If being a vigilante and killing a murderer can get you arrested...?

Question

wouldnt being a soldier and killing the enemy soldier be the same thing? Shouldnt the soldier that killed the enemy also get arrested?

I mean, a vilgilante is sort of the same, killing a murderer/serial killer means that person may not kill again, means that some lives may have been saved. A soldier is killing to protect his/her country. So in a way both are doing the protecting.

So why should a vigilante that kills a murderer get arrested?

Answer 1

What you just described has all the elements of premeditated murder, and yes, the person would be arrested. It would be up to a jury to decide his fate.

Answer 2

In a civilised society, the government holds a legal monopoly on the use of force; citizens entrust their right to self defence to the courts, police and armed forces. The system entails that a man may face his accusers, free from coercion and intimidation where the evidence can be examined by a group of his peers. The idea being that no one man may act as judge, jury and executioner...

A policeman is acting on the behalf of a society that entrusts him, and trains him and gives him permission, before the fact, to engage in force... In open WAR, a soldier has many restrictions on his actions but the principle that he is an agent of a government remains the same; he kills on the direction and behalf of the country.

What they both actually have is not permission to kill, but permission to miss... The application of force is not precise; 'collateral damage' is possible, and the society understands and indemnifies these appointed agents for these contingencies.

The vigilante may have a moral sanction to kill a paedophile, but he cannot have a 'legal' sanction - what if he misses?

Answer 3

Soldiers are under contract to do what he says. They have the right to refuse to follow unconstitutional orders, but few have done so. The military courts are rigged, and they have jurisdiction.

On the other hand, if a squad of soldiers acts in vigilante fashion by say, disobeying orders and engaging individuals it believes are combatants when they in fact are not, and it can be shown that they acted without the approval of the chain of command, it will go badly for them.

The basic difference is that soldiers have obligated themselves to follow orders, whereas vigilantes act of their own volition.

Bush is the vigilante.

Answer 4

Technically, the acts of a vigilante is legal because it is not under the provisions of the law. Thus, a vigilante can be arrested for killing a murderer but can claim justifying circumstances.

Answer 5

Well you see officers of the law get proper training, deadly force, last resort, army soldiers get proper training in deadly force, all law agents get training in the use of force, including deadly force as a last resort, now a vigilante, NO TRAINING, basing life and death decisions on emotion, maybe you should contact George W, I wouldnt put it past him to pass a bill allowing the galatically stupid to dawn deadly weapons and kill people for parking tickets, where do you draw your line in the sand? Short answer NO vigilantes. This is life and not TV.

Answer 6

Only the state can legally order the death of any individual and then only under the direct supervision of the state. A private organization, like the various Mafias, terrorist organizations, individuals or 'militas' fall outside this definition. A 'murder' is an offense against the state, not against the victim or the victim's family.

Answer 7

the Governor appointed the DA from Jacksonville to handle the case -- taking authority remote from the interior of sight DA. when you consider that that replaced into completed the day gone by or Thursday, do you prefer to offer the hot DA the possibility to check the evidence or will you sort a lynch mob now? as for the NBPP -- in the event that they actually 'placed a bounty' on Zimmerman, i could arrest the lot of them and price them with conspiracy to devote homicide. I doubt the legal professional conventional Holder will enable that and so he will sow the oats that get carry of a whirlwind.

Answer 8

Rules of law and rules of war are different under our legal code.

Answer 9

theoretical case of: for the people & country's greater good & interest versus private interest/vendetta/revenge.

soldiers rules of engagement & the wars they are sacrificed in, are a democratic-by-the-people's-elected- representatives, federally sanctioned, govt-declared action.

Answer 10

Because the law says so.