In 1985, the serial killer, Richard Ramirez, was chased down, beaten, and captured by a group of vigilantes in Los Angeles, bringing an end to a killing spree that took the lives of at least fourteen people. Vigilantes aren't necessarily bad, in my opinion, and they are an inevitability when appropriate law enforcement agencies refuse or fail to provide the level of safety and justice that people demand, or when a situation appears emergent. Today, we are led to believe that vigilantes are criminals and that vigilantism is never justified. However, I agree that there can be a close relationship between vigilantes and a mob and that vigilantes can sometimes do more. harm than that which they think they are preventing. In fact, the people who chased down Richard Ramirez are usually referred to as a mob. I also agree that vigilantism brings with it an inherent risk of wrongful acts being rightfully committed. In the 1930s or sometime in the first half of the 20th century, people in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas grew angry with the United States government for not enforcing the border laws, so a large group of vigilantes took it upon themselves to round up as many of the illegals as they could find, and moved them back across the border at gunpoint. One problem was that many of these people were Americans of Mexican ancestry, who were born in Texas, and the mostly white vigilantes didn't always take the time to figure in these details. Today, people in the Rio Grande Valley are again furious with the U.S. government for not securing the border, which has resulted in Republicans actually being elected to local offices, whereas that was never the case when I lived there twenty years ago. However, today, Americans of Mexican ancestry are every bit as angry about the open borders as the white residents are. When local governments and police departments refuse to even attempt to protect lives or property during riots, as we have seen often lately, at what point might people be justified in providing this protection themselves? For the sake of discussion, at what point, if any, do you think that vigilantism might be justified?
At one point in the history of the United States, vigilantes were common and were sometimes the only law available. Over the years, vigilantes were replaced by various police departments and other law enforcement agencies. Now that these entities are becoming less able to do their jobs, often due to no fault of their own, will we see a return of vigilantism? Unless we turn back from the direction we're currently going in, as I see it, the choice will be between vigilantism and lawlessness. Among the arguments against vigilantism is that there is no accountability and that the wrong people may be harmed. However, there are many accounts of the wrong people being harmed by duly appointed law enforcement people, and there is rarely any accountability. Police shootings are investigated by police and they are usually found to be justified, however outrageous, and when people are proven to have been wrongfully imprisoned, there is rarely any accountability beyond taxpayer dollars.