Talk:Vigilante

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vigilante is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.

Perhaps someone can write a paragraph on vigilante justice (since this is the redirect page) in the American prison system? A recent example can be: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-08-25-edit_x.htm 3/30/05


Wondering if anyone knows about the history of vigilantism: vigilantes in the medieval era, etc.?


Removed Minutemen from list of vigilantes. The article admits that they are "technically not a vigilante group", and hence their inclusion is propaganda.

Anyone want to touch on the issues of Vigilantism, ie., positives, negatives, ethics etc?

It is arguable that Batman is a vigilante. He is far from The Punisher. He never kills. As it says above, vigilintes use methods like torture and killing enemies, Batman does not.

My opinion: Batman is indeed a vigilante. As I understood in the article, vigilante is a law enforcer not officialized by the Government. Not necessarily mean. 200.230.213.152 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Both men had no history of repeat offense had been served "... this is confusing and not grammatical.


IIRC, Goetz was convicted on NY weapons charges and served 6 months in jail.

It is arguable that White Supremacist groups can be equated with vigilante justice. There is little to support the idea in the opening of this article that lynch mobs and the sort represent the typical motive of a vigilante (that being the enforcement of equitible justice.) While a comparison is slightly valid, I think this is unsuitable as the intial opening definition.

Agreed. 200.230.213.152 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. The Minutemen are a classic vigilante group. "Typical motive of a vigilante" is a weasel phrase. I'm restoring Minutemen to the article. "Equitable justice"? Find a source for that claim. Bobanny 22:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that White Supremacist groups should be taken out. Webster's Dictionary defines a vigilante as "a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily", and last time I checked it wasn't a crime to be black or jewish. And by the way, Minutemen aren't White supremacists. They are anti illegal immigration. There are some non whites in the group. Rundar 23:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Batman Isn't a Vigilante

Commissioner Gordon specifically states that Batman isn't a Vigilante, and that he's fully sanction by the Gotham Police Department.

Commissioner Gordon was wrong. Lots of vigilantes have been condoned by the legit authorities. bobanny 19:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This seems to suggest an incorrect use of the term "vigilante" (Definition: A vigilante is a person or persons who ignore due process enacting their own form of justice when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient). See also comments under topic 5, Two kinds of "vigilantes"? Batman may or may not be a "vigilante" but most recognised community safety initiatives are not, because they are working alongside, or with the blessing of the Police or other relevant authoritites. LyallDNZ
The original premise of Batman was the notion that big-city American police departments were corrupt. Commissioner Gordon was one of the non-corrupt cops in Gotham, and he looked to Batman to bring law and order to an otherwise lawless city. That's fiction, but historically, lots of vigilante groups have been sanctioned by the legit authorities, the KKK in the US for example, though it was condoned - and actively supported - only off the record. I removed the neighbourhood watch reference, because I agree with you that they usually don't qualify as vigilantes. What the police formally support tend to be resident patrols that call the police when they see something, but that's certainly not how they all work. Groups like the The Minuteman Project Inc., for example, might claim to be law abiding publicly, but ignore due process in reality, precisely because they believe due process doesn't work. bobanny 07:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[Arcane Batman Lore Factoid][Passionate, emotional argument][Dismissal of previous posters' acumen and intellect, as well as genetic material][Irrelevant flamebait concerning "Arrested Development"] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.11.2 (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Can anyone find a picture for this article. I'd put Batman but he is only one person. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 15:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added DDS

I added the DDS because it is very prevalent in the city, although what should've been added is the counter-communist methods used by the Alsa Masa during the 1980s in the same city.

[edit] Legal Status

How about some stuff about legal status of being a vigilant (as a 'good unofficial justice enforcer' rather than 'hate group'). As far as I know, in Brasil, anyone can arrest people in the act, but unless in defense (self-defense or others-defense) they can't use force, I guess... (but how would that be? Just shouting to the dude "you're under arrest!"???) 200.230.213.152 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two kinds of "vigilantes"?

