Export thread

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44848642/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.TpNhuLK3OCg

So this guy, "Phoenix Jones", a self-styled superhero, was arrested for using pepper spray to stop a brawl. Charged with assault.

Slippery slope, or the necessary steps to prevent vigilante justice?

Who's side are you on?

Didn't I just watch this on Castle?

Vigilantes are dangerous and should be processed to the fullest extent of the law (but not the death penalty since that is fucking horrible).

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Vigilantes are dangerous and should be processed to the fullest extent of the law (but not Batman...cause he is badass).

Click to expand...

Fixed that for ya.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Vigilantes are dangerous and should be processed to the fullest extent of the law .

Click to expand...

LAWWWWWWWWW!

I agree with Charlie with the caveat that it does not apply in serious cases where lawlessness is rampant. So in the US it's a bad idea but in Somalia I'd say it was warranted.

I think it's worth note here that this was not just some dude trying to stop a fight... it was an actual costumed would-be superhero who seems to spray first and ask questions never.

I agree that Vigilantism is not a good thing, on the whole, but in this situation, if the guy was legitimately being attacked first, and he deployed OC spray to defend himself, then he'd be good.

Down here, at least... Seattle falls under the 9th Judicial Circus... errr CIRCUIT, which is renowned in the Law Enforcement world as doing some of the most asinine, bone-headed rulings in the history of the judicial system.

I though I was on the side of waiting for more details before jumping in on one side or the other, but apparently I'm not. On the one hand, the police in Seattle are getting kind of notorious for arresting the wrong people (and misjudgin appropriate force levels in the process). On the other hand, all I've seen on the local (Seattle) news are stories that Jones pepper sprayed a group of people who had recently left a club, with varying additional details including:

1) He has video evidence that he was breaking up a fight
2) He used the pepper spray on someone else only after being attacked himself
3) The people he says were fighting were actually dancing

Then there's the whole vigilanteism angle. I'm generally anti-vigilante. Even if I don't always think individual members of the police force are the most upstanding people in the world, at least they have legal authority to be using non-lethal force to break up a fight. Nobody granted any authority to Jones or to any other random "super heroes" who want to police the streets, and while most of the stories about things he's done are good (stopped a stolen bus, broken up several fights, etc.), all it takes is for him to misunderstand one situation and jump in on the side of the wrong person and he goes from superhero to dumbass. Now, if he wanted to wander the streets and call the police when he saw problems that needed to be dealt with, more power to him. Any citizen has that right (or, if you're so inclined, that responsibility). But when you bring force to bear on a situation, unless you're dead certain that you're following the local citizen's arrest codes, you've crossed the line. Vigilanteism can be extremely dangerous.

Just a few years back there was a guy, who admittedly was a registered sex offender, who was beaten nearly to death (or worse, the details are a bit fuzzy) by several people when a girl in his neighborhood reported that someone (not the guy they attacked, she hadn't yet made an ID) attempted to rape her. Turned out to be a completely different suspect and now the girl's family is being prosecuted on aggravated assault charges, like she needs to add that to the list of problems she has after someone attempted to rape her. Plus, if I remember correctly, the only reason the guy was even on the sex offender list was because he had "consensual" sex with his then 16 year old girlfriend when he was 21 (statutory rape - it can get tricky when it comes to consent, the age of consent, and the age of the older participant).

He'd done his time, been to his therapy, registered as required, and was - by all accounts - living a good, clean life. He had just run afoul of a mother who hated him enough to turn him in for statutory rape of her daughter, and now he's been beaten to within an inch of his life (I believe he was in a coma for a while and suffered some pretty severe brain damage). So now we have two victims, the girl who some scumbag tried to rape, and the guy who has to relearn how to walk and talk because he did something stupid several years before and was in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time.

No, sir. I do not like vigilanteism. Has way too much potential for getting the wrong people in trouble or worse. You see a problem situation, call the cops, let them handle it. You want to help the situation, stay on the scene and file a statement detailing what you saw/heard. Our courts aren't perfect, but at least in the legal system you get a jury of your peers and a chance at an appeal - what do you get with some joker in a costume or a gang of pissed off parents?

Yup. Vigilantism is great when you know that you are fighting the bad guys - Joker, Green Goblin, Kingpin, etc. Trouble is, we have a lot of wannabe superheroes, but no super villains. So they end up attacking the wrong people.

There's a growing number of guys dressing up and fighting crime. There was a great documentary about them recently called Superheroes. It was on HBO. Highly recommend it.

And honestly, most of them do the right thing: don't get physically involved, call the authorities if they witness something and even go above and beyond by handing out food and supplies to the homeless. They honestly do good work.

