420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
What do you think of a real life vigilante? by Polly Bundock - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:50:01 EST ID:MTaj+oHu No.207586 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1484365801125.png -(216720B / 211.64KB, 500x281) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 216720
First of all this vigilante would have 100% evidence proving the person he killed was a horrible person. Like pimps taking advantage of children, gang members who's destroying youth and robberies, large drug dealers(not weed), rapists, serious frauds who ruined lives...

Basically anyone with lack of respect for life.

This vigilante would not be one of those "I believe this guy is guilty so I'm going to kill him" vigilantes, but one that abides by facts and evidence. Or let's say there's 100% evidence of a murder or rape but ended up walking free and plans on killing/raping again?

Now don't get me wrong I'm against murder, but sometimes there must be an exception.

Would vigilante justice be justified?

Share your thoughts.
>>
Fucking Wupperdit - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:07:32 EST ID:uDkcjyh1 No.207587 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, the first thing I think of is human error. This vigilante is a human, totally fallible and subject to mistakes. However noble and rational and unemotional his modus operandi, any vigilante would occasionally make mistakes. Just like real cops do, only without the apparatus of the legal system to limit their use of force. The legal system also separates the people enforcing the law from the people interpreting the law and judging violations. This effectively reduces the influence of mistakes at any level. Naturally it also potentially allows for systemic corruption, which may be one area a vigilante could be superior.

Anyway, suppose he has wrong information. Suppose a savvy criminal understands this vigilante will come after a perpetrator, so he convincingly implicates a patsy. The vigilante finds all the wrong evidence, as the criminal intended, and then he kills the patsy. The criminal gets away. In the legal system, there would at least be the chance for scrutiny from multiple perspectives, not to mention the (incorrect) suspect, the patsy, would have the legally-mandated opportunity to defend himself with an attorney.

Also, the categorical imperative applies but I'm stoned and I typed a lot already.
>>
Polly Bundock - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:40:41 EST ID:MTaj+oHu No.207589 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207587
Okay...

But let's say the evidence isn't incorrect and it's the first kill..

Your thoughts?
>>
Augustus Seblingpodging - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:45:13 EST ID:yeARW8t0 No.207591 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Government is the stationary bandit; all justice started with vigilante justice.

Just look at Dutere over in the Philippines; great guy who can see the realities of the matter and did great service to his country. Officially approved gangs (ie, 'neighborhood watches' and other euphemisms) out competed unapproved gangs and were an expedient method for communities to reestablish order.

Also Kant was a sperg and categorical imperatives are basically a systematized representation of maladaptive spergmatic thinking.
>>
Eugene Drecklesane - Sat, 14 Jan 2017 21:46:12 EST ID:iAquTtgI No.207595 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1484448372475.png -(687910B / 671.79KB, 900x537) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
"Vigilantes" have a bad track record historically.
>>
Eugene Cazzlefuck - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 00:20:55 EST ID:MTaj+oHu No.207597 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207595

That is due to them acting out of political views.

I'm talking about one who doesn't behave that way.
>>
Eugene Drecklesane - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 01:56:21 EST ID:iAquTtgI No.207598 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207597
It's impossible to engage in law enforcement apolitically.

Your stance on drugs, theft, even murder are based in your political view point. And I would imagine how you think those things should be punished are also rooted in your politics.

You mentioned rape, there are people who don't believe a man can rape his wife. There are people who will blame women for their own rapes, if it's date rape she had to of lead him on, taken advantage of while drunk then she shouldn't of been drunk, even if she's raped in an ally by a stranger (which is near non-existent compared to date rape) what was she thinking doing there, what was she wearing that caused the attack?
>>
Walter Clenkinspear - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 04:00:24 EST ID:yeARW8t0 No.207600 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207598


If a man can't rape his wife, shes not his wife.
>>
Martha Fummerditch - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 07:02:42 EST ID:xA39R98b No.207601 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207598
>You mentioned rape, there are people who don't believe a man can rape his wife. There are people who will blame women for their own rapes, if it's date rape she had to of lead him on, taken advantage of while drunk then she shouldn't of been drunk, even if she's raped in an ally by a stranger (which is near non-existent compared to date rape) what was she thinking doing there, what was she wearing that caused the attack?

