Andrea Widburg on a phenomenon that, as Feral lawlessness continues to go unpunished, we’ll be seeing more and more of: vigilantism.
Last week, a video made the rounds showing what happened to a man who entered a restaurant, waved a gun around (later shown to be fake), and demanded people’s valuables. That’s a common enough occurrence nowadays, but this one went viral when one of the customers, recognizing that a criminal pointing a gun at others poses an imminent threat to life, shot the man…again and again and again.
Most people agree that the initial shots were righteous, but there’s debate about the last shot when it appeared that the threat the robber presented had been neutralized. However, we really don’t know whether the robber was still a threat. After all, we’ve all seen videos of bad guys absorbing round after round and still killing or wounding people. (E.g., here.) The law allows citizens to keep defending themselves as long as necessary.
Two more videos of citizens taking action have emerged. One is wonderfully amusing because it shows Guitar Center employees in Phoenix unceremoniously throwing out a would-be thief…
The second video shows people corralling a would-be purse snatcher. When he makes a break for freedom, a woman who had a gun trained on him shoots him in the back as he flees. Under the classic American standard, unless she can colorably claim that he still posed an imminent threat as he fled, she’s in trouble.
Don’t steal purses in Texas pic.twitter.com/avf1j6RlZM
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec)
Another example of what I call a Righteous Shoot™, to my way of thinking. But hey, maybe that’s just me. In practical terms, though, it really isn’t going to matter.
Regardless of the shot’s righteousness, this is another example of what happens when citizens feel they’re on their own. In Houston and El Paso, crime in Texas has run rampant, and the authorities are doing nothing to protect law-abiding citizens. So, again, citizens will protect themselves.
As they should, and in fact must. There is no innate moral obligation that requires decent, law-abiding people to docilely put up with being preyed upon indefinitely. That obligation is instead part of an unwritten, informal charter we used to call the social contract. And when the authorities once entrusted with its enforcement tacitly renege, it can be revoked. And it will be. Gonna be pretty tough on the Dindus, I’m afraid, but here as always the FAFO rules apply. When Normals realize that legal justice is no longer available to them, then street justice will be all they have left.