It leaves in a place where I believe one thing and you believe another. At our ages and levels of experience a thread like this is not supposed to change ones opinion on things based on 'you are wrong because XYZ' it is supposed to show us that there is more than one opinion out there, and we should consider it and perhaps it will help us shade in the colors for our understanding of the world.
Yes, I know him personally and trust is a personal thing. I look at it like the stories my dad told me when the copper would clip you around the ear for a petty crime, and you would go home crying to your dad and he would clip you again for getting in trouble with the law. The copper these days would be sued, as could the dad...
The example i used was merely to highlight the flaws in the argument of the person i quoted: That due to his dissatisfaction with the current legal system and its enforcement (ie. his perceived shortcomings of it), he felt it was correct behaviour for individuals such as Renzo Gracie to dispense their own form of "justice" unilaterally. Surely then others should be allowed to do the same - to assume that the laws of society do not apply to them when they feel their mission is more important? In which case, what was once criminal behaviour now becomes acceptable, and a law-abiding society becomes a lawless one. Like i said, the system isn't perfect - and you have eloquently highlighted issues that i myself have with the system i live under. However, to celebrate excessive, violent, and unlawful behaviour is not the way forward. In response to the paragraph i have quoted from you, i concur 100%. Unfortunately, this is only viable in small communities where everyone knows each other, and everyone can be held accountable. There have been anthropological studies that argue that human beings are not meant to live in large, dense clusters. Rather, they are supposed to form a small cluster, which branches out to form further small clusters. Each cluster (or "community") is self-governing and self-sustaining. Thus eliminating the need for central government. The problem is that when a community is large enough to allow criminals the opportunity to get away with their crimes, the risk/reward ratio becomes unbalanced, and so criminal behaviour - without a capable guardian to prevent it - becomes an attractive method of achieving one's goals. Unless laws are introduced, and capable guardians are charged with their enforcement, the community is likely to descend into a gang-culture as a way of protecting communities inside the community. Thus a universal framework must be established to ensure that there is a recognised procedure in which people are tried according to their crimes, and equal rights are established and upheld. But i know exactly what the counter argument is, and it's what you've already said: The system isn't fair. And you are right - it is not. Although we are told we have the same rights and are allowed to reach the same goals, our opportunity to reach those goals differs greatly from person to person. Richer, smarter, luckier, better connected, better educated, etc... the list goes on. And yes, some people will learn to use the system more effectively so as to gain an advantage over others. But the innovators amongst us will break that system, and ignore/circumvent/cheat it to achieve what we desire, becoming criminals in the process. This is what Renzo Gracie has done, and thus my original argument still stands: What gives him the right, over any law-abiding citizen, to break the law when he chooses, boast about it openly, and get away with it?
For me it's neither of those answers. Personally, I have a huge lack of faith in my own nations legal system, which undeniably has an influence on how I view this situation. I have seen, way too often, people getting away unpunished for things, or severely under-punished. For these reasons, I currently feel that if a situation isn't dealt with on the spot, its a 95% chance that it won't be dealt with at all, and a 99% chance it won't be dealt with adequately. Maybe it's just my city, but I doubt it. Those are the reasons why I feel Renzo did the 'right' thing, because I don't feel the law/government/police would have punished anybody at all.
Because he's the hero New York deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A dark knight.
Your original argument will always stand, within your mind and your paradigms, and will be supported by those who think alike. There simply is no right he has over any other person in the rules you live by. In my rules, which are focused differently he has the right to do what he did in that situation because I trust that he made the right decision and feel that delivering the justice that he did is fine. We think differently. I think bottom up, you think top down, and from a purely idealistic perspective they clash on matters like this as anecdotal situations, such as the one with Renzo do not fit into your paradigm as being proper. It is a case similar to 2 rival political parties, both claiming to want the best for the country, but both attacking one anothers policies in order to gain dominance to implement their plan, but ultimately a mix of both is probably the best solution. Focus at grass roots teaching values, ideally empowering certain people within the community to act a little more than just any other citizen if they seem trust worthy, and from the top implement laws and frameworks that can supervise these people and projects in order to minimize abuse. The biggest issue I have with it all is the concept that we should trust because of a badge or uniform, when these people in the present day are far from trustworthy, the authority figure is not always doing the right or best thing. Many are incompetent and some are maliciously ill intended. Lets find a way to focus on moral codes so people don't do wrong, and ensure that the people out there doing a little more to keep things even are the right people. Lets keep an eye on common sense, and not get so distracted by the word of the law, it is the essence of the law and right and wrong that matters.
