#Vigilantism

[otakuvampyre]

Very much this.

All that said tho, I do have concerns on whether or not Luigi will be capable of getting a fair trial. Whether they're cheering him on or condemning him, I think there are very few in America that can claim to not think he did it. It's gonna be hard to find an unbiased jury for his trial.

Murderer or not, he deserves a fair trial just like everyone else. And that may not be possible unless they can find people in New York (where they wanna trial him) who don't know who he is (which is gonna be hard given the mayor kinda condemned him publicly as the killer).

Luigi Mangione is not a hero. You celebrate him because you’re ignorant. You’re anti rich people and you hate CEOs so you cheer for the murder of someone you’re programmed to hate. You never heard of Brian Thompson before he was murdered, you just cheer his murder because “CEO” and “UnitedHealthcare.”

But you don’t understand that Mangione did not do anything that will result in a positive change. UnitedHealthcare is still UnitedHealthcare. Nothing about its operations will change. Thompson will be replaced and they will continue to operate as usual.

Brian Thompson didn’t even has much control over the company as you believe and Unitedhealthcare isn’t hurt by his murder.

In your hatred you forget that Brian Thompson was a human being who did not deserve to get gunned down in the streets just because he was the CEO of an insurance company.

Mangione did not make a positive change. The world is not a better place without Brian Thompson. UnitedHealthcare isn’t changing or going anywhere. The people most impacted by this loss are Brian Thompson’s wife and children.

Luigi Mangione is a cold blooded murderer who killed a husband and father and if you revel in this murder just because the victim was a CEO you are actually celebrating evil and you need to reexamine how it is you have to stooped to a level that allows you to celebrate murder because you have issues with the status a person holds in society.

[notaplaceofhonour]

“it’s hypocrisy for people who celebrated the idf killing sinwar & nasrallah to be appalled by people celebrating luigi mangione killing brian thompson; either you care about sanctity of life no matter what or you’re okay with celebrating killing terrible people”

as someone who isn’t really celebrating either, but is more worried about the latter than the former, I would like to present another option.

there is a fundamental difference between:

killing a member of a military structure as an act of war VS. extrajudicial vigilantism and murder against another citizen

a terrorist organization that exists to destroy a country & slaughter its civilians directly carrying out a massacre with clearcut genocidal intentions VS. a healthcare company that exists to both provide coverage for care to its customers and profit to its shareholders making decisions that indirectly lead to death through a failure to provide care when they prioritize profit over care

an agreed upon military action by official members of a structure that has (ostensibly, or at least is supposed to have) a means of oversight/accountability VS. one rogue person serving as judge, jury & executioner with no oversight or accountability

a military attack that deals a significant & strategic blow to a structure that exists to cause harm VS. a lone act of violence that leaves the injustice structure intact and at most disrupts the means to provide healthcare coverage within that system

on multiple levels, the situations are different. this isn’t saying there isn’t severe injustice in how healthcare coverage is provided, or that Brian Thompson was in no way responsible for his part in it, but there are shades of bad, and in every aspect, they’re multiple steps removed in ways that severely change the dynamics.

yeah, if you squint your eyes until all details blur away and boil everything down to “bad person gets bad thing” they start to look the same, but that is a fundamentally unhelpful & childish way to look at the world.

should powerful people who make unjust decisions & have a larger share in the diffuse responsibility for terrible injustices receive no consequences just because they’re not directly masterminding it, or it’s an indirect consequence of other goals, or “it’s not personal; it’s just good business”? no, of course not. but there is good reason that we as a society have a concept of criminal negligence, and we recognize the difference between manslaughter versus murder. they’re just fundamentally different things.

no, intention isn’t everything, but it isn’t nothing. passively allowing violence isn’t not violent, but it is still categorically different from actively engaging in violence or directly commanding it. indirect responsibility isn’t no responsibility, but it isn’t the same as direct responsibility.

it can absolutely be helpful to build a fence around certain offenses—“don’t do x because it’s adjacent/can lead to y”—to make it less likely that the worse offense will occur or to keep people from abusing gray areas and claiming plausible deniability. but there is a limit to how far you can take that before it starts to do the opposite.

when we keep expanding the criteria of guilt to include more and more steps away from direct, intentional harm as equal to the direct/intentional version of that offense, and we lower the criteria for who metes out justice to just any guy with a gun, and we put the power of judge jury & executioner all in a single person’s hands and we allow the maximum sentence (execution) for even indirect/unintentional systemic harm… we’re creating a powder keg just waiting to explode into mass, unchecked, open violence and throwing matches at it. and that’s not even getting into all the people chomping at the bit just waiting to use this permission structure to attack Jews and queer people

I don’t know when we, the three opinions people, started embracing this dualistic extreme black-and-white thinking where things had to all always be x or y way, but we need to do better. cheering on the expansion of vigilantism into extrajudicial execution for untried alleged criminal negligence & corporate manslaughter is a significantly different beast to crab raving or dancing in the streets when a guy who directly masterminded massacres, ruled a totalitarian regime, or dedicated his life to final solution 2: electric boogaloo gets hit as part of a war.

