The guy pictured in your post was posing for a photo with a gun and a flag, not "restoring order," as you put it.

How about we place our priorities on preserving life?

You are really stretching your defense thin if you have to resort to Latin roots to deflect a contemporary usage of a term. Vigilantes in this day and age are not simply block club leaders. My partner has been a block club leader, and she felt no need to stand on the roof with a gun and a flag. She simply saw it as something to do to help bring the people who live around us closer together.

Moses
(no quotation marks necessary)

Gosh, Moe, I've never put any emphasis on that.

Now, a question for you - what's so wrong with preserving one's OWN life?

Is there some moral imperative saying one must die if society is having trouble? Because that's the logical end result of everything you've said...

Sitting here stranded at the fair in the rain, I had to read your comment again before I caught the full disingenuousness of it all.

"The guy pictured in your post was posing for a photo with a gun and a flag, not "restoring order," as you put it."

Er, yeah. Duly noted - at the moment the pic was taken, he was posing.

The presence of law-abiding citizens acting *within the law* and *with the means to resist banditry* does indeed restore order.

"How about we place our priorities on preserving life?"

Ibid.

"You are really stretching your defense thin if you have to resort to Latin roots to deflect a contemporary usage of a term. Vigilantes in this day and age are not simply block club leaders."

Who cares what term you use? *It is of no importance*. They are people operating *within the law*, according to their *legal* right to defend themselves and their property. As you note yourself, the left regards that as a vile, morally bankrupt thing. You're wrong.

"My partner has been a block club leader, and she felt no need to stand on the roof with a gun and a flag. She simply saw it as something to do to help bring the people who live around us closer together."

Right. Is your partner dealing with complete breakdown of society? Of the entire city's infrastructure?

That's a rather important factor, doncha know...

... "Do you belong to a block club?" ...

Hey, you asked. I answered.

... "Right. Is your partner dealing with complete breakdown of society? Of the entire city's infrastructure?" ..

Just the slow decay of one of the core cities as the Republicans and some Independents work to slash spending on our state's civic society and infrastructure while rearranging tax laws to benefit those in the "have" category. Her efforts do not at all compare to the level of destruction in New Orleans, Biloxi, or Gulfport. But, then, I'm not too sure the guy on the roof was organizing a block party when his pic was snapped.

Hope the rain breaks later this evening. Enjoy the Fair.

"Just the slow decay of one of the core cities as the Republicans and some Independents work to slash spending on our state's civic society and infrastructure while rearranging tax laws to benefit those in the "have" category."

In other words, no? No looting? No armed gangs roaming the streets killing people for food?

Just checking.

" Her efforts do not at all compare to the level of destruction in New Orleans, Biloxi, or Gulfport. But, then, I'm not too sure the guy on the roof was organizing a block party when his pic was snapped."

The question is, what DO you think he was doing? You seem to ascribe some horrible, base motive to his action. Is it that he's doing what you seem to believe is the police's job? Or that he is carrying the "g" word, which so much of the left seem to regard as evil in and among themselves.

"Hope the rain breaks later this evening. Enjoy the Fair."

It's pouring, I'm stranded, and I'm having a great time.

"In other words, no? No looting? No armed gangs roaming the streets killing people for food?

Just checking."

No, just armed robbers holding up people at the bus stop a block away over one week, last month, of which she was one of the three people robbed. She organized the neighborhood community meeting with the liaison officer for our neighborhood to raise this issue with the MPD and Metro's Transit Police, of which the police caught one of the people involved and Metro Transit added patrols along the route to monitor and deter more robberies -- all without so much as a can of pepper spray, mind you and while still trying to come to terms with the emotional impact of the incident.

As I said earlier, which you obviously ignored, it's nothing compared to the challenges the people living in Katrina's wake have to work through.

I get the sense, however, that you are not interested in a person's block club membership, however, or their neighborhood leadership qualities, but rather you appear to want me to drop my criticism of Mr. Vigilante. Sorry, but I won't do that. I'll put ten people who would risk their own lives and put their own suffering aside to aid other human beings over the one person who is willing to kill to protect his or her personal property (for whatever reason) any day.

"The question is, what DO you think he was doing."

As I said earlier, he looks as if he is simply posing -- literally and figuratively -- looking all tough on his still-intact-and-very-nice roof with his rifle and American flag.

"Just the slow decay of one of the core cities as the Republicans and some Independents work to slash spending on our state's civic society and infrastructure while rearranging tax laws to benefit those in the "have" category."

So why don't you guys rebel and tax yourselves into your own version of paradise? You certainly have the right to raise a fair number of taxes in your locality, and with the money you can rebuild all that "infrastructure" you view as important.

Oh yeah, if you do that you'll drive out the folks who do real work and get real money, and that'll mean you'll have to raise more taxes, which will drive more out, etc. Feel free to tax yourselves to death, but why do you feel that others should pay for your desired standard of living?

Mitch is right: when the _cops_ are misbehaving and looting and it comes down to defending yourself and your family you defend them. Now, you can do that by shooting or by organizing yourselves and threatening the bad guys.