Here's the thing the way I see it when it comes to rape - rape is an act of severe physical violence. I don't know much about raping but I know about physical violence. So whoever asks a woman what was she thinking of doing there, what was she wearing that caused the attack etc I'll ask them: you get beat up in an ally, wake up in your spill of blood, whole body is numb and the bone pain hits you so you know the jaws are probably broken and half your memory of it ereased - What were you thinking of doing there? What were you wearing that caused the attack?
I'm sure the response will be "Yeah that was kinda justified I should've not been there wearing my outfit." Or maybe that "It's a free country so I should be able to be where I want wearing what I like"

At this day and age rape has become a bit confusing topic due to abuse and misuse of the term, being taken advantage of by some females trying to regain their dignity after getting their pussy eaten out on a street at a saturday night. The term is thrown around too often at whatever case it could be remotely related so it lost it's meaning to an extent.
However the real rape situation itself as serious violence issue as it can get and when it's being blamed on the woman it's either 1) the person doesn't know much about the situation and is detached from physical violence in general; has a "sugar coated" vision of it in his mind (which is I believe is the most common, as the poster above me) 2) has self-serving and power greedy views with heavy psychopathic tendencies 3) is just plain confused in life in general and says anything for a bit of attention.
>>
Martha Serringbod - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 08:03:27 EST ID:uTCRwoZc No.207602 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207601
people lying about rape or trying to redefine it isn't nearly as big a problem as you think it is. it's just that the more controversial stories tend to be what get big in the news. obvious black and white open and shut cases don't get people riled up, they need something to argue about on facebook. "toxoplasma of rage" and all that.
>>
Sophie Hemmleked - Wed, 18 Jan 2017 09:42:25 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207612 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207602
>people lying about rape or trying to redefine it isn't nearly as big a problem as you think it is.
Even though, according to the 'new' definition of rape, every one of us (men) who have sex with a drunk woman are committing rape. Not to mention, now that rape has been watered down so much, when a woman says she's been raped, every guy stops and thinks, 'OK, so when she says she's been raped, does she mean that a man touched her innapropriately and she's one of those nut jobs who calls that rape, or like did she get ridiculously drunk and have sex and then regret it the next day (the most common form, I've found, when I was in college) or like did someone literally hold her down and force-fuck her? (the least common form, I've found)'.
>>
Reuben Gipperford - Sat, 28 Jan 2017 08:48:12 EST ID:iAquTtgI No.207645 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207612
You sound like someone who has very few if no interactions with women. And not at all knowledgeable about women and hetero normative situations.
>>
Charles Cummerwock - Sun, 29 Jan 2017 00:24:42 EST ID:Myy90TYJ No.207647 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207645
Ahh okay I should attach women in my personal life to the scribblings on the image boards more or my feelings towards them. Well noted thanks I guess
>>
George Dummledale - Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:39:31 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207652 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207645
>You sound like someone who has very few if no interactions with women. And not at all knowledgeable about women and hetero normative situations.
I've got to be honest with you, as someone who's met hundreds of women, fucked dozens of women, and has many close female friends, I have to say you sound like someone who has very few if no interactions with women. And not at all knowledgeable about women and hetero normative situations.
>>
Samuel Clayworth - Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:12:22 EST ID:iAquTtgI No.207663 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207652
Please then, regale us with your tales of endless false rape allegations.
>>
Edward Crissleshit - Thu, 02 Feb 2017 00:48:07 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207669 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The theory of vigilante implies the theory of other vigilantes

as you can tell by saw he encourages life to be lived to the fullest, but at the same time he is often accused of not accepting that outside of a narrow definition.

Which he is often entangled in explaining is not the case through a series of exact steps that show is his exact steps in philosophy in the philosophy he is accused of being narrow in.

That's the only danger in the idea behind the idea of a vigilante. Not the practice.

That it would do the same thing in turn because now we our powerless.

Who watches the watchmen. Civil War.

And all ideas of that are linked.

If we try to step into the scales to make balance, the next idea always points out another tip. Except our involvement in them points out another thread in balance because of our involvement and that is like a seesaw.

So if the vigilante is constantly putting things in scale or in balance, somebody asks who does that for them.

Which is actually antithetical to the idea which is for the abilitiy to take action on anyone or any things part.

If you could compare it to a philosophy it would be transcendentalist.