Perhaps we should distinguish between "vigilante law enforcment" (doing the usual job of the police, like stoping and/or detaining criminals) and "vigilante justice" (doing the usual job of the courts, i.e. punishing criminals)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.84.198.199 (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

The preceding case (law enforcement) isn't really "vigilante" as many reputable community organisations and individuals (e.g. Neighbourhood Watch, Neighbourhood Support, Community Patrols, Citizen Observer Patrols) support the law enforcement organisations without acting in a way that would be considered "vigilante".
I was particularly surprised to see that the last bullet point at the end of section 3.3 "Neighborhood watch groups[9]" referenced a website related to "Vigilante Minutemen". I'm relatively new here, so was reluctant to just delete it out of hand, but this either needs to be removed or the tag changed to read "Vigilante Minutemen" or something similar, definitely not "Neighborhood Watch groups". Neighorhood/Neighbourhood Watch Groups, Neighbourhood Support Groups, Citizen Observer Patrols, Community Patrols etc are recognised and overseen by Police, so they definitely don't fit the definition given at the beginning of the article, of "A vigilante is a person or persons who ignore due process enacting their own form of justice when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient" LyallDNZ 05:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movies

Dirty Harry - Harry Callahan is a police officer,acting in these condition; he can be considered a "vigilante"? Perhaps "Magnum Force" is more appropriate.

The Outlaw Josey Wales,V for Vendetta - they are "rebels", not exactly "vigilantes". --194.65.151.249 15:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is shallow; the concept of vigilantes preceded films of the 1960s as it goes back to myths of Western Frontier "justice".--Parkwells 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See No Evil - This does not really qualify as a vigilante justice film. Yes it may have seemed as though he was murdering the people in that house because they were sinners, but it was presented as if he would have been murdering them regardless whether they were sinners or not. 70.243.109.153 (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

This article desperately needs some history. I'm no expert, but I believe the modern connotation of "Vigilante" comes from San Francisco Vigilance Movement in the mid-19th century US. I might be wrong, and maybe that's just an example and not the origin, but some research needs to be done to give this article some grounding. Right now, it's just anyone who takes the law into their own hands, which can encompass so much as to be unencyclopedic. And I agree that rebels, renegades, and mavericks are different than vigilantes. Bobanny 19:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do vigilantes have to be violent and face-to-face

There is this slashdot article on this computer hacker who breaks the law and sends a judge to 27 years in jail. [1]. He broke California penal code 502 [2]. The person who submitted that article claims the kid is a vigilante. Does vigilante require the negative connotation associated with it? Usually dictionary definitions do not carry connotations. This would be kind of strange since it would be like a whistleblower or something like that. LAWL a nonviolent vigilante. I usually associate vigilante as like being Hollywood type. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getonyourfeet (talk • contribs) 13:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

I'd say there's a negative connotation with vigilante, but it depends on the perspective of the audience. J. Jonah Jameson, for example, doesn't like Spider-Man because he's a vigilante, and by definition, vigilantes operate outside or in defiance of the law and are therefore criminal. Most of the stuff I've read on the San Francisco Committee of Vigilance, which epitomizes vigilantism and is the historical origin for our modern associations with the term, are sympathetic to those vigilantes. It seems to come down to whether or not you believe the vigilante is justified in operating outside or in defiance of the law. In mid-19th century San Francisco, the feeling was that lawlessness was too much for the existing "law" to deal with, so the vigilance committee was seen as justified in taking illegal measures to establish law and order. The Hollywood cliche of the vigilante action hero, I believe, is so popular because it's a vehicle for exploring the theme of justice through the perspective of an individual. I don't think vigilantes are necessarily violent, but remember that "the law" vigilantes are substituting for has a monopoly on legitimate violence. Even if the cop is giving you a friendly warning, he's still ready to use that gun in his holster if he thinks it appropriate, or electrial outlet if it's Jack Bauer and he thinks you know something about the visitors. Bobanny 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The actual definition given at the start of the article is really good ("A vigilante is a person or persons who ignore due process enacting their own form of justice when they deem the response of the authorities to be insufficient") because it makes the clear distinction of ignoring due process, and participating in the process. Whether you regard that as negative is a matter of personal perspective but I'd certainly regard that as negative in a civil society. LyallDNZ 05:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Needs Attention

This article needs heavy copy-editing for syntax and grammar. It appears that most of it was written by a single individual, to whom English is apparently a second language. It's well-sourced, but very tough to read.

Furthermore, the weasel words need to go. Historians don't "believe" anything. They've either had a fact/opinion quoted by a reputable, cited source, or they've done the same in one of their own publications. Period. Bullzeye 17:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this needs a good copyedit, but disagree that "historians believe" is a weasel phrase. Historians are a very opionated lot, and do more than just reiterate what people in the past said. They interepret sources and then tell us what they "believe" happened based on that. The wording could be better, but there are references that point to said historians, so I'm removing the weasel tag; if you wish to return it, please specify if there's other weasel problems and how neutrality is compromised. Bobanny 20:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh-my-gosh. It's much worse than just copy-editing. All the rambling in the "History of Vigilantism" section about "Robin Hood and his Merry Men...against the dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham." It's a disgrace to Wikipedia. Robin Hood is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER who has nothing to do with history.

