Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
Ah yes. Classic "Everyone deserves a fair trial, until I think they've done a bad enough crime, in which case I'll activately cheer for that right being taken away".
Vigilante justice is NEVER acceptable. Until someone has been justly tried, and convicted they innocent in the eyes of the law. Period, and no exception.
You people cheering this on, and encouraging have on your hands the blood of every single innocent person who was ever killed or assaulted by a vigilante.
Vigilantism has 3 common sources:
lawless 'I am the law not you' narcissist types who think rules don't apply to them (ex: rich people, republicans, sovereign citizens etc)
dumbasses who think they know shit because they're insane (ex: pizzagate guy, qanon murders)
people with real grievances the law can't or won't address. (Luigi Mangione, Charlie Kirk's killer)
Imo, #3 is the only kind that I've seen people who aren't psychopaths express support for and its not just because #3 is more valid but its also because #3 is often carried out against the folks who are in the #1 group so its often a type of vigilante vs vigilante crime.
Plus everybody I've seen expressing support for #3 would be far happier if the legal system did the work instead of a vigilante.
This thread so far has been about extra judicial killing, but can vigilantism encompass less drastic actions? Do you think it is fair to say that the reaction on Reddit/Lemmy every time "the rapist Brock Allen Turner" is mentioned falls under the third type of vigilantism, in the sense that he recieved a light consequence compared to the acts he was proved to have committed? Is the social backlash and the (imo deserved) chorus of "oh the rapist?" in response to his name a form of societal vigilantism?
I appreciate your thoughtful and nuanced post in this volatile thread. Your last sentence immediately made me think of that guy that raped a girl behind a dumpster and then got let off because a judge thought consequences might damage his future. I don't think anyone should kill him, but I'm happy he doesn't get any peace on the internet, and i wish he was in jail.
Yep, #3 is a sad necessity due to the gaps and inequities in our legal system.
I did a research report on vigilante justice and the social factors that make it more likely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5az_rOTb0E
Look mate, for most people this squarely falls under "I don't condone it, but I understand it."
Excerpts from this thread:
No, people are absolutely condoning this. In some cases they're even celebrating it. "Most people" might not, but the people being criticized, the ones in this thread, absolutely exist and are doing exactly what they're being criticized for.
Court room justice over mob justice any day.
Just remember more blood has been shed in wars under the shouts of "justice" or "god"..than all other spoken reasons combined. Very dangerous concepts.
Devil's advocate: Judicial systems throughout history have had varying levels of success. If a person repeatedly commits murder and is not held to account by the justice system, is it not acceptable for someone to kill them? The net result would be lives saved
There have been many instances throughout history where a person repeatedly commits unspeakable crimes, but is guaranteed immunity from whatever justice system exists in their society. Do you think it's entirely unacceptable for them to receive vigilante justice?
Millions of North Koreans suffer and die under the Kim regime. If a vigilante were to assassinate him, millions of lives would be saved. Do you still contend it is unacceptable to do so? Keep in mind, everything Kim Jong Un has done is perfectly legal under the North Korean judicial system
If you question that interpretation of the result, let's invoke Godwin's Law. If one of the early assassination attempts on Hitler had been successful, WW2 could have been avoided (or at least made far more one-sided), saving tens of millions of lives. Would vigilante justice have still been unacceptable to you?
Seems incredibly amoral to state it's preferable to allow a genocide than to extra-judicially murder the one perpetuating the genocide
This dude was literally currently at trial for murder. That argument might apply AFTER someone has been wrongly acquitted.
This logic is literally NEVER applicable inside a court room, before the verdict has been read.
*gestures broadly*Got any dead kids? No? Then kindly STFU until you've experienced such pain. Yes, I am qualified to speak on this subject you lucky SOB.
So you're saying the victim of a crime should get to act as judge jury and executioner ?
Like I'm sorry you had to go through that, but how would you feel it your child was falsely accused of murder, and then revenge killed by a family member of a victim at trial.
There's a reason we don't allow vigilante justice.
Your feelings are more important than everyone else's because...?