Would You Make A Good VIGILANTE?

[Jenna]

Would a circumstance exist where you might take vigilante action upon yourself? I mean would you ever take retributive action at a time subsequent to an act that has harmed you or someone close? Or do you regard the idea as morally abhorrent?

Does a martial artist have a duty above and beyond the norm of society to suppress any retaliatory nature within themselves? Or, dare I say it, would a martial artist make a good vigilante?

I would be very grateful indeed to read your thoughts. Thank you all for reading or for taking the time to post
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Even if there were, would it be very smart to put it up on a public internet board?

 

[Aiki Lee]

Only when the law is inadequate to address the situation should a person take matters into their own hands. Too often people confuse justice with revenge. As powerful people I think we have a duty to go one step further in ensuring the saftey of others.

I wouldn't go out and look for trouble, but I wouldn't walk away from a person in dire need.

The character I take my username from said this:

"With a sword in hand, at least the people within my sight can be protected." -Himura Kenshin from the manga Rurouni Kenshin

While I don't carry a sword in public I do believe that with my skill that I am working towards the people in my sight are safer than they would be if I were not there.

 

[astrobiologist]

Only when the law is inadequate to address the situation should a person take matters into their own hands. Too often people confuse justice with revenge. As powerful people I think we have a duty to go one step further in ensuring the saftey of others.

I wouldn't go out and look for trouble, but I wouldn't walk away from a person in dire need.

The character I take my username from said this:

"With a sword in hand, at least the people within my sight can be protected." -Himura Kenshin from the manga Rurouni Kenshin

While I don't carry a sword in public I do believe that with my skill that I am working towards the people in my sight are safer than they would be if I were not there.

well written. I stand alongside your here my friend

 

[terryl965]

My feelings are simple we have a moral conduct to ouself and society. I know alot of people do not agree with this approach, the vigiante style would not be a good mix but it would be a better tool to be used the right way.

 

[Sukerkin]

The aim is always to use what talents you have to reduce the 'threat level' in your vicinity. I'm not a naive person who suggests that violence never solved anything because, quite obviously throughout history, it has.

However, it is also a trusim that violence has a bad tendency to beget violence when practised on the individual scale. Even if you kill he or she that has wronged you when the law gives you no satisfaction, that is often the cloth from which vendeta's are cut.

Vigilantiism (sp ) only has effect when it is anonymous and as such actions tend to be engendered by a sense of wronged 'honour', anonymity does not serve to salve the wound.

And 'Revenge' gives rise to 'Counter-Revenge' all too frequently.

So, that leaves us with spur of the moment defence of individuals (including ourselves), either by force of 'arms' or diplomacy.

My own experience has been that execution of violence seldom 'solves' a situation in the long term.

Execution of diplomacy, with the surety of your ability to carry through the threat of violence if necessary, has solved many a tense situation. Confidence is key in such situations, as is the ability to give the show of 'submission' for the 'crowd' whilst letting the protaganist in question realise that you choose to yield this day. That confidence comes from your training, or at least it does for me and it allows you to forsake the field without forsaking your sense of honour.

 

[seasoned]

The aim is always to use what talents you have to reduce the 'threat level' in your vicinity. I'm not a naive person who suggests that violence never solved anything because, quite obviously throughout history, it has.

However, it is also a trusim that violence has a bad tendency to beget violence when practised on the individual scale. Even if you kill he or she that has wronged you when the law gives you no satisfaction, that is often the cloth from which vendeta's are cut.

Vigilantiism (sp ) only has effect when it is anonymous and as such actions tend to be engendered by a sense of wronged 'honour', anonymity does not serve to salve the wound.

And 'Revenge' gives rise to 'Counter-Revenge' all too frequently.

So, that leaves us with spur of the moment defence of individuals (including ourselves), either by force of 'arms' or diplomacy.

My own experience has been that execution of violence seldom 'solves' a situation in the long term.

Execution of diplomacy, with the surety of your ability to carry through the threat of violence if necessary, has solved many a tense situation. Confidence is key in such situations, as is the ability to give the show of 'submission' for the 'crowd' whilst letting the protaganist in question realise that you choose to yield this day. That confidence comes from your training, or at least it does for me and it allows you to forsake the field without forsaking your sense of honour.