Ok, so this takes us back to the "educational beatdown" argument. The law, as it stands, ALREADY accommodates those who are intervening to protect themselves or another person from harm. There is plenty that citizens can already do LAWFULLY to protect themselves and their belongings - up to, and including, the use of lethal force. I have no problem with that. What i do have a problem with is someone arbitrarily deciding that pre-emptive search and destroy missions against non-threat targets is the correct method to ensure the safeguarding of the community. The "educational beatdown" against the second target was in no way proportional to the injuries sustained by Renzo (ie. none). But you are saying this is ok in the name of education. Well, in order to evaluate whether this lesson was indeed "educational," we have to apply it to the criminal mindset (i knew that the last 5 years of studying criminal behaviour would come in handy!). Generally speaking, criminals are innovators, not deviants. They bypass rules (moral or legal constraints) that govern others so that they can achieve a higher yield (material wealth, status, power, etc) at a lower cost (time, money, social standing, etc). So when an obstacle is encountered - in this case an individual who is able to fight back effectively - they are faced with a choice: Stop committing criminal acts out of utter embarrassment, or adapt their methods in order to mitigate the chance of failure. I think you will find that the vast majority of criminals, due to their innovative mindset, will choose simply to adapt their methods. But how? Select a more vulnerable target Arm yourself in order to quickly incapacitate a resistant target Operate in greater numbers Escalate quicker if the target shows immediate resistance Conceal your appearance so that the target cannot trace you The irony of Renzo's attempted education is that it would have actually worked better against a mostly-compliant citizen (ie. a habitual law-abider) who was momentarily out of character. Against a career-criminal, he is merely helping them to develop more potent and dangerous methods. But hey, he's just bringing a little bit of oldskool Brazilian street education to NY right? Well, after seeing the state of street crime in Sao Paulo and Rio (the latter of which i've been invited to go and work as a security consultant and trainer, funnily enough) i can honestly say that - if indeed this is the norm - vigilante justice has NOT worked out well for them. Effective crime reduction methods are constructed by researching decades of criminological studies and examining the results of various situational and social crime prevention methods. This also includes the examination of crime displacement (touched upon in the above list), criminal methods and motives, the creation of employment opportunities and the importance of education at home and in school. It's not just about courtrooms and policemen. I would urge that a peaceful and civilised society is created more with this kind of approach, than by encouraging its citizens to take to the streets and beat the hell out of anyone they suspect of being an evil-doer.
What you seem to be missing, throughout your very salient points, is that I don't agree with you on a fundamental level, and understand all of the arguments you put forward. So there is no need to continue your urging, just understand that people look at things differently. You cannot win by continuing to defend your position, but only by understanding mine. This concept will serve you well when dealing with others and trying to implement change with them.
On the contrary, i understand perfectly what you are trying to say, and as far as your ideological principals are concerned i agree with many of them. My apologies if you feel that i have ignored this. I have in fact previously written an article on Self-Defense in the Abscence of Law, which highlights the shortcomings of law enforcement procedure in London, and advocates a pro-active and combatively-minded citizenship. Therefore i would say that our opinions are - to a degree - already quite similar. Regarding your proposed solution of empowering certain people: If the big bad world has anything to teach us, it is that when people are granted any kind of special privileges or authority over others, they will always be tempted to abuse it. Many do. Even those who, prior to receiving it, could be considered by their peers to be trustworthy. Therefore the solution of the community evaluating and electing its own guardians - even if it overcame the obvious logistical issues - is no less corrupt than the current system. Why? Because human nature is always a dominant factor, regardless of the system of recruitment. And yes, this shouldn't be the case. Yes, moral integrity and wider benefit should take priority. And yes, common sense over written legislation should dictate our methods and our actions. If only common sense was common eh?... Ultimately though, my main concern is with the serious implications of Renzo's actions (which seems to me to be more about instant self-gratification than effective education), and the blind enthusiasm of his supporters. This is what encouraged me to contribute to the thread in the first place. My continued presence here is not so much about trying to change your mind - it is about highlighting to others the serious contradictions and flaws in Renzo Gracie's methods and motives, and the flawed logic of those who try to justify it. If you trust him, then you trust him. But i don't know the guy so i can only take him at the words he himself has provided. One thing that is consistent - even stated by those that support him - is that he has exhibited a consistent streak of idiocy (unnecessarily putting himself at risk; excessive behaviour; public broadcast of self-incriminating evidence). That is enough to make me believe his attitude - at least in this case - to be reckless and counter-productive. When someone proves themselves to be this way - especially if it's by their own hand - then the last thing i would do is give them my trust.
