NationStates Jolt Archive


Bush Lifts Ban on Vigilantism

Super-power
08-06-2005, 03:49
Cookie to the first person who takes this seriously

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."
Bush makes a call for more vigilante justice.
Above: Bush makes a call for more vigilante justice.

"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."
A vigilante group patrols a Colorado Springs, CO highway for litterers.
Above: A vigilante group patrols a Colorado Springs, CO highway for litterers.

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."
Tactical Grace
08-06-2005, 03:50
Actually, I prefered the one about utility billing. It's funny because it's true.
Manawskistan
08-06-2005, 03:51
lol...

Yeah, I saw the title of the publication and then read the article. That takes all of the fun out of it.
The Eagle of Darkness
08-06-2005, 03:52
Hey, it's a more reliable source than the Sun...

Of course, that's true of many things, up to and including the future as predicted from the scattering of paperclips.
Monkeypimp
08-06-2005, 04:08
The Onion declared the apocalypse in 2000.
Verghastinsel
08-06-2005, 04:15
He would do that.

Want cookie now!
Zefielia
08-06-2005, 04:15
Too bad this isn't true. I don't see why vigilantes are outlawed anyway. We have the right to Citizen's Arrests, don't we?
Mahria
08-06-2005, 04:28
The thing is, to put that degree of power in the hands of the public means you put in the hands of everyone. Before punishing a crime, some proof beyond personal belief is required that the "criminal" is actually responsible. Rumour, mistaken eyewitness, or just suspicion can convince an individual, but not a court. That's how it should be.
Gauthier
08-06-2005, 04:30
Well, Jeb Bush did enact the Uncle Jimbo Law in Florida.
Dissonant Cognition
08-06-2005, 05:18
Too bad this isn't true. I don't see why vigilantes are outlawed anyway. We have the right to Citizen's Arrests, don't we?

"In the United States, all states permit citizen arrests if a felony crime is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or when a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police. The application of state laws vary widely with respect to misdemeanor crimes, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. In California, for example, there is no requirement that a lawful arrest be executed by a citizen (as opposed to an alien or illegal immigrant), and the citizen's arrest is referred to as a 'private person arrest.' Note particularly that American citizens do not have the authorities or the legal protections of the police, and are liable before both the civil law and criminal law for any violation of the rights of another. ...Most law enforcement officials discourage anyone from performing a citizen's arrest, especially where physical force is involved. ...Doing so can subject a person to legal action, including charges of impersonating police, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest, especially if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest
Domici
08-06-2005, 08:41
Too bad this isn't true. I don't see why vigilantes are outlawed anyway. We have the right to Citizen's Arrests, don't we?

Does the phrase "lynch mob" mean anything to you?

If you answered "David Lynch Fan Club," I'll just point out that reality does not work like in the spaghetti Westerns.
Ermarian
08-06-2005, 09:31
Heh, when I saw the thread title I was about to pop in and say this was from the Onion. :p You don't believe how often I've seen people quote their articles in all seriousness.

That said, this one seems closer to the truth than most recent spoofs. But then, that may just be my Civil Rights Paranoia.
Upitatanium
08-06-2005, 21:37
LOL. Not only is it funny but it brings up a good debating point on how well humans will get along without government.
LiazFaire
08-06-2005, 21:54
the worrying thing is that whoever wrote that could actually be said to be basing it on some social theorists work... worrying stuff functionalism perhaps, utilitarian social cohesion... its a plausible theory from that perspective

*shudders*