USPS text scammers duped his wife, so he hacked their operation

Society does take an active role through police, fbi, etc etc

Vigilantes are criminals too so society takes an active role in pursuing and punishing them as well.

That only works if you aren't in a:

Anarcho-tyranny

A stage of governmental dysfunction in which the state is anarchically hopeless at coping with large matters but ruthlessly tyrannical in the enforcement of small ones

https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64594123

Then you get your door kicked in for not paying taxes on $50 venmo transaction, or saying the wrong thing online but when there is a school shooter (or presidential assassin) the cops wait for them to finish while they play with their phones.

thanks for that example, it really paints a picture of the impotence of the state, tho watching the video it's easy to blame the failure on the hundreds of individuals that didn't take action, but they are meant to be the vangaurd; we handed the monopoly on violence to these people and for what?

While it is true that the justice system is often used to disproportionately hurt the poor, nobody is getting their door kicked in for not paying taxes on a venmo transaction.

Civil forfeiture is roughly similar.

We deem vigilantes criminals because we have no way to hold them accountable if they infringe on someone's rights.

Society is supposed to take an active role, but sometimes they have other priorities.

Big companies getting hacked or scammed make headlines and generate FBI action. People like me, not so much.

Civil asset forfeiture is indeed horrible and often used to basically just steal from the poor. It is also totally different than having your door kicked down for failing to pay taxes or being arrested for saying the wrong thing online.

Sure, but it does match the GP’s point about tyrannical enforcement against small violations. The examples GP provided weren’t apt, you pointed that out, I’m providing another one.

Red light ticket revenue funding small town budgets is another. Brake-light rationales for traffic stops…I could go on.

The key is what you pointed out, that these are never used against the elite class.

Unless I'm mistaken, we vigilantes are deemed criminals because it is, ironically, against the law to enforce the law on someone else without being granted that authority by the state.

Its still not quite accurate to deem vigilantes as criminals though. Unless they've been charged and convicted they aren't technically a criminal.

> it is, ironically, against the law to enforce the law on someone else without being granted that authority by the state.

Not sure why that's "ironic". Seems reasonable. Only people trained and accountable should be doing things that would violate people's civil rights and take away their freedom or possessions.

Obviously the reality of our legal systems fall far short of ideal, but IMO vigilantism is not the answer to that.

> Its still not quite accurate to deem vigilantes as criminals though. Unless they've been charged and convicted they aren't technically a criminal.

You sound like the kind of kid who would put their hand an inch from their sibling's face and constantly utter "not touching! still not touching!" and think that you were "technically" not breaking the rules, so your behavior was ok.

> Not sure why that's "ironic". Seems reasonable. Only people trained and accountable should be doing things that would violate people's civil rights and take away their freedom or possessions.

Maybe ironic wasn't a great fit there, I stand by the rest of the comment though. I blame Alanis Morissette for my inability to recognize irony accurately.

> You sound like the kind of kid who would put their hand an inch from their sibling's face and constantly utter "not touching! still not touching!" and think that you were "technically" not breaking the rules, so your behavior was ok.

There's a legal definition of "criminal". Is it being an annoying little brother to think definitions are important?

The people receiving vigilante justice aren't technically criminals, either, by that logic. You're inflicting punishment on innocent (not proven guilty) people.

Just realized I had a very meaningful typo in the last comment and its been to long to edit.

I meant to say "the vigilantes" not "we vigilantes." I don't take part in it and don't condone it as long as we collectively agree to live under a legal system.

I agree with you though, vigilantes are imposing "justice" on innocent people. The right to a fair trial and a jury of your peers is a really important check on power. Vigilantes skip that whole process.

What do you do when law and justice become so disconnected that law enforcement actively ignores horrible things happening in your local community (e.g. the Pakistani rape/prostitution gangs in England, with Rotherham as central figure)? Do you just "vote better" and wait a few years for nothing to happen?

Vigilantism is always a symptom of far greater problems, people don't do it just for fun and to cosplay as Batman.