Phoenix Jones, however, has been looked down upon by a number of those same individuals. They think he goes too far. And...I think I agree with them. For all the fantasizing I might have about chasing down and beating up some criminal scum, it'd be legally going too far.

Dave said:

Yup. Vigilantism is great when you know that you are fighting the bad guys - Joker, Green Goblin, Kingpin, etc. Trouble is, we have a lot of wannabe superheroes, but no super villains. So they end up attacking the wrong people.

Click to expand...

Plenty of Super Villains in the world. None dumb enough to put on a costume and go out into the world doing "bad things" themselves.

ThatNickGuy said:

There's a growing number of guys dressing up and fighting crime. There was a great documentary about them recently called Superheroes. It was on HBO. Highly recommend it.

And honestly, most of them do the right thing: don't get physically involved, call the authorities if they witness something and even go above and beyond by handing out food and supplies to the homeless. They honestly do good work.

Phoenix Jones, however, has been looked down upon by a number of those same individuals. They think he goes too far. And...I think I agree with them. For all the fantasizing I might have about chasing down and beating up some criminal scum, it'd be legally going too far.

Click to expand...

See, the rest of that I have no problem with. You wanna call yourself a superhero, dress up in a fancy costume, and (legally, by notifying proper authorities) fight crime - go for it. In fact, you do that, maybe you really are a superhero. Just don't cross the damn line.

Shegokigo said:

Plenty of Super Villains in the world. None dumb enough to put on a costume and go out into the world doing "bad things" themselves.

Click to expand...

They just go into politics or finance.

GasBandit said:

They just go into politics or finance.

Click to expand...

Not all, but yeah there are quite a few there. None the less, in every aspect of Super Villany that DOES exist in today's modern society, there's not a DAMN thing a single one of these "costumed heroes/vigilantes" can do about it.

Maybe the vigilantes should be arrested for their horrible fashion sense.

What a dumbass.

And Punisher is the greatest vigilante... next to Homer's drunken posse.

Don't we already let guys take a 2-hour course and then let them go out and hunt bail jumpers? For money? Isn't that already vigilante justice? Or is it different because they get to paid?

@Ash: In that situation, they're after someone for whom a warrant already exists, and for whom an amount of money is being offered by the bail company.

What these folks are attempting to do is a warrantless "citizen" arrest of someone for a crime that they've witnessed. Technically speaking, in the strictest sense, they can seize someone for the commission of a crime.

However, they're taking their own safety, physical and civil liability, into their own hands with this. The dirty can turn right around and sue them for the "unwarranted aggression against their person, resulting in physical and mental trauma," or whatever BS the shyster will lead them towards.

God, I hate civil court.

So basically, Bounty Hunting is different because the person they are after already has a warrant out on them?

Civil court is the law on an acid trip... a bad bad acid trip.

AshburnerX said:

So basically, Bounty Hunting is different because the person they are after already has a warrant out on them?

Click to expand...

It's different because

A) they are searching for someone who has already committed a crime (bail-jumping), and someone for whom a bounty has been posted. They are providing a paid service.

B) They have been "trained" (yes, I know that the level of training varies WIDELY enough to be a complete joke) and have been licensed to perform this paid service.

Vigilantes are volunteering to do what they do. As with any volunteer service, quality varies without any form of controls or guarantees placed upon it.

Officer_Charon said:

It's different because

A) they are searching for someone who has already committed a crime (bail-jumping), and someone for whom a bounty has been posted. They are providing a paid service.

B) They have been "trained" (yes, I know that the level of training varies WIDELY enough to be a complete joke) and have been licensed to perform this paid service.

Vigilantes are volunteering to do what they do. As with any volunteer service, quality varies without any form of controls or guarantees placed upon it.

Click to expand...

Since the BH are "trained" they are also register
Vigilantes are not register

Why does everyone keep forgetting that vigilantism includes being judge and jury too, not just stopping muggers...

More vigilantes! More!

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/10/11/the-adventures-of-a-real-life-superhero/

They have a LEAGUE!!!! (looks like 7 of them)

Bail bondsman / bounty hunters / fugitive retrieval agents have widely varying rights, protections, and requirements, depending on the state. In New Jersey, many current bounty hunters are private detectives or former law enforcement officers. They are one of the few occupations in NJ that can get a carry permit for firearms as well as weapons like collapsible batons, and must have a warrant before engaging in any pursuit activity. NJ Bounty Hunters are do not have immunity against lawsuits for damage caused in the pursuit of a fugitive and can be prosecuted for inflicting injury.

Null said:

NJ Bounty Hunters are do not have immunity against lawsuits for damage caused in the pursuit of a fugitive and can be prosecuted for inflicting injury.

Click to expand...

Hell, so can cops!