For instance were you to spy a woman being mugged or raped and dived in with fists flying to save the day, unlikely as that may be, I don't think anyone, from your prdinary citizen to the police and city authorities, would condemn your action- quite the opposite and, by definition, that would be a vigilante action.
However were you to make a habit of doing so, and use potentially deadly force (a kosh, knife or gun, for example), you may face condemnation from some quarters- so how far do you think you can go?
2007-05-17 23:10:32 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
There's a very big difference between 'happening' on a crime being committed and acting as someone's saviour on the spur of the moment and actively roaming the streets, armed, looking for crimes to 'prevent'.
Wouldn't the latter instance make as many crimes as it saves? Far from being a proactive way to solve crime, it will in fact create it. What if you waded in and used your weapon, seriously injuring or killing someone? What if you got the wrong end of the stick? What if your weapon was turned on you? What if whatever criminals were about realised who you were and started on you? There are also quite specific laws on reasonable force of which you may fall foul in the heat of the moment and find yourself arrested, not the criminal.
I think individual acts of heroism or Good Samaritan-ship are wonderful in their place but as to vigilantism, it's best left to the people who are paid and trained to handle this.
2007-05-17 23:20:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Vigilantism would earn ostracism by definition since the term implies going out and looking for trouble so as to be able to intervene. Being a bystander and intervening because you happened to be there is not vigilantism at all.
IOW, if you want to be proactive in preventing crime, join the police. Otherwise, leave the weapons at home
2007-05-18 10:26:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you happen to be there and you jump in to help than thats good. Help where it's needed. If you go out looking for it, armed and ready, then thats a different thing. Your motives can be questioned and what happens if you are wrong. You've not been trained to handle the situation properly either so you may just make it worse.
Going out armed also implies that you intend to do people harm. That makes you a criminal and I'd condemn that whatever the case.
Reacting to something you see happening is very different.
2007-05-17 23:16:36 · answer #3 · answered by Timothy S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A vigilante is somebody who takes the law into their own hands so I don't think it fits the description of a person going to the aid of a damsel in distress. Not that that act would be considered illegal. It would only be a crime if you beat the living daylights out of the offender because you thought he deserved it. That might be construed as a vigilante act.
2007-05-18 00:22:58 · answer #4 · answered by Ted T 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I you were making a habit of it and carring a deadly weapon about for it, people would question how you knew this was going to happen.
2007-05-18 01:12:02 · answer #5 · answered by bill 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Defense of a stranger is a valid act just like protecting a woman from a rapist. There is no crime committed for saving a woman from ignominy.
2007-05-17 23:15:55 · answer #6 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do whatever is necessary to stop the crime.
Silly question, simple answer
2007-05-17 23:17:30 · answer #7 · answered by Montgomery B 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