MERGED: Vigilantism and related issues

[vern]

---

is the reduction in the number of criminals not any good to you?

Take out the soldiers of an ant colony ... and you still have millions left, without even confirmation if they indeed are guilty of any crime. Who gave them death warrants?

when? the answer is now.
where?
olpot has the answer:

And Davao doesn't have crime? Are you attributing the relatively low crime in Davao to vigilante killings? ... not to something the government is doing right for a change? Lets take for example two american Cities ... one Los Angeles, and the other Minneapolis. LA arguably has more crime ... but yet Minneapolis doesn't have vigilantes running around making it safer.

[FK]

bitaw Davao has low crime rate pero onsa man ang naka pa-ubos sa crime rate nila? Is it the strict implementation of the law or the vigilantes? kinsa taga davao diri?

[bfginus]

Bfginus wrote:

when? the answer is now.
where?
olpot has the answer:

Vern wrote:

And Davao doesn't have crime?

who says it doesn't have? not me, not olpot.

Are you attributing the relatively low crime in Davao to vigilante killings? ... not to something the government is doing right for a change?

not only i, but most of the Davaoenos themselves, do attribute the city's low crime rate to vigilante executions. why, are you disputing this fact? do you think effective law enforcement is responsible for the elimination of many of these criminals?. davao has earned its reputation as the country's vigilante "justice" capital. don't you know that?

Lets take for example two american Cities ... one Los Angeles, and the other Minneapolis. LA arguably has more crime ... but yet Minneapolis doesn't have vigilantes running around making it safer.

are you trying to draw a parallel between Davao and Minneapolis? if yes, then you're dead wrong because davao and minneapolis are two different realities. if no, then the minneapolis example is of no moment and useless because such fact as that obtaining in minneapolis is not disputed. the issue you have to address is whether or not the reduction in the number of criminals as result of vigilantism is any good to you.

Take out the soldiers of an ant colony ... and you still have millions left, without even confirmation if they indeed are guilty of any crime.

wipe out that remaining millions and there'll be no millions left. and if one party does not confirm that the soldiers of an ant colony are ants, does it mean they're not?

Who gave them death warrants?

what a question. it's already a given: summary execution is illegal. thus, no one gives them legal death warrant.
but whether or not the "good" that vigilante killings brings, provides for their justification (or the moral death warrant) is the very moral issue this topic seeks to resolve.

[vern]

not only i, but most of the Davaoenos themselves, do attribute the city's low crime rate to vigilante executions. why, are you disputing this fact? do you think effective law enforcement is responsible for the elimination of many of these criminals?. davao has earned its reputation as the country's vigilante "justice" capital. don't you know that?

What fact? It might be fact that Davaoenos think that vigilantes is the answer, but that does not make speculation that vigilantes are the real answer to their problem .. fact?

are you trying to draw a parallel between Davao and Minneapolis? if yes, then you're dead wrong because davao and minneapolis are two different realities. if no, then the minneapolis example is of no moment and useless because such fact as that obtaining in minneapolis is not disputed. the issue you have to address is whether or not the reduction in the number of criminals as result of vigilantism is any good to you.

If you read my post, I drew a comparison between two AMERICAN cities. The point I was making was that there are factors that reduce crime, and increase crime ... and vigilante killings has NEVER had any PROVEN effect. Let's work with FACTS ... not SPECULATION. Where are your numbers?

wipe out that remaining millions and there'll be no millions left. and if one party does not confirm that the soldiers of an ant colony are not ants, does it mean they're not?

So you are saying you want to wipe out everything in the hope of getting lucky and actually killing those that are actually involved in crime? What is this? A witchhunt? Another inquisition? Hasn't history taught us anything.

what a question. it's already a given: summary execution is illegal. thus, no one gives them legal death warrant.
but whether or not the "good" that vigilante killings brings, provides for their justification (or the moral death warrant) is the very moral issue this topic seeks to resolve.

Where is the good? You call more death because of presumed guilt ... good? However you look at this issue, there is no moral ground or moral justification that you imply exists.

[nopeace]

one advantage sa vigilante man gud is that criminals won't know their enemies..

so.. extra careful sila.. this is so common sense for me..

yes vigilantes are not good people but i guess they would rather bring these
criminals in hell with them..

