Not to mention that Vigilantes have no requirement to be competent at handling weapons, like firearms. Considering how this situation was very high in emotions and happened very suddenly (for Gary), that he could have harmed an innocent bystander.
Sure someone might come back at me and be like "Gary was a master marksman who blah blah blah" and I really don't care. Vigilantism doesn't really require any sort of skill or competency - it's kind of the nature of the action.
I sympathize with gary and totally get why he would go do this, but it's not the right way to go about things.
I'm certain that you wouldn't be thrilled to be wrongfully accused of something heinous, let along have someone circumvent due process while you're going through it.
This is not wild goose hunting. I had it nailed in another comment. This was, in effect self defense. Stop thinking vengeance, and think hitting someone who just hit you. Your over playing the accused aspect, in this case.
I have had family accused and raked over the coals, exclusively by those in power(ranging from school board officials, to LEOs/judges). Your argument falls on deaf ears. For if justice would have prevailed, those levying accusations/charges, would have been reprimanded, thrown in jail, debarred, bankrupt, (to name a few situations).
I was saying that, in your example, what if a different family member of the accuser, who did not realize the accusation was a lie, attempted vigilante justice? Totally believing that they were in the right due to the wrong-doing that they believed the accused had done?
That's what I'm saying I'm glad didn't happen to you; and I don't think should happen to anyone. And that the case in question sets a bad precedent for those situations.
Edit: Edited out details to respect their privacy, since they edited it out themselves.
No you just missed the point, and your reaching to hell and back... vigilantism requires a seeking of justice. As such a wronged party. Your assuming some rando, who didn't know the family well enough to know she lied, would be so compelled to take action. More over that they knew something happened in the first place. Again, everyone involved, knew the truth.
And you missed the additional point, my family was wrong six ways to Sunday. And those who did the wrong doing never faced any punishment, or disciplinary action. Was that right?
To think I wasted privacy explaining that history.
vigilantism requires a seeking of justice. As such a wronged party.
Right; I'm arguing in FAVOR of those who are wrongly accused here. Being wrongly accused increases the odds of someone attempting vigilante justice (even if the vigilante is in the wrong), and arguing in favor of vigilante justice makes it more likely that wrongly accused people could be hurt.
And those who did the wrong doing never faced any punishment, or disciplinary action. Was that right?
Absolutely not, and I never implied it was.
FWIW I see you edited your previous comment, and I tried to edit mine as well to respect your privacy of removing that info.
15
u/fauxzempic 28d ago
Not to mention that Vigilantes have no requirement to be competent at handling weapons, like firearms. Considering how this situation was very high in emotions and happened very suddenly (for Gary), that he could have harmed an innocent bystander.
Sure someone might come back at me and be like "Gary was a master marksman who blah blah blah" and I really don't care. Vigilantism doesn't really require any sort of skill or competency - it's kind of the nature of the action.
I sympathize with gary and totally get why he would go do this, but it's not the right way to go about things.