It seems that people have a love affair with the Vigilante. We have written countless stories that have been told and retold over and over concerning these law breakers of good intent. But is that all it is, good intent?

Most of us never want to take the law into our own hands out of fear over many things that might occur to us as a result. So, does that make the Vigilante selfless?Is there a time when the vigilante is needed? Or is such behavior wrong no matter what?

BTW, I am not talking about killing anybody, but something more like making a citizen's arrest or stopping a crime when the police aren't there to help. Of course more harsher realities of being a vigilante can be discussed, I don't mind.

Thanks,

Thaibebop

Laws are just ideas that people have that are written down on paper. They are not handed down by god. You can either do as the law wants you to do or you can do otherwise if you want. There is no law that says that you have to follow the law...the law only says what should be done to someone who doesn't follow it. The law is a tool used by some people to try to force other people to behave in a certain way...or to refrain from behaving in a certain way. Laws are probably a necessity with this planet being so overpopulated. They are necessary because so many people are not able to behave in a way that creates an environment acceptable to the people making the law. The law is not a big deal, unless you think that someone trying to tell you how to live your life is a big deal. I suppose that if the law caused someone to come and put pesticides on my garden then it would be a big deal to me...

Government, by nature is coercive.

Definition of coerce from: http://www.google.co.th/url?sa=X&start=1&o...wn%3Fs%3Dcoerce

"to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means "

It seems that people have a love affair with the Vigilante. We have written countless stories that have been told and retold over and over concerning these law breakers of good intent. But is that all it is, good intent?

Most of us never want to take the law into our own hands out of fear over many things that might occur to us as a result. So, does that make the Vigilante selfless?Is there a time when the vigilante is needed? Or is such behavior wrong no matter what?

BTW, I am not talking about killing anybody, but something more like making a citizen's arrest or stopping a crime when the police aren't there to help. Of course more harsher realities of being a vigilante can be discussed, I don't mind.

Thanks,

Thaibebop

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't believe stopping a crime or making a citizen arrest is vigilanteism.

I don't believe stopping a crime or making a citizen arrest is vigilanteism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Vigilantism (according to my spell checker) usually comes into play after a crime has been commited (i.e. stringing up the rustler after he stole the cows, or lynching the bank robber(s) after he was {they were} caught.

Stopping/preventing a crime (such as preventing an assault, catching a thief in the act and holding him until the police arrive, reporting fraud or other suspicious activity to the police) isn't normally considered vigilantism.

Going out purposefully to try and stop or prevent crimes would be considered vigilantism, as (in most places) they already have police services which are supposed to do the same thing. The police are (in most places I hope) trained and authorized by higher authority to perform their duties.

Ordinary citizens (vigilantes) are rarely trained in law enforcement, and usually have no authority to act under the law (as granted by by various municipal, state/provincial or federal governments).

Note that ordinary citizens taking the law into their own hands has nothing what so ever in common with the "militia", as envisioned by the founding fathers of the USA. The "militias" that have been in the (US) news lately, patrolling the borders between the US and Mexico, are privately organized and do not answer to any government authority.

Supposedly, if they see any illegal activity, all they do is report it. Problem is, they have no "oversight" or control over their activities and actions (much like some of the private security contractors working in places like Iraq and Afghanistan).

For those reasons, such militias could be viewed as vigilantes.

Problem is, they have no "oversight" or control over their activities and actions (much like some of the private security contractors working in places like Iraq and Afghanistan).

For those reasons, such militias could be viewed as vigilantes.

Do these guys cause many troubles for regular military there, or do they stay out of the way mostly?

cv

Do these guys cause many troubles for regular military there, or do they stay out of the way mostly?

cv

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I know, they aren't causing too many problems for the military (unless it's a case of those contractors being ambushed/kidnapped/killed). It seems most people have a problem with the idea of a bunch of civilian contractors running around armed to the teeth.

What do they expect though ? The military isn't there to enforce the law. Crime is rampant, the local police are inefficient at best, and a large part of the problem at worst.

Yet there is a requirement for these people (civilian contractors) to be there. There has to be, otherwise they wouldn't be there. They can't rely on the military or police for protection, so they provide their own. This can lead to problems of course. Having no oversight as to the way they operate, nor standards for training and qualifications, or even set Rules of Engagement means these people can make up the rules as they go along.

