Official Vigilante Justice Thread: update: store clerk goes john wick on two armed robbers

I knew my Ex wife would show up on video somewhere.

 

These are the dumbest home invaders that we know. Why would you pick on a dilapidated home like this one to rob and not expecting any surprises?

 

Is is a great idea for civilians to take matters into their own hands because police aren't Pokémon you can just summon when someone is threatening your life and livelihood... Every criminal should know that the moment they try and jack someone they have given that someone the right to blast... If they still want to continue then so be it but this is why America is the greatest nation ever..... Because of that beautiful 2nd amendment....

 

I wish the people who had these same takes about store robbers and how the current system requires ordinary civilians to take matters into their own hands to carry out any form of justice had these same thoughts with people who make discussions that end lives because it maximizes return on investment.

I suggest you look up the term coined by Friedrich Engels called "social murder".

 

another American hero. Car dealerships are evil and I can understand why someone would drive his new used Subaru through the dealership window

Angry Subaru driver crashes car through dealership window after claiming he was denied refund: ‘Hit a breaking point’

https://nypost.com/2024/12/11/us-ne...p-window-after-claiming-he-was-denied-refund/

 

that's a narrow concept of vigilantism, there are broader concepts as well

 

Yall crying about corn flour now? Prison?

lol.

 

Unless you're a white kid with the right judge. Crying on cue helps.



"And then, the Antifa dudes, the ones I found and shot when I crossed state lines, armed, knowing I'd get away with it....hey, I was bored, it was all reruns on TV....the dying Antifa guys....they....GURGLED!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh!!

 

They are killing the ancient Lichan bro.

 

Philosophy question:

Who deserves to be shot through vigilante justice on relative terms?

A armed individual robbing a convenience store's register and then running away with the cash?

A individual who skims millions of dollars from a pool of money meant for paying for life saving medical treatment and denying said treatment to thousands of people to skim said millions of dollars resulting in suffering and even death of thousands of people?

Also another point to consider, the first scenario already has legal recourse to administer justice while the second scenario has no legal framework in our society to inact justice. So any recourse by default would have to be vigilante in nature

 

The killing of the CEO doesn't even rise to "vigilante justice". Was the CEO breaking the law? No? Then killing him doesn't qualify as vigilantism. It's just straight up murder. And I don't agree that the only recourse to fix an unfair system is to murder someone.

And if you are an armed criminal committing a crime, then you are threatening the life of another person. Does the legal framework provide sufficient disincentive to deter future criminals from trying to steal from that store with an armed weapon? It could be argued that it doesn't.

Not saying that I think killing is "deserved" in either scenario, but relatively speaking I would say the first one is more defensible.

 

The ability to skim millions of dollars from a collective pool of money meant to be distributed out for medical care and said medical care being denied because of said skimming being perfectly legal is exactly why society would think vigilante justice is more deserving precisely because there is no legal framework to combat it.

If a robber steals money from a register, he's a wanted person and will be hunted down. A CEO is praised and honored for said skimming of millions while denying life saving treatment to allow himself to skim said millions. The register robber wouldn't require vigilante justice in the first place.

There is also the situation where health insurance stakeholders and executives have the undue influence in our legislative framework to prevent non violent means to change the status quo.

 

dude took the lemon law into his own hands. Fortunately no used car salesmen were killed

 

Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands, because it is not being properly enforced. It is not committing murder because you have a grudge against someone who you think "has it coming" for benefiting from an unfair healthcare system.

 

Is that your arbitrary definition?

Are you implying the concept of "vigilantism" doesn't cover grounds for situations where our hierarchical societal system prevents a certain type of murder coined by Fredrick Engles in "social murder" having legal recourse and civilians taking matters into their own hands because the said legal recourse for justice doesn't exist?

Calling a system that involves life or death consequences being exploited being a mere "disagreements" is a privileged take.