So it would be like thoreau's fear of being taken as a thing to sway obedience because he involved himself with civil disobedience or defiance to find authenticity.
>>
Edward Crissleshit - Thu, 02 Feb 2017 00:54:47 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207670 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207601
plus the idea of the vigilante comes from the same world as cause and effect not being linked to cynical effects being accounted for in attempted causes.

And by cynical i don't mean diogenes but in that idea that someone should not attempt a thought based on how naive it seems.

To be afraid to be is related to the need for a vigilante.

That's why when you see the rational for going home late at night or going to a party and getting roofied. You as encourage a pessimistic resolution for the optimism behind the action.
>>
Edward Crissleshit - Thu, 02 Feb 2017 01:04:14 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207671 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207670
that "why" being you don't want to think about how the world is screwed up or off balance and that you need to do something or how that need to do or for something to be done is overwhelming.

It's a response to tragedy. But in one sense the cause is not blamed. In the other stories the "cause" for the "desire" is stigmatized to make sense of the tragedy.

The scarlett letters and the repressed hate. Knowing specific rules that would explain the good person as being kept out of these situations that they were not ready for.

In the other story for being a victim you are not wrong, all though the idea that you are "trouble" in some way is recognized in some way but flipped.

Like the image of adolescence, race, homosexuality, and the intangible can all be seen in the image of the x-men.

So even though there may be a damsel in distress in the later tale, it's one where the idea of the center is not entirely misleading do to an entirely different reaction to perennial conflict.


Where as some people see a repeated action and almost scientifically only through i guess resignation explain it as the source for the action. Like a teenager's reaction to a charismatic individual being targeted vs someone else who states "well you act that way then this happens"

One has the basis that you should be able to live your life differently or uniquely and the other explains something through the attention that attracts.
>>
Martha Bammlekeg - Sun, 05 Feb 2017 17:02:03 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207690 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If vigilantes took all that effort they put in murdering people into making the system of law and punishment work better, the world would be a better place.

Vigilante "justice" is like fixing a tyre by putting more air in it, instead of just plugging the hole.
>>
George Fandock - Sun, 05 Feb 2017 19:31:29 EST ID:ONNYp4VO No.207691 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1486341089401.jpg -(266246B / 260.01KB, 689x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>real life vigilante
>"100% evidence"
>always factual, scientific good guy
>knows if someone is planning on committing murders

so, this whole topic is about a fantastical vigilante. also, he is mostly going after drug dealers, gang bangers, and identity theft. sometimes pimps and the occasional rapist or murderer, lol
>>
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:47:51 EST ID:q3sMRx7h No.207742 Ignore Report Quick Reply
OP if the terms you set are actually met, then I support the vigilante.
>>
Hannah Bommlewire - Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:20:05 EST ID:UR1te4jq No.207749 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yes if a magic person exists who can only do good things and make good things happen that's better than the social construct that is laws.

Realistically the crime that effects the most people and goes under investigated and under punished is white collar. The world needs less a batman who stops bank robbers, and more a superman who drops billionaires out their office windows.
>>
George Fuckingdale - Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:52:10 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207790 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207749
Ah yes, nothing like that 'Fuck da rich' mentality.

Realistically, crime effects poor people the most, and poor people are the biggest source of crime. Through lack of options, not a total lack of option but from a general lack of options, they opt for crime because it's easier than working things out the hard way. What we need is significantly more policing in certain areas. If we had double or even triple the police in our major cities, our country would be significantly, significantly safer all through-out and our crime rates would plummet.

That being said, we do need to penalize certain white-collar people.
Occupy Wallstreet was a brilliant idea. And then it became filled with Social Justice Warrior faggots and became about Communism and had almost nothing to do with making bankers pay for wrecking the housing market via subprime mortgages galore.

But that's the problem with the USA. Try to accomplish anything significant and you get a bandwagon full of Social Justice Warrior faggots who ruin the movement. They ruined Occupy. They ruined BLM. They ruined Feminism. They've ruined the Democrats as a whole.