[critical-skeptic]

Distract. Divide. Desensitize.

For those just finding out about the destruction of the Georgia Guidestones in 2022: this is exactly how they keep you blind. The monument—designed to endure and provoke thought about humanity’s future—was quietly erased, just like countless other significant events that vanish beneath layers of noise. Why? Because you're meant to miss the real moves while they orchestrate chaos to keep you fixated on distractions.

Take the recent CEO assassination—a so-called act of “vigilantism” being spun to desensitize the public to oligarchs calling anyone who isn’t with them an enemy. Or Trump’s absurd strawman nomination of Matt Gaetz for AG, a spectacle that was never serious but designed to feed the outrage machine. These aren’t random—they’re calculated distractions, conditioning the masses to accept heightened division, alarmist rhetoric, and creeping authoritarian control.

The destruction of the Guidestones wasn’t just about wiping out a controversial monument; it’s part of the playbook. They erase history while feeding the public "heroes" and manufactured conflicts to keep you too distracted to notice the chessboard being reconfigured. So while everyone’s eyes are glued to the spectacle, the powerful move in silence, building the structures they’ll use to lock you out of the game entirely.

Wake up. If you’re only now learning about the Guidestones, ask yourself what you missed today while being fed your latest dose of chaos. This is how they operate: distraction, division, and silence over what truly matters. By the time the dust settles, it’ll be too late to stop what’s been quietly built around you.

[karmaspidr]

Aizawa: If you genuinely want to use your quirk to help people, then why didn't you join a Hero Academy?

Peter, very happy to be a vigilante: Do you want a list? I've got it alphabetised and one where it's sorted based on how stupid you'd have to be to agree to it.

[eagle-longing-for-rostau]

[gothamnewsnetwork-official]

Opinion Hour - Vigilantism; family business or child endangerment?

The opinions voiced in this article may not align with the views of this journal

Regarding a (piece) published by this journal yesterday evening we felt the need to further expand on the topic of children in Vigilantism and many points brought up by none other than our resident billionaire himself, Bruce Wayne, in (response) to said article.

We would like to once again reiterate that Vigilantism is no place for children, be it a ‘family business’ or not, and we find Mr. Wayne’s comparison of the two to be, frankly, appalling.

Though Vigilantes deserve to have normal lives outside of their work, association with the civilian identity of a Vigilante, even with the danger that comes with it, is not an appropriate reason to enlist a child into fighting crime.

We fully support training the children of vigilantes in order to defend themselves, the issue is that in most instances this leads to the children becoming Vigilantes as well, usually at an age far younger than most find acceptable.

Bringing a child into Vigilantism, be it a family business or not, is putting that child at risk of injury, trauma, and death, there is no way to deny that. Due to this fact, we stand by our prior stance of child-heroes being victims of child abuse.

All children deserve a safe environment to live and grow, and while that is incredibly difficult to achieve, especially in a city like Gotham, further endangering them under the pretence of protection is a very serious offence and something we believe classifies as manipulation and child exploitation.

Obviously this varies case to case, but in the situation of someone like Batman who seems to be unable to go a week without a child sidekick, one has to ask if he can truly be considered good if they have not found a third option to the dilemma Mr. Wayne thinks to have only two.

Sincerely,

L. Constant - Collective

What are your thoughts on the topic? Let us know (here)

Gotham Reports is certified in unbiased, reliable, and fair reporting

[originalleftist]

Some thoughts I wanted to share about the Health Insurance CEO Murder.

To start with, this is NOT a post about when or where vigilante or political violence is justified. That is a much larger conversation, which I have had before and will have again. In brief, I generally support the right to self-defence, but regard political violence/terrorism and revenge as often ineffective and always ethically questionable, while recognizing that in situations such as war the line between the two can become blurry. This is also not speculating as to the shooter's actual motives, which remain uncertain at this time.

This is about intent, and responsibility for one's actions.

Because everyone celebrating this guy's murder, or defending those who do, is engaging in stochastic terrorism- using rhetoric which does not explicitly advocate specific terrorist acts, but is likely to lead to unspecified violence while maintaining plausible deniability.