As long as they don't make a major screw-up (i.e. getting into a fire fight with the military, shooting a crowd of civilians or robbing banks), they can pretty much operate how ever they think is best.

I've seen companies arrive here, and one of their first orders of business was to establish a base (house, vehicles, phones, ect) then buy some weapons for protection. No need to go through the local authorities for things like permits and registration. The locals either don't care, or are powerless to control it. Perhaps they just accept it as a fact of life around here.

It seems that people have a love affair with the Vigilante. We have written countless stories that have been told and retold over and over concerning these law breakers of good intent. But is that all it is, good intent?

Most of us never want to take the law into our own hands out of fear over many things that might occur to us as a result. So, does that make the Vigilante selfless?Is there a time when the vigilante is needed? Or is such behavior wrong no matter what?

BTW, I am not talking about killing anybody, but something more like making a citizen's arrest or stopping a crime when the police aren't there to help. Of course more harsher realities of being a vigilante can be discussed, I don't mind.

Thanks,

Thaibebop

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't believe stopping a crime or making a citizen arrest is vigilanteism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What if you had to break a law to stop one. Shot, assult or kill the criminal. I will add that your life was not in danger at all, so self-defence would not stand up in court.

It seems that people have a love affair with the Vigilante. We have written countless stories that have been told and retold over and over concerning these law breakers of good intent. But is that all it is, good intent?

Most of us never want to take the law into our own hands out of fear over many things that might occur to us as a result. So, does that make the Vigilante selfless?Is there a time when the vigilante is needed? Or is such behavior wrong no matter what?

BTW, I am not talking about killing anybody, but something more like making a citizen's arrest or stopping a crime when the police aren't there to help. Of course more harsher realities of being a vigilante can be discussed, I don't mind.

Thanks,

Thaibebop

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With respect, Thaibebop, I think the question could be formulated in a better way.

Asking have you ever done this or that is fine. You get a concrete answer.

But asking have you ever thought of doing this or that will almost always get a positive answer.

I've speculated on doing lots of things I would not, or never will, do: from murdering my ex-mother-in-law to sleeping with Madonna.

Sure, I would love to drop a bomb on Thomas Cook for the way they messed up our holiday, but instead I am actually taking them to court.

What I think, IMHO, would be interesting to see, is how many would choose, if given the choice, the way of the vigilante rather than use the legal system.

It seems that people have a love affair with the Vigilante. We have written countless stories that have been told and retold over and over concerning these law breakers of good intent. But is that all it is, good intent?

Most of us never want to take the law into our own hands out of fear over many things that might occur to us as a result. So, does that make the Vigilante selfless?Is there a time when the vigilante is needed? Or is such behavior wrong no matter what?

BTW, I am not talking about killing anybody, but something more like making a citizen's arrest or stopping a crime when the police aren't there to help. Of course more harsher realities of being a vigilante can be discussed, I don't mind.

Thanks,

Thaibebop

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With respect, Thaibebop, I think the question could be formulated in a better way.

Asking have you ever done this or that is fine. You get a concrete answer.

But asking have you ever thought of doing this or that will almost always get a positive answer.

I've speculated on doing lots of things I would not, or never will, do: from murdering my ex-mother-in-law to sleeping with Madonna.

Sure, I would love to drop a bomb on Thomas Cook for the way they messed up our holiday, but instead I am actually taking them to court.

What I think, IMHO, would be interesting to see, is how many would choose, if given the choice, the way of the vigilante rather than use the legal system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well stated and yes that was what I was getting at. So would you?

I have taken the law into my own hands, and succesfully at times, other times my acitons has sent me into exile... That`s okay though. People are people after lal.

Shortly after the recent hurricane hit, the villagers here set up their own vigilante patrols, and thevillage was safer than ever as a result.

I believe in common decency, and if I can aid it to exist, I will, at times, and selectively .

I have taken the law into my own hands, and succesfully at times, other times my acitons has sent me into exile... That`s okay though. People are people after lal.

Shortly after the recent hurricane hit, the villagers here set up their own vigilante patrols, and thevillage was safer than ever as a result.

I believe in common decency, and if I can aid it to exist, I will, at times, and selectively .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So as long as being a vigilante is for the common good and not say for personnal venagence than it's okay? Would you agree with that?

