Yeah, exactly, I didn't think you, or many others cited in that post were pro Renzo or the decisions made. Anyway, that's enough for me. I have made my point. I'm off to the Academy, I hear the technique of the day is Racooning from the Turtle position.
You know what's sad about this? Kids are going to watch Renzo and feel like he's a huge hero because he's a Gracie and did...something. And if any of them try to copycat him, they're gonna get quite a reality check.
You mean if they train diligently for years, elevating themselves to the level of world class fighter, create a huge business enterprise and become incredibly successful, whilst remaining approachable and down to earth and having time to spare on anyone nearby to help them develop? Yeah I guess it is a lofty thing to try to copycat, but let the children try, don't crush their dreams. They are the future, let them lead the way, show them all the beauty they possess inside.
Yeah, they could achieve all of that...just so long as they don't get themselves killed trying to act the gangsta.
I think that comment went over your head mattt. I am sure Renzo is a great MA instructor but from his actions he obviously has a lot more to learn in the realm of self protection. If what happened is true then Renzo is just as guilty of engaging on criminal behavior as his alleged muggers. Agree with it or not but the truth remains.
Another thing to point out on vigilante justice - If you look at the typical mindset of the average "wrong side of the law" person, you will see that they go with the path of least resistance. Their mindset is very much like that of a predator in that they go for what they think will be the easiest target. They stick with what works until it doesn't work for them, then they escalate things to improve their success rate. So let's say John Crook is your average petty criminal in the city and has taken a shining as of late to robbing people on an infrequently traveled street. At first he might have some success with just demanding people give him their money, but eventually that might not work out for him as someone is bound to refuse. Now he escalates to violence, has a bad brush with it, and realizes he doesn't want to do that again. So now maybe he threatens to use a weapon. "I have a knife, gimme your wallet and you won't get cut". This works slightly better and he decides to carry a knife in case someone calls his bluff. Now maybe he tries to rob somebody who, despite the knife, still refuses to give him the money and gives John a good old thumping. John obviously won't like that and decides he still needs a more sure-fire way to get the money he needs. Add in the fact that John hasn't had his heroin in a few days and the next victim John meets may just be the victim of a homicide so John can get the money with a minimal amount of fuss. If you don't think this kind of evolution occurs you would be sorely mistaken. Just lumping up some **** out on the street does not teach them a lesson and is in fact far less effective than the legal system in straightening them out. All it does is show them that they need to be more aggressive next time, and next time chances are their victim will pay for it.
What do you mean by the legal system? Incarceration for drug addicted muggers? I'm pretty sure the stats for that aren't something to brag about when it comes to rehabilitation. Nice story though.
Have there been studies that show how many thugs who are unsuccessful with less lethal crimes move on to killing crimes? From what I understand the military has to go through a fair amount of psychological work to ensure that soldiers will actually shoot to hit the target. Obviously criminals will have a different mindset but it still seems somewhat relevant.
Dealing in psychology you always have opposing viewpoints. I happen to put a lot of stock into the criminologist Lonnie Athens and his four step "violentization" process. He wrote the book [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Creation-Dangerous-Violent-Criminals/dp/0252062620"]"The Creation of Dangerous Violent Criminals"[/ame] and was also the subject of the book [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Why-They-Kill-Discoveries-Criminologist/dp/0375702482"]"Why They Kill"[/ame]. In a nutshell it breaks down into four stages: Brutalization, Belligerency, Violent Performances, and Virulency. You can see a bit more here: http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/tchessay64.htm This is a primer essentially but it'll give you a good start. I highly recommend both books. From my own experiences I've seen it happen many times over the course of my law enforcement career. Young kids might start with just strongarm robberies but later move on to weapons to better their chances and are much quicker to shoot/stab/strike if they feel threatened. You see the same cycle in domestic violence: first it might just be verbal threats, then the abuse starts. Once the abuser feels they are losing control of the situation, they get more violent and in some cases even end up murdering the victim of abuse.
Exactly. It can be ineffective. And if lumping up some **** on the street for "justice" is less effective than that, it makes no sense to do so. The judicial system is a part of it too (but that's for another thread). As much as I like to see the bad guy get his just desserts from time to time it's not solving anything and in many cases just escalates it more.
Cheers for that. I had the idea that the escalation would be more likely in successful cases I suppose. So a mugger with a knife takes money from a few people then feels confident and decides to upgrade and uses a gun to rob a shop and so on and so on........ But I can see how failing would lead to desperation and thus more lethal measures.