You may feel it's justified. You may feel he deserved it. You may feel it's for the greater good, or that it's cathartic, or that it's your right as free speech. You might also think it's just a joke and I should lighten up and stop being such a killjoy.

But ultimately, the message you are sending is that you regard this shooting as a good thing, and you want to see more. And if you post it online, you are sending that message to anyone who might be reading- including angry, frightened people, feeling trapped, and contemplating if the guns America gives them such ready access to-unlike health care or a living wage or mental health support-are the best or only way out.

I don't think everyone making these posts intends to do that. Which is part of why I'm posting this. Because part of the danger of stochastic terrorism is that it allows people to take extreme positions while deceiving themselves, as well as obfuscating to others. To float ideas like "maybe murder is a good idea here", while telling yourself that you aren't actually advocating it, and aren't responsible if it happens.

And if you are going to promote an action of such irrevocable weight as the murder of actual living people-which will, inevitably, be met with more violence in response, not all of which will fall on those who you deem deserving-then you DAMN WELL better make that choice deliberately, after very careful consideration of your reasons and the alternatives, and in full awareness of the potential consequences.

(This goes for a LOT of other situations and rhetoric too, across the political spectrum and even outside of the overtly political- I'm just highlighting this as a particularly recent, widespread, and relevant example right now.)

[peachesgaeass]

Title: Shadows on the Rooftop

MHA Spiderman Au

(A little teaser of izuku's and Aizawa's first meeting)

—*‐;=;-*—

Aizawa's Pov.

The night was quiet in Musutafu, the hum of the city muffled beneath the weight of an impending storm. Eraserhead, or Shouta Aizawa, moved across the rooftops, his scarf loose around his shoulders and his sharp eyes scanning the horizon. His nightly patrols had been routine for years, but tonight something felt off.

And then he saw it.

A small figure perched on the edge of a rooftop several buildings away. Their silhouette was unnaturally still, save for the faint swing of their legs over the edge. As Aizawa crept closer, he took in the oversized hoodie that drowned their frame, the black cargo pants, and the bright red shoes dangling precariously over the abyss.

He froze for a moment, the scene sinking in. He’d dealt with jumpers before, but this was different. Most people who found themselves on rooftops with those intentions radiated hesitation—stiff bodies, nervous energy, a last-minute fight against their decision.

This kid had none of that.

Their posture was relaxed, their shoulders loose. They looked like someone who had already made up their mind, someone who had accepted the inevitable and was simply waiting for it to happen.

Aizawa felt something clench in his chest.

It didn’t matter what this kid thought they’d decided. Not tonight. Not on his watch.

He approached cautiously, the soles of his boots quiet against the rooftop gravel. His scarf was ready in his hands—not to fight, but to catch them if they fell.

“Hey,” he called out, keeping his voice soft and steady. “What are you doing up here?”

The kid turned their head slightly, the hood casting a shadow over their face. Even with the mask covering their features, Aizawa could feel their gaze, sharp and unnervingly calm.

“Taking in the view,” they said, their voice quiet and soft, yet clear against the stillness of the night.

Aizawa’s frown deepened. He moved closer, slow and deliberate, keeping his scarf loose but prepared. “Dangerous place to enjoy the view.”

The kid didn’t respond immediately. They shifted slightly, leaning forward so the toes of their shoes brushed the edge of the rooftop. Aizawa’s grip on his scarf tightened.

“You shouldn’t be up here alone,” he pressed, his tone edging toward urgency.

The kid laughed, a quiet sound that barely reached him. It wasn’t a laugh of humor; it was hollow, tinged with a melancholy that settled in Aizawa’s gut.

“If I wanted to jump,” the kid said softly, “I wouldn’t have waited for you to show up.”

Aizawa froze at the words. There was no malice in them, no bite—just a calm, almost tired matter-of-factness. It wasn’t reassuring. It wasn’t meant to be.

“You knew I was coming?” he asked, stalling for time as he stepped closer. He didn’t know what else to say, only that he needed to keep the kid talking.

Another soft laugh. The kid tilted their head, the hood slipping slightly but still hiding their face. “Got a tip.”

Aizawa’s brows furrowed. “From who?”

The kid gestured vaguely to the air around them. “My friends.”

“Your friends?” he repeated, both confused and wary.

“They’re very good at spotting company.” The kid’s tone held no boastfulness, just a quiet certainty.

Aizawa stopped, only a few feet away now. His grip on his scarf was firm, ready to react in an instant. He scanned the rooftop and surrounding buildings for any signs of other people, but they were alone.

“Listen,” he began carefully, “you don’t have to do this. Whatever’s going on, there are people who can help—”

The kid interrupted with a sigh, soft and resigned. They stood fluidly, their movements too smooth for someone so small. Aizawa’s instincts screamed at him to act, but the calmness in the kid’s demeanor made him hesitate.