I'm glad that we can agree on a lot, as I can agree with the logic of many things you are saying, however it is a little presumptuous to believe that the people in favor of his actions are 'blind' and that the people, like myself, have 'flawed logic'. Interestingly, now it doesn't seem like you understand me, despite your comment to this at the start of your post. Furthermore, your one matter of consistency, that those that support him feel 'that he has exhibited a consistent streak of idiocy (unnecessarily putting himself at risk; excessive behaviour; public broadcast of self-incriminating evidence)' Because that is what you are feeling and are trying to project onto others. Some people mention the above in agreement with your comments, but they are not those who 'support him'.
My next question would be what do you see as a healthy alternative. Despite a bad neighborhood being nothing like darfur. an area overrun by crime is basically annexed from the rest of the society anyway seeing as in that area gangs usually run a much. with no, or little police/guardian help. what do you honestly expect anyone to do to combat it. This entire conversation reminds me of the plot to deathwish 3. Sure you can attempt to stop it at an early age with outreach programs and activities for the youth, but that can only do but so much and save a certain few. It still does little to handle the current problems or to make sure that those youth don't die in a drive bye shooting before they turn at 14. what is any community who has been basically turned away by the system thats suppose to protect them do besides respond in there own way. Seeing as you yourself agree that small societies are more fit to govern themselves. wouldn't it be more beneficial to those societies if they handled themselves? I don't mean to sound anti-government ( atleast not more then i'm attempting to be) but what gives any politician the right to order the same thing? this may be a bizarre parrelle but any time any soldier is sent from any country to another to do any type of mission they are basically forgoing the current countries governing laws to handle things another way. insertion, extraction, assassination. These are all missions that are very much against the law of the land, yet for some other parties personal mission those laws are broken for what others think is better. I seek to in no way downplay the sacrifice our men and women make,especially on 9/11 but it seems like the same poop different toilet.I think this is better for this reason. So I will do what i think I should do, regardless of what rules are currently in place. Is vigilantism really all that different? also, I'm curious as to how this wouldn't fit under the area of a citizens arrest.
To clarify, "blind" relates more to those who have immediately expressed support for his actions without first exploring the negative aspects of them. Though this might not be the case, the lack of well-reasoned explanation from posters on this thread advocating vigilanteism as a viable method of crime reduction would indicate a lack of forethought before posting. In terms of "flawed logic" - i was referring more to the "educational beatdown" logic that was being thrown about earlier: The misguided notion that somehow his actions would dissuade the targets of the beatings from further criminal activity. My recent contributions incorporating criminological theory address this assumption. Mattt, you are by far the most eloquent champion of Renzo Gracie thus far, and i look forward to debating and concurring with you on future topics. There are some individuals, however, who have come to some very hasty conclusions without providing any supporting theoretical, historical, or logical input to back up their point of view. The fact that you know the man personally and trust him to make sound decisions gives you a unique foundation to build your opinion on (that others do not have, including me) - regardless of whatever theoretical, historical, or logical arguments i present. As for my projection onto others - my fault for not specifying:- Fusen - believes that although it wasn't reasonable, an "educational beatdown by an alpha male" was the right thing to do. However, believes the twitter posts to have been a poor decision. february - believes that the pair got what they deserved, but the twitter posts were OTT. Also believes there are too many "armchair quarterbacks" posting up who don't have experience in these kinds of situations... Southpaw535 - believes that although beating up muggers is "totally cool," Renzo's actions essentially equated to "stopping evil with even more evil." ie. they were excessively violent and could not be condoned on a state level. embra - believes that "the scumbags got what they deserved" but is concerned that Renzo has left himself vulnerable to litigation over use of excessive force, etc... Devil Hanzo - believes that, whilst the first instance of self defence was justified, Renzo's subsequent disregard for his own safety, intimidation of alleged criminal, and public self-promotion over the incident was immature and egotistical. Late for dinner - expresses sympathy for Renzo, but is concerned by what could have gone wrong, and asserts that "people should have respect for the law of the land they live in, irrespective of what they would do at home." 6footgeek - expresses support for vigilante justice, but felt that Renzo's actions were excessive and that he has succeeded in providing evidence for a one-sided lawsuit. Also concerning is the poor example his actions have set and the threat of escalation. All of the above posters have expressed some support for Renzo (in varying degrees), but have also expressed concerns about aspects of his behaviour - specifically relating to unnecessary risk-taking, excessive behaviour, or public broadcast of self-incriminating evidence. If i am wrong in my interpretation, please correct me. In addition, there are also several other posters who have taken a much more polarised view (both supporting and condemning his actions), and no doubt several readers who have not made their views known at all.