This my friend, is an attribute that only the true study of a given Martial Arts, can convey to an open mind. Now to the point, revenge is a cancer, that if given into, can only cause more harm then good. A quest of retribution after the fact, although warranted and enticing, will serve no solace, except to temporarily satisfy the animal within. We, as martial artist, with our special talents, can serve a greater cause, by being ever vigilant in our comings and goings, and in turn, do a much better job, of caretaker to society. :asian:

 

[Nolerama]

If I was crazy, had split personalities, and my other half was really into crusading for truth, justice, and free cable, then yes, I would probably be a vigilante. It wouldn't be my choice, since I have a bit of faith (right now) in public services...

Specifically, what would be asked of a vigilante? Would burning down crack houses constitute as doing good for the citizenry? What about beating the snot out of graffiti artists? Certainly, they're a menace to society.

What about slowly poisoning people that amass huge amounts of investor money, and squander that away for personal gain? Or the phone companies that somehow charge you for services you didn't ask for but still charge you anyway?

Do you punish them yourselves?

The question of right and wrong applies on not just criminal, but on a socioeconomic, racial, and moral level that I couldn't possibly attempt to take on.

Petty thieves? Times are tough. Why spend my own time thwarting that kind of injustice?

So that's why I say I'd have to be crazy and with split personalities... And I'm too lazy to make/maintain a costume.

 

[Big Don]

I would make an excellent vigilante. Aside from fighting ability, I am a damn good shot and have a twisted sense of humor.

 

[Nolerama]

Did everyone here watch The Watchmen?

I liked it...

 

[searcher]

I would be a terrible vigilante. Who am I to decide what is right or wrong? No one person should have the right to decide these things.

I may change my position if it were a group of people, as long as it does not become a linch mob. I think the idea behind the Guardian Angels, but I am not 100% on their methods.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Would a circumstance exist where you might take vigilante action upon yourself? I mean would you ever take retributive action at a time subsequent to an act that has harmed you or someone close? Or do you regard the idea as morally abhorrent?

Vigilance is the prerogative of every citizen and member of an ordered society. This is distinguished from Vigilantism, which are illegal acts committed in vengeance, or from the concept that the punishment a criminal might receive is insufficient to his or her crime.

Society has tended to side both with vigilantes and against them, depending upon the circumstances. For example, society largely applauded the acts of Bernard Goetz. He was seen as someone who 'took a stand' against muggers on a train, and his act was set against a time when justice was commonly believe not to have been done - criminals were often, it was said, back on the streets while police officers will still writing up the reports.

We want to think of vigilantes as 'good guys' who are 'forced' to go beyond the limits of the law in order to ensure that justice is done. People who merely want what we all want - justice for all, honesty and integrity in our police, judicial, and penal systems. Even-handed justice that works, and is seen to work, where none are treated specially and none are given undue sentences because of their status, color, race, sex, sexual orientation, and etc.

And when some of us think that 'our' group is not being treated fairly, it is not that hard to imagine how wonderful it would be if someone of great courage and honor 'stood up' and made it clear that justice matters.

But vigilante justice is simply extra-legal punitive action. It is only seen as 'right' by some segments of society when they agree with the motives that they presume were behind the action. One would presume that some applaud Shawn Allen Berry's actions - he's the man who dragged James Byrd to death behind his car for the crime of being black. Or Damian 'Football' Williams, who crushed Reginald Berry's skull in 91 places with a chunk of concrete during the LA Riots for the crime of being white. To some, these men may be heroes. To others, criminals. But heroes or criminals, they were all indeed vigilantes. They took the law into their own hands to enforce 'justice' as they saw it.

Does a martial artist have a duty above and beyond the norm of society to suppress any retaliatory nature within themselves? Or, dare I say it, would a martial artist make a good vigilante?

I would ask what you mean by a 'good' vigilante. Do you mean someone who is good, as in the opposite of evil? If so, then no. That's anathema. Are there 'good' rapists?

