Criminal Vigilantism

 

Vigilantism is much in the news these days.

Depending on the definition you choose, vigilantism may or may not be inherently illegal. Concerned citizens standing in front of a jailhouse to prevent a lynching, as depicted in To Kill a Mockingbird for example, would be performing a completely legal kind of vigilantism by some definitions. Usually, however, the implication of vigilantism, and particularly of “vigilante justice,” is that citizens are taking it upon themselves to act as judge, jury, and, occasionally, executioner in order to impose their idea of justice — and doing so illegally.

A distinguishing trait of vigilantism is that it is undertaken with “good” intentions. I use the word “good” advisedly, since it’s a highly subjective term and never more so than when used in this context: the things that vigilantes have considered “good” range from putting down killers in the Old West to lynching blacks in the Old South. What distinguishes vigilantism from plain, old violent crime is that vigilantes believe they’re doing what they do for the benefit to their group, community, country, etc.

The Arbery killing in Georgia is, in my opinion, an example of criminal vigilantism. I believe it’s also an example of grotesque police misconduct, as ugly and wrong as the more famous incident involving Mr. Floyd in Minneapolis.

The riots that have torn our cities apart for the past few weeks, and that have led to violence and bloodshed on the streets of Seattle, are a mix of vigilantism and plain old criminality. Some folks just want a new TV; they’re just criminals. But to the extent that the people doing it think they’re in the right, believe they’re serving a higher calling by tearing down statues, burning police cars, etc., they’re criminal vigilantes — just like the thuggish killers of Georgia who caused the death of Mr. Arbery. Black Lives Matter and Antifa, and all of the excitable young people who follow in their wake, are guilty of the same moral arrogance as the Ku Klux Klan, the Weather Underground, and every other group that imagines it has the authority to wield illegal violence in order to achieve its twisted idea of “the good.”

Playing the race card doesn’t make criminal vigilantism suddenly noble and good. It’s barbarism, and it should be condemned as such.

Published in Law
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 32 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I’m not sure I’ve ever mentioned it, but yes I do have some professional expertise. I have been a lawyer for 17 years, the last 8 I’ve been an assistant public defender, in addition to a private practice. Not in GA, so there is that caveat, but most states are pretty similar on these things and the 4th amendment of course applies there.

    The thing about probable cause is that, yes, it’s a lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but it still has to be based on articulable facts, actually witnessed or documented, that point to an actual crime by a certain person. It cannot be based on speculation or rumors or inferences built upon other inferences. Maybe not right away, but in short order, to hold the accused, someone has to swear to these facts under oath. In Arbery’s case, for there to have been probable cause for burglary, you need specific facts that make it probable that he unlawfully entered the property with the intent to commit a crime therein. You can’t guess at what his intent might have been. There must be some fact that shows a crime was committed or intended. And then, you have to show a probability – again by some attestable fact – that Arbery did it.

    So if, for example, the owner of the property reported something missing, or something had been destroyed, or someone had been assaulted, there would at least be some facts to show a crime was committed on the property. If Arbery is then seen running from the scene shortly after the crime was likely committed, and he either fits the description from an eyewitness, or he is carrying the object said to have been stolen (or something like it), or if after an initial detention on reasonable suspicion he admits to having committed or intended to commit a crime in the property – then you would have probable cause to arrest him.

    The McMichaels were just purely guessing at what might have happened. And they were wrong about that anyway, as the property owner eventually said no crime (other than trespass which many different people had done) was committed on the property.

    To answer Henry’s question – yes, the police have more legal authority to stop someone. They can upon “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity, detain someone on the scene to question them. They can’t arrest them without probable cause, but they can briefly detain them to investigate further. An ordinary citizen can’t do that (as far as I know in most states).

    The McMichaels did not attempt to arrest someone. They attempted to detain someone until the police arrived and could then determine if an arrest was appropriate. 

    • #31
  2. D.A. Venters Inactive
    D.A. Venters
    @DAVenters

    TBA (View Comment):

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    I’m not sure I’ve ever mentioned it, but yes I do have some professional expertise. I have been a lawyer for 17 years, the last 8 I’ve been an assistant public defender, in addition to a private practice. Not in GA, so there is that caveat, but most states are pretty similar on these things and the 4th amendment of course applies there.

    The thing about probable cause is that, yes, it’s a lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but it still has to be based on articulable facts, actually witnessed or documented, that point to an actual crime by a certain person. It cannot be based on speculation or rumors or inferences built upon other inferences. Maybe not right away, but in short order, to hold the accused, someone has to swear to these facts under oath. In Arbery’s case, for there to have been probable cause for burglary, you need specific facts that make it probable that he unlawfully entered the property with the intent to commit a crime therein. You can’t guess at what his intent might have been. There must be some fact that shows a crime was committed or intended. And then, you have to show a probability – again by some attestable fact – that Arbery did it.

    ….

    The McMichaels were just purely guessing at what might have happened. And they were wrong about that anyway, as the property owner eventually said no crime (other than trespass which many different people had done) was committed on the property.

    To answer Henry’s question – yes, the police have more legal authority to stop someone. They can upon “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity, detain someone on the scene to question them. They can’t arrest them without probable cause, but they can briefly detain them to investigate further. An ordinary citizen can’t do that (as far as I know in most states).

    The McMichaels did not attempt to arrest someone. They attempted to detain someone until the police arrived and could then determine if an arrest was appropriate.

    Which is likely unlawful, and potentially a felony, unless GA has a strange way of interpreting their citizens arrest statutes. (In which case, as I said above, they should change that). Ordinary citizens cannot detain someone by force on reasonable suspicion of a misdemeanor. The Arbery case is a prime example of why it is illegal to do that. 

     

    • #32
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.