Most valid crashout
Stop with the fucking ai voice overs. You can literally hire a real person on fiver to read the text for you in any language, and it will be like 5-10 dollars. Or read it yourself.
Also stop with the tiktok editing. The story and original footage is interesting enough, but your just trying to jam it down peoples brain holes as fast as you can
and putting the text of the voiceover in the very center of the video to make it hard to watch… it’s just so stupid
Yeah. I remove all AI voiceover’d videos from my feed and usually prior to, I tell others in the comments to do the same if they are willing to do the minimum to support creatives.
Wtf are you going on about? This is an article on Wikipedia.
There’s a link to a video in the post body
Maybe don’t watch videos when there’s an article as the main link?
That bastard also killed the girl after raping her.
Title should really include this too. Utterly fucked up.
You’re correct it should I edited it
Oddly enough, no one in the courtroom saw anything 🤷
“I can’t remember a thing, but i do remember at one point we all gave a standing ovation. Can’t remember why though”.
100% justified
Yep would done the same or worse to that fucker.
A quick death is a mercy he did not deserve.
But it’s also a level of finality that the state would not have granted.
She gunned him down the day I was born.
It’s it weird that him admitting to it makes it that much better? Like she didn’t kill someone who may have been innocent, she ended the right person and from the video was very calm about the after math.
Edit: apparently the video is from a movie
Holy shit that’s a hell of a video
There is no video of the actual incident, this is from a movie
Do you have a source cos if so I’ll edit the post so it’s not misinformation
What’s the source that it’s courtroom footage?
There’s no video linked on Wikipedia but multiple films listed.
It’s from no time for tears
Thanks I’ve edited the post
Ah boo! But thanks for saying something
She doesn’t flinch, she’s calm, and she doesn’t stop firing till she knows the job is done.
I’m glad she didn’t do much time
I guess Germany doesn’t have jury nullification.
They don’t have juries.
As she should. Reminds me of Gary Plauche, and he also did the correct thing.
Respect o7
I did a research report on this subject and the underlying risk factors that make vigilante justice it more likely in a society https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5az_rOTb0E
Ah yes. Classic “Everyone deserves a fair trial, until I think they’ve done a bad enough crime, in which case I’ll activately cheer for that right being taken away”.
Vigilante justice is NEVER acceptable. Until someone has been justly tried, and convicted they innocent in the eyes of the law. Period, and no exception.
You people cheering this on, and encouraging have on your hands the blood of every single innocent person who was ever killed or assaulted by a vigilante.
Vigilantism has 3 common sources:
-
lawless ‘I am the law not you’ narcissist types who think rules don’t apply to them (ex: rich people, republicans, sovereign citizens etc)
-
dumbasses who think they know shit because they’re insane (ex: pizzagate guy, qanon murders)
-
people with real grievances the law can’t or won’t address. (Luigi Mangione, Charlie Kirk’s killer)
Imo, #3 is the only kind that I’ve seen people who aren’t psychopaths express support for and its not just because #3 is more valid but its also because #3 is often carried out against the folks who are in the #1 group so its often a type of vigilante vs vigilante crime.
Plus everybody I’ve seen expressing support for #3 would be far happier if the legal system did the work instead of a vigilante.
This thread so far has been about extra judicial killing, but can vigilantism encompass less drastic actions? Do you think it is fair to say that the reaction on Reddit/Lemmy every time “the rapist Brock Allen Turner” is mentioned falls under the third type of vigilantism, in the sense that he recieved a light consequence compared to the acts he was proved to have committed? Is the social backlash and the (imo deserved) chorus of “oh the rapist?” in response to his name a form of societal vigilantism?
I appreciate your thoughtful and nuanced post in this volatile thread. Your last sentence immediately made me think of that guy that raped a girl behind a dumpster and then got let off because a judge thought consequences might damage his future. I don’t think anyone should kill him, but I’m happy he doesn’t get any peace on the internet, and i wish he was in jail.
Yep, #3 is a sad necessity due to the gaps and inequities in our legal system.