[bfginus]

bfginus wrote:

not only i, but most of the Davaoenos themselves, do attribute the city's low crime rate to vigilante executions. why, are you disputing this fact? do you think effective law enforcement is responsible for the elimination of many of these criminals?. davao has earned its reputation as the country's vigilante "justice" capital. don't you know that?

vern answered:

What fact? It might be fact that Davaoenos think that vigilantes is the answer, but that does not make speculation that vigilantes are the real answer to their problem .. fact?

speculation on our part? or mere assumption on your part that it's mere speculation on our part? as can be gleaned from your statements quoted above, i'm afraid all you could offer are irrelevant contrary views which themselves are but products of your own speculations and assumptions.

and who says that vigilantes are real the answer to the criminality problem in davao? vigilante killings reduced the number of criminal elements in that city, that was the assertion. a refutation of fact by misrepresentation of a statement. what a mess.

bfginus wrote:

are you trying to draw a parallel between Davao and Minneapolis? if yes, then you're dead wrong because davao and minneapolis are two different realities. if not, then the minneapolis example is of no moment and useless because such fact as that obtaining in minneapolis is not disputed. the issue you have to address is whether or not the reduction in the number of criminals as result of vigilantism is any good to you.

vern answered:

If you read my post, I drew a comparison between two AMERICAN cities.

i did. just the same it proved me right. i find your comparison of two american cities useless because it neither proves nor disproves the realities of davao city. it's immaterial and irrelevant. naghisgot ta kung ang vigilante killings nakapaminus ba sa gidaghanon sa kriminal sa davao, ngano gud tawn niabot kag amerika nga wa man ta naghisgot og unsa'y tinuod didto?

The point I was making was that there are factors that reduce crime, and increase crime ... and vigilante killings has NEVER had any PROVEN effect.

yes, there are. but factors that reduce crime in america need not be the same factors that reduce crime in Davao. conversely, factors that won't help reduce crime in america may, as it does, help reduce crime in davao.

so, you're wrong in your ASSUMPTION that "vigilante killings has NEVER had any PROVEN effect" in Davao. or are you saying again that it 's not an assumption but a fact because it is also the fact in american cities?

Let's work with FACTS ... not SPECULATION. Where are your numbers?

sure. i can give you a relevant profile of DAVAO's peace and order condition based on news reports and other authoritative sources, if you can give yours. i'm pretty sure you're going to dispute the facts cited by the sources just to support your stand. fine with me. just don't give us the examples of minneapolis and los angeles where vigilante killings don't work. they're off-tangent. the crux of the matter here is the DAVAO condition.

bfginus wrote:

wipe out that remaining millions and there'll be no millions left. and if one party does not confirm that the soldiers of an ant colony are ants, does it mean they're not?

vern answered:

So you are saying you want to wipe out everything in the hope of getting lucky and actually killing those that are actually involved in crime? What is this? A witchhunt? Another inquisition? Hasn't history taught us anything.

you're confused with your own metaphor. you're talking of ants. ants, in no uncertain terms. so i was talking of wiping out these ants you mentioned. are you now in doubt if the soldiers of the ant colony are ants?

these tiny creatures represent the criminals in your example. criminals, in no uncertain terms. so why are you now contradicting your own example by questioning the certainty that those to be wiped out are ants - or criminals?
witchhunt? inquisition? they're all your faulty conclusions, not mine.

yes, history teaches one important lesson which some incurable idealists never learn: nothing is permanent in this world but change. someone's else's reality does not have to become another's fact.

bfginus wrote:

what a question. it's already a given: summary execution is illegal. thus, no one gives them legal death warrant.
but whether or not the "good" that vigilante killings brings, provides for their justification (or the moral death warrant) is the very moral issue this topic seeks to resolve.

vern answered:

Where is the good? You call more death because of presumed guilt ... good? However you look at this issue, there is no moral ground or moral justification that you imply exists.

definitely there is no good IF, as your statement above made it appear, guilt is presumed. but who says it is? i did not. you did. to be specific, you presumed that the guilt of these criminals is presumed. THE ANTS, THE ANTS, YOU SAY.

stop meandering. we are agreed that vigilante killings reduce the number of crimiinals - i repeat, criminals. the simple question i wanted you to answer is: is the resultant reduction in the number of criminals any good to you?

[vern]

speculation on our part? or mere assumption on your part that it's mere speculation on our part? as can be gleaned from your statements quoted above, i'm afraid all you could offer are irrelevant contrary views which themselves are but products of your own speculations and assumptions.

and who says that vigilantes are real the answer to the criminality problem in davao? vigilante killings reduced the number of criminal elements in that city, that was the assertion. a refutation of fact by misrepresentation of a statement. what a mess.

