hiposon nalang gud ni ang mga daotang elemento.... kani sang taga human rights OA kaayo.. sampolan palang ni sila patyan ni sila og usa ka relatives sa mga criminal para ka amgo ni sila..
hiposon nalang gud ni ang mga daotang elemento.... kani sang taga human rights OA kaayo.. sampolan palang ni sila patyan ni sila og usa ka relatives sa mga criminal para ka amgo ni sila..

sakto na mohatag reward pangita sa suspect but sayop na mo hatag reward sa mka patay sa suspect
kung pulis pa imong sultihon ana, mo trabaho lang diay nig basta naa reward. kung wala, dili pod mo trabaho.
in my point of view, I am neither a Pro nor Anti Vigilantes. Ang akong dili ganahan is kini lang jud human rights group mag apil2x lang jud... utro pod ning Catholic priests... unya'g biktima sa krimen, wala human rights mag yawyaw... unya kriminal gipatay, mo piyaet ning human rights group. ilang pag-apil2x, maka decide ko nga adto ko molaban sa Pro vigilantism.
Lastly, naa baya ko amigo kaparehas og ngalan ni Ryan Yu. pero taga dire lang sa Cebu City![]()
I think kaning mga criminal nagka grabe so in return more drastic solution needed so go VM! kill 'em all!
any hint of vigilantism (encouragement, appeal, etc.), however small, is always a sign of two things:
1.) the rule of law is weak for people to resort to extra-legal measures to ward off or punish crimes since there is a notion that impunity has become pervasive. it is normal for people to defend themselves and even seek redress against criminal acts. but it is not normal for a supposedly democratic society to do this outside the bounds of the law.
when legal institutions are not working, it means that there is something wrong with the context on which it is being implemented:
- loopholes in the law, or punitive clauses of laws are not heavy enough to act as deterrents.
- laws are simply not being implemented properly, due to the sheer force of incapacity, or the sheer force of malice.
2.) and when we do hear about people encouraging vigilantism, it begs the question against which kinds of criminals, and what kind of crimes. it also asks why only the the petty criminal almost always are the ones who end up dead while those that amass millions from the nation's coffers end up scot-free.
if vigilantism is a knee-jerk reaction to address the persistent criminal impunity that results to the incapacity and inability of the state to properly implement its own laws, it also unwittingly reveals and affirms how there is an imbalance of the distribution of power among us: namely that which decides on who dies and who doesn't.
“What we call chaos is just patterns we haven't recognized. What we call random is just patterns we cant decipher. What we can't understand we call nonsense. What we can't read we call gibberish.” - Chuck Palahniuk
Politicians are using vigilantism to sell themselves as tough on crime, when the truth is they are mismanaging their resources and encouraging double-standards. It seems clear to me that certain individuals benefit from a perceived climate of fear offering themselves and their bloated egos as the only viable solution to a problem which could easily be dealt with by simply supporting law enforcement in their lawful duties.
mura man ni ug evil working against evil... layo na kaayo na siya sa Ginoo
Similar Threads |
|