In fact, all the blah-blah-blah and the long lists covering Hollywood and other fictional vigilantes doesn't belong here; interested parties should start a separate article on the subject, and cross-link it to this one.

The Hines paper that's footnoted in the "Interpretations" section is a decent source (though surely there are better), but it's mis-cited badly. (e.g. Hines does not say that "Classical vigilantism was practiced widely in the 'late colonial or early federal period' to protect against fake religious practitioners.")

It ain't all bad. For instance, the pictures of the Bald Knobbers and San Francisco are excellent. Otherwise this thing is in dire need of a slash-and-burn. I'm hesitant to start, as limited as my knowledge of the subject is. Anyone with a decent scope of the topic who'd like my help, feel free to post on my talk page. I may not respond fast, but I'll respond good. ô¿ô 01:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And how bout Artistotle? He never wrote about vigilantes, sorry to say, because the concept didn't yet exist. The concept of "police" didn't exist until he invented it, so how could he be commenting on people who act "outside the law," when the "law," in the sense of that phrase, didn't exist? bobanny 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

196.25.60.242 (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Television

How about adding 'The A-Team' to the Television section?


Lisztian 02:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


The first few seasons of The Avengers in the 1960s portrayed Steed and Mrs Gail (spelling?) as vigilantes.

196.25.60.242 (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Off-topic How

So what is exactly off topic in the history section? On the microsoft encarta page [3], reference is made to the anti-British vigilance committees of the American colonial rebels, San Francisco committees, and the Holy Veme, colonial-American Regulators and Ulster Defence Associatoin as vigilante entities...so what is off-topic? The issue of monopoly on force is crucial to the subject of vigilantism, and that is the focus of the cited book on violence and chivalry, so what is off topic? Vigilantism is an extremely messy issue for moderns, there is no denying its complexity, and illustrates the difference between what Max Weber calls "traditional" or "charismatic" authority and bureacratic legal authority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 06:38, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph on Robin Hood is off-topic because it's ahistorical (the term hadn't even been coined yet, at least in English, making this an anachronism); same with the League of the Holy Court. The discussion of how George Washington might have been considered a vigilante and hung had history unfolded differently, is off-topic and pure speculation. In sum, there's very little information on actual vigilance committees in this section (note how Encarta stays focused), and by being off-topic, it doesn't help clarify the subject at all, but instead conflates vigilantes with rebels. bobanny 14:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But that's the thing--vigilantism is a messy difficult subject. The Microsoft encarta article in fact refers to the Veme as an example of pre-modern vigilantism, and refers to the Ulster Defence Assocation as a modern neo-vigilante group. The whole point of the history section is that the conceptual boundaries between vigilantism, rebellion, terrorism, etc. are complex as they all relate to a monopoly on force claimed by one entity against another and modern people's legal-bureaucratic understanding of justice (as opposed to the traditional-charismatic of Weber) do not permit us to fathom this subject's depth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 04:59, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that it's too messy to bother trying to clarify the concept. In any case, the history section should describe the phenomenon as it manifested historically, from it's origins in 18th and 19th century US and how it developed from there. How vigilantism intersects with Weberian theory or relates to antecedents is putting the cart before the horse without those basics, no? Presenting it as a transhistorical heuristic device defeats history section's purpose. Also, I don't recall Weber explicitly discussing vigilantes. Unlike Encarta (the link you provided, btw, takes the concept only as far back as the American Revolution), we're obliged to provide sources. There are reliable, published sources that problematize and define vigilantism - do any of them discuss vigilantism in relation to Weber's typology? Making such connections isn't our job, or else we'd be writing an essay, not an encyclopedia article. bobanny 17:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In my recent edits, I tried to express better my intent for the article and the anthropological and legal matrix out of which formal vigilantism was implicitly born. If there is a problem with these changes, please do not delete them wholesale but we can discuss and refine the article together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 09:14, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But forgive me if I confuse your edits with our psychoanalyst friend.
I think I get your point; it is clearer in your recent edit, but I still must protest. I still think it's a) too trans-historical and b) more of an essay advancing an original argument than encyclopedic. One historical problem is that you're taking the concept of "private" back to an age when it didn't exist; the private/public, or state/civil society, dichotomy is a liberal innovation that didn't exist in the middle ages. The notion of what a state was had changed profoundly by the time vigilantism emerged in the 19th century. Louis XIV's statement, "Je suis l'etat!" (I am the state!), for example, doesn't leave much room for modern ideas of criminal justice, the rule of law, or even the "taking the law into your own hands" cliche associated with vigilantes. If anything, the chieftan you mention sounds more state-like in the modern sense than the feudal monarch, who drew legitimacy from "divine right," not any responsibility for representing the interests of his subjects.
All in all, this seems more appropriate for the State article because it's about the evolution of the modern state. That modern state was a fait accompli when the vigilantes emerged, and which gives vigilantism its meaning. Your argument, or what seems to be why you think this is an important addition, is that the phenomenon of vigilantes is a natural and universal outgrowth of the tension between the individual and the collective, or state in this case, another dichotomy that didn't exist in the middle ages. At least that's my interpretation. I didn't check the sources you used, and feel free to correct me if I'm misreading this.
My understanding of vigilantism historically is that typically it was a means to creating or reforming/expanding the state. The San Fran vigilantes, for example, formed not just to combat lawlessness, but to drive out the Democratic Party political machine from the city government. Oh yeah, and "composition" should be "compensation" in one of your edits, and use four tildes to sign so the robots don't get you. Okay, thems my gripes. bobanny 19:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange New Edits

