Vigilantism

[cordillia]

There is a case going on in Toronto right now where a shopkeeper has been charged with unlawful confinement and assault for apprehending a suspected shoplifter. According to the story (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/10/06/chen-shoplifting-trial.html), the shoplifter was caught on camera stealing some plants earlier in the day, and when they saw him again, the shopkeeper and some members of his family tied him up, put him in the back of a van, and beat him. A passerby heard screams and called police.

The majority of comments on the linked page come out in support of the shopkeeper. I'm wondering what others on this site think of this behaviour. Is it acceptable to take justice into your own hands, and if so, under what circumstances?

[mpousoulas]

yes. under the circumstances that you will not get arrested.

[Ptah]

I'm wondering what others on this site think of this behaviour. Is it acceptable to take justice into your own hands, and if so, under what circumstances?

Yes. Under whatever circumstances.

However, this is a question of degree. Not yes/no. The question I'd raise to the shopkeeper scenario above: how is this retaliation physically proportional to the wrong done to you?

Eye for an eye. Else things get out of balance.

[John Freegman]

I disagree with it on principle because anyone could essentially justify any action they take towards a person who they feel wronged them, regardless of how deserved their actions are. A society with this sort of rampant behaviour would be far worse off in the long run. The court system with all its professionalism and supposed objectivity is bad enough as it is.

Of course I'd never rule it out myself. Depends entirely on the circumstances.

As far as this shop owner's actions go, it demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. You don't tie someone up and beat them for stealing a fucking plant.

[Flatchett]

The detainment is fine, the beating not so much. Although I supposed it's not as bad as cutting the person's hand off.

[Roger Mexico]

Basic social-contract theory stipulates that you forfeit your freedom to unilaterally punish what you consider wrongdoing in order to enjoy the freedom to act without fear of someone else punishing you for something you see as acceptable behavior. (Or rather, for a quasi-guarantee of consistency in what you can expect to be treated as acceptable behavior.) Without this stipulation, ethical reasoning and all related concepts (such as "rights" of any kind) become meaningless--what any individual is or is not free to do depends entirely on disparities in the ability to apply coercive force. You have Hobbes' state of nature--a "war of all against all."

[MoneyJungle]

the shoplifter was caught on camera stealing some plants earlier in the day, and when they saw him again, the shopkeeper and some members of his family tied him up, put him in the back of a van, and beat him. A passerby heard screams and called police.



Who the fuck steals plants?* And then wants more plants so bad they come back later in the day to steal more? I didn't see anything about plants in the article? You don't bring me flowers anymore.

EDIT; (I assumed by the non-specific use of plants, they aren't marijuana)

[Feller]

This would make a lot more sense if the "shopkeeper" were a drug dealer and if the "plant" were weed.

[Roger Mexico]

When they were beating the guy, did they say "Make like a tree and get outta here"?

[OrionzRevenge]

I understand the desire for satisfaction, but generally where the courts would stand on this subject makes sense to me.

In an enlightened society, the three things of greatest value are Life, Limb, and Liberty in that order.

The only time that depriving another of his freedom, without due process, is the lesser of two evils is when it is your absolute conviction that doing so is the only way to prevent that person from bringing physical harm to another.

[Solitaire Unraveling]

The article states... On the day in question, Bennett said, he was approached by a man who asked whether he had stolen anything. "I said 'No'. Then I dropped my bike and ran," he testified.

I'd be interested to hear Bennett's rationale for abandoning his superior mode of transport to flee on foot. The article gives no mention of whether this question was asked, nor does it inform of the assessed value of either the bike or stolen items.

Though his initial response when confronted by Chen was denial, his subsequent actions were clearly both an admission of guilt and gesture of reparation. Chen's failure to consider how the thief had just relinquished possession of his bicycle to him clearly confirms his retributive intent exceeded what would have been appropriate under the circumstances. When he chose to pursue, apprehend, restrain, imprison and physically assault the thief with the assistance of two accomplices, Chen betrayed both his proclivity for sadistic barbarism and his right to seek restitution.

Chen's actions are, IMAO, a prime example of what happens when 'Justice' is nothing more than a snappily-attired form of Vengeance. However, that does not relieve Chen of accountability for his actions. Chen and scores of other adherents to corrupt principles of justice fail to understand that thievery does abate under threat of punishment...it escalates to a higher level, like armed robbery, to redress the imbalance.

Verdict: Bennett should have his bike returned and be relieved of any further penalty related to this case. As for Chen...he should be forced to tow his own line of escalated consequence...Hang the fucker! :)

[SensEye]

Verdict: Bennett should have his bike returned and be relieved of any further penalty related to this case.

From another news article on the topic:


While David Chen goes before a judge for the second week of his trial -- the man convicted of stealing the plants is back in jail.

Police say Anthony Bennett, who has 43 convictions, was charged Friday with five more counts of theft.

I think the first author should suggest to return the bike to whomever Bennett stole it from in the first place.

Anyhow, why should the Canadian justice department worry about the cronic offender, who will be released to get back to his business shortly. Let's focus on punishing the otherwise law abiding citizen, who is unlikely to ever commit another illegal offense.

[John Freegman]

who is unlikely to ever commit another illegal offense.
Why the blind assumption? This man is clearly a sociopath.

[Roger Mexico]

Why the blind assumption? This man is clearly a sociopath.

Yeah, what happens if he thinks someone stole from him, but he is mistaken? What manner of other relatively small provocations are likely to provoke him into disproportionate acts of violence?

[Harion]

Vigilantes kick ass

http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/107/1070669/KA-03_300dpi_1266615734.jpg