The Arizona Minutemen: Why There Won't Be Vigilanteism.
I resent the term Vigilanteism in recent coverage of the Arizona Minuteman Project. As another American Liberty Enthusiast, I recall some of my United States History.
During the Civil War, as the battle began to turn to the abolition of slavery, roving bands of armed thugs sought to discourage resistance to that movement by hunting down and delivering summary killing to the anti-abolitionists. These murderers operating outside the law of due process were The Vigilantes.
In 2005, there is no vigilanteism, and there is no such thing as vigilante justice, cynically or otherwise; it would be an oxymoron.
Throughout the 19th century, there were many such hunt-down killings. These were not executions because they were not carrying out any court order; by beating or hanging or by shooting, each was always a case of outright murder, and by definition, they circumvented due process.
In modern custom and usage, if not authentic technical terms, vigilanteism has a specific meaning. You might say it has its own elements.
Today, for vigilanteism to exist, it would have to have those elements of its origin. For vigilantiem to exist in any single act or series of acts in any venue anywhere, all of the following would have to be present:
1) The acts would have to be outside the law. Acting without a court order and without any other authority is what vigilanteism is nearly all about.
But the Minuteman Project does have authority; acting within the law, as some might not want to believe, is not vigilante. Many citizens understand the law and how to stay within it, not through loopholes, but through compliance; some do not know the authority they each have, hence they view the more knowledgeable as vigilante when, in fact, they really don’t know what they’re talking about and when they want to inflame the public against lawful protest.
2) The acts would have to be underhanded and without redeeming social purpose. The original vigilantes simply cheated, and imposed their own will in the underhanded action of silencing opposing views, as if being against slavery were a crime. Who likes to silence opposing views today?
3) The acts would have to be unrighteous, or wrong. A wrong act fighting for a wrong cause. There is such a thing as being on the wrong side of an issue, such as being for policies which further and further enable the looting of America; are you for it or against it? I’m against it, and it seems that the underhanded would be those cadres of persons against defending our borders.
4) The acts would have to include killing, and unlawful killing at that. Seeking to hunt down and kill is not the same as an act of self-defense or defense of another, or defense of property for that matter.
Vigilanteism isn’t really defined in a dictionary -- you have to research it and put it in perspective. Like truth. Do you get a real understanding of what truth is from a dictionary?
Remember that the purpose of vigilanteism is to silence the opposition for political purposes, not to enforce the law, but to circumvent it in order that one side not be heard. The mission of protecting our borders is not to silence opposing views, but to protect our borders, and to protect everyone’s right to speak, among other things.
In the case of Arizona’s defense of its borders by Minutemen volunteers, the word Vigilanteism would not apply.
Nor would the media’s concept of taking the law into one’s own hands.
The Minutemen are not conducting vigilanteism because they are not killing people to silence them for political purposes. The stated mission, as I’m sure the ultimate success of it will prove to be, is to assist duly appointed law enforcement personnel, which is, of course, permitted by law.
The Minutemen are not constituting an interference and they are already authorized to stop crime as we all are. In upholding the law, how could they be charged with interference? That would be a political move to silence them. And it would be underhanded.
For a very long time, Liberty Enthusiasts have sought a synergy between law enforcement and the People, and the People have asked very nicely, only to be suspicioned and ridiculed. In this issue is an exquisite opportunity for law enforcement to join with the community it serves and to work together for the cause the way the People see it, especially the locals.
So, who’s really trying to silence a political view?
Is it those who send forces to meet the Project to try and intimidate them? Suppose the Minutemen are not intimidated. And who's on the right or wrong side of the issue when it comes to sending forces to meet them, to interfere with their mission?
Who's really trying to silence a political view? Is it the media who write against them and mischaracterize them and their endeavor?
Is it the officials who want to keep the borders open – so they characterize the Project as vigilante and dangerous?
Who’s really trying to silence whom?