If you mean would a skilled martial artist be capable of performing extra-legal acts of vengenance and punishment on people thought to be insufficiently punished by the law, then sure, no doubt.

And frankly, there are those who want that - otherwise, there would not be comic books and movies with superheroes in them.

I would be very grateful indeed to read your thoughts. Thank you all for reading or for taking the time to post
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

I think the notion of a person who uses their abilities to 'put things right' is an honorable, one, but only in the sense that it remains a notion. Comic book caped crusaders are good in the sense that they let us think about inequality and unfairness in society and it gives us an outlet that does not harm people or damage our society.

The problem is in the actual application. Suppose a trained martial artist decided to take on the IRS. The evil, bad, terrible IRS. And so he began to target IRS properties, perhaps rattle a few cages, beat up a couple of high-ranking IRS executives. He might well be cheered by a crowd who thought he was doing 'the right thing'. Until the day he burned down some IRS bigwig's house with his family in it, and killed them all. Even then, perhaps he might be cheered on by the more radical IRS-haters. But then, let us suppose someone starts looking at the victims more closely and notices that they all share the same characteristic. They're all black. Or all gay. Or all middle-eastern. Ah, then what? He's fighting all right - for the correction of an injustice that he sees - and you thought you saw, so you cheered him on - but then you find out that HIS injustice is not YOUR injustice.

And that's the problem with vigilantism. The 'injustice' being fought is purely subjective. Everyone who cheers vigilante action does so because they perceive the injustice being fought against. And what if it is YOU who are the injustice the vigilante is fighting against?

Vigilantes might be a romantic notion. And they are best left that way - on the pages of graphic novels, where they can do no harm.

 

[GBlues]

When the law of the land can no longer, or is unwilling to protect the people they have been sworn to protect, then you will have vigilantes. These kinds of people are also often referred to as outlaws. The problem with being an outlaw is you live out side the law. When you live the life of an outlaw, you must be willing to accept the consequences that come with being an outlaw, and that most commonly in our society at least, leads to two places death or prison. That being said, it would take a powerful lot of wrongdoing to make me want to take the law into my own hands. I have no desire to die, nor to go to prison. I plan on dying peacefully in my sleep at a ripe old age.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Even if there were, would it be very smart to put it up on a public internet board?

What he said.

Did you know that recently, a person on weapons charges was released because the cop had refered to 'training day' as a course on police work, and that his facebook status was set to 'feeling devious?'
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/nyregion/11about.html?_r=1

Apparently this reinforced the accusation that he had planted the gun.

So if you ever get into a situation where you have to protect yourself from legal issues, you had BETTER not said something along the lines of 'I will take justice in my own hands' because you will be convicted faster that you can say 'hey no fair!'

Rule number 1 for posting on the internet: Never write / post anything that you wouldn't want your partner, kids, boss, priest, IRS inspector, district attorney or anyone else to read.

Yes, even though you didn't mean it in general etc etc don't expect anyone to care about semantics when that statement is thrown in your face at a highly unconvenient time, like in court.

 

[Omar B]

There's stepping in and helping someone when you are there which is fine, but then to do the whole vigilante thing and go out looking for trouble is kinda crazy. Look, I love Batman as much as the next guy (started karate because of him) but in the real world you get arrested for stuff like that.

Having said that, it's becoming a trend now, there are quite a few self styled real world super heroes and some of them are doing good work. Take some time to look around: http://www.worldsuperheroregistry.com/

 

[Big Don]

Having said that, it's becoming a trend now, there are quite a few self styled real world super heroes

Or, as most of us call them: Crazy people

 

[Jenna]

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. I am very grateful indeed to each one of you for taking the time I will try to cram a reply into one post so as to not annoy anybody I think

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Even if there were, would it be very smart to put it up on a public internet board?

Hey Andy thank you for your reply though I am alas not offering a confessional unless you absolutely insist Let me rephrase that for you since I see you have the Watchmen icon as your AV.. Why are we as a society attracted to vigilantism?
Would appreciate your thoughts,
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Too often people confuse justice with revenge.

