MERGED: Vigilantism and related issues

[emow]

---

lols.

last na lang mo ha. wa lagi ni ayo ang VIGILANTE. mga KILLER na sila. SALOT sa katilingban. ngano mu laban man mog KILLER?

so ok ra diay mupatay ug taw? bisag mga salbahis pana ilang pamatyon, TAW man gihapon na. aw due process napud atong padulngan ani.

cguro kriminal ka noh? ngano mahadlokman ka vigilante kung wala kay sayop gibuhat?? .... jok ra bitaw.... mas better gyud if naay vigilante at least magduhaduha na ang mga kriminal... its better them dead than the innocent people the kriminals victimize...dili man gyudokay mu patay ug tao mao gani patyon na ang kriminal! it's actually okay to kill them... it's th lesser evil... besides, they're not humans....=)

[emow]

Nalzaro: Human rights and vigilantism
By Bobby Nalzaro
Saksi

WHEN policemen or vigilantes kill a criminal, human rights advocates immediately condemn them, claiming human rights violation. But when criminal elements victimize a policeman or an innocent civilian, the same groups are mum. Where is fairness there?

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and noisy members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines condemned the recent killings of persons with criminal records allegedly by vigilantes. They want these executions investigated to unmask the killers and bring them to court.

When alleged members of a budol-budol gang were killed in an ambush, these groups immediately issued a statement condemning the incident while insinuating that the police or vigilantes were the perpetrators.

But why were they silent when robbers killed innocent persons like Ruby Jade Ruba, a graduating student? Why did they not make a noise when SPO4 Asterio Butron was robbed and shot dead while driving his taxi unit? Why are these people more concerned with the lives of criminals than with the lives of law enforcers and innocent people?

I understand CHR’s position because without human rights abuses employees of the said agency would be jobless. My beef is with lawyers who are projecting themselves as human rights advocates. Why do they value the lives of criminals? Because they can earn if criminals live?

These few noisy lawyers should instead help the police and relatives of the victims of criminality prosecute the accused, like what lawyers Fritz Quiñanola and Rameses Villagonzalo are doing. The two are helping Ruby’s family in prosecuting pro bono the accused.

Which reminds me of militant organizations. They cry human rights violation every time the military kills a suspected communist rebel or a sympathizer, even if the encounter is legitimate. But when rebels kill a soldier in an ambush, it is alright for them.

***

I cannot blame Thelma Chiong, national vice president of the Crusade Against Violence for supporting vigilante killings. Members of the group, whose members are relatives of victims of heinous crimes and senseless killings, have suffered much pain. It is painful to lose a loved one through violent means.

The Chiongs agonized over the loss of their two daughters, one of whom was found dead while the other is still missing though presumed dead. While they obtained justice because the perpetrators were convicted and are serving jail terms, that won’t bring back their daughters’ lives. The agony and trauma still hounds them.

The Chiongs were able to obtain justice through legal means because they have resources. But what about people who have none and don’t also have connections to rely on?

Admittedly, vigilantism is not the solution to the problem of criminality. But it will sow terror among the ranks of criminals. If criminals terrorize innocent people, then we should terrorize them through vigilantes and summary executions. That's what we call balance of terror.

Imagine if the criminals gunned down by vigilantes were alive today, how many innocent people would they have victimized? But we should also ask the vigilantes to be specific in their target to avoid collateral damage.

[neox30]

approde ko ani

[fire starter]

GO VIGILANTES ELIMINATE ALL CRIMINALS

Kung naa vigilante dre na istoryan supporta ko ninyo.

[rockrhyan1982]

I go for this VIGILANTES, as far as real criminals who are no longer right to live ila tumbahon. if we cant get justice by good we will get their lives. i have a cousin before nga gitulis nya gi-pusil, her mom now is commatized bcoz of what happened. now, stil the suspect is not yet arrested. easy for them (human rights people) to say na dli sakto ang gibuhat sa vigilantes. what if sa ila mahitabo ang nahitabo sa mga innocent people na gipang-patay?u will think court justice is enough?think of it..

[giddyboy]

Vigilantism does not necessarily result to violence. worse, killing a criminal.

But sadly, in our case here and Davao, it does. This is the kind of vigilantism that any democratic country abhors. This is the kind of thinking that a parent MUST always avoid teaching to their children. Otherwise, an innocent child would think that Robin Hood or Batman killing a villain is alright...

In vigilantism, violence is not a necessary criterion.

per wiki, Vigilante behavior may differ in degree of violence. In some cases vigilantes may assault targets verbally, terrorize victims, perform inhumane acts, or may exhibit no violence at all, choosing other means of pressuring the target. Anyone who defies government and institution to further justice can be considered a vigilante, and thus violence is not a necessary criterion.

some examples:

(1) Formed since 2000, Ranch Rescue is a still functioning organization in the southwest United States ranchers call upon to forcibly remove illegal aliens and squatters off their property.