The swamp needs to be drained (of SJWs). Activist movements need to stop prioritizing quantity and start prioritizing quality. Look at the HIV movement; a handful of extremely educated men changed the entire country and the laws surrounding HIV medicine through hard-work, dedication, and the court system. Sadly nothing like that happens in this day and age. Activists don't fight using their brains, they fight using their misguided willpower. They're truly barbarians.
>>
Edward Dromblebanks - Fri, 24 Feb 2017 22:44:40 EST ID:jYcEvk8u No.207794 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207790

>they opt for crime because it's easier than working things out the hard way.

Or because they don't have any real options at all

Let's not pretend everything is just fine and dandy and the only reason things don't work is because of the choices of the people who don't have any power in the situation and are immersed in circumstances beyond their control
>>
Hedda Passlebodge - Sat, 25 Feb 2017 07:40:25 EST ID:o81bH6Em No.207795 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207794
They might not have any 'real' options but people always have some options. They just seem too little for too much. Eventually little things add up and make way for something real. There's nothing to pretend that things are all fine and cool but whining about it is probably the shittiest, the least productive thing one can do. I've sold shit, I've beaten people, I've got beaten, I've stole things and been emptied but something I can't remember doing is whining about it and bring excuses. Just because some people have it good doesn't mean you should draw parallels. It doesn't mean the universe, the planet or the government or whoever the fuck else other than you owes you anything. I think that's a good starting point mentally to become productive and do something.
>>
Jarvis Murdridge - Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:56:02 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207800 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207794
>>207795

While what you say is somewhat true, like I won't disagree with either of you, I will say this; people, including criminals, have more options than they know, and it's not their lack of options that makes them commit crime, but rather a lack of understanding of options, a lack of knowledge of options. Yes, poor people do have objectively less options, but they've got plenty of good options they, themselves, don't even know exists because they're not educated on the subjects. There are countless ways to make money in the USA, you just need the knowledge as to how to pursue it. I mean, this is the country where one year a dude's ghetto and 10 years later he's a millionaire. This is the country where a 21-year-old has a good idea and becomes a millionaire for it. This is the country where people go from nothing to billions in equity using nothing but a good idea and a few big investors.

As someone who got a degree in business, I can tell you as a matter of fact that there has never been a better time to do/start business as there is now. You think our parents or their parents had it easy scoring a career? As if. In this day and age, if I so wanted to, I could start a business and be the sole employee and still turn a very decent profit thanks to both hardware and software that didn't exist even 10 years ago.

But again, poor people don't know about any of this stuff. They don't know about how to capitalize on opportunity and how to turn their ideas into money. They don't know how to make good use of the newest technology to get an edge in the economy. They get garbage education. I mean there's just so much the USA could be doing to help poor people move forward, from anything like increasing the funding poor public schools get to starting initiatives to educate (for free) poor adults on how to be successful and make money. Yet we do none of these things. Instead we just do things like create a health care system that does nothing for nobody and we champion it as progress.
>>
Wesley Nenningmore - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:53:20 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207805 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207800
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103115000062
Highlights:
>>Americans overestimate the levels of actual class mobility in society
>>Mobility overestimates are larger for younger and higher subjective class people
>>Information and motivation contribute to mobility beliefs
>>
Esther Nickleworth - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 19:08:50 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207806 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207805
Thank you for this tidbit.
While it does shed light onto the subject, it doesn't disprove what I've said about there being other options as opposed to crime, except that these options aren't known by the people who need them most.
>>
Ian Nickleforth - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:45:35 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207811 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207806
Yes, but there is a difference between something being possible and something being probable. It is of course possible for anyone in our society to move to any position in it, unlike past societies which had strictly divided classes. That it is at all probable to occur is a deliberately crafted myth which is propped up as a center of national consciousness and to grow fodder for the engine of capitalism.

So yeah, criminals *could* do something different, but they have a relative paucity of options and a lot of them are criminal. It really doesn't even matter what class you're in. People who have more than enough feel the need to steal, the biggest thieves in history didn't steal because they were hungry, simply because they could.

All just to say that both poor and rich people commit crimes, some people commit crimes because they feel they have to and some commit crimes simply because they can, and that poor people have less options that rich people are all facts, therefore generally rich people only commit crimes because they can and not because they have to, and thus if you gave poor people more options, that would eliminate all people who commit crimes because they feel like they have to, and leave only those who want to.
>>
Esther Nickleworth - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 10:29:47 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207814 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207811
Hey, you and I are in agreement.
I have always bitched to high-heaven that Occupy Wallstreet should have been about arresting white-collar criminals in Wallstreet where as in reality the movement (which I did take part in in Philadelphia) turned into a naive push for communism/anti-capitalism. I wanted to see some fucking heads roll when I found out about the subprime mortgage fiasco. But they didn't. And then Obama pardoned them all, essentially. Kills me. Fucking kills me. I'm a capitalist with a die-hard urge to fix capitalism where it fails.

But that being said, I mean I want to see more policing. And I assume that you have no problem with more policing if policing were fairer, and the war on drugs was put to a stop.

I like stop and frisk. It worked well. I know it's unconstitutional, but to be honest I also acknowledge that the constitution has flaws, and sometimes it's not even represented properly. The only problem with stop-and-frisk is our current marijuana laws. If the cops were frisking people, finding guns and then demanding paperwork for the guns, I'd be happy. If the cops were frisking people and finding heroin or crack and then drilled the buyers as to where their source is, I'd be happy. But when people are arrested for marijuana, I just want to weep. That's the only issue, in my mind. And while you will still say that stop and frisk is wrong, I say that in areas like Chicago, where violence is literally day-to-day, extra, unconstitutional law enforcement initiatives need to happen. Not permanently, but just until that society fixes itself up. Like, it's very sad, but the truth is that a lot of people need to be killed and imprisoned in order for Chicagoines to be at peace. And the question is; do you think that the freedom of the individual is so important that it should be allowed to be a detriment to society at large, or do you think the importance of civility means that we need to shut down the forces that destroy civility, which includes privacy to an extent? What's more important; the individual within the system, or the entire system housing all the individuals?
>>
Esther Nickleworth - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 10:32:55 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207815 Ignore Report Quick Reply
On the whole, what I'm saying is, human lives must be sacrificed to assure the future generation a better life. I'm also saying that serious law changes must also happen for this initiative (the sacrifice) to work properly. We need to segregate criminals and just citizens.

We need to decriminalize drug use. If we did, we'd turn like well over 50% of criminals into just citizens. And they'd be on our side. They'd be all-for the police stopping and frisking people, because they know they're safe, but that violent criminals carrying weapons are not.

Honestly, what do you think of that?
>>
Ian Nickleforth - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:01:32 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207818 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207814
Yes, the Occupy movement pretty much immediately derailed itself, mostly because it was run by mental children and the dispossessed, rather than genuine revolutionaries. Obama pardoning execs was unfortunate, but I honestly don't believe that any president would have done differently. For reference, I'm an utopian socialist who believes that genuine socialism is currently impossible technologically and that capitalism is the only viable tool to bridge the gap and so must be utilized even when icky.

I would have no problem with policing if policing were perfect. In my ideal world, all cops are robots, and you can be sure they are applying justice evenly because you can analyze their program. In reality there will always be problems with policing as long as it is carried out by humans, because humans are stupid and flawed.

I believe the laws against all kinds of consensual behavior are immoral, so not just weed, but all drugs, also prostitution, gambling, and euthanasia ought to be legal, and I even feel some current firearm restrictions go too far.

So no, I don't want cops stopping random people who happen to choose to use heroin, or happen to feel the need to carry a gun to defend themself, because I feel like every human has the 'right' (to spill this shit across two threads) to do that. Especially since I know they aren't going to be stopping Jimbob in the wife-beater with a bag of ice and a .45 in his britches but Leeroy sagging with the crack-pipe and glock, because I mean, wouldn't you? And it's wrong, it's not just wrong in a 'oh my heart is bleeding too much' sense, it's wrong in a statistical, empirical, data analytical kind of way.

And I mean I agree that Chicago in particular has a serious problem, but violence isn't the answer to combat violence. Massive amounts of money need to be spent on social programs tailored to their situation, and also the city government and police force probably need a complete change-out with fresh, non-corrupt blood. Honestly putting money into actual community initiatives would cost a tithe of 'sending in the Feds' and actually have a chance of working. If you get hard, they get harder. The way to counter force is not always more force, but sometimes simply re-direction.

So, in my ideal society, I would be okay and in fact very in favor of a strong police force, it the police force were only tasked with stopping and investigating murders, assaults and rapes, protecting legitimate private property with carefully appropriate force, enforcing restraining orders and child safety laws, and keeping the roadways safe. All other police activities I see as really being illegal attempts to turn the police into a para-military societal control force, which is what leads to such abuse and disrespect of what should be a noble, peacekeeping role.

To your more abstract question of when is it alright to infringe the freedom of the individual for the benefit of society, my response is that because the individual is a member of society is is never in society's genuine interest to harm itself, and so the seeming benefit of doing such a thing is a kind of intellectual mirage. 'I'm society and my members hurt me so I'm going to hurt them back' is the same logic as the criminal's 'I'm a member of society and society hurt me so I'm going to hurt it back' and would lead us to exactly the kind of blind, toothless world the 'eye for an eye' guy warned us about.

It is a false dichotomy and we are only trapped in it if we put ourselves in it mentally. Again, the answer is not to counter force with force, but with re-direction. If an individual is trying to harm the system directly or indirectly, and they are a part of that system, then it is self-harm resulting from a flaw in either the system or the individual which we can logically determine and rationally work to correct. Creating these absolute categories and insisting on putting everything in one or the other, society vs the individual, criminals vs the just, ascribes too much reality to our mental models, and if we adopt that kind of thinking blindly we walk straight into an echo chamber that can easily become a gas chamber. Just food for thought!
>>
Phyllis Goodman - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 22:06:50 EST ID:XxERTMBW No.207819 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207815
>We need to decriminalize drug use. If we did, we'd turn like well over 50% of criminals into just citizens. And they'd be on our side. They'd be all-for the police stopping and frisking people, because they know they're safe, but that violent criminals carrying weapons are not.

Have you ever talked to a black person?
>>
David Dumblelock - Thu, 02 Mar 2017 07:43:30 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207820 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207819
You know, some of us live in actual civilized western nations, not The United States of Maniac Cop.
>>
Edward Dimmleshaw - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:20:46 EST ID:kMpaleHB No.207821 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No one mentioned this before this devolved into defining rape, but..

>Or let's say there's 100% evidence of a murder or rape but ended up walking free and plans on killing/raping again?

With 100% evidence, they would be prosecuted. Or at least then it's not the prosecuted who a vigilante should be taking vengeance on...

I stopped reading, so this is not necessarily an insight.
>>
Reuben Blatherway - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 09:51:51 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207825 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207818
>because the individual is a member of society is is never in society's genuine interest to harm itself,

I disagree.
Humans have incredible genetic diversity. What this means is, there are many mutants among us. Some mutants are cancerous.

The human body naturally grows cancer. Are you telling me that cancer could never hurt the human body? That a cancerous human being would not be hurting society?

>would lead us to exactly the kind of blind, toothless world the 'eye for an eye' guy warned us about.
Or, you know, it could produce a significantly better world for all of us.
Really, either of us could be right, and neither of us know for sure, but my money is banked on 'produce a significantly better world' just based on how we currently deal with the cancer of society and how much that has improved society.

A lot of heads have rolled in the USA. The USA has had to strip the rights of countless human beings, imprisoning them, killing them, getting them off the streets and taking away their freedom. And it always seems to improve the world.
>>
Reuben Blatherway - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 10:19:38 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207828 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207820
The United States of Maniac Cop isn't real. Most cops here are solid. There's just a ceaseless narrative being pushed that our cops abuse our black populace, which simply isn't true. The whole 'police brutality' narrative is literally nothing more than videos cut in certain ways so that the person committing the crime is only being seen beaten up by the police, as well as criminals who get beaten/killed by the police have their entire criminal background/history swept under the rug just because they were beaten up or killed, and then the media says 'another hearty black man was killed by a white officer for some trivial reason; when will the murders end!?'

There is no police brutality problem in the USA. I mean, sure, it exists, so does corruption, but brutality here is small, extremely small compared to areas like South America or Africa or the ME or the Caucuses or Asia (except Japan).

See, that's the power of the media for you. If the media constantly tells you there's a police brutality problem in the USA, and uses edited/cut video footage to further that idea, then people believe it en masse regardless of it's truth or lack of truth.
>>
Eugene Goodham - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 15:12:45 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207833 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207825
>>criminals are just exactly like cancer, so we should deal with them exactly the same way
What an amazingly simplifying way to think about it. Sure, if that were true, you would be right. I really wish I was capable of taking such complex ideas and concepts like the existence of an entire human being and the nature of criminal justice and simplify it so much that I could just say 'oh, that's a cancer, get rid of it.' Life would be so much easier! Unfortunately, I'm not capable of thinking that simplistically.

People aren't cancer. You can't reason with cancer. You can't re-habilitate cancer. Cancer can't get a job, or pay taxes. It can't be reformed into a contributing member of the body. It pretty much is only a bad thing that we know of no other way to control than killing. Killing cancer always only makes the body healthier (well actually no, there are ways you can kill it that cause it to metastasize, which is exactly what the kind of force you want to apply to this societal cancer would cause) but merely killing off those elements of society you have labelled as 'cancer' without any deeper thought than that could easily make things really, really worse. In all those ways organic cancer is entirely unlike a member of society who may be harming it in some way, and so your analogy does not apply, and therefore I reject your smartass objection.

Here's a question for you; acknowledging that you cannot know that you are right or wrong about this, and that your proposed solution may or may not produce a positive effect (and may actually produce an even larger negative one) why err on the side of violence? If you have two solutions that could work, and one involves killing people and one doesn't, why are you struggling so hard to get the former? If you're going to take a drastic measure, why not go for the one that, on balance, has the softest repercussions if it goes tits up? My only thought as to why is that you're looking for a justification to use violence, you're hoping that there's some category of people you can call cancer and seem edgy for calling to exterminate, because it makes you look stronger and 'more willing to make the tough calls.' It does none of those things, it just reveals a psychological hunger that you are trying to feed with obfuscated ideological food.
>>
Nell Dicklechit - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 17:42:18 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.207834 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207828

>There is no police brutality problem in the USA. I mean, sure, it exists, so does corruption, but brutality here is small, extremely small compared to areas like South America or Africa or the ME or the Caucuses or Asia (except Japan).

>Compared to a bunch of 3-world countries.

Yeah no. Either America has a police problem, they have a crime problem, or both.

At any rate you don't get to compare yourself to shitty countries if you still wanna be in the club of the West.

And don't whine about population or density, the fucking British police doesn't carry guns in public.
>>
Graham Crungergold - Sun, 05 Mar 2017 13:35:53 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207835 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207828
>There is no police brutality problem in the USA. I mean, sure, it exists, so does corruption, but brutality here is small, extremely small compared to areas like South America or Africa or the ME or the Caucuses or Asia (except Japan).

So you're basically saying the USA is a fucking retarded third world country full of mongoloids.
>>
Cedric Binkinson - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:43:58 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207840 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207834
>Either America has a police problem, they have a crime problem, or both.
Meh, it's neither. The USA doesn't have a police brutality problem, nor does it have a crime problem. Both police brutality and crime exist in the USA, but the truth of the matter is the USA is an extremely safe and just country where you'll rarely if ever run into issues with either the police or criminals, unless of course you live in a low-income area, in which case you'll deal with both. Stay out of the bottom 10% and you'll be problem-free.

All that stuff in the news about police brutality is bullshit. I spent an entire year researching every police brutality incident I saw in liberal news, and I realized and verified that every story was false, except for like 2. Like, there was a case of a flash-bang grenade frying a baby. That's undoubtedly brutality. But then I'd see countless cases of the cops man-handling a violent black perp and all the blacks would scream BRUTALITY! or a video would surface of a black man escaping resisting arrest and then getting shot, and BLM and so on and so forth would screech BRUTALITY!

Long story short, do the research on any given police brutality case and there's a 90% chance the victim was asking for it.

But there were also some mishaps. For instance, at one point, the cops gunned down a little kid, and no one got in trouble. Why? Well, the kid was aiming an airsoft AK47 at the police when he was shot, and the AK47 was modified to look real, as in all the safety features, like the orange nozzel, were taken away from the gun to make it look like a real AK. Mind you, the person who reported the child said that the gun appeared fake, however the dispatcher never mentioned the 'looked fake' part to the police being dispatched so they were told, 'Black kid is running around with a gun' and they gunned him down on sight pretty much because he aimed the gun at the police. That's just unfortunate is what that is, but I mean again, the fake gun in the incident was modified to appear real, which is illegal and extremly stupid.
>>
Graham Fonnerfuck - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 12:09:25 EST ID:d4DXKOh3 No.207842 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207840
> I spent an entire year researching every police brutality incident I saw in liberal news