Ok, I don't mean to be rude, but the insertion of a bizarre "psychoanalysis of vigilantism" right in the middle of the history section is completely insane and out of context... This takes the level of discussion down horribly... What does the discussion on knighthood, "legitimate" violence and monopoly on force have to do with alleged paraphilias? The grammar and style of the section is also unacceptably mediocre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.1 (talk) 04:23, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I reverted it. Much of it was also original research not supported by the citations he or she provided, and frankly, not very helpful for this subject. bobanny 05:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I added some tags to the article because it's gone from bad to worse thanks to a persistent IP editor. Sources are woefully misused, quotations are stitched together, and overall, it's become an incoherent hodgepodge - or "stew" - of unrelated and peripherally related ideas that will only further confuse anyone looking here for clarification on this topic. Comments? bobanny 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insane Edits

OH my God, the article has been totally ruined and mutilated... The anthropological and philosophical context and background information, relating to monopoly of force, 'primitive' judicial punishment, etc., has been recklessly removed. The level of education is abysmal. The American Revolution is said to have occurred in the 19th century!!! No wonder no one trusts Wikipedia Is there anyone capable of cleaning up this uneducated, amateur mess and restoring the old good information and format? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.1 (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding article. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  — 6etonyourfeet\t\c 11:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presentism

From Presentism (literary and historical analysis):

Presentism is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past. Most modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.

And from Anachronism:

In academic writing, there is no place for deliberate anachronism, and here anachronism is regarded as an error of scholarly method. For example, we now know that the concept of Translatio imperii was first formulated in the 12th century. To use it to interpret 10th century literature, as early 20th century scholarship did, is anachronistic, an error which (once we see it) is obvious as such.

Note that the term "vigilantism" is only used twice in the book that is used to support the Robin Hood reference. Both are in the conclusion, written by the editor of the volume summarizing the main themes covered in the volume. The writer who actually analyses the Robin Hood ballads doesn't use the term - or any variation - at all. A book that uses a term in passing is hardly a reliable source for the subject that the term refers to, even if the writer is an egghead.

Using Robin Hood in this article is like saying "Christianity existed long before the birth of Christ, because other people reportedly performed miraculous acts and preached to their followers." Or that elements of Nazism existed long before Hitler, which we know because many brutal and genocidal dictators have appeared throughout history. Antecedents only warrant inclusion if it helps to clarify the topic at hand, otherwise it just confuses it. A fundamental problem with this article has been that the term has been conflated with everything from (in the case of Robin Hood) outlawry, to rebels, renegades, and even pedophilia. The classic, neo-, and pseudo- distinctions are useful in this respect; note that those come from sources published by authors attempting to clarify the term as it's manifested historically, i.e., in the real-world political context in which vigilantism appears and from which it derives its meaning. bobanny 18:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion to Merge Vigilante into Vigilance Committee

In doing a bit of research on the early history of Montana for other WP articles, the subject of Vigilantes arose. When I reviewed this article, I was really dismayed at how poorly it convey's what the term meant (historical) and means today (contemporary interpretation). Today Vigilante is really a slang term is most often viewed in a derogatory way. Whereas, 150 years ago, vigilantes (as members of some sort of Vigilance Committee) were generally respected and tolerated by society. I think attempting to define a single meaning for the term Vigilante is difficult and allows authors to bring in all sorts of irrelevant stuff that doesn't really contribute to the historical concept of Vigilante Committees, Vigilantism and members of those committees (Vigilantes). I don't think that ignoring the Slang aspect of the term is necessary, but it should not be the main focus of the article. WP would be useless if we attempted to defined and describe all aspects of any particular slang term. I think merging Vigilante into Vigilance Committee will significantly improve WP content on these subjects.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source material for reworking the article

Some very good sources about American vigilantism include: The Vigilantes of Montana by Thomas J. Dimsdale – it covers some information not only on vigilantes and vigilante actions in Montana but in various parts of the West.