“Help?” The word was spoken with a faint, bitter humor. “I’m not the one who needs help.”

They turned to face him fully now, their mask and hood still obscuring their identity. For a brief moment, Aizawa caught a glimpse of their eyes through the shadow—dull, tired, but with a flicker of reluctant acceptance. Like they’d resigned themselves to whatever end awaited them, but not tonight.

Before Aizawa could say anything else, the kid stepped backward off the edge of the roof.

His scarf snapped forward on instinct, but when he reached the ledge, there was nothing to catch. No body, no sound of impact. Just empty air and a faint wisp of silk clinging to the corner of the building.

Aizawa scanned the alley below, his heart pounding. He caught sight of a faint movement—a shadow disappearing into the distance, too quick and silent to follow.

For a long moment, he stood at the edge of the roof, his scarf coiled loosely in his hands.

He’d heard rumors of a vigilante operating in Musutafu—a shadowy figure who left criminals bound in silk, tied up like presents for the police. He hadn’t believed it before.

But now, staring at the trail of silk glinting faintly in the moonlight, Aizawa knew the stories were true.

And he wasn’t sure what unsettled him more: the fact that the vigilante was real, or that they were just a kid.

He sighed, running a hand through his hair as he turned away from the edge. Whoever they were, they were fast, quiet, and terrifyingly efficient. But the way they carried themselves, the way they spoke—it wasn’t just experience or skill. It was something darker.

Aizawa glanced back at the empty rooftop.

He’d find them again. Not because they were a vigilante, but because he couldn’t shake the look in their eyes. That reluctant acceptance, that quiet sadness—it wasn’t the look of someone living. It was the look of someone waiting to die.

If you want me to actually start(because I get motivation when people like an idea I have) please tell me as it would be very helpful with finding the motivation to write it

This is the brain dump

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Gloria Oladipo at The Guardian:

On Monday, Daniel Penny, a 26-year-old white man, was acquitted of all charges related to the 1 May 2023 killing of Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old unhoused Black man with severe mental illness, on a New York City subway train. Penny was charged with second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide after he choked Neely for nearly six minutes, causing his death. The Marine veteran claimed self-defense after an unarmed Neely made threats to passengers and complained of being hungry and thirsty, according to witness testimony. In a police interview following Neely’s death, Penny referred to Neely as “just a crackhead” who was “acting like a lunatic”. Experts say Penny’s acquittal fits into a longstanding pattern of how white vigilante crime is treated in the US, with white killers celebrated and Black victims denigrated.

“In situations where people of color have tried to defend themselves, it’s a whole different result,” said Mark Brodin, a professor of law at Boston College Law School. “It’s as transparent a double standard as you can ever imagine. And race is the only explanation. Class enters into it with Mr Neely, his mental problems entered into it. But race is at the top of the pyramid.” Despite widespread outrage about Neely’s killing in New York City, Penny received an onslaught of support from those on the far right after his arrest. A crowdfunding campaign for Penny’s legal fund amassed more than $2.9m in the months after the incident. (Neely’s burial funds, on the other hand, raised just $150,094.) The Fox News host Greg Gutfeld called Neely a “violent mess” who was “better at impersonating Michael Meyers than Michael Jackson”, referring to Neely’s previous impersonations of the pop star. And another Fox News pundit, Kayleigh McEnany, laughed alongside her colleagues at protesters who gathered to condemn Neely’s killing.

Following his acquittal, Penny has been praised by conservatives, including the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis; Ben Shapiro and Meghan McCain, who called those critical of Penny “lunatics”. Such commentary is part of an “unfortunate spiral” in which news outlets, platforms and people “demonize individuals for existing”, said the NAACP president, Derrick Johnson. “The fact that [Penny] called this individual [a] crackhead shows his state of mind. He didn’t see this person as someone who was human [or who] more or less had the right to live.” Brodin said that Penny’s acquittal was virtually certain, given the “history of the legal system sending these people out the back door at the courthouse. You can set your watch to it,” he said of cases in which white vigilantes claimed self-defense. “There’s just no accountability with these people.”

For example, George Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Black teenager, in Florida in 2012, Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two men and injured a third during a Black Lives Matters protest in Wisconsin in 2020, and Bernhard Goetz, who shot four Black teenagers on the New York City subway in 1984, were all acquitted. Vigilantes like Penny are also generally portrayed and celebrated as “heroes”, Brodin added. Goetz was hailed as the “subway savior” by New York tabloids. And Rittenhouse received messages of support and fundraisers following his arