Article: A Call for Black Vigilantism

[fletcher]

Article Here

An interesting view on dealing with crime. While citizen patrols have proven to be effective in reducing crime, I'm somewhat surprised that an article like this would be written given how bad "vigilantism" is viewed by the public.

If the police/government are genuinely not performing their duties to protect, I'm 100% behind anyone patrolling their neighborhood, armed, in order to control criminals.

There's a lot of truth in what he says.

A call for black vigilantism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 22, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



Last year, among the nation's 10 largest cities, Philadelphia had the highest murder rate with 406 victims. This year could easily top last year's with 240 murders so far.

Other cities such as Baltimore, Detroit and Washington, D.C., with large black populations, experience the nation's highest rates of murder and violent crime. This high murder rate is, and has been, predominantly a black problem.

According to Bureau of Justice statistics, between 1976 and 2005, blacks, while 13 percent of the population, committed over 52 percent of the nation's homicides and were 46 percent of the homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of black homicide victims had a black person as their murderer.

Blacks are not only the major victims of homicide; blacks suffer high rates of all categories of serious violent crime, and another black is most often the perpetrator.

Liberals and their political allies say the problem is the easy accessibility of guns and greater gun control is the solution. That has to be nonsense. Guns do not commit crimes; people do.

Up through 1979, the FBI reported homicide arrests sorted by racial breakdowns that included Japanese. Between 1976 and 1978, 21 of 48,695 arrests for murder and non-negligent manslaughter were Japanese-Americans. That translates to an annual murder rate of 1 per 100,000 of the Japanese-American population. Would anyone advance the argument that the reason why homicide is virtually nonexistent among Japanese-Americans is because they can't find guns?

The high victimization rate experienced by the overwhelmingly law-abiding black community is mostly the result of predators not having to pay a heavy enough price for their behavior. They benefit from all kinds of asinine excuses, such as poverty, racial discrimination and few employment opportunities.

During the 1940s and '50s, I grew up in North Philadelphia where many of today's murders occur. It was a time when blacks were much poorer, there was far more racial discrimination, and fewer employment opportunities and other opportunities for upward socioeconomic mobility were available. There was nowhere near the level of crime and wanton destruction that exists today. Behavior accepted today wasn't accepted then by either black adults or policemen.

Police authorities often know who are the local criminals and drug lords and where crack houses are located; however, various legal technicalities hamper their ability to make arrests and raids. Law-abiding citizens are often afraid to assist police or testify against criminals for fear of retaliation that can include murder. The level of criminal activity not only puts residents in physical jeopardy but also represents a heavy tax on people least able to bear it. That heavy tax includes higher prices for goods and services and fewer shopping opportunities because supermarkets and other large retailers are reluctant to bear the costs of doing business in high-crime areas.

So here's the question: Should black people accept government's dereliction of its first basic function, that of providing protection? My answer is no. One of our basic rights is the right to defend oneself against predators. If the government can't or won't protect people, people have a right to protect themselves.

You say, "Hey, Williams, you're not talking about vigilantism, are you?" Yes, I am. Webster's Dictionary defines vigilantism as: a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate.

Example: A number of years ago, black Muslims began to patrol Mayfair, a drug-infested, gang-ridden Washington, D.C., housing project. The gangs and drug lords left, probably because the black Muslims didn't feel obliged to issue Miranda warnings. Black men should set up neighborhood patrols, armed if necessary, and if politicians and police don't like it, they should do their jobs. No one should have to live in daily fear for their lives and safety.

 

[alex_trebek]

Should black people accept government's dereliction of its first basic function, that of providing protection? My answer is no. One of our basic rights is the right to defend oneself against predators. If the government can't or won't protect people, people have a right to protect themselves.

I am all for law abiding people looking out for their own safety, to me the notion of skin color is irrelevant. what i dont like is the mentality that it is the governments job to protect everyone. I thought it was an individuals job/right to protect him/her self.

