The problem is, you don't want local preachers turning their congregations into their own personal armies. You don't want cult leaders becoming defacto judges. ...But that's exactly what you get when you leave enforcement of the law up to the people.
...But in the case of in-progress, happening right-in-front-of-you crimes? Empowering the citizen is the way to go.
What you don't want is people taking action on crimes they were told happened the night before, because that's how you get people making up stories to get other people killed.
They're also physically much closer. Therefore they could easily find themselves facing real consequences should they fuck up too badly. When it comes to shit done at the federal level, the ones responsible may as well be living on the moon.
Thanks to the 1st amendment and separation of church and state, you only get those personal armies with cults, and normally they still have to embed themselves with some kind of government force.
Most of the time, people will hear the preachers get crazy, and just leave to go to a different church.
I wouldn't call this "working", I would call this "making the best of a bad situation".
We should have police forces with monopolies on violence (with specific exceptions) because inter-personal violence is a bad way to resolve disagreements (as many in the video can now attest, if they can still speak).
But, if police forces are so weak/corrupt that the law isn't reliable, this is the correction. It will get worse, with random bikers being run over for example, until people start to insist on competent police forces and build them up again.
We should have police forces with monopolies on violence (with specific exceptions) because inter-personal violence is a bad way to resolve disagreements
One issue is, and I'm not even saying you're wrong, but the police aren't there at the scene...but people are. Police were never intended to prevent crime or protect people from direct action; they're meant to arrest criminals. They were not meant to replace people's right to self defense. Which is not to say that this was all self defense, but you get my point.
Police do have a purpose, but to say they should have a monopoly on violence (even with exceptions) is not quite as cut and dried as it might seem.
Even a competent, well-staffed police force can't deal with this kind of attack because their job is to keep things under control not get them under control; if they can shut down a societal plague like biker gangs then you have too many cops.
These vigilantes are like the immune system's killer T cells, where they go in and kill everything they see Judge Dred style because the infection is so bad collateral damage doesn't matter.
I strongly disagree. They shouldn't have monopolies on violence. Violence should be distributed freely but regulated and organized. Police or security companies should be hired as backup, but with no more rights than anyone else. (qualified immunity is huge problem) What you're seeing in Brazil is a chaotic transition state between one system to another, because the country had been overrun with criminals who expected no resistance. It gets worse before it gets better, but getting better doesn't necessarily mean control back in the hands of police departments.
Huh.
Whaddaya know?
Turns out community policing does work.
Policing by the government is a ~100 years experiment that has clearly failed.
The problem is, you don't want local preachers turning their congregations into their own personal armies. You don't want cult leaders becoming defacto judges. ...But that's exactly what you get when you leave enforcement of the law up to the people.
...But in the case of in-progress, happening right-in-front-of-you crimes? Empowering the citizen is the way to go.
What you don't want is people taking action on crimes they were told happened the night before, because that's how you get people making up stories to get other people killed.
I regret to inform you that many, if not a sizable majority, of actual judges are part of a cult that is waging a war on reality itself.
Legislation from the bench?!!! Never!
They're also physically much closer. Therefore they could easily find themselves facing real consequences should they fuck up too badly. When it comes to shit done at the federal level, the ones responsible may as well be living on the moon.
Thanks to the 1st amendment and separation of church and state, you only get those personal armies with cults, and normally they still have to embed themselves with some kind of government force.
Most of the time, people will hear the preachers get crazy, and just leave to go to a different church.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
It works in low-corruption, ethnically-homogenous nations. That's not an option any longer in nearly every (formerly ) White country.
Bring back sheriffs.
We already have sheriffs. The point is to remove non-sheriffs.
Literal trucks of peace?
''Pick-up of the trash.''
I wouldn't call this "working", I would call this "making the best of a bad situation".
We should have police forces with monopolies on violence (with specific exceptions) because inter-personal violence is a bad way to resolve disagreements (as many in the video can now attest, if they can still speak).
But, if police forces are so weak/corrupt that the law isn't reliable, this is the correction. It will get worse, with random bikers being run over for example, until people start to insist on competent police forces and build them up again.
No government should ever have a monopoly on violence.
One issue is, and I'm not even saying you're wrong, but the police aren't there at the scene...but people are. Police were never intended to prevent crime or protect people from direct action; they're meant to arrest criminals. They were not meant to replace people's right to self defense. Which is not to say that this was all self defense, but you get my point.
Police do have a purpose, but to say they should have a monopoly on violence (even with exceptions) is not quite as cut and dried as it might seem.
Even a competent, well-staffed police force can't deal with this kind of attack because their job is to keep things under control not get them under control; if they can shut down a societal plague like biker gangs then you have too many cops.
These vigilantes are like the immune system's killer T cells, where they go in and kill everything they see Judge Dred style because the infection is so bad collateral damage doesn't matter.
I strongly disagree. They shouldn't have monopolies on violence. Violence should be distributed freely but regulated and organized. Police or security companies should be hired as backup, but with no more rights than anyone else. (qualified immunity is huge problem) What you're seeing in Brazil is a chaotic transition state between one system to another, because the country had been overrun with criminals who expected no resistance. It gets worse before it gets better, but getting better doesn't necessarily mean control back in the hands of police departments.
I dont think this happen after but it always been the case in Brazil