In the news today…. “(un)Common Sense” zero tolerance policies and vigilante justice.


Two university students face expulsion after using a handgun to defend themselves from an intruder in their university-owned apartment. 

So a stranger claiming to just have gotten out of jail exclaims he wants money. They offer him a blanket and food to no avail, he enters the apartment.  One roomate shouts to the other who comes out with gun drawn.

These apartments are not gated, no key cards, etc. The university exclaims that they have security.  But we all know how slow that is.  The man was later captured by police and identified as a six-time felon.

In other words, had these students NOT had a firearm, they might be dead corpses of which Campus security would be filing a police report for.  And for protecting their lives, the school wants to expel them – cause that’s “common sense”.



When is vigilante justice, justified?

Man looking for abducted cousin enters an abandoned house and shoots and kills her kidnapper. Sheriff’s department has thankfully ruled the shooting justified.

UPDATED:  Just to clarify, no this is not technically vigilante justice. Though some have described it as such.  But an actual felony was in progress, as such this was action taken to defend one’s self and/or family.  So even in the legal definition, it is not considered vigilantism.

Now, whether there are times more traditional vigilantism is justified is a subject for much debate.  But I do believe there are times when it is necessary.  But 99.8% of the time, you’re wrong.  And your actions will likely be seen as nothing but murder.  It is taking a lot into one’s own hands to be judge, jury and executioner. And most of the time within the confines of a stable society, that is frowned upon as criminal behavior. 

Outside of a civilized and ordered society, things become far mor gray. Why do we have a justice system? because, we as a society decided to put distance between the enraged victims and the perpetrator, to ensure that questions regarding whether the perpetrator in fact did the deed, and to what level of guilt they did so, are answered before any pronouncement is made. And that is a major part of why we have society today. And we truly don’t want to lose that…ever.


Published in: on November 11, 2013 at 12:13 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. The answer to your question is vigilante justice is never justified…the problem is that this was in no way, shape or form, “vigilante justice”, therefore the question is irrelevant and misleading in this context.

    The shooter was searching for his abducted cousin. He found her and at the time he found her, she was in danger of death or great bodily harm from her attacker. The shooter fired to defend her from such danger.

    That’s called “justifiable homicide”, not Vigilante justice. Based on the facts as presented, had the Sheriff s department made any other determination it would have been a miscarriage and misapplication of justice.

    • I partly agree. I believe you are correct this was defense of a family member at the hands of an active threat. Though some were calling it such. I’ll edit to clarify. It was a quick post which I hoped to get back to after a meeting. 

      That said. I do disagree that vigilante justice is never justified. We have agreed to a social justice to limit harm to wrongly accused. 

      But in cases where that system is severely broken. And often deliberately so. Then I do believe an individual or group there of has the right to re-assume the fulness of natural right to eliminate a criminal from threat. 

      Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® II, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: