Funny thing that. Obviously the "journalist" doesn't understand English or history. If they had been vigilantes they would have exacted punishment at the nearest tree. If they had been an angry horde, they would have kicked him to death.
As what they really were, were citizens exercising their civic duty to the law, they did neither once the crime was stopped and the criminal apprehended. They turned him over to the other people who get paid to exercise their civic duty. You know, those people who don't actually exercise that duty. They let him go.
Of course an "authorized journalist" couldn't be expected to understand the issue. Mind too too clean, from all that brainwashing.
Theres a few comments over there on possible law-suites, its sadly an actual concern.
It might be wise if you are ever involved in any sort of incident where there are plenty of people around to do what you can to save the day, and not wait to get your medal. If there are plenty of people around, let them fill out the police reports, you already did your part. if you are the only witness, it is obviously different, but thats a choice you would have to make.
It is likely that the information in the police report (which will be of course availiable to the perp and his lawyer) would be where all of the information would be gathered to be used in such a lawsuit. The old tagline "anything you say may be used against you" doesnt just apply to perps.
When they go through it, its alot harder to sue based on "At that point three unidentified bystanders tackled the man, disarming him"
Well, to be fair the article isn't as negative as the title, which might have come from an editor rather than the writer. In fact it isn't negative toward the "vigilantes" at all.
Okay, but stopping a crime in progress isn't "vigilantism". If they arrested the perp, invented some charges, then punished him, that would be "vigilantism". I just wish AJs would consider the meaning of the words which they use.
It used to be that the choice phrase was "good Samaritan"--and that wasn't the best choice, but at least it connoted a positive morality.
Ahhh... semantics get in the way when imbeciles pretend to be journalists. I say, just bring on the Angry Horde and string the bastard up! In fact... I think The Angry Horde would be an excellent name for something, anything - a fraternal group, a pub or a bar, a sports club, a blog...... yeah! I like it!
If this reporter was being beat by violent criminals and people were standing around watching. Would this reporter yell out for help so someone would stop the attack? I believe the answer is yes. Which means this reporter is engaging in Marxist brainwashing while hiding behind the First Amendment. This in my view is high treason.
Even worse: Judging by one of the comments there, the headline originally referred to them as an "Angry Horde."
ReplyDeleteMy God.
ReplyDeleteWhatever do they think people should do? NOTHING? Call 911?
The gentlemen that tackled the perp should be given a medal.
The person who wrote the article, Adva Saldinger, should be fired, for writing an article with such a derogatory slant.
Bob
III
Funny thing that. Obviously the "journalist" doesn't understand English or history. If they had been vigilantes they would have exacted punishment at the nearest tree. If they had been an angry horde, they would have kicked him to death.
ReplyDeleteAs what they really were, were citizens exercising their civic duty to the law, they did neither once the crime was stopped and the criminal apprehended. They turned him over to the other people who get paid to exercise their civic duty. You know, those people who don't actually exercise that duty. They let him go.
Of course an "authorized journalist" couldn't be expected to understand the issue. Mind too too clean, from all that brainwashing.
Theres a few comments over there on possible law-suites, its sadly an actual concern.
ReplyDeleteIt might be wise if you are ever involved in any sort of incident where there are plenty of people around to do what you can to save the day, and not wait to get your medal. If there are plenty of people around, let them fill out the police reports, you already did your part. if you are the only witness, it is obviously different, but thats a choice you would have to make.
It is likely that the information in the police report (which will be of course availiable to the perp and his lawyer) would be where all of the information would be gathered to be used in such a lawsuit. The old tagline "anything you say may be used against you" doesnt just apply to perps.
When they go through it, its alot harder to sue based on "At that point three unidentified bystanders tackled the man, disarming him"
'jes sayin
Well, to be fair the article isn't as negative as the title, which might have come from an editor rather than the writer. In fact it isn't negative toward the "vigilantes" at all.
ReplyDeleteVigil-ant-ees? Or Vigilant citizens?
ReplyDeleteAren't we always told, "Don't take the law into your own hands! Don't act! Let the Professionals catch the bad guys! Be a good witness!
In other words, cut your nuts off and be a eunuch. One with a video recorder.
Okay, but stopping a crime in progress isn't "vigilantism". If they arrested the perp, invented some charges, then punished him, that would be "vigilantism". I just wish AJs would consider the meaning of the words which they use.
ReplyDeleteIt used to be that the choice phrase was "good Samaritan"--and that wasn't the best choice, but at least it connoted a positive morality.
Ahhh... semantics get in the way when imbeciles pretend to be journalists. I say, just bring on the Angry Horde and string the bastard up!
ReplyDeleteIn fact... I think The Angry Horde would be an excellent name for something, anything - a fraternal group, a pub or a bar, a sports club, a blog...... yeah! I like it!
From a public-relations point of view, it was probably the bat costumes and elaborate weaponry that did them in.
ReplyDeleteIf this reporter was being beat by violent criminals and people were standing around watching. Would this reporter yell out for help so someone would stop the attack?
ReplyDeleteI believe the answer is yes. Which means this reporter is engaging in Marxist brainwashing while hiding behind the First Amendment. This in my view is high treason.