Anonymous and viglant justice

[NobleSavage]

Some hackers released the name of the Cop who shot Michael Brown. They also have audio recording. They are hiding under the banner of "Anonymous". What are your thoughts on vigilant justice? In general I think it's bad. It was vigilantes in the past who hung blacks from trees. However, I can't categorically say it's bad. If a justice system is so corrupt it just might be the only thing to break it up.

 

[Derec]

I think FBI's cyber-terrorism unit needs to be investigating them and identify, arrest and prosecute those responsible for this and other cyber-crimes done under the auspices of "Anonymous".

 

[NobleSavage]

They have been. They brought down LulzSec. Google "Sabu".

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm almost completely against it unless it's a situation as bad as Mexico for example. I don't really condone it either.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All too often vigilante actions take place before we have all the facts.

 

[Nexus]

The name of the cop should have never been secret in the first place. Police shouldn't have the right to anonymity if they shoot people.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm of the opinion that when vigilantes operate, they should be arrested, and investigated, but that they should be tried not upon whether they were authorized to operate by the state, but rather on the rightfulness of their actions.

 

[dismal]

I'm of the opinion that when vigilantes operate, they should be arrested, and investigated, but that they should be tried not upon whether they were authorized to operate by the state, but rather on the rightfulness of their actions.

Meting out justice without due process is by definition not a rightful action.

I should add that in this particular case I'm not sure publishing someone's name amounts to a vigilante act. If someone now goes out and kills the guy that would be the vigilante act.

 

[Derec]

I should add that in this particular case I'm not sure publishing someone's name amounts to a vigilante act. If someone now goes out and kills the guy that would be the vigilante act.

Vigilantism involves breaking law to achieve (what the vigilantes perceive to be) a higher good. In this case learning (what they thought was) the officer's name presumably involved hacking into police databases which is a crime which should be investigated in its own right.
There was an actual reason to withhold the police officer's name - police received death threats - and there is no downside as far as justice because the investigation is still ongoing anyway.

 

[The Paul]

Are we sure naming a murderer is only vigilantism?

Maybe they should be more properly classified as terrorists.

 

[dismal]

I should add that in this particular case I'm not sure publishing someone's name amounts to a vigilante act. If someone now goes out and kills the guy that would be the vigilante act.

Vigilantism involves breaking law to achieve (what the vigilantes perceive to be) a higher good. In this case learning (what they thought was) the officer's name presumably involved hacking into police databases which is a crime which should be investigated in its own right.
There was an actual reason to withhold the police officer's name - police received death threats - and there is no downside as far as justice because the investigation is still ongoing anyway.

I don't disagree with most of what you said there, but I don't think publishing someone's name is quite the same thing as meting out justice. They have put the name out there and will leave the meting out of justice to others.

 

[dismal]

Are we sure naming a murderer is only vigilantism?

Maybe they should be more properly classified as terrorists.

No one is murderer in the eyes of the law until they have been tried and proven guilty.

This is one of the most basic civil rights.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When those whose job is to administer justice become criminals themselves, then administering justice becomes itself a criminal act.

 

[The Paul]

Are we sure naming a murderer is only vigilantism?

Maybe they should be more properly classified as terrorists.

No one is murderer in the eyes of the law until they have been tried and proven guilty.

This is one of the most basic civil rights.

Well, if they had hacked some kind of grand database of the law and flagged someone as a murderer and caused them to go to jail or be executed or something as a result, that'd be a fair point.

That's some kind of weird science fiction scenario, though. Naming a murderer is a different thing.

 

[fromderinside]

There was an actual reason to withhold the police officer's name - police received death threats - and there is no downside as far as justice because the investigation is still ongoing anyway.

So you think the names of all the police officers in Ferguson are unknown or unknowable? Locals know their officers. Go to the PD website and four names, at a minimum, are right there. Not to put too fine a point on it, but, if the name isn't released who's to keep some nut job from hunting those who are known in the department instead.

IMHO there is a very large downside illustrated in part by one small aspect upon which I just commented.

 

[NobleSavage]

Where do you draw the line between civil disobedience and vigilantism?

 

[fromderinside]

Hard to find a line connecting them.

 

[dismal]

When those whose job is to administer justice become criminals themselves, then administering justice becomes itself a criminal act.

While the statement may be accurate, a person is not a "criminal" until they have been convicted with due process.

Moreover, the entire point of this very concept is to protect the innocent individual citizen from those administering justice.

 

[dismal]

No one is murderer in the eyes of the law until they have been tried and proven guilty.

This is one of the most basic civil rights.

Well, if they had hacked some kind of grand database of the law and flagged someone as a murderer and caused them to go to jail or be executed or something as a result, that'd be a fair point.

That's some kind of weird science fiction scenario, though. Naming a murderer is a different thing.

Legally "a murderer" is someone who has been convicted of murder under due process. They did not name "a murderer".

 

[prideandfall]

to me, i think the idea of "vigilante justice" comes down to whether or not the action taken was in opposition to something being perpetuated by those who are supposed to meter out legal justice.

simple scenario: if instead of a cop it had been just some random person that gunned down a black kid in the street, would the name have been released?
or, if it had been a white kid that was shot, or any other combination of race and cop/citizen, would the name have been released?
history and common expected behaviors indicate that yes, the name of the shooter would have been released.
that in this case it wasn't, coupled with the wholly unacceptable behavior of the police force in general in the aftermath of the shooting, makes it clear that the formal channels of social justice were being subverted in an act of self-interested cronyism.

in that case, i'd say that "vigilante justice" is not only acceptable, but necessary in order to foster a free society - when you let the formal bodies insulate themselves and act above the law, you are perpetuating a fascist state.
it never ceases to blow my mind that the same people who will call a democratic president a dictator for trying to give everyone healthcare while freaking out about jack-booted thugs instituting liberal re-education camps will blithely accept police killing people and then the department trying to hush it up.