Signs of intelligence UK.

[Gob]

You're probably a better man than me BigRR, I'd beat seven shades of shit out of anyone who crossed into my house, and chase them if they ran away.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Me too.

[TPFKA@W]

Me three. I leave you to your progressive line of thought BigRR. Clearly I am not as evolved as you are. I am also quite satisfied that I am not.

[Long Run]

But homeowners are rarely prosecuted in this type of situation because the prosecution knows the jury will be populated by the common sentiment above. The frustration at the inability of the police to take care of these matters leaves things to citizens to do as they wish when they get angry or fed up enough. Really, it is a failure of the police to take these matters seriously that leads to this result (heck in our town they won't even investigate car break-ins or many home thefts, and instead just ask the victims to fill out a form, when it is likely that finger printing would quickly identify the miscreant and perhaps the return of the stolen property).

[Big RR]

First of all, I've said several times I understand the emotions involved and have felt them myself; but I do think laws are designed to protect ourselves, and others, from our baser instincts. Just a couple of weeks ago I was cut off by someone seeking to bypass a 20 minute line at a highway exit (that's how long I waited) and get in at the front ahead of me. I was pissed enough that I easily could have kicked the shit out of him, but I was able to restrain myself. Had I not, however, I don't think my actions would have been justified, regardless of how pissed off I was. And, IMHO, I think the laws have to recognize that. Not because I can control myself any better than someone else, but because all of us, at one time or another, can really lose it and seriously harm someone. In protection of a risk to life, I would think it's justified, to protect mere possessions, or to "catch" those who invaded your space, it's less justified (IMHO). Because I was cut off by an asshole after waiting 20 minutes in line? It's just not justifiable (again, IMHO).

And LR, I do understand the frustration when the police won't act, but then the fault lies as much with the police as anyone. juries may well clear people who act this way, but at least the trial hammers home the seriousness of the situation (and even juries take their responsibilities seriously).

[MajGenl.Meade]

Also Big RR, it ain't a crime is it? Oh maybe some traffic violation on the way but it isn't a crime against you or yours. Analogy deficient I'm afraid

[Big RR]

Meade, it may well be a crime, or a traffic infraction--cutting someone off to gain entry into the line, risking an accident, etc. But honestly, what does the legal classification of the act have to do with your response? A crime is an act punishable at law, not by the aggrieved party. The persons who responded here said they'd respond because they are pissed that they'd been victimized, not because someone committed a crime. Because their home or property had been violated, not because a law was broken. Well damn it, for that brief period I felt the rage rising within me, I felt violated too. And, IMHO, that's not sufficient to justify a beating.

If you feel differently, I'd like to know why you feel that something called a "crime" can warrant a different response.

[oldr_n_wsr]

The persons who responded here said they'd respond because they are pissed that they'd been victimized, not because someone committed a crime. Because their home or property had been violated, not because a law was broken.

My property was stolen and home trespassed. And isn't plain old trespassing against the law?

[Big RR]

Of course it is (at least usually), theft as well; but the prescribed penalty is not being beaten senseless. That's the result of the rage (at lease so far as I understand it).

[MajGenl.Meade]

...they'd respond because they are pissed that they'd been victimized, not because someone committed a crime. Because their home or property had been violated, not because a law was broken. .....I'd like to know why you feel that something called a "crime" can warrant a different response.

I understand your point and in the abstract do not consider vigilantism to be the ideal or perhaps even appropriate response to illegal activity.

However, I fail to understand how you distinguish between (say) a person's "violated home or property" and "a law having been broken". They are one and the same thing in the case under discussion. Also "victimization" is exactly identical to and inextricably bound up in the "crime committed". Note: "....." does not indicate a direct quote.

Your traffic example fails the test, IMO. The traffic violation of driving on the berm is not in fact a direct violation of your property or life unless the person also crashes into your car. You may be angered by reckless driving in others, but such acts are not directed against you or yours. In these other felony cases, miscreants have directly "attacked" a specific target - in the sense of violating another person or their home or property - and that person is reacting in anger because the crime is being committed directly against them with malice aforethought. (Good, eh!?!?). They have indeed been victimized, sometimes repeatedly, and the "law" has failed to (a) punish and/or (b) prevent.

The particulars of the case (the repeated commercial break-ins) may depend upon whether the "victim" intended to inflict harm, regardless of whether the perps came quietly, or if in fact he attempted a 'citizens' arrest', met resistance and then applied the force necessary not to get beaten up himself. As was famously said:


Harry Callahan: Yeah, well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard that's my policy.
The Mayor: Intent? How'd you establish that?
Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through a dark alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross.

[Big RR]

well Meade, I guess I'm now getting closer to your calculus of the situation; it is not whether a crime is being committed, but whether that crime is a violation of a person's life or property. If that's the case, fine--but I don't agree with you about it somehow being justification for a beating. It clearly is understandable how someone might feel that they are justified, but feeling justified does not make it so (IMHO, that's why we have laws). If you believe it does, well we'll just have to disagree.

And your quotation of "Dirty Harry" Callahan, the hero of the vigilante (much like Chuck Bronson's character was in Death Wish), show exactly what's wrong with that policy. Things are rarely as black or white as the producers of those movies would have it.