So let's assume that you choose to defend yourself against these bandits. You can lay in traps and shoot the bandits in cold blood. Is that what you want? Or you could be like the guy in the picture and brandish weapons. If those roving bands of looters see a bunch of guys with guns sitting on roofs watching them they're not likely to cause trouble in that section of town. If all the sections of town have groups like that then by definition order has been restored. It may not be the usual civil order, but when the situation has calmed down even those corrupt cops in N.O. will go back to doing the right thing.

I lived through Andrew so I know much of what Mississippi is going through and I can respect what N.O. is dealing with. But when south FL had trouble with looters shots rang out and it went down a very low level *fast* (Liberty City excepted). Sorry. While you don't trust anyone other than a few annoited folks to enforce order, I do.

I thought you lefties were all about the rights of the people? Why are you getting your panties in a knot about people asserting their rights to life, liberty, and private property?

"I thought you lefties were all about the rights of the people? Why are you getting your panties in a knot about people asserting their rights to life, liberty, and private property?"

My panties are not in a knot, or a bunch (Didn't you make a similar remark elsewhere, Mitch? Geez, what is it with you guys and my panties, anyway? Kind'a personal, isn't it?) I only have a problem with people determined to take the lives of others by acting as the law and the court. It goes against that idea of asserting other people's rights to, at least, life and liberty, a bit, wouldn't you agree?

Our nation also has a little notion that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, which I would (naively, of course) think goes against the idea of vigilantism.

"I only have a problem with people determined to take the lives of others by acting as the law and the court."

Perhaps it's there where part of the misunderstanding lies. They are (presumably) not acting as "the law and the court" - they are acting *within* their legal rights (self-defense is a right in every state), a right with defined parameters (the citizens must not be a willing participant in the fight, the force they use must be reasonable, the threat must be reasonably assumed to be lethal, it must be a last resort, etc); the courts may well have a final say in how well they stayed within the law.

You might notice how many times I endorsed *legal* self-defense - right? Because it's a meaningful distinction.

" It goes against that idea of asserting other people's rights to, at least, life and liberty, a bit, wouldn't you agree?"

So in other words, a looter's right to life and liberty trump the law-abiding citizen's right to the same?

"Our nation also has a little notion that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, which I would (naively, of course) think goes against the idea of vigilantism."

So you presume that the "vigilantes" are guilty of an extreme, perverted, illegal form of "vigilantism", even as you presume the innocence of those who are roaming the streets, robbing and raping and killing.

You - and, to be fair, the entire left - seem to think "vigilantism" involves mobs patrolling the streets and lynching presumed offenders; in fact, it's a slander many of you superimpose on ALL of us who are second amendment supporters! It's wrong, of course. Self-defense, as I noted, is both *legal* (looting is not) and very carefully defined under the law.

Someone breaking into my house trying to rob and assault me with lethal force might be innocent until proven guilty of robbery and assault with a deadly weapon - but if a district attorney or jury believes that I had a reasonable fear for my life or health, and that lethal force was a reasonable last-resort response under the circumstances, I am still entitled to defend myself.

If my "home" in this case is in a disaster zone, I'm taking care of a couple of kids (and I always am), my supply of food and water are what's keeping my kids and I alive, and a gang comes in wanting to take them (and kill us in the process), they may be innocent until proven guilty, but I can still defend myself.

And so can the guys in Louisiana.

And flying a flag isn't an exacerbating circumstance. Not under the law, anyway - although, again, it sure pisses you lefties off.

"No, just armed robbers holding up people at the bus stop a block away over one week, last month, of which she was one of the three people robbed....all without so much as a can of pepper spray, mind you and while still trying to come to terms with the emotional impact of the incident."

OK, glad nobody was hurt. Now - what if she was in a situation where the MPD and the T-Cops were nowhere to be found? And where the robbers weren't taking bus passes and I-pods, but the only food you knew you were going to see for a week? The only potable water you had in a 90-degree, 90-percent humidity tropical hellhole?

"As I said earlier, which you obviously ignored, it's nothing compared to the challenges the people living in Katrina's wake have to work through."

Moses, get over yourself! I didn't ignore that at all. You're ignoring - or transposing your partner's experiences onto - the challenges the people in NO face, and the responses of the citizens who are *legally* defending themselves and their neighborhoods. You're superimposing a lot of liberal argot (and baggage!) on their actions.

"I get the sense, however, that you are not interested in a person's block club membership, however, or their neighborhood leadership qualities, but rather you appear to want me to drop my criticism of Mr. Vigilante."

I don't care if you criticize him - I'd just like you to be a lot less ignorant and sanctimonious about it, and perhaps realize that your criticism in a couple of areas is very, very misguided. For example, as I noted in my previous comment, your notion of "guilt until proven innocent" is not only intensely misguided, but one-sided and seemingly ignorant of at least one key legal principle.

" Sorry, but I won't do that. I'll put ten people who would risk their own lives and put their own suffering aside to aid other human beings over the one person who is willing to kill to protect his or her personal property (for whatever reason) any day."