I did a research report on vigilante justice and the social factors that make it more likely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5az_rOTb0E
-
Look mate, for most people this squarely falls under “I don’t condone it, but I understand it.”
Excerpts from this thread:
Respect o7
Gary Plauche is another person who took justice into his own hands
He did what needed to be done.
Hero
100% justified
I can’t remember a thing, but i do remember at one point we all gave a standing ovation.
Yep would done the same or worse to that fucker.
No, people are absolutely condoning this. In some cases they’re even celebrating it. “Most people” might not, but the people being criticized, the ones in this thread, absolutely exist and are doing exactly what they’re being criticized for.
Court room justice over mob justice any day.
Just remember more blood has been shed in wars under the shouts of “justice” or “god”…than all other spoken reasons combined. Very dangerous concepts.
Vigilante justice is NEVER acceptable. Until someone has been justly tried, and convicted they innocent in the eyes of the law. Period, and no exception.
Devil’s advocate: Judicial systems throughout history have had varying levels of success. If a person repeatedly commits murder and is not held to account by the justice system, is it not acceptable for someone to kill them? The net result would be lives saved
There have been many instances throughout history where a person repeatedly commits unspeakable crimes, but is guaranteed immunity from whatever justice system exists in their society. Do you think it’s entirely unacceptable for them to receive vigilante justice?
Millions of North Koreans suffer and die under the Kim regime. If a vigilante were to assassinate him, millions of lives would be saved. Do you still contend it is unacceptable to do so? Keep in mind, everything Kim Jong Un has done is perfectly legal under the North Korean judicial system
If you question that interpretation of the result, let’s invoke Godwin’s Law. If one of the early assassination attempts on Hitler had been successful, WW2 could have been avoided (or at least made far more one-sided), saving tens of millions of lives. Would vigilante justice have still been unacceptable to you?
Seems incredibly amoral to state it’s preferable to allow a genocide than to extra-judicially murder the one perpetuating the genocide
This dude was literally currently at trial for murder. That argument might apply AFTER someone has been wrongly acquitted.
This logic is literally NEVER applicable inside a court room, before the verdict has been read.
eyes of the law
*gestures broadly*Got any dead kids? No? Then kindly STFU until you’ve experienced such pain. Yes, I am qualified to speak on this subject you lucky SOB.
So you’re saying the victim of a crime should get to act as judge jury and executioner ?
Like I’m sorry you had to go through that, but how would you feel it your child was falsely accused of murder, and then revenge killed by a family member of a victim at trial.
There’s a reason we don’t allow vigilante justice.
Your feelings are more important than everyone else’s because…?
Fuck that’s utterly grim. In her shoes, I might well do the same.
Gary Plauche is another person who took justice into his own hands over the kidnapping and rape of his son back in the 1980s.
Plauche learned that the suspect was being flown back to town in police custody, and figured out the flight he was on. He waited at the airport, pretending to be using a pay phone. As the suspect was escorted past him he walked up and shot him in the head at almost point blank range. A local TV station caught it all on camera and I think you can still find it if you search for it.
Plauche was ultimately convicted of manslaughter but was given a suspended sentence, probation, and community service. No jail time.
He did what needed to be done.
Jesus fucking christ no he didn’t - a big reason we don’t do vigilante executions is the same reason we shouldn’t be doing the government sponsored kind:
COPS ARE BAD AT THEIR JOB
At the time there was every chance that Doucet was innocent because the cops had arrested the wrong person - the evidence was not available, and Gary Plauche unilaterally carried out a death sentence on a man on a rumor. In this case it probably worked out, although the investigation into Doucet was stopped after his death and the case was considered closed so we still don’t know for sure: testimony of a traumatized 10 year old and Doucet’s presence in the hotel room are the primary evidence, but there was no further investigation to find out if he was even the only person involved. At the time, Plauche didn’t even know for sure that Doucet was in the hotel room, he had just been given rumors.
From your post history, you’re a decent person, you’re not some bootlicker, so why are you affording the police enough credibility that you believe their initial investigations are so well conducted that they can unilaterally be used as grounds for summary execution?
And saved the government a bunch of money in the process.
Fuck that guy