Hey Himura K thank you for taking the time to reply. Regarding what you said above, do you not believe that people - yourself? - seek revenge when they are wronged in some way? Is this not our nature? If so do we not deserve fitting revenge? I guess it depends upon whether we feel the law has given us that revenge? What do you believe yourself, are there not times when the enaction of the law and an equitable justice for ourselves as victims are two ideas that do not match up?
Thank you again
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My feelings are simple we have a moral conduct to ouself and society. I know alot of people do not agree with this approach, the vigiante style would not be a good mix but it would be a better tool to be used the right way.

Hey Terry and thank you very much for your thoughts. I agree with the moral responsibility. I wonder though do you think your position would remain exactly the same if you or someone you knew were harmed in some way? Or would you have faith in the law to apprehend, charge, convict and hand out appropriate punishment? I would like your thoughts. Thank you again.
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And 'Revenge' gives rise to 'Counter-Revenge' all too frequently.

My own experience has been that execution of violence seldom 'solves' a situation in the long term.

Hello Sukerkin and thank you for your thoughtful and reflective comments. I do agree with the idea of the cycle of violence you propose. It is certainly borne out on street corners - a old guy near me was stabbed a while back for chasing hoodies away from his van. I just wonder in a situation like that - say that old guy was your dad or something, would you feel any differently and maybe more pertinently, would that or anything like it colour your view? I am certainly not trying to prompt you my friend, I appreciate that logically, as you say, violence begets violence and but I am wondering how well you feel our judicial system serves the victims? And is there no circumstance in which vigilantism could be condoned? Thank you again good sir
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now to the point, revenge is a cancer, that if given into, can only cause more harm then good. A quest of retribution after the fact, although warranted and enticing, will serve no solace, except to temporarily satisfy the animal within.

Hey Seasoned and thank you very kindly for presenting such clear points. Can I ask in response to your comment above that "revenge is a cancer" and which I would tentatively agree with - would the same principle apply if, say, our nation was attacked? Would we not rightly seek retribution after the fact, if we had been unable to react at the time of the attack? Again, I am not trying to goad you my friend and but I think the need for revenge is almost hardwired into us as individuals. I would appreciate your thoughts, thank you
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I was crazy, had split personalities, and my other half was really into crusading for truth, justice, and free cable, then yes, I would probably be a vigilante. It wouldn't be my choice, since I have a bit of faith (right now) in public services...

Specifically, what would be asked of a vigilante? Would burning down crack houses constitute as doing good for the citizenry? What about beating the snot out of graffiti artists? Certainly, they're a menace to society.

What about slowly poisoning people that amass huge amounts of investor money, and squander that away for personal gain? Or the phone companies that somehow charge you for services you didn't ask for but still charge you anyway?

Do you punish them yourselves?

The question of right and wrong applies on not just criminal, but on a socioeconomic, racial, and moral level that I couldn't possibly attempt to take on.

Petty thieves? Times are tough. Why spend my own time thwarting that kind of injustice?

So that's why I say I'd have to be crazy and with split personalities... And I'm too lazy to make/maintain a costume.

Hello Nolerama and thank you for making your points so well. You have certainly widened out the idea of being "wronged" and you are correct, an individual would be hard pushed to execute a revenge on anonymous maverick bankers. Can I ask, if you were attacked or badly hurt in one of the many "street" situations that we debate so vociferously even on here MT, and you had been unable to defend yourself at that time, do you think you would be inclined to seek a recompense, costume or not?
Thank you again for your thoughts
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would be a terrible vigilante. Who am I to decide what is right or wrong? No one person should have the right to decide these things.

I may change my position if it were a group of people, as long as it does not become a linch mob. I think the idea behind the Guardian Angels, but I am not 100% on their methods.

Hello Searcher and thank you for your contribution and for your honesty moreover In principle no one person *should* have the right though we have twelve person juries we still cede sentencing to individual judges, nonetheless do you not think there is merit in asking YOU as the victim to decide punishment? That is not quite the same as you as the victim seeking out the attacker, and but I wonder what your thoughts are on who has the right to decide what it right and wrong? Thank you again, I appreciate your thoughts
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

@Bill Mattocks, Thank you my friend for taking the time to present such concise and cogent responses apologies if my reply does not do yours justice..