And again, you're assuming behavior that's not in evidence. You're assuming the "vigilantes" won't help people who need it - which says more about your assumptions about white people with guns than it does about the people involved.

"As I said earlier, he looks as if he is simply posing -- literally and figuratively -- looking all tough on his still-intact-and-very-nice roof with his rifle and American flag."

So?

I mean, you seem to be holding his intact roof against him, right?

This is all about your assumptions: that anyone who defends himself is a "vigilante" (with all the baggage the left superimposes on that term); that a "vigilante" will act outside the law by stepping outside the bounds of self-defense; that a "vigilante" isn't at the same time going to help his fellow human being (provided that human being doesn't come asking for help at gunpoint); that it is better to be "non-violent" and dead than to defend oneself from lethal danger with lethal force; that the state is the only legitimate custodian of law and order; that a white guy with an intact roof who wants to keep it that way is somehow guilty of some unnamed crime against the people...

All the assumptions are, at best, unfounded; at worst, slander of the common American; in between, evidence of a really cancerously jaundiced view of people who see the world differently than Moses does.

"Our nation also has a little notion that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, which I would (naively, of course) think goes against the idea of vigilantism."

Let's work with this, ok? Someone coming at you with a gun demanding the supplies that stand between life and death for your family is guilty: at the least of assault, aggravated threatening, etc. Period. It's one of those absolutes that so many university humanists like to deny exist. On a more practical level, he's already told you that he values your life and his less than the supplies you have. If you need 12 other citizens to tell you that he's guilty and dangerous, well, you're beyond help and I guess you should be supine at the thought of others imposing their will on you by force since you obviously can't deal with reality.

How the heck could you have doubts that someone's guilty in that situation? Does your "partner" really doubt that that the dude who robbed her is guilty? Does she need 12 guys to tell her that? Would she have refused to call him guilty if he had been caught in the act by the police? And if not, how is it different if someone else does it when they're threatened?

The idea of innocent until proven guilty applies to the state having to prove its case conclusively in order to punish individuals. This has to do with the idea that individuals are less powerful than the state and at significant disadvantage (take a look at the background papers that Founders put out to see their reasoning, especially Jefferson's). It has *nothing* to do with actual guilt or innocence of the actors. A dispationate observer could tell that someone was guilty of robbing your parter. That person is guilty of robbery and it should be pretty conclusive to her at the least. It would have to be proven, however, in a court of law if the state (i.e. the cops) intruded and charged the robber. Then, because they were the state, they would have a higher proof, but that would not change the case that the robber actually was guilty.

How does that intersect with vigilantism? It depends on what you mean by the term. You seem to take the loaded version of rough justice by lynch mob without review by the courts, presumably by folks who are acting without reason. Sorry, I don't see that here. I see guys who are saying that deadly force will be met by deadly force. They're not out roving around looking for folks, they're on their own property. They're not pointing guns at folks and threating them other than the implicit threat of dealing violence for violence. They're willing to take their chances with the justice system and to place themselves at its mercy; after all, they're hardly hiding what they're doing. So calling them vigilantes in Mitch's term is quite fine.

You're trying to make vigilante a synonym with lynch mob, which is quite a differnt thing. Groups of vigilantes can turn into a lynch mob, but this certainly hasn't here, or they can turn into posses if they need to apprehend criminals, or they can simply be a neighborhood watch. In this case they seem to be a neighborhood watch and they've reduced the incentive to lawlessness in their local area and in that way they're operating in concert with Justice the ideal, not the system that attempts to impliment it via the State. Could this group turn into something else? Yes, it could, but in that case it would be the responsibility of the state to step in and we're back to that "innocent until proven guilty" thing again that started this whole discussion and the idea of guilt and levels of proof required.

The bottom line: these are folks taking responsibility for enforcing civilization when formal structures have evaporated. They're self organizing structures for the good of the people. That's a good thing. You lefties would call it empowerment if guns weren't involved.

("Geez, what is it with you guys and my panties, anyway? Kind'a personal, isn't it?" Nah, if it were personal we'd be telling you should be wearing them ;-) As it is, we're just commenting that you're blowing it all out of proportion [which you'll do again with this joke, *sigh*].)

Moses, you've quite simply got it wrong: engaging in self-defense is not, either legally or otherwise, taking the law into your own hands. Retaliation -- punishing people for wrongdoings, real or imagined -- is another thing. That's limited, by law, to state action.

That's not just my opinion about how things should be, or are: that's the law.

Look up Minn. Stat. 609.06 and 609.065, which specifically recognize the right of an individual to use force to resist (not punish: resist) an offense against himself/herself or another, and specifies when lethal force can and can't be used by an individual in doing so.

To simplify: it's legal to use force (including, under some circumstances, given some very strict requirements, to kill somebody) to prevent they committing a crime against you. It's not legal to use any force at all to retaliate for somebody having committed a crime against you. That would be "taking the law into your own hands." Self-defense is not.