Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregon Elephant
That is the difference. The police didn't "refuse" to do anything, they are (as they should be) unable to take physical action without proof that they are doing the right thing. I'm willing to bet that most people don't want the police acting more on gut instint and acting without evidence to support their actions.
Also, Vigilantism is not just doing the police's job because it is not their job to beat people. If she grabbed the kid and hauled him down to the jail, that would be very different from grabbing him and popping him in the gut. If people were doing just the police's job (AKA citizen's arrest), that would be fine and even encouraged, but she did the job of judge, jury, and executioner aswell.
|
Then why didn't they install cameras? Isn't Britain big on the whole "CCTV" thing? Or why didn't they just have a cop in plainclothes walk through the area a couple times each night for a week or two, watch for trouble? Yeah, I know the cops probably have better things to do, but if you catch one of the dip****s and give him three months of community service and charge him for repairs to the memorial, chances are it will cease to be a problem overnight. That wouldn't take excessive manpower and it would improve the community a good deal. If people
know that they're likely to get caught and punished, they'll be less likely to commit the crime. That's why crime is a problem: people know that they can get in, do what they want, and get out before the police get there and get off scot-free.
Since the police DIDN'T do anything to at least attempt to catch someone, I'd consider it a refusal to uphold the law. And based on what I said above, since she did cause damage to life and property, she should probably still be punished, but with a reduced sentence. I consider a punch to the gut to be not overly unreasonable considering her emotional attachment.