I once again agree with mattt. Jano, and Kuma could it be possible that you both are biased a bit when it comes to this for the same reason as why you're so knowledgeable on the subject? so the justice system will do better? 52% and growing of released prisoners will go on to be put back in jail, many for the same crime. how is this so much more better then the vigilante route? difference is they will come out more aggressive, usually stronger, and now with new ideas of how to accomplish goals after being around the same minds for so long. versus coming back with a new gameplan if they indeed do it again. I'm not seeing that much of a silver lining to them being put in prison. the US prison system has to be the most flawed system or policy that is still being touted as if its doing something good. and this "its better then nothing idea" isn't solving it. It simple DOES NOT WORK. How would any cop have handled the situation any differently? what would they have done to the fleeing robber that would have been so much better? he would have probably been tazed, and beaten if he kept resisting. In this day in age with the status of our current justice system I'd be happier if there were more renzo's. least people would be more hesitant to do certain acts. I view them being sent to jail to have the same effects in the long run had they called the cops. the only thing different between the approach someone part of your precinct would have done, and renzo is that they would've had a badge on instead. if your going to actually do something about crime then you have two options. either Kill every single person who breaks the law thus getting rid of all criminals and putting everyone in a paralysis of fear of living their daily lives. or change the entire system to get to the point of why someone does what they do- like a psyche ward- versus making them like caged beasts. It worked for the entire country of Norway. Norway has an incredibly low recidivism rate -- within two years of being released from jail, a Norwegian offender is only a third as likely to commit another crime as criminals from, say, the United States. This is because unlike the U.S. justice system, which relies heavily on retribution, the Norwegian system believes in rehabilitation. The whole point of their prison system is to fix the criminal and turn him into a productive member of society. And, when you look at the statistics, it's working like there is no tomorrow. It's weird, it's almost like the shankings and man-rape in American prisons aren't teaching criminals to walk the straight and narrow. Read more: 5 Terrible Ideas That Solved Huge Global Problems | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/article_1948...olved-huge-global-problems.html#ixzz26JaJ8yTc my point. I fail to see how any cop or groups of cops would have handled it better.
So vigilantism is a better option? It's best to let the public enforce the laws when they may themselves be breaking it, or may be attacking the wrong person, or who do not fall under the strict accountability we expect of our law enforcement agencies? It has failed tremendously in the past, hence why we created law enforcement. Take the Bald Knobbers for instance. Originally formed in the Ozark Mountains of Missouri in the late 1800s to protect the citizens of Taney County from a lack of effective law enforcement, they soon engaged in murder, harassment, assault, and arson. Eventually the group was broken up by the authorities, some were arrested, and a few sentenced to death. In their roughly two decades of existence they committed more murders than the criminals they swore to fight against and not all were justifiable.
Sounds like Blazing Saddles... To be clear on my position, I am not pro vigilantism for its own sake, but it fits in as a tool for my paradigm of how things could be better in our society. The reasoning behind this: 1. Back in the 1800s a copper would beat the snot out of you for a crime, and only the most serious offenders would be arrested, prisons were smaller, number of inmates much lower. This idea of judge, jury and executioner is something I agree with when the person is a figure I have faith in. 2. Cops then are different from Cops now. I know there are good ones out there, but there are SO many that are in it purely for financial purposes, the fundamental concept of protecting is not prevalent. I don't believe in the concept that a person who wears a badge, like they did 100 years ago, is as trustworthy or capable. Especially in NYC. Smaller town sherrifs I have more faith in, because they are more like the model I have in mind for proper policing (and unfortunately they are often portrayed in fiction as being corrupt). 3. The legal system we have has 2 key components in its enforcement - Police and Litigators, the police do the physical work or apprehending and the litigators do the intellectual work or prosecuting. However that prosecutor must be countered with a defender. The big complaint I have about part 3 is that I feel all these people (police, and lawyers on both sides of the fence) are not trying to maintain and improve society on many occassions, they are simply trying to needle their way through a complex law system to achieve a Win. The Win for the cop is not to keep the streets safe and clean, it is to hit their target of X arrests per diem, so they often create bogus arrests or actively search for petty crimes that fill up time and resources in the hope of achieving their goal - they are becoming an administration worried more about P/L than their proper purpose. Furthermore the Lawyers, we don't have a system where everybody is trying to make it the safest place for us, we have a system where Defenders are looking to defend criminals by finding loopholes in the law, when they know the person is in the wrong, because their job is to defend, at any cost, and get paid if they get a bad person free. Prosecutors typically are only in this role in order to achieve public office positions or move inhouse to the Litigation teams of law firms, they too are less interested in protecting society than achieving status, so their mindset is flawed. The system as it stands is flawed like this, which is why I want people at the grass roots level to focus on moral right and wrong and keep an eye on their own behavior and that of the neighborhood, and when necessary, if they come across bad people doing bad things they should be able to judge this themselves, and if capable act in a manner that punishes the crime.
