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.
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