Lynching and Vigilantism in the United States by Norton H. Moses – This source isn't necessarily a great as far as bias goes, but has some very good primary and secondary sources listed in the back.

Vigilantism: Political History of Private Power in America by William Culberson – Good source.

Vigilantism in America by Arnold Madison – Great primary sources.

Other sources: Vigilantism and the State in Modern Latin America: Essays on Extralegal Violence by Martha K. Huggins (editor) – This was very useful in a previous article I wrote on justice in Mexico; it includes some very interesting material on Mexican vigilantism in Chiapas, and other states, El Salvadoran, Guatemalan and Nicaraguan paramilitary and village vigilance activities, as well as activities in Chile, Argentina, and street justice in Brazil.

Buur, L. (2006, Mar) Vigilantism and Sovereign Expressions in Port Elizabeth´s Townships: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA Online <PDF> Retrieved 2006-10-05 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p98830_index.html – Though this is a conference paper, it does have some interesting points and source materials.

Interesting reads on the subject: law.jrank.org information about vigilantism – http://law.jrank.org/pages/2290/Vigilantism.html Vigilantism rises in violence-torn Kenya – http://www.newsobserver.com/print/monday/front/story/935927.html Border Vigilantism and Comprehensive Immigration Reform by Christopher Walker – http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=922374 What Is Vigilantism? – http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/36/2/220 Gangs, Pagad and the State: Vigilantism and Revenge Violence in the Western Cape – http://www.crdi.ca/recherche/ev-41684-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

In general, from what I've read on the subject, vigilantism as we understand it is based upon events in the last three centuries, particularly in the U.S. and Latin America. This is not to discount that there are events in history that from a modern point of view could be considered or classified as vigilantism. I could argue that some secret societies in China, such as the Society of the White Lotus, started out as vigilante groups with the intent of insuring just and safe communities against bandits and corrupt officials. Still, I would not necessarily use the term “vigilante” for the group as it is anachronistic as we understand the term.

Well, I hope that some of those sources are helpful anyone who works on cleaning this article. Oh, there are some other good resources in the American Law Review archives. Luminece (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are additional sources on relating to Vigilantes in Montana
  • Langford, Nathaniel Pitt (1893). VIGILANTE DAYS AND WAYS-THE PIONEERS OF THE ROCKIES. New York: D. D. Merrill Company. 
  • Wheeler, Olin D. (1912). NATHANIEL PITT LANGFORD,THE VIGILANTE, THE EXPLORER, THE EXPOUNDER AND FIRST SUPERINTENDENT OF THE YELLOWSTONE PARK.. 
  • Hough, Emerson (1907). The Story of The Outlaws. New York: The Outing Publishing Company. 
--Mike Cline (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I agree with the merge, but the other way round, the Vigilance committee merging into this article. This article is (or should be) about self-justice in general, as for the Vigilance committee article (despite existing, for sure, some cases all over the world), maybe it will be always more related to the USA. In last case, it can stay as an individual article, as a differentiation of the Vigilance committee (trade union). For now, i suggest the inclusion of an internal link in the ==See also== section to Vigilance committee.

--Bluedenimtalk 19:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Insane Lists?

The "Works of Fiction" section seems unnecessarily lengthy. 69.236.91.112 (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

All the lists are much too lengthy, to the point of being ridiculous. Also, listing isolated instances of vigilante "justice" seems pointless - there are more than these, there is no context - what is the point? To say it has occurred in many cultures and is still happening? To justify people who take the law into their own hands? --Parkwells (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

"In recent times vigilante or vigilante justice has become a tool of some legislators respecting sex offenders [rightful or wrongful labeling]to terrorize anyone forced with the label of sex offender. Legislators speak of using baseball bats, penal islands, and the use of residency restrictions to run people out of towns, villages, cities, and states based on faulty information, which generally comes with vigilante reasoning."

What?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.11.2 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)