Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / June 2005
OT BUSH LIFTS BAN On Vigilantism; "Lets see what happens", says President
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Learning Richard - 28 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT WASHINGTON, DC-In a striking departure from centuries of American belief in rule of law, President Bush gave his approval Monday to a limited experiment in public vigilantism "to see if it works."
"Groups of dedicated citizens who band together for a common cause-be it rounding up car thieves or castigating suspicious loiterers-strengthen and reinforce the social order," Bush said at a White House press conference.
"I've never supported government intrusion in people's lives; I've always put more faith in the private sector. So I say, what the heck! Let's give vigilantism a go and see how things shake out. Why not?"
Bush's self-described "plan to have no plan" permits elected and appointed government authorities to "look the other way" while bands of U.S. citizens enforce both the community standards that the existing legal code overlooks and those laws that police fail to enforce.
"From bordello-busters to subway shooters, vigilantes have a long history of pinpointing and resolving the problems plaguing their communities," Bush said. "Let's give 'em a shot."
Bush's remarks came in the wake of criticism among his ultraconservative supporters, who argue that "activist judges" often make decisions that contradict the will of the people. To help remedy this problem, many special-interest groups had been calling for an official tolerance of "vigilante judicial committees."
"Vigilantes have an undeserved reputation for recklessness," Republican pollster Jennifer Mendenhall said. "As we phase vigilantism in, be prepared to hear a lot of talk about 'mob-ocracies' and 'tyrannies of the bat-wielding, roving majorities.' That rhetoric is meant to scare peaceful citizens into thinking they need magisterial authority to protect their interests.
But vigilantism is not about crazed drunkards clustering in town squares, waving pitchforks and crying out for blood. It's about an opportunity to let the citizens of America serve as their neighbors' meter maids, correctional officers, chiefs of police, or, if necessary, SWAT teams."
Bush's decision has already mobilized vigilantes across the country.
"Who needed the police and the courts when I already knew who vandalized the restrooms at McDonnell Park?" Roy Kunz of Katy, TX said. "Bush has it right. It's high time we threw a few necktie parties around here."
Murphysboro, IL's Jo Crockett formed a vigilante committee to forcibly evict neighbor and "dirty, no-good slut" Haley Uhrig and her family from her neighborhood.
"Does the government care that [Uhrig] litters her yard with stinky diapers, blares her music around the clock, and steals our men? Hell no," Crockett said. "We couldn't wait around for an arrest warrant or a Jerry Springer segment producer to come to our aid. It's simple: That woman had to go."
Bush's endorsement of vigilante activity caught Capitol Hill Democrats off guard.
"I'm not sure vigilantism is in the best interest of the nation," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said. "Vigilantes are bad, aren't they?
"I read The Ox-Bow Incident in high school. They ended up hanging the wrong guys in that book, I think. That sort of situation could lead to a major problem for the government."
Bush stressed that his move was experimental, characterizing vigilantism as "practical."
"Frankly, government officials have all they can handle right now, overseeing foreign wars and doling out unemployment benefits," Bush said. "The truth is, we'd really appreciate some help maintaining domestic order while we take care of the important stuff."
"Let's see what happens, America," Bush added. "After all, our government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people. That's from the Constitution."
<CITE:http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4123>
TeGGeR® - 28 Jun 2005 04:37 GMT > WASHINGTON, DC-In a striking departure from centuries of American > belief in rule of law, President Bush gave his approval Monday to a > limited experiment in public vigilantism Richard, some actual reading of history would make you more convincing.
An excellent and well researched book by Roger D. McGrath: Gunfighters, Hihwaymen, and Vigilantes: Violence on the Frontier.
This book is an easy and highly entertaining read, not at all intimidating or difficult for those who only occasionally open a book.
There is one more book that I know of that details exactly the same thing happening in Canada. I must first get it from the owner, however.
Vigilance committees have been particularly effective private efforts in the prevention of the creation of victims when paid policemen are ineffective, which they usually are.
 Signature TeGGeR®
Josh - 28 Jun 2005 04:50 GMT > > WASHINGTON, DC-In a striking departure from centuries of American > > belief in rule of law, President Bush gave his approval Monday to a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the prevention of the creation of victims when paid policemen are > ineffective, which they usually are. Tegger, first of all you've been reading some pretty f.cked up sh.t. Most of which is totally *BS*, you should learn to not believe everything you read, or everything you want to believe.
Second of all, when somebody posts an article from 'TheOnion' You should try not to take it so damn seriously!
TeGGeR® - 28 Jun 2005 05:17 GMT >> Vigilance committees have been particularly effective private efforts >> in the prevention of the creation of victims when paid policemen are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Most of which is totally *BS*, you should learn to not believe > everything you read, or everything you want to believe. Whoa...! Emotional reaction or what!!
Sorry dude, it's TRUE.
 Signature TeGGeR®
Josh - 28 Jun 2005 10:44 GMT > >> Vigilance committees have been particularly effective private efforts > >> in the prevention of the creation of victims when paid policemen are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sorry dude, it's TRUE. Nah I was just pickin on ya. =) Seriously I think you are reading some stuff written from some bias people.
Mark A - 28 Jun 2005 11:21 GMT > Nah I was just pickin on ya. =) Seriously I think you are reading some > stuff > written from some bias people. The Onion is a spoof/comedy newspaper. Their stories are completely made up
TeGGeR® - 28 Jun 2005 13:09 GMT >> Sorry dude, it's TRUE. > > Nah I was just pickin on ya. =) Seriously I think you are reading some > stuff written from some bias people. How do you have any idea at all when you've never read anything on the subject, and refuse to?
 Signature TeGGeR®
Josh - 28 Jun 2005 18:41 GMT > >> Sorry dude, it's TRUE. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How do you have any idea at all when you've never read anything on the > subject, and refuse to? I don't refuse to, send me the book. =P I'm not about to go out and buy a book on Legalizing Vigilantism thinking it's going to change my mind. I don't understand how anyone as intelligent as you would fall for something like that...Books are books, ditch the books and use your brain.
Eric Dreher - 28 Jun 2005 05:07 GMT >Richard, some actual reading of history would make you more convincing. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the prevention of the creation of victims when paid policemen are >ineffective, which they usually are. Tegger, I'd hate to think what would happen to the families of any of these spineless nematodes should someone break into their home.
Misplaced pacifism makes me puke.
------------------------------------------------ The DNC - Building a bridge to the 19th Century.
Learning Richard - 28 Jun 2005 05:37 GMT > >Richard, some actual reading of history would make you more convincing. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Misplaced pacifism makes me puke. Eric "Pussy McVeigh" Dreher, you f.cking moron. It was a joke.
Besides, Tegger, you've been obviously reading some radical right hate literature. There is no place for vigilantism in modern society, unless you advocate genocide.
TeGGeR® - 28 Jun 2005 06:21 GMT >> Tegger, I'd hate to think what would happen to the families of any of >> these spineless nematodes should someone break into their home. >> >> Misplaced pacifism makes me puke. > > Eric "Pussy McVeigh" Dreher, you f.cking moron. It was a joke. I knew that...
> Besides, Tegger, you've been obviously reading some radical right hate > literature. There is no place for vigilantism in modern society, > unless you advocate genocide. Go read that book, *then* tell me what you think. Before you do that, your responses are pure emotion with no fact to speak of behind it.
 Signature TeGGeR®
Josh - 28 Jun 2005 10:46 GMT > >> Tegger, I'd hate to think what would happen to the families of any of > >> these spineless nematodes should someone break into their home. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Go read that book, *then* tell me what you think. Before you do that, your > responses are pure emotion with no fact to speak of behind it. Why don't you sum it up, you can't honestly expect everyone to go buy this book to argue a point with you do you? He's right, there is no place for vigilantism in a modern society.
TeGGeR® - 28 Jun 2005 13:08 GMT >> Go read that book, *then* tell me what you think. Before you do that, >> your responses are pure emotion with no fact to speak of behind it. > > Why don't you sum it up, you can't honestly expect everyone to go buy > this book to argue a point with you do you? Of course not. You can also rent it from the library at no cost.
> He's right, there is no > place for vigilantism in a modern society. How do you know? They said the same thing about self-defense and handgun carry permits, and now some 35 states have enacted such things after they saw the spectacular results in other states.
Historically, if the cops are effective in preventing victims, vigilance committees do not get formed. If a committee ends up being formed, it is *always* because the police have failed in thier job of preventing victims from being created. Once the threat has been eliminated, vigilance committees are always disbanded voluntarily.
 Signature TeGGeR®
Eric Dreher - 28 Jun 2005 15:01 GMT >How do you know? They said the same thing about self-defense and handgun >carry permits, and now some 35 states have enacted such things after they >saw the spectacular results in other states. This won't be believed, Tegger. They'll dismiss it as some sort of right-wing propaganda rather than admit the folly of gun control.
>Historically, if the cops are effective in preventing victims, vigilance >committees do not get formed. If a committee ends up being formed, it is >*always* because the police have failed in their job of preventing victims >from being created. Once the threat has been eliminated, vigilance >committees are always disbanded voluntarily. Bingo.
