Most valid crashout
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
462 points (96.6% liked)
Today I Learned
25859 readers
746 users here now
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I did a research report on this subject and the underlying risk factors that make vigilante justice it more likely in a society https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5az_rOTb0E
Stop with the fucking ai voice overs. You can literally hire a real person on fiver to read the text for you in any language, and it will be like 5-10 dollars. Or read it yourself.
Also stop with the tiktok editing. The story and original footage is interesting enough, but your just trying to jam it down peoples brain holes as fast as you can
Yeah. I remove all AI voiceover’d videos from my feed and usually prior to, I tell others in the comments to do the same if they are willing to do the minimum to support creatives.
and putting the text of the voiceover in the very center of the video to make it hard to watch… it’s just so stupid
Wtf are you going on about? This is an article on Wikipedia.
That bastard also killed the girl after raping her.
Title should really include this too. Utterly fucked up.
You're correct it should I edited it
Oddly enough, no one in the courtroom saw anything 🤷
"I can't remember a thing, but i do remember at one point we all gave a standing ovation. Can't remember why though".
To be honest: She was far from a saint herself and it's very likely that she didn't do it for the girl but more to make sure she wasn't painted in even more of a bad light
It's a sad story all along.
Why was she far from being a saint?
She operated a (pretty shady) bar and basically prioritised that and her own enjoyment over her child a lot of times,letting her child sleep in the (guest area of the) bar,even when she was not working and someone else (she barely knew) worked there because she was out partying. Additionally this lifestyle led to her sleeping in for a long time letting her daughter often be unsupervised/uncared for at a very young age (like...toddler age) - as it happened on that day. (She kid skipped school - very likely with her mother knowing and allowing her after a fight they had. And left "to visit a friend the same age" - who would be in school at that time. There are some sources citing neighbours that it's possible she threw her out because the girl was getting on her nerves as she possibly did before).
She actually, under mounting pressure from the German version of CPS and her relatives and friends openly (including in front of the child) discussed giving her up for adoption (like she had done 2 times before with other children)/ claimed she didn't want to be responsible for the child.
She later refused to take part in the court proceedings, mainly these also did shine some light on her role of her as a mother and actually was almost imprisoned for being in contempt of the court. There are some theories that this, together with the fact that the perpetrator claiming that he was blackmailed by the child which back then would have fallen back on her as well (even if obviously untrue) was the real reason she decided to kill the guy at the time she did. (She later on confessed that it was murder and not manslaughter)
Surely a lot of things must be seen in the (very tight and depressing) morals of the time - she was a young woman with a bad family history herself and then her life became even worse. But...that was not the fault of the child as well. And by either standards, todays as well as the ones back then she surely was a bad mother,sorry.
Was she responsible for the murder of her daughter? No. Does that make her less of a bad person and less of a murderer herself? No.
(We had to cover this case in uni extensively - one of my professors actually was working as a DA in the same building back when it happend -- or something like that, can't remeber-)
Interesting. Thank you for taking the time.
A quick death is a mercy he did not deserve.
But it’s also a level of finality that the state would not have granted.
She gunned him down the day I was born.
It's it weird that him admitting to it makes it that much better? Like she didn't kill someone who may have been innocent, she ended the right person and from the video was very calm about the after math.
Edit: apparently the video is from a movie
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:
Respect o7
Gary Plauche is another person who took justice into his own hands
He did what needed to be done.
Hero
100% justified
I can’t remember a thing, but i do remember at one point we all gave a standing ovation.
Yep would done the same or worse to that fucker.
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.
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.
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.
eyes of the law
*gestures broadly*
load more comments
(3 replies)
Holy shit that's a hell of a video
She doesn't flinch, she's calm, and she doesn't stop firing till she knows the job is done.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›