It seems that people have a love affair with the Vigilante. We have written countless stories that have been told and retold over and over concerning these law breakers of good intent. But is that all it is, good intent?

Most of us never want to take the law into our own hands out of fear over many things that might occur to us as a result. So, does that make the Vigilante selfless?Is there a time when the vigilante is needed? Or is such behavior wrong no matter what?

BTW, I am not talking about killing anybody, but something more like making a citizen's arrest or stopping a crime when the police aren't there to help. Of course more harsher realities of being a vigilante can be discussed, I don't mind.

Thanks,

Thaibebop

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With respect, Thaibebop, I think the question could be formulated in a better way.

Asking have you ever done this or that is fine. You get a concrete answer.

But asking have you ever thought of doing this or that will almost always get a positive answer.

I've speculated on doing lots of things I would not, or never will, do: from murdering my ex-mother-in-law to sleeping with Madonna.

Sure, I would love to drop a bomb on Thomas Cook for the way they messed up our holiday, but instead I am actually taking them to court.

What I think, IMHO, would be interesting to see, is how many would choose, if given the choice, the way of the vigilante rather than use the legal system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well stated and yes that was what I was getting at. So would you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because I live in a country that prides itself on its legal system - a legal system that despite it faults is amongst the most admired in the world - I would not choose the Vigilante over for the process of law.

I believe this also ought to be the view of all who live in countries that aspire to be civilised.

On a local level in lands where civilisation, for one reason or another, has been broken down, the Vigilante may be the only way to ensure security for the majority. In these cases the prime aim must be to return to civilisation, as soon as possible, and ensure the creation of institutions that will protect the rule of Law.

But what about the international Vigilante?

It seems that people have a love affair with the Vigilante. We have written countless stories that have been told and retold over and over concerning these law breakers of good intent. But is that all it is, good intent?

Most of us never want to take the law into our own hands out of fear over many things that might occur to us as a result. So, does that make the Vigilante selfless?Is there a time when the vigilante is needed? Or is such behavior wrong no matter what?

BTW, I am not talking about killing anybody, but something more like making a citizen's arrest or stopping a crime when the police aren't there to help. Of course more harsher realities of being a vigilante can be discussed, I don't mind.

Thanks,

Thaibebop

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With respect, Thaibebop, I think the question could be formulated in a better way.

Asking have you ever done this or that is fine. You get a concrete answer.

But asking have you ever thought of doing this or that will almost always get a positive answer.

I've speculated on doing lots of things I would not, or never will, do: from murdering my ex-mother-in-law to sleeping with Madonna.

Sure, I would love to drop a bomb on Thomas Cook for the way they messed up our holiday, but instead I am actually taking them to court.

What I think, IMHO, would be interesting to see, is how many would choose, if given the choice, the way of the vigilante rather than use the legal system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well stated and yes that was what I was getting at. So would you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because I live in a country that prides itself on its legal system - a legal system that despite it faults is amongst the most admired in the world - I would not choose the Vigilante over for the process of law.

I believe this also ought to be the view of all who live in countries that aspire to be civilised.

On a local level in lands where civilisation, for one reason or another, has been broken down, the Vigilante may be the only way to ensure security for the majority. In these cases the prime aim must be to return to civilisation, as soon as possible, and ensure the creation of institutions that will protect the rule of Law.

But what about the international Vigilante?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes another place I was thinking of going, and it has so many different approaches.

You wouldn't go vigilante because you trust the system you're in but do others?

What if someones view of civilization didn't include you? Like a cultural attack so to speak. Would being a vigilante ever be accepted in such cases?

A resident killed an intruder in Melbourne the other night. He, apparently, is not going to be charged with any offence.

House intruder killed during break-in

A man has been killed with a samurai sword during a break in at Noble Park, in Melbourne's south-east, overnight.

Police say two men broke into the Arnold Street house about 12.30am AEDT.

One was killed with the sword during an altercation with a man who lives in the house.

The other intruder fled but police believe he will need medical treatment for cuts to his hands and leg.

Police have interviewed the man and woman who live in the house.

