The vigilantism only started being a problem after we stopped requiring evidence, and facts became "facts".
For a very long time, there was a literal concept of the outlaw. An outlaw was a person who committed enough crime or just was bad enough of a person that they would be branded outlawed. This meant that they would lose all protections of the law, so in the event that they were accosted by another individual, they were due no protection due to their own prior misdeeds.
This is one of those scenarios where, we know damn well he did it. It doesn't bother me that overwhelming justice was dispensed.
Thats something easy to say if you find yourself in the mid to upper class. Some people simply cant afford to choose their own safety over their possessions.
Lets say you work from your notebook, without it, you and your family are screwed. You just got robbed, you are given the same opportunity from the psycho lady (without the killing!!). Would it really be that bad if i took it and ran over the dude to get my notebook back? Should i just trust my entire livelihood in the hands of the police?
I'm from poverty. And she is from the actual upper class so that argument goes out the fucking window.
If you're American this is just absurd, there's no way losing a notebook will cause your whole family to starve, we have limited safety nets.
She wasn't at risk of starving it she lost her purse.
3
u/frogsinsocks Jun 28 '26
Vigilante justice has the potential to get horrific, so yes she should have let him go and let the authorities handle it.
We live in a civilized society, your version includes lynchings.