Yes, within reason. There are a number of investments that a community can make to better itself and reduce crime. Healthcare, education, leisure, and bonding activities, as well as the consistent reinforcement of sound moral and ethical behaviour are all viable ways to provide positive development to an area. Indeed there are many places in Europe where communities shun involvement from central government in favour of self-regulation (for instance, Catalonia). If a community is broken and isolated though, it must first start to establish tangible initiatives for its citizens to rally behind - to convince them that they have something precious worth dedicating themselves towards. In fact, there are numerous examples of this in the favelas of Rio - dance schools, neighbourhood gatherings, etc... It's a long way from fixed, but it's a start. Random individuals taking it upon themselves to go and get some playground payback on the world's most incompetent muggers? I don't think that'll fix the problem mate. See earlier posts re: Criminal behaviour. In the case of America, it is the fact that he is (apparently) an official that is democratically elected by the people to make executive decisions on behalf of the country (the jury is still out on George Bush). Major decisions are assessed by other democratically elected officials, usually after relevant information has been collated, analysed, and refined by subject-matter experts. The process is not particularly efficient, and is renowned for being slow and for not being able to satisfy everyone. Hence why some other countries simply have a guy who just gets the backing of the military, seizes power, and makes decisions on behalf of the country, regardless of how its citizens feel. Both systems are a long way from perfect, but at least with the first one, the people have some say in who governs them, and what decisions are made. Interesting parallel. I think you'll find though that in recent invasions of other countries, we have more in common with muggers than vigilantes. It's a much bigger debate you're opening though - and just because it happens doesn't make it right. I don't know exactly how it goes in the USA, but i always teach my guys that the crucial parts of a citizen's arrest include:- 1. Using reasonable force to stop a crime (an indictable offence), or prevent a crime that is about to take place. 2. A brief explanation to the suspect of the crime they are suspected of committing (or that they are about to commit). 3. Confirming with them that they understand. (ie. "I am arresting you for assault. Do you understand?). This is just common courtesy though 4. Using reasonable force to detain them until a constable arrives to take custody of the suspect. 5. Taking full responsibility for the health and safety of the suspect while he/she is in your custody. Renzo's actions were about as far from Citizen's Arrest as you could get. But in theory, he could have arrested the first guy. In application, that would have probably been one of the worst tactical decisions he'd ever made - and possibly the last one he'd ever make...
Here's something I think the pro-Renzo people haven't contemplated. What if, instead of being mugged, Renzo came across someone punching an unconscious and defenceless person in the face? No other context. Hear's some shouting, turns a corner and there's a man beating another man while he's limp on the floor? Personally I'd assume a crime was taking place and attempt to stop the attacker from inflicting further harm on his victim. Should Renzo let the guy carry on beating or dole out some street justice like in the mugging scenario?
wait. you want Renzo to beat himself up? Honestly. the case of a citizens arrest comes here to. since he's alone he has a choice to make, either diall 911, during which he may be spotted and the criminal may get away. or he could restrain the criminal, then dial 911. (not too difficult for him i suppose since he IS renzo) i'd of course approach the criminal from behind and knock him unconsious, but that'll probably get you in trouble in the states
Janno My quote button keeps not working for some reason but I wanted to clarify something in one of your posts: Me saying it is "totally cool" was sarcasm while I was debating the point with someone else. I don't agree with what Renzo did at all and I don't agree with vigilante justice.