But vigilante justice is simply extra-legal punitive action. It is only seen as 'right' by some segments of society when they agree with the motives that they presume were behind the action. One would presume that some applaud Shawn Allen Berry's actions - he's the man who dragged James Byrd to death behind his car for the crime of being black. Or Damian 'Football' Williams, who crushed Reginald Berry's skull in 91 places with a chunk of concrete during the LA Riots for the crime of being white. To some, these men may be heroes. To others, criminals. But heroes or criminals, they were all indeed vigilantes. They took the law into their own hands to enforce 'justice' as they saw it.

Of course, and I guess a problem with vigilantism is that by its own logic, it could be said that the St Valentine's Day massacre was merely Capone seeking retribution for being "wronged" himself or any of the recent-history damage has been caused by that same desire for retaliation.

So you are absolutely right, the need for vigilantism is a factor of our confidence in our judicial systems. But still, is it not the case that recompense is a NEED within us? We can suppress it, and for the most part do. But is it not natural to have this desire for recompense, particularly if you are physically harmed? Should we suppress it?

The problem is in the actual application. Suppose a trained martial artist decided to take on the IRS. The evil, bad, terrible IRS. And so he began to target IRS properties, perhaps rattle a few cages, beat up a couple of high-ranking IRS executives.

Of course in this scenario, the trained martial artist has not himself been physically harmed yet his retaliation is a physical one. So this, on the face of it, is merely a criminal act with little justification, right? For me, while inequity of retributive punishment is certainly the core issue in sanctioning vigilantism, it is still merely a problem with the application and not of the notion of vigilantism per se. That is why I wonder, would a martial artist, being supposedly more tempered and conditioned in their physical responses make a "better" vigilante?

Vigilantes might be a romantic notion. And they are best left that way - on the pages of graphic novels, where they can do no harm.

I still wonder why the idea of the vigilante persists and persists so widely in our "harmless" outlets? If there were no inherent desire for it within us, why does it remain such a popular concept?

Thank you again for your points so well made, I appreciate you taking the time
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When the law of the land can no longer, or is unwilling to protect the people they have been sworn to protect, then you will have vigilantes. These kinds of people are also often referred to as outlaws. The problem with being an outlaw is you live out side the law. When you live the life of an outlaw, you must be willing to accept the consequences that come with being an outlaw, and that most commonly in our society at least, leads to two places death or prison. That being said, it would take a powerful lot of wrongdoing to make me want to take the law into my own hands. I have no desire to die, nor to go to prison. I plan on dying peacefully in my sleep at a ripe old age.

Hello GBlues and thank you for taking the time to post your views. I think your view is certainly reflective of most views, my own probably included. I wonder though, have you ever felt the need to retaliate for something? No matter how petty, did you ever retaliate, even as a younger person? If so, what did you do? Act on it or suppress that desire? Your thoughts are appreciated, thank you
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So if you ever get into a situation where you have to protect yourself from legal issues, you had BETTER not said something along the lines of 'I will take justice in my own hands' because you will be convicted faster that you can say 'hey no fair!'

Rule number 1 for posting on the internet: Never write / post anything that you wouldn't want your partner, kids, boss, priest, IRS inspector, district attorney or anyone else to read.

Yes, even though you didn't mean it in general etc etc don't expect anyone to care about semantics when that statement is thrown in your face at a highly unconvenient time, like in court.

Hello Bruno@MT and thank you for your views. I would have to agree that being serious about enacting a retributive act would require the person to submit to the consequences. They themselves could be imprisoned or could end up worse as an outcome of the retribution. For me, the problem is that our various systems of jurisprudence do not approve of us circumventing them any more than you would appreciate some layperson trying to do your job for you - and claiming they could do it better! The problem is that you might not appreciate someone doing your job and claiming they are better at it, but what if they ARE better at it? Likewise, it is easy to understand why folk in east African states seek to take the law in their own hands: because the law is non-existent or corrupt. The fact is that no legal systems are flawless. Lawyers can capitalise upon loopholes to ensure clients who would most likely otherwise be convicted are acquitted. So, what are we to do?
Your thoughts are appreciated, thank you
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There's stepping in and helping someone when you are there which is fine, but then to do the whole vigilante thing and go out looking for trouble is kinda crazy. Look, I love Batman as much as the next guy (started karate because of him) but in the real world you get arrested for stuff like that.