 

[fletcher]

to me the notion of skin color is irrelevant. what i dont like is the mentality that it is the governments job to protect everyone.

That was the only real problem I had with the article was the inclusion of race as part of the issue. As for the latter, the government is always saying they're going to protect you from everything (until something bad happens), then it's "we're not responsible".

 

[geekWithA.45]

People need to get a grip on what vigilantism actually means:

It is the apprehension -and- -punishment- for crimes without the due process of justice.

Neighborhood patrols, even if heavily armed, are NOT vigiliantism so long as their purpose is restricted to the prevention of crime, or the apprehension of criminals, to be subsequently turned over to Justice, and are perfectly legal and moral reactions to failures of city governments to attend to their duties.

If folks factored that very important distinction about vigilantism into their public statements, they'd benefit greatly.

Another perfectly legal and moral reaction to the failure of city governments to attend to their duties is to vote the scoundrels out of office for dereliction of duty.

It's politically impossible for incumbent political machines to address the real roots of crime, or to propose genuine antidotes for it, because to do so would confirm their betrayal, reveal their years of incompetence, disrupt their patterns of graft, and undermine their power base.

 

[esq_stu]

It's done elsewhere, why not in Philly?

See: When Armed Citizens Patrol The Streets
A Citizen Patrol Group In New Haven, Conn., Says It's Doing What Police Won't, But Critics Question Its Tactics

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/27/national/main2988037.shtml

"In an act of apparently random violence earlier this month, a group of youths attacked a local rabbi's adult son in his own home. Shortly afterward, members of the Jewish community along with some local African-Americans and others formed the EPDP [Edgewood Park Defense Patrol]."

 

[230RN]

I also hiccuped at that statement, as we all do when we see something like that.

But I think that what is meant is the kind of "protection" that the enforcement agencies can provide as a sort of "second-degree" protection. If they enforced the laws in those areas, the criminal activity would decline, thereby "protecting" the citizens of that area as a general secondary effect.

I agree that the enforcement agencies are not and cannot be responsible for immediate personal protection (as Case Law has shown), but I am less and less prone to hiccuping when I see "protection" of the public in that sense.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

I'm all for citizen patrols, armed when appropriate. I'm also in favor of (re)establishing a community based citizen militia even if it required self paid training.

 

[revjen45]

I wish Dr. Williams would run for President, but he is too honorable a man to get down and wrestle in the mud.

 

[Doggy Daddy]

Example: A number of years ago, black Muslims began to patrol Mayfair, a drug-infested, gang-ridden Washington, D.C., housing project. The gangs and drug lords left, probably because the black Muslims didn't feel obliged to issue Miranda warnings. Black men should set up neighborhood patrols, armed if necessary, and if politicians and police don't like it, they should do their jobs. No one should have to live in daily fear for their lives and safety.

That's a proper response! Whereas the attitude/mind-set represented by the pic below is (IMHO) contemptable:

 

[Shadowangel]

There's not one person in that picture that doesn't look like a thug.

 

[Snake Eyes]

There's not one person in that picture that doesn't look like a thug.

Really? The 15ish-year-old just to the right of the guy with the emoticon shirt--he looks like a "thug"?? What about the woman with her finger to her lips?

I don't agree with the message in the picture, but the statement that they all look like "thugs" bothers me even more....

I guess I wonder if a person making that kind of statement might be seeing things in black and white.

 

[akodo]

the people pictured ARE thugs.

what those thugs are trying to stop is co-operation between neighborhood residents and police.

note it says 'stop snitching' and 'ill never roll on my bro' etc etc

 

[Autolycus]

So when the government comes to collect your guns and your neighbors not home, are you going to tell the ATF that he has a nice little collection? What about the old WW II veteran with a Tommy Gun and some other Class 3 bringbacks from WW II? I am hoping that you will call up the ATF and tell on them. You should snitch. Next time you break the law intentionally or unintentionally please inform on yourself.

What makes the people in that picture thugs? How does a thug look?

 

[Juna]

If the government can't or won't protect people, people have a right to protect themselves.