(ABC)

I don't follow the law. I live life my way. My actions are guided by my own ideas and the law affects me mostly in trivial ways. Am I a vigilante?

chownah:

I don't follow the law. I live life my way. My actions are guided by my own ideas and the law affects me mostly in trivial ways. Am I a vigilante?

Do you pay your fines if caught? If so you're not quite a scofflaw.

I do my best to do what I want. I think you could say the law is there to discourage too many of us from ignoring the boundaries at the same time. It enables society to put up with our violations in manageable shifts.

edited to add quote.

chownah:

I don't follow the law. I live life my way. My actions are guided by my own ideas and the law affects me mostly in trivial ways. Am I a vigilante?

Do you pay your fines if caught? If so you're not quite a scofflaw.

I do my best to do what I want. I think you could say the law is there to discourage too many of us from ignoring the boundaries at the same time. It enables society to put up with our violations in manageable shifts.

edited to add quote.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that the law is there to create boundaries and by the threat of punishment to enforce the boundaries. It enables society to manipulate people...at least some people. Perhaps the people who believe so fervently in the efficacy of these boundaries are the people who are not capable of creating boundaries on their own. If this is true then we do indeed owe a hearty "thank you" to these law makers...but it still doesn't mean that you have to follow the law or believe that following the law is in some way superior....it just helps control people who can't control themselves. But, I'd still like to know if my original description of myself means that I'm a vigilante....or not.

Societal law is much more powerfull than actual law. Back "home", our social behaviour is constantly monitered by friends, family, the guy at the bus stop, etc, etc, etc. It's all around us. We 'check' our behaviour constantly whether we're aware or not.

Proof? Expat moves to Thailand and all that vanishes and ppl rarely say "hey, you shouldn't do that, drink that, &lt;deleted&gt; that, etc, etc, etc. In fact, the opposite is true- you're absolutely encouraged to do as you please comparitively. Possibly the no 1 attraction (in varying degrees) for many farangs to TIT.

Base analogy (go up the food chain from here)- Guy drops a food wrapper on my sidewalk in Vancouver- I pick it up and politely say, hey, you must've dropped this? He takes it back, places it in the bin, apologizes and smiles. Here?

More proof? Thailand has laws on absolutely everything from copywrite, drinking and driving, prostitution etc, etc. Societal law (and cultural indifference) is the missing ingredient

Ok, 1 pm, off for a wobbly pop now... (after a swim;)

edit/ TV is a good example of 'societal law'

but something more like making a citizen's arrest or stopping a crime when the police aren't there to help.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your examples are known as being a good citizen, not being a vigilante.

However, sometimes vigilante-ism is called for. If you have no other recourse to resolve a problem, then sometimes the only choice is "don't get mad, get even." If I'd have ever caught the burglars in the act the times my home was burglarized, the I guarantee that I would have established my own brand of justice.

But, I'd still like to know if my original description of myself means that I'm a vigilante....or not.

I don't follow the law. I live life my way. My actions are guided by my own ideas and the law affects me mostly in trivial ways. Am I a vigilante?

You talk about regulating yourself not others. Do you practice authority over a community? Do you have your own code on your property which you enforce with displayed authority? Even that wouldn't make you a vigilante. No, you are not a vigilante.

But, I'd still like to know if my original description of myself means that I'm a vigilante....or not.

I don't follow the law. I live life my way. My actions are guided by my own ideas and the law affects me mostly in trivial ways. Am I a vigilante?

You talk about regulating yourself not others. Do you practice authority over a community? Do you have your own code on your property which you enforce with displayed authority?  Even that wouldn't make you a vigilante. No, you are not a vigilante.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The obvious next question is, "Then what, in your opinoin, makes a vigilante?"

But, I'd still like to know if my original description of myself means that I'm a vigilante....or not.

I don't follow the law. I live life my way. My actions are guided by my own ideas and the law affects me mostly in trivial ways. Am I a vigilante?

You talk about regulating yourself not others. Do you practice authority over a community? Do you have your own code on your property which you enforce with displayed authority?  Even that wouldn't make you a vigilante. No, you are not a vigilante.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The obvious next question is, "Then what, in your opinoin, makes a vigilante?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chownah, you present yourself as an anarchist rather than a vigilante.

But anarchy as a philosophy of life contains in my opinion a fatal illogical flaw.

Whilst behaving as you describe you do, not particularly respecting the Law, but governing yourself by some ill-defined code of conduct, may be a relatively comfortable way for an individual to float within various societies or cultures, what would happen if all did this?

If being, as you describe yourself, was the norm?

For you as an individual, you might say, your course of actions would change very little.

But what about the paedophiles who would be free to behave as they choose? What about the bank robbers who would be able to steal from your bank? What about the rice dealers who could descend unopposed to steal your crop? Or the fellow anarchists who think driving on the right side of the road is good enough for the USA so that’s what they’ll do in LOS (some of them already do!)?

Or the mafia bosses and fascists who will tighten their grip on everyone even more because those few citizens who do respect the rule of law, no longer exist?

Should your alleged code of behaviour become endemic, perhaps even you would become a vigilante.

A resident killed an intruder in Melbourne the other night. He, apparently, is not going to be charged with any offence.

 

House intruder killed during break-in

A man has been killed with a samurai sword during a break in at Noble Park, in Melbourne's south-east, overnight.

Police say two men broke into the Arnold Street house about 12.30am AEDT.

One was killed with the sword during an altercation with a man who lives in the house.

The other intruder fled but police believe he will need medical treatment for cuts to his hands and leg.

Police have interviewed the man and woman who live in the house.

(ABC)

In this case the sword was taken from the one intruder and used against him after the male came home home and found the female tied up and being threatened, the second intruder was armed with a handgun and run away after being injured.

Under the defence of reasonable force, the guy could not be charged with any offence mainly due to the fact that a deadly threat still existed after he disarmed the first man. Even if the gun was not loaded, it is reasonable for him to think it was and therefore his reasonable use of force would be set at the highest level. Any charge laid against him would ultimately be thrown out of court.

But, I'd still like to know if my original description of myself means that I'm a vigilante....or not.

I don't follow the law. I live life my way. My actions are guided by my own ideas and the law affects me mostly in trivial ways. Am I a vigilante?

You talk about regulating yourself not others. Do you practice authority over a community? Do you have your own code on your property which you enforce with displayed authority?  Even that wouldn't make you a vigilante. No, you are not a vigilante.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The obvious next question is, "Then what, in your opinoin, makes a vigilante?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chownah, you present yourself as an anarchist rather than a vigilante.

But anarchy as a philosophy of life contains in my opinion a fatal illogical flaw.

Whilst behaving as you describe you do, not particularly respecting the Law, but governing yourself by some ill-defined code of conduct, may be a relatively comfortable way for an individual to float within various societies or cultures, what would happen if all did this?

If being, as you describe yourself, was the norm?

For you as an individual, you might say, your course of actions would change very little.

But what about the paedophiles who would be free to behave as they choose? What about the bank robbers who would be able to steal from your bank? What about the rice dealers who could descend unopposed to steal your crop? Or the fellow anarchists who think driving on the right side of the road is good enough for the USA so that’s what they’ll do in LOS (some of them already do!)?

Or the mafia bosses and fascists who will tighten their grip on everyone even more because those few citizens who do respect the rule of law, no longer exist?

Should your alleged code of behaviour become endemic, perhaps even you would become a vigilante.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand what you are saying and even in my previous post I offered a heart felt 'thank you' to those who create the laws....but....what I really think is missing here is a definition of 'vigilante'. Will you offer your definition of what a 'vigilante' is?

To me a 'vigilante' goes something like this: A cowboy wearing a white hat who is in love with a beautiful virginal cowgirl is falsely accused and imprisoned. The cowboy wearing the black hat (who actually did the dastardly deed that the cowboy in the white hat was falsely accused of) collects some easily led people and convinces them that the white hat cowboy did it and should be strung up. They storm the jail after dark carrying torches (not flashlights, the kind of torches that have flames on the top) and just as they are about to succeed a 70 year old tougher than nails widow with a shotgun calls them worthless vigilantes and ridicules them with such sharp insight and wit that they all see the error of their ways and disperse.

Now, I know that this is not a definition of vigilante but I think it demonstrates the type of experience that has formulated the concept of 'vigilante' in most peoples minds.....emotional images gleaned from movies. I refuse to discuss based on these types of misconceptions and so I'm asking people to try to formalize what 'vigilante' means.

But, I'd still like to know if my original description of myself means that I'm a vigilante....or not.

I don't follow the law. I live life my way. My actions are guided by my own ideas and the law affects me mostly in trivial ways. Am I a vigilante?

You talk about regulating yourself not others. Do you practice authority over a community? Do you have your own code on your property which you enforce with displayed authority?  Even that wouldn't make you a vigilante. No, you are not a vigilante.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The obvious next question is, "Then what, in your opinoin, makes a vigilante?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chownah, you present yourself as an anarchist rather than a vigilante.

But anarchy as a philosophy of life contains in my opinion a fatal illogical flaw.

Whilst behaving as you describe you do, not particularly respecting the Law, but governing yourself by some ill-defined code of conduct, may be a relatively comfortable way for an individual to float within various societies or cultures, what would happen if all did this?

If being, as you describe yourself, was the norm?

For you as an individual, you might say, your course of actions would change very little.

But what about the paedophiles who would be free to behave as they choose? What about the bank robbers who would be able to steal from your bank? What about the rice dealers who could descend unopposed to steal your crop? Or the fellow anarchists who think driving on the right side of the road is good enough for the USA so that’s what they’ll do in LOS (some of them already do!)?

Or the mafia bosses and fascists who will tighten their grip on everyone even more because those few citizens who do respect the rule of law, no longer exist?

Should your alleged code of behaviour become endemic, perhaps even you would become a vigilante.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand what you are saying and even in my previous post I offered a heart felt 'thank you' to those who create the laws....but....what I really think is missing here is a definition of 'vigilante'. Will you offer your definition of what a 'vigilante' is?

To me a 'vigilante' goes something like this: A cowboy wearing a white hat who is in love with a beautiful virginal cowgirl is falsely accused and imprisoned. The cowboy wearing the black hat (who actually did the dastardly deed that the cowboy in the white hat was falsely accused of) collects some easily led people and convinces them that the white hat cowboy did it and should be strung up. They storm the jail after dark carrying torches (not flashlights, the kind of torches that have flames on the top) and just as they are about to succeed a 70 year old tougher than nails widow with a shotgun calls them worthless vigilantes and ridicules them with such sharp insight and wit that they all see the error of their ways and disperse.

Now, I know that this is not a definition of vigilante but I think it demonstrates the type of experience that has formulated the concept of 'vigilante' in most peoples minds.....emotional images gleaned from movies. I refuse to discuss based on these types of misconceptions and so I'm asking people to try to formalize what 'vigilante' means.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A valid point.

Which could open up another discussion: how much of our use of languague and values has its basis in the Word as defined by Hollywood?

But, I'd still like to know if my original description of myself means that I'm a vigilante....or not.

I don't follow the law. I live life my way. My actions are guided by my own ideas and the law affects me mostly in trivial ways. Am I a vigilante?

You talk about regulating yourself not others. Do you practice authority over a community? Do you have your own code on your property which you enforce with displayed authority?  Even that wouldn't make you a vigilante. No, you are not a vigilante.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The obvious next question is, "Then what, in your opinoin, makes a vigilante?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chownah, you present yourself as an anarchist rather than a vigilante.

But anarchy as a philosophy of life contains in my opinion a fatal illogical flaw.

Whilst behaving as you describe you do, not particularly respecting the Law, but governing yourself by some ill-defined code of conduct, may be a relatively comfortable way for an individual to float within various societies or cultures, what would happen if all did this?

If being, as you describe yourself, was the norm?

For you as an individual, you might say, your course of actions would change very little.

But what about the paedophiles who would be free to behave as they choose? What about the bank robbers who would be able to steal from your bank? What about the rice dealers who could descend unopposed to steal your crop? Or the fellow anarchists who think driving on the right side of the road is good enough for the USA so that’s what they’ll do in LOS (some of them already do!)?

Or the mafia bosses and fascists who will tighten their grip on everyone even more because those few citizens who do respect the rule of law, no longer exist?

Should your alleged code of behaviour become endemic, perhaps even you would become a vigilante.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand what you are saying and even in my previous post I offered a heart felt 'thank you' to those who create the laws....but....what I really think is missing here is a definition of 'vigilante'. Will you offer your definition of what a 'vigilante' is?

To me a 'vigilante' goes something like this: A cowboy wearing a white hat who is in love with a beautiful virginal cowgirl is falsely accused and imprisoned. The cowboy wearing the black hat (who actually did the dastardly deed that the cowboy in the white hat was falsely accused of) collects some easily led people and convinces them that the white hat cowboy did it and should be strung up. They storm the jail after dark carrying torches (not flashlights, the kind of torches that have flames on the top) and just as they are about to succeed a 70 year old tougher than nails widow with a shotgun calls them worthless vigilantes and ridicules them with such sharp insight and wit that they all see the error of their ways and disperse.

Now, I know that this is not a definition of vigilante but I think it demonstrates the type of experience that has formulated the concept of 'vigilante' in most peoples minds.....emotional images gleaned from movies. I refuse to discuss based on these types of misconceptions and so I'm asking people to try to formalize what 'vigilante' means.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A valid point.

Which could open up another discussion: how much of our use of languague and values has its basis in the Word as defined by Hollywood?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know...but....I'll be back!

But, I'd still like to know if my original description of myself means that I'm a vigilante....or not.

I don't follow the law. I live life my way. My actions are guided by my own ideas and the law affects me mostly in trivial ways. Am I a vigilante?

You talk about regulating yourself not others. Do you practice authority over a community? Do you have your own code on your property which you enforce with displayed authority?  Even that wouldn't make you a vigilante. No, you are not a vigilante.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The obvious next question is, "Then what, in your opinoin, makes a vigilante?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chownah, you present yourself as an anarchist rather than a vigilante.

But anarchy as a philosophy of life contains in my opinion a fatal illogical flaw.

Whilst behaving as you describe you do, not particularly respecting the Law, but governing yourself by some ill-defined code of conduct, may be a relatively comfortable way for an individual to float within various societies or cultures, what would happen if all did this?

If being, as you describe yourself, was the norm?

For you as an individual, you might say, your course of actions would change very little.

But what about the paedophiles who would be free to behave as they choose? What about the bank robbers who would be able to steal from your bank? What about the rice dealers who could descend unopposed to steal your crop? Or the fellow anarchists who think driving on the right side of the road is good enough for the USA so that’s what they’ll do in LOS (some of them already do!)?

Or the mafia bosses and fascists who will tighten their grip on everyone even more because those few citizens who do respect the rule of law, no longer exist?

Should your alleged code of behaviour become endemic, perhaps even you would become a vigilante.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand what you are saying and even in my previous post I offered a heart felt 'thank you' to those who create the laws....but....what I really think is missing here is a definition of 'vigilante'. Will you offer your definition of what a 'vigilante' is?

To me a 'vigilante' goes something like this: A cowboy wearing a white hat who is in love with a beautiful virginal cowgirl is falsely accused and imprisoned. The cowboy wearing the black hat (who actually did the dastardly deed that the cowboy in the white hat was falsely accused of) collects some easily led people and convinces them that the white hat cowboy did it and should be strung up. They storm the jail after dark carrying torches (not flashlights, the kind of torches that have flames on the top) and just as they are about to succeed a 70 year old tougher than nails widow with a shotgun calls them worthless vigilantes and ridicules them with such sharp insight and wit that they all see the error of their ways and disperse.

Now, I know that this is not a definition of vigilante but I think it demonstrates the type of experience that has formulated the concept of 'vigilante' in most peoples minds.....emotional images gleaned from movies. I refuse to discuss based on these types of misconceptions and so I'm asking people to try to formalize what 'vigilante' means.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A valid point.

Which could open up another discussion: how much of our use of languague and values has its basis in the Word as defined by Hollywood?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know...but....I'll be back!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hasta la vista, baby.

When I think of "vigilante", I think of this guy: not this one:

When I think of "vigilante", I think of this guy:

Man me too, the death wish films, true quality. They are showing them all on cable at the moment.

but something more like making a citizen's arrest or stopping a crime when the police aren't there to help.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your examples are known as being a good citizen, not being a vigilante.

However, sometimes vigilante-ism is called for. If you have no other recourse to resolve a problem, then sometimes the only choice is "don't get mad, get even." If I'd have ever caught the burglars in the act the times my home was burglarized, the I guarantee that I would have established my own brand of justice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but many police forces the world over tells people not to do such things. Many people here in America have seen jail time because they defended there home, or shop.