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/longenecker/2005/04/arizona-minutemen-why-there-wont-be.html
I resent the term Vigilanteism in recent coverage of the Arizona Minuteman Project. As another American Liberty Enthusiast, I recall some of my United States History.
During the Civil War, as the battle began to turn to the abolition of slavery, roving bands of armed thugs sought to discourage resistance to that movement by hunting down and delivering summary killing to the anti-abolitionists. These murderers operating outside the law of due process were The Vigilantes.
In 2005, there is no vigilanteism, and there is no such thing as vigilante justice, cynically or otherwise; it would be an oxymoron.
Throughout the 19th century, there were many such hunt-down killings. These were not executions because they were not carrying out any court order; by beating or hanging or by shooting, each was always a case of outright murder, and by definition, they circumvented due process.
In modern custom and usage, if not authentic technical terms, vigilanteism has a specific meaning. You might say it has its own elements.
Today, for vigilanteism to exist, it would have to have those elements of its origin. For vigilantiem to exist in any single act or series of acts in any venue anywhere, all of the following would have to be present:
1) The acts would have to be outside the law. Acting without a court order and without any other authority is what vigilanteism is nearly all about.
But the Minuteman Project does have authority; acting within the law, as some might not want to believe, is not vigilante. Many citizens understand the law and how to stay within it, not through loopholes, but through compliance; some do not know the authority they each have, hence they view the more knowledgeable as vigilante when, in fact, they really don’t know what they’re talking about and when they want to inflame the public against lawful protest.
2) The acts would have to be underhanded and without redeeming social purpose. The original vigilantes simply cheated, and imposed their own will in the underhanded action of silencing opposing views, as if being against slavery were a crime. Who likes to silence opposing views today?
3) The acts would have to be unrighteous, or wrong. A wrong act fighting for a wrong cause. There is such a thing as being on the wrong side of an issue, such as being for policies which further and further enable the looting of America; are you for it or against it? I’m against it, and it seems that the underhanded would be those cadres of persons against defending our borders.
4) The acts would have to include killing, and unlawful killing at that. Seeking to hunt down and kill is not the same as an act of self-defense or defense of another, or defense of property for that matter.
Vigilanteism isn’t really defined in a dictionary -- you have to research it and put it in perspective. Like truth. Do you get a real understanding of what truth is from a dictionary?
Remember that the purpose of vigilanteism is to silence the opposition for political purposes, not to enforce the law, but to circumvent it in order that one side not be heard. The mission of protecting our borders is not to silence opposing views, but to protect our borders, and to protect everyone’s right to speak, among other things.
In the case of Arizona’s defense of its borders by Minutemen volunteers, the word Vigilanteism would not apply.
Nor would the media’s concept of taking the law into one’s own hands.
The Minutemen are not conducting vigilanteism because they are not killing people to silence them for political purposes. The stated mission, as I’m sure the ultimate success of it will prove to be, is to assist duly appointed law enforcement personnel, which is, of course, permitted by law.
The Minutemen are not constituting an interference and they are already authorized to stop crime as we all are. In upholding the law, how could they be charged with interference? That would be a political move to silence them. And it would be underhanded.
For a very long time, Liberty Enthusiasts have sought a synergy between law enforcement and the People, and the People have asked very nicely, only to be suspicioned and ridiculed. In this issue is an exquisite opportunity for law enforcement to join with the community it serves and to work together for the cause the way the People see it, especially the locals.
So, who’s really trying to silence a political view?
Is it those who send forces to meet the Project to try and intimidate them? Suppose the Minutemen are not intimidated. And who's on the right or wrong side of the issue when it comes to sending forces to meet them, to interfere with their mission?
Who's really trying to silence a political view? Is it the media who write against them and mischaracterize them and their endeavor?
Is it the officials who want to keep the borders open – so they characterize the Project as vigilante and dangerous?
Who’s really trying to silence whom?
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/longenecker/2005/04/arizona-minutemen-why-there-wont-be.html