As I have already said, if it is not speculation, where are your numbers? your facts? That is all that I ask for. Show me something that says ... vigilante killings are effective. If all you are saying is 10 - 1 = 9 ... I do not contest that ... unfortunately, that doesn't mean effectiveness.

i did. just the same it proved me right. i find your comparison of two american cities useless because it neither proves nor disproves the realities of davao city. it's immaterial and irrelevant. naghisgot ta kung ang vigilante killings nakapaminus ba sa gidaghanon sa kriminal sa davao, ngano gud tawn niabot kag amerika nga wa man ta naghisgot og unsa'y tinuod didto?

You didn't understand the point I was making. Please do not cut snippets of my argument to prove your own. I asked "Are you attributing the relatively low crime in Davao to vigilante killings? ... not to something the government is doing right for a change?". I was comparing two like cities with different results from the government. You still haven't answered the question.

yes, there are. but factors that reduce crime in america need not be the same factors that reduce crime in Davao. conversely, factors that won't help reduce crime in america may, as it does, help reduce crime in davao.

Like I said previously, I was not comparing American cities to Filipino cities. That would be comparing apples to oranges. I was making a point that two similar cities can have two totally different rates of crime that is affected by very many different factors and that vigilante killings does not equal low crime.

sure. i can give you a relevant profile of DAVAO's peace and order condition based on news reports and other authoritative sources, if you can give yours. i'm pretty sure you're going to dispute the facts cited by the sources just to support your stand. fine with me. just don't give us the examples of minneapolis and los angeles where vigilante killings don't work. they're off-tangent. the crux of the matter here is the DAVAO condition.

I have nothing to prove. I am merely said you have not given me numbers that prove that these vigilantes are the source of Davao's low crime rate? Give me a study. News reports and random people being interviewed is not a study.

you're confused with your own metaphor. you're talking of ants. ants, in no uncertain terms. so i was talking of wiping out these ants you mentioned. are you now in doubt if the soldiers of the ant colony are ants?

these tiny creatures represent the criminals in your example. criminals, in no uncertain terms. so why are you now contradicting your own example by questioning the certainty that those to be wiped out are ants - or criminals?
witchhunt? inquisition? they're all your faulty conclusions, not mine.

yes, history teaches one important lesson which some incurable idealists never learn: nothing is permanent in this world but change. someone's else's reality does not have to become another's fact.

No, I believe you have confused yourself with it. You have put meaning where it doesn't belong. The ants stood for people, people which may or may not be guilty of anything. You propose eliminating all to satisfy the belief that some might be guilty. Nothing is ever permanent but change ... yes. But you forget one other lesson history has taught us, that taking the law in your own hands is a step backwards if anything. Europe had it's middle ages. America had it's wild west. Most societies outgrow this stage.

definitely there is no good IF, as your statement above made it appear, guilt is presumed. but who says it is? i did not. you did. to be specific, you presumed that the guilt of these criminals is presumed. THE ANTS, THE ANTS, YOU SAY.

stop meandering. we are agreed that vigilante killings reduce the number of crimiinals - i repeat, criminals. the simple question i wanted you to answer is: is the resultant reduction in the number of criminals any good to you?

I have NEVER said guilt was presumed. If anyone has stated anything remotely resembling that, you did. I NEVER said those ants were guilty. Those ants stood for people ... guilty or not. Do not change what I say to fit your arguments.

Like I said time and time again. Where are your numbers? I have never agreed with you on any grounds except that 1 + 1 = 2. I have said before, if all you want to prove is that it reduces the number of people ... then there is nothing to argue. That however says nothing about how effective it is in actually condemning the guilty. Your question presumes the people killed to be criminals ... and then asks for a yes or no. You asked the wrong question from the beginning.

[grlnxtdor16]

partly, happy ku para ma kuha-kuhaan ang mga salot sa akung comunidad.
bintaha nlng, mag lakaw lakaw ka dha sa dalan nga di na kaau ingana ka grabe imu kahadluk nga tulison ka. pero naa mn ghapun ang fear,di jud na mawala....
on the bad side, this might cause anarchy... wala nai klarung systema sa atung government. ma wala ang democracy and freedom!

[nopeace]

i agree.. 10-1=9

if vigilantes kill 1+1+1..

so, criminals become 9-1-1-1=6

did it reduce the number of criminals? yes..

[saber]

Well from where I'm standing, everyone here seems to be in favor of it (Including me).