Having said that, it's becoming a trend now, there are quite a few self styled real world super heroes and some of them are doing good work. Take some time to look around: http://www.worldsuperheroregistry.com/

Hey OmarB and thank you for making your point so well. You are right, we are not merely talking about the trad. comic book superhero genre, but a significant percentage of MA movies that I can recall have a grounding in the need for revenge and the mechanism of execution of that revenge. I think I would be lying if I said the notion of "true" justice enacted in a violent way, had no attraction to me as a martial artist. Does that not point to the desire for vengence being inherent within us?
Thank you again
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Or, as most of us call them: Crazy people

Hey Big Don Can you tell me, do you mean just crazy in the application. Or do you find the bigger idea itself crazy? Thank you again
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[Bruno@MT]

Hello Bruno@MT and thank you for your views. I would have to agree that being serious about enacting a retributive act would require the person to submit to the consequences. They themselves could be imprisoned or could end up worse as an outcome of the retribution. For me, the problem is that our various systems of jurisprudence do not approve of us circumventing them any more than you would appreciate some layperson trying to do your job for you - and claiming they could do it better! The problem is that you might not appreciate someone doing your job and claiming they are better at it, but what if they ARE better at it? Likewise, it is easy to understand why folk in east African states seek to take the law in their own hands: because the law is non-existent or corrupt. The fact is that no legal systems are flawless. Lawyers can capitalise upon loopholes to ensure clients who would most likely otherwise be convicted are acquitted. So, what are we to do?
Your thoughts are appreciated, thank you
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

I am not arguing about the reasons for or against vigilantism, or why it can be a solution in some cases. There are arguments to support both sides, as is usually the case.

My argument was that you should never put anything in writing that you wouldn't want others to find out an an inconvenient time.
What you post on the internet will be online for years and years. Some of the stuff I posted 12 years ago is still online somewhere. Some archives are likely to be around for decades to come.

Especially young people are likely to make strong statements like 'If someone ever steals from me I am going to beat them into a pulp' or similar issues.
And they don't care, because they are 16 and tough as nails (so they think) and 'right is on their side'.

But then 10 years down the line they get in a self defense situation, and any competent DA is going to google accused's name with some keywords, and finds some quotes that turn his case from 'possible conviction' to 'slam dunk'.

IRS agents are already doing this over here.
Some people got caught because they were bragging on their facebook page about how they got their personal phones registered as business phones so that they did not have to pay taxes on that money. Or people who brag about 'nusiness' trips which were just holidays.

 

[seasoned]

Quote Hey Seasoned and thank you very kindly for presenting such clear points. Can I ask in response to your comment above that "revenge is a cancer" and which I would tentatively agree with - would the same principle apply if, say, our nation was attacked? Would we not rightly seek retribution after the fact, if we had been unable to react at the time of the attack? Again, I am not trying to goad you my friend and but I think the need for revenge is almost hardwired into us as individuals. I would appreciate your thoughts, thank you
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna quote
Same animal different forest. At face value it would appear vengeful for a country to retaliate, but not so. Revenge in the individual sense although appealing needs to be handled by the proper authority, people duly appointed for such, as it is with people, as well as countries.

 

[Guardian]

Would a circumstance exist where you might take vigilante action upon yourself? I mean would you ever take retributive action at a time subsequent to an act that has harmed you or someone close? Or do you regard the idea as morally abhorrent?

Does a martial artist have a duty above and beyond the norm of society to suppress any retaliatory nature within themselves? Or, dare I say it, would a martial artist make a good vigilante?

I would be very grateful indeed to read your thoughts. Thank you all for reading or for taking the time to post
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

I would not necessarily say vigilantism, but I would say seek justice if the legal/court system would or could not depending on the circumstances and my MAs training just gave me the skills to accomplish it better. I'm wired that way and that's how I was raised, to take care of my family and friends and the military just enhanced those views for me (Take care of your own).