I take issue with the first clause of this sentence. People have a right to protect themselves regardless of a government's ability to protect them. This sentence makes self-defense a conditional right that is contingent upon the government's inability to protect us. If the government suddenly becomes able to protect us, this sentence suggests that we no longer have the right to protect ourselves.

Beyond that, I think it's a decent article. The issue of it pertaining only to blacks is that it's directed at predominately black neighborhoods with violent crime that is largely committed by other blacks (according to the cited statistics). Therefore, it is catering to a specific subset of people--law abiding blacks who live in high crime areas. However, this notion should and does equally apply to any non-black people/neighborhoods; the two are not mutually exclusive, and the article is not saying they are. However, the article would be improved by changing the following sentence from this:

Black men should set up neighborhood patrols, armed if necessary, and if politicians and police don't like it, they should do their jobs.

to this:

Law abiding citizens should set up neighborhood patrols, armed if necessary, and if politicians and police don't like it, they should do their jobs.

This would then include law abiding men and women of all ethnicities.

 

[Highland Ranger]

given how bad "vigilantism" is viewed by the public.

You mean liberal media? (anyone old enough to remember the cheering in the movie theatres when the bad guys got thiers in the "Death Wish" movies?)

 

[Black Adder LXX]

Juna, that's right on. It doesn't serve anything to include the adjective 'black' anywhere. Other than that I agree with what is said...

 

[hksw]

I am all for law abiding people looking out for their own safety, to me the notion of skin color is irrelevant. what i dont like is the mentality that it is the governments job to protect everyone. I thought it was an individuals job/right to protect him/her self.

Although I (and almost all of the folks here) agree with you concerning the government's responsibility, IMO, the author may have been taking from the point of view from his/her previous 'non-you are responsible for your own safety, i.e. the government will take care of you' stance and has seen the light or he/she my be talking to the folks who feel that way.

That is, the author finally realized that, "...what i dont like is the mentality that it is the governments job to protect everyone."

 

[Landlocked Pirate]

Quote:
If the government can't or won't protect people, people have a right to protect themselves.

I take issue with the first clause of this sentence. People have a right to protect themselves regardless of a government's ability to protect them. This sentence makes self-defense a conditional right that is contingent upon the government's inability to protect us. If the government suddenly becomes able to protect us, this sentence suggests that we no longer have the right to protect ourselves.

The author of this article is Dr. Walter Williams, an economics professor at George Mason University who is himself black (which is why he included the racial aspect). He is IMO one of the most brilliant academic minds in the country, and from what I've read of his writings over the years he's never been of the "look to government for answers" opinion. He's emphatically against government interference in our lives in ANY area not plainly stated in the Constitution. I can assure you that that statement wasn't intended as it may have come accross.

 

[lamazza]

I thought it was an individuals job/right to protect him/her self.

*Except where prohibited by law.

 

[woof]

The original post called vigilantiism suppression and punishment of crime. Keep it at suppression and we are ok. Just like the police are supposed to do: prevent and suppress crime and protect people and property. The police are not supposed to punish and neither can any such citizens committees be allowed to think they can.

 

[Citroen]

Thank you, Balrog!

Thank you Balrog, for pointing out what some of our more .. how do you say, politically correct, members failed to realize. Not only is Dr. Williams brilliant and articulate he is also courageous! His pro American, obvious love of this country and his outspokeness have cost him.

Never-the-less, he maintains a great sense of humor and continues to be a voice of reason in a sea of victimhood.

I would vote for the man for any office he chose to seek. He is a great American by any standards and I loved his article (quoted). I suggest any that would criticize walk a few miles in his shoes. I also crack up when I hear his viagra statement.

John
Charlotte, NC

 

[oldgold]

government's dereliction of its first basic function, that of providing protection?

Don't remember seeing that in The Constitution. Only thing in the articule I disagree with.

