty of murder. End of issue. In my world, which is based on the rule of law, OJ is not guilty of murder. Did OJ kill his crackhead ex-wife and her lover? Maybe. NO ONE really knows except OJ and two dead assholes.
Well, them and YOU of course. Because you just told us that you KNOW he is innocent. So if you know this from the verdict, then I guess I would be innocent too.
You need to try to separate actual reality from a jury verdict. They're not always the same, see.
How stupid indeed.
qxzc wrote:
How dumb are you people? The original poster here said OJ is a murderer. He is wrong. OJ was found not guilty of murder. End of issue. In my world, which is based on the rule of law, OJ is not guilty of murder. Did OJ kill his crackhead ex-wife and her lover? Maybe. NO ONE really knows except OJ and two dead assholes. But did he murder them? No. I personally think Marcus Allen had something to do with it.
Wow, what a fool.
Charles Bronson wrote:
Sorry, Weiner...errr...Frank, but you're the idiot. At the very least you conveniently passed over my acknowledgement of the need to be very "exact" in the science.
Done properly, vigilante justice ensures that criminals always get what's coming to them when the convoluted legal system fails. If you disagree, then I'll just put your vote down as being in favor of crime going unpunished. Thanks.
haha! post of the day. you are owning qxzc with each of your posts.
i think vigilantes have a legit reason to do what theyre doing when they are retalliating against someone who has offended them personally. otherwise, its probably best to leave it up to law enforcement.
btw, i love all of your movies.