And I'm not sure about north of the border, but SCOTUS ruled many years ago that the police are under no obligation to provide protection, despite what many cop-car doors are stenciled.
------------------------------------------------ The DNC - Building a bridge to the 19th Century.
ravelation - 28 Jun 2005 15:47 GMT ericd@cox.nét (Eric Dreher)
>And I'm not sure about north of the >border, but SCOTUS ruled many years >ago that the police are under no >obligation to provide protection, despite >what many cop-car doors are stenciled. This is in the news right now. A woman wanted to sue the police dept. for failure to enforce a restraining order on her husband who ended up killing their children.
She didn't get anywhere with her lawsuit.
Learning Richard - 28 Jun 2005 17:11 GMT > ericd@cox.nét (Eric Dreher) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > She didn't get anywhere with her lawsuit. Don't even get me started on cops. These a.s holes are out there writing tickets for folks not using their turn signals while people are violating restraining orders.
bunch of donut munching losers.
TeGGeR® - 28 Jun 2005 18:03 GMT ravelation@webtv.net (ravelation) wrote in news:9997-42C16312-99@storefull- 3353.bay.webtv.net:
> ericd@cox.nét (Eric Dreher) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > for failure to enforce a restraining order on her husband who ended up > killing their children. Restraining orders are a joke.
The guy being "restrained" is being "restrained" because he broke some sort of law. So even though he wouldn't obey one law forbidding him to hurt people, they expect him to obey the other law? Hah.
> She didn't get anywhere with her lawsuit. She should have gotten a CCW, and let the bastard know she had it. That's the only law he'd listen to.
 Signature TeGGeR®
Eric Dreher - 28 Jun 2005 22:22 GMT >Restraining orders are a joke. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >She should have gotten a CCW, and let the bastard know she had it. That's >the only law he'd listen to. Restraining orders ARE a joke. Even after confirmed death threats, I know of one woman whose ex ended up killing her. She had applied for, and been denied, a CCW.
Ain't Kalifornia grand?
------------------------------------------------ The DNC - Building a bridge to the 19th Century.
Eric Dreher - 28 Jun 2005 22:20 GMT >>And I'm not sure about north of the > >border, but SCOTUS ruled many years [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >She didn't get anywhere with her lawsuit. And she never will.
------------------------------------------------ The DNC - Building a bridge to the 19th Century.
TeGGeR® - 28 Jun 2005 17:59 GMT >>How do you know? They said the same thing about self-defense and >>handgun carry permits, and now some 35 states have enacted such things [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > years ago that the police are under no obligation to provide > protection, despite what many cop-car doors are stenciled. Correct! And *that* was the original impetus behind the original Florida CCW shall-issue law.
Up here the cops are similarly not under any obligation to protect you, and cannot be successfully sued for failing to protect you. At the same time though, it is not legal for private citizens to defend their lives, families, or property with deadly force.
 Signature TeGGeR®
Eric Dreher - 28 Jun 2005 22:12 GMT >Up here the cops are similarly not under any obligation to protect you, and >cannot be successfully sued for failing to protect you. At the same time >though, it is not legal for private citizens to defend their lives, >families, or property with deadly force. True. After all, to admit the need for the legality of self-defense would be to admit governmental failure.
England has similar restrictions. During our visit in 1992, a woman was arrested in London. Her offense? During a ride to work on the Tube (subway), she defended herself against three men assaulting her, using a pocket knife. A pocket knife! It turns out that this was not meeting like-for-like force.
The left-wing mind set never ceases to amaze me.
------------------------------------------------ The DNC - Building a bridge to the 19th Century.
TeGGeR® - 29 Jun 2005 01:49 GMT >>Up here the cops are similarly not under any obligation to protect >>you, and cannot be successfully sued for failing to protect you. At [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > her, using a pocket knife. A pocket knife! It turns out that > this was not meeting like-for-like force. That's also the theoretical principle governing Canada: Like for like.
Theoretically, if somebody busts in your front door, but then simply goes to your fridge, grabs a beer and starts watching TV, all you are legally allowed to do is request that he leave. You may NOT legally physically interfere with him unless he physically interferes with you, even if he is carrying a weapon.
In practice however, you can do whatever you like to the crook, so long as 1) you don't use a firearm or a bladed weapon, and 2) you do not pursue the alleged perp once he turns to flee.
> The left-wing mind set never ceases to amaze me. And Canada is full of that, with most (all?) of it driven by an irrational, hysterical, foaming anti-Americanism that makes me sick. You should see our health care debate: America is Satan when it comes to that.
 Signature TeGGeR®
Eric Dreher - 29 Jun 2005 01:55 GMT >That's also the theoretical principle governing Canada: Like for like. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >1) you don't use a firearm or a bladed weapon, and 2) you do not pursue the >alleged perp once he turns to flee. I'm afraid we're headed that way in most of our "progressive" states. I love that term.
>> The left-wing mind set never ceases to amaze me. > >And Canada is full of that, with most (all?) of it driven by an irrational, >hysterical, foaming anti-Americanism that makes me sick. You should see our >health care debate: America is Satan when it comes to that. I've heard it all. I have relatives in Kitchener. They're not from this planet. Don't even discuss their rage at Fox News now being available in Lefty-Land.
Funny thing. A lot of my former countrymen are hitching their wagons to health care south of the border. The wait up there for many procedures is just getting too long.
------------------------------------------------ The DNC - Building a bridge to the 19th Century.
noneyabusiness - 28 Jun 2005 20:41 GMT >>How do you know? They said the same thing about self-defense and handgun >>carry permits, and now some 35 states have enacted such things after they [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >------------------------------------------------ >The DNC - Building a bridge to the 19th Century. "One Adam 12, One Adam 12, see the man ... if he's still alive ..."
<G>
...
Eric Dreher - 28 Jun 2005 14:58 GMT >> Besides, Tegger, you've been obviously reading some radical right hate >> literature. There is no place for vigilantism in modern society, >> unless you advocate genocide. > >Go read that book, *then* tell me what you think. Before you do that, your >responses are pure emotion with no fact to speak of behind it. It'll never happen. He's too busy constructing sophomoric drivel and infantile responses.
It amazes me how some people consider their own lives cheap.
They're willing to listen to contrived statistics while ignoring the fact that over two million people in the U.S. each year use a gun for effective self-defense.
------------------------------------------------ The DNC - Building a bridge to the 19th Century.
Dbu_^ - 28 Jun 2005 09:44 GMT > WASHINGTON, DC-In a striking departure from centuries of American > belief in rule of law, President Bush gave his approval Monday to a [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > <CITE:http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4123> another reason we must get the law changed so that GWB can be re-elected for a third term.
 Signature
Josh - 28 Jun 2005 10:46 GMT > > WASHINGTON, DC-In a striking departure from centuries of American > > belief in rule of law, President Bush gave his approval Monday to a [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > another reason we must get the law changed so that GWB can be re-elected > for a third term. BAHAHAH! Oh, where to begin...
Learning Richard - 28 Jun 2005 13:29 GMT > > > WASHINGTON, DC-In a striking departure from centuries of American > > > belief in rule of law, President Bush gave his approval Monday to a [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > BAHAHAH! Oh, where to begin... that was fun!
MajorDomo@mailcity.com - 28 Jun 2005 23:34 GMT Look little richard, liars will be first on the list if that were to ever actually happen. Good thing we all know how you neo fascist on the evil left always lie LOL
mike hunt
Little Richard wrote:
> WASHINGTON, DC-In a striking departure from centuries of American > belief in rule of law, President Bush gave his approval Monday to a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > loiterers-strengthen and reinforce the social order," Bush said at a > White House press conference. Learning Richard - 28 Jun 2005 23:36 GMT MajorD...@mailcity.com wrote:
> Look little richard, liars will be first on the list if that were > to ever actually happen. Good thing we all know how you neo > fascist on the evil left always lie LOL If YOU were on the Vigilante team, I'd:
1. Thank the Good Lord 2. [blip] [bleeep]
you really are a racist moron, eh?
> mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > loiterers-strengthen and reinforce the social order," Bush said at a > > White House press conference. MelvinGibson@mailcity.com - 29 Jun 2005 20:50 GMT We all know how you neo fascist on the evil left always lie LOL
mike hunt
> MajorD...@mailcity.com wrote: > > Look little richard, liars will be first on the list if that were > > to ever actually happen. Good thing we all know how you neo > > fascist on the evil left always lie LOL
> you really are a racist moron, eh? > > > mike hunt Josh - 30 Jun 2005 05:36 GMT > We all know how you neo fascist on the evil left always lie LOL Do you know what a Fascist is?
Sharx35 - 30 Jun 2005 10:18 GMT >> We all know how you neo fascist on the evil left always lie LOL > > Do you know what a Fascist is? Josh, the neo-LIB's definition of Fascist: ANYONE who disagrees with him
|
|
|