Lets say the cops show up in a neighborhood and there is a guy dead on the ground. Twenty or thirty people standing around and nobody knows nuthin. Nobody saw anything and don't want no cops bothering people. How many times does this have to happen before the cops just don't give a hoot.

 

[Fred Fuller]

I have little doubt Dr. Williams chose a 'hot-button' word for his essay title with due deliberation. A little background might be in order before too much hot-button reaction takes place to his choice of words however.

Take a look at http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/300/300lect10.htm for example.

I quote: "VIGILANTISM, VIGILANTE JUSTICE, AND VICTIM SELF-HELP

The word vigilante is of Spanish origin and means "watchman" or "guard" but its Latin root is vigil, which means "awake" or "observant." When it is said that someone is taking the law into their own hands, this usually means that they are engaging in vigilante activity, or vigilantism, although sometimes the phrase "taking the law into your own hands" is used to describe what some people call a "secret police" force. The phrase does not make for a good definition. Everyone seems to have an opinion about what vigilantism is, but few people have taken the trouble to define it (Johnston 1996). Worse yet, those of us who teach criminal justice and criminology often warn about the dangers of vigilantism without really understanding or explaining why, and the field of criminal justice is way too silent on this topic, gladly substituting state-by-state comparisons on gun ownership and self-defense for real research on the nature and dynamics of vigilantism.

For better understanding, it's important to obtain some theoretical perspective on vigilantism. From a legal perspective, lawyers sometimes call it extra-judicial self-help, and this perspective may or may not (depending upon your point of view) lend itself to promising new approaches in the sociology of law (Black 1983). Philosophers, like French (2001), frequently equate it with vengeance, and tie it into some sort of definition that sounds like it came from a treatise on ethics -- vigilantism being the righting of a criminal wrong by wrongful means. A recurring theme in philosophical treatises is that the sooner we recognize vengeance as an essential part of our inner human nature, the better. Sociologists are almost always silent on the topic, perhaps because the behavior is not mundane enough, as there seems to be an emerging convention in the last couple of decades where sociologists study the ordinary and criminologists study "rare events." Criminologists, like Zimring (2003), don't really study vigilantism per se. They only study it as a side issue whenever it seems convenient to tie in America's vigilante tradition to something else, like capital punishment. A review of the literature would indicate that there is a good deal of consensus on the fact that vigilantism and a vigilante tradition exist, but there also appears to be no adequate theoretical framework from which to analyze the phenomena in systematic fashion. " (snip, see the rest of the document at the link above)

I have no doubt Dr. Williams said exactly what he meant. It's up to his readers to fully understand him. Now that he has your attention, of course.

lpl/nc

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Damn! Literate Discourse!

God.

I love clarity.

Rock on, guys.

 

[kludge]

Public servants derive their just power from the consent of the governed.

In the absense of law enforcement it is perfectly reasonable for law abiding citizens to make a stand to prevent/get rid of crime in their own neighborhoods.

However, it would not be acceptable to deprive a person of life, limb, liberty, or property without due process.

The words "vigilante" and "vigilantism" have been criminalized in the media.

If I give you a copy of the keys to my truck and say, "you can use it any time you like, just fill it up when you're done," I have given you the legal right of the use of my truck, but I have in no way given up my legal right to the use of my own truck.

We give authority to law enforcement to do what is naturally our own right to do -- to protect our lives, our families, our property, and to assist our neighbor in his vigilance -- and in doing so we in no way give up any of our natural rights.

Preventing crime on your own property is in no way "taking the law into your own hands."

"Taking the law into your own hands" is not the definition of vigilantism.

If you, not presently being threatened yourself, deprive somone of life, limb, liberty, or property without due process that is "taking the law into your own hands." But that to me is not "vigilantism."

If there were no court system in the area to punish the criminal, then it would be up to the people to punish the crime, and it is within their natural rights to do so, if the punishment weren't cruel or unusual.

I do not however think it's a good idea to go into crack houses and arrest people, but I do not consider it illegal if you have permission of the landowner. Nor do I consider it a crime to keep watch on your street to deter criminal activity.