(2) In Northern Ireland, vigilantism has been observed against drug dealers and pedophiles. In one such case, a known pedophile had been released from prison early, kidnapped by a group of men dressed in black clothing and balaclavas, much like the Provisional IRA or UVF. He was stabbed twice, then, put in the back of a Ford Transit van where four Bull Mastiff dogs were waiting for him. He was then driven around Belfast and Derry for two hours. After the dogs mauled him, he was dumped in the verges of a dual carriageway. He survived.

(3) The Minuteman Project, a group created to deter illegal aliens and drug smugglers from entering the United States, was criticized for making citizen arrests.

(4) The internet-based group Anonymous has brought down websites of the Church of Scientology in response to their attempts at internet censorship. They have also organized peaceful protests against the organization, calling it a exploitive business and cult, during which almost all members wear masks.

[poy]

Nalzaro: Human rights and vigilantism
By Bobby Nalzaro
Saksi

WHEN policemen or vigilantes kill a criminal, human rights advocates immediately condemn them, claiming human rights violation. But when criminal elements victimize a policeman or an innocent civilian, the same groups are mum. Where is fairness there?

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and noisy members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines condemned the recent killings of persons with criminal records allegedly by vigilantes. They want these executions investigated to unmask the killers and bring them to court.

When alleged members of a budol-budol gang were killed in an ambush, these groups immediately issued a statement condemning the incident while insinuating that the police or vigilantes were the perpetrators.

But why were they silent when robbers killed innocent persons like Ruby Jade Ruba, a graduating student? Why did they not make a noise when SPO4 Asterio Butron was robbed and shot dead while driving his taxi unit? Why are these people more concerned with the lives of criminals than with the lives of law enforcers and innocent people?

I understand CHR’s position because without human rights abuses employees of the said agency would be jobless. My beef is with lawyers who are projecting themselves as human rights advocates. Why do they value the lives of criminals? Because they can earn if criminals live?

These few noisy lawyers should instead help the police and relatives of the victims of criminality prosecute the accused, like what lawyers Fritz Quiñanola and Rameses Villagonzalo are doing. The two are helping Ruby’s family in prosecuting pro bono the accused.

Which reminds me of militant organizations. They cry human rights violation every time the military kills a suspected communist rebel or a sympathizer, even if the encounter is legitimate. But when rebels kill a soldier in an ambush, it is alright for them.

***

I cannot blame Thelma Chiong, national vice president of the Crusade Against Violence for supporting vigilante killings. Members of the group, whose members are relatives of victims of heinous crimes and senseless killings, have suffered much pain. It is painful to lose a loved one through violent means.

The Chiongs agonized over the loss of their two daughters, one of whom was found dead while the other is still missing though presumed dead. While they obtained justice because the perpetrators were convicted and are serving jail terms, that won’t bring back their daughters’ lives. The agony and trauma still hounds them.

The Chiongs were able to obtain justice through legal means because they have resources. But what about people who have none and don’t also have connections to rely on?

Admittedly, vigilantism is not the solution to the problem of criminality. But it will sow terror among the ranks of criminals. If criminals terrorize innocent people, then we should terrorize them through vigilantes and summary executions. That's what we call balance of terror.

Imagine if the criminals gunned down by vigilantes were alive today, how many innocent people would they have victimized? But we should also ask the vigilantes to be specific in their target to avoid collateral damage.

agree ko ani dah....
how about ang ga start ani nga thread, mohimo ug poll...

[ong76win2]

Ang mastermind sa RCBC robbery angayan papusilun. Grabe jud nabuhat sa pagkawat then gipatay pa jud. Angay instant justice.

[vern]

Ideas always sound good when they aren't after you, your friends, your family. Ideas always sounds good when you support them typing through the computer screen without seeing the consequences for the society and the rule of law. Might as well start your own country where punishment is granted via eye for an eye and where you are guilty until proven innocent ... but have no chance of proving yourself innocent.

If you support vigilantism, feel free to start your own country ... I'd rather live in a country of laws ... laws that are guaranteed and not carried out by judge, jury, and executioner in the form of vigilantes. People forsake these rights until they have to come back to them for their protection.

The law isn't perfect, but the law isn't at fault, it is those that execute the offices that provide and protect the law ... and the people who put officials into office are decided in a democratic country ... by YOU ... all of YOU.

[batang buotan]

Dakong supak. Samtang ania pa kita'y balaod nga gisunod dili angayan nga itugyan nato sa laing kamot ang hustisya. Dili mamahimong magmalinawon ang usa ka lugar nga nagtugot sa pagpatay ngadto sa mga badlungon sa katilingban. Di ba aduna man kitay tigpatuman sa balaod? Dili pa ba diay paigo ang atong balaod nga nagsilot sa mga nakasala?