Oh really? You convinced me. Some random the future immigrant must know his shit so much better than actual staticians and sociologists.
>>
Alice Charringwater - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 18:10:38 EST ID:Ya59RsKY No.207845 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207840
You're also making the pretty gross assumption that every single incident of 'police brutality' was reported and made it into the national media enough for you to be able to turn up information about it with a google search. For your argument to be credible, I would need evidence that you have investigated and run statistical analyses on all complaints about police conduct in every jurisdiction in the country. And you didn't, so that angle holds no water.
>>
Rebecca Hammerworth - Wed, 08 Mar 2017 16:09:34 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.207853 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207840

>The USA doesn't have a police brutality problem, nor does it have a crime problem.

Can you say that with a straight face?

>Both police brutality and crime exist in the USA, but the truth of the matter is the USA is an extremely safe and just country where you'll rarely if ever run into issues with either the police or criminals, unless of course you live in a low-income area, in which case you'll deal with both. Stay out of the bottom 10% and you'll be problem-free.

I know the US is really patchy like that, we got places comparable to the Nordics in civility and wealth and also real rundown places where the US state's rule don't really extend. Averaged statistically however the US perform poorly compared to general European countries when it comes to murder, cop brutality and etc. Also poorly on a number of unrelated statistics like child mortality wtf

As a first-world country it's in the low percentile. That's a fact. Not to mention systematic racism which is rampant in the backwaters and some city centers.


>Long story short, do the research on any given police brutality case and there's a 90% chance the victim was asking for it.
>the victim was asking for it.

Now that's an interestingly typical American angle. It's ok for the police to act brutally if the perp was being a total asshole in your eyes? Remember, the police is supposed to uphold the law and justice, not dish out what is deserved.

> For instance, at one point, the cops gunned down a little kid, and no one got in trouble. Why? Well, the kid was aiming an airsoft AK47 at the police when he was shot
>That's just unfortunate is what that is, but I mean again, the fake gun in the incident was modified to appear real, which is illegal and extremely stupid.

Yes, really idiotic, but it's telling that you imply support to the police's actions in this anecdotal case. It was a little kid ffs. The fact that your police were capable of just shooting him down should scream out to you the kind of dangerous threat-mentality that exist among the police in America.

I'll give you another anecdotal case: I saw a documentary about American police and in one of their ops they were swatting some guy they were sure were selling drugs. They came in in full military gear, with a military grade armored car the district had bought from the army, smashing windows and shit. What they got was 1.5 grams of weed. They found nothing else but a brick-shitting family and their weed-smoking son. Who got 800$ seized btw because they still suspected the house was a drug hive.

Now sure, the son might've well been selling weed and being smart about it, but Jesus Christ. They can just do that, smash windows and doors and seize cash on a mere suspicion? Land of the Free riiiight?
>>
Nell Shakewater - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 05:06:38 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207938 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>207828
people percieve things by a ceaseless narrative that denies other ceasless narratives.

They take advantage of subjects in public, that look different, seem different, or feel alienated.

Some people have enough public will power, to be confident and never taken advantage of.

Others do not, and when asked rhetorical "deductive" devices, that assume guilt. Human beings often find themselves asking why, especially when they typically get that as a predictive pattern.

It's done because cops often rotate based on the worst ideas of lowest common denominator suggestions that are often complaint based.

Imagine working. Now imagine you keep getting intrepreted a certain way. Then people talk, you are now having to look out and live by a certain reaction that is public. When you become at peace in a heidegarian sense with the idea of your own death, and you are in a place of minimal consequence you can break that treatment after many occasions.

Eventually the number of occasions outweighs the tendency of that public push.

Now imagine that "public" is the entire town or actual public. Not a building or a school.

Now take the police officer who operates by the idea that people would complain the way a white suburban neighborhood would, regardless of if he's racist. Then sees your hair sees you are black, sees condensation on windows. He literally assumes that as the likely result.

He also believes he can read body language.

All in all when he's on camera he looks like he has a james bond complex and the entire situation was a person who was completely un preprared and prepared in a way that was completely unreasonable.

Out of expectations that fit a pattern that hasn't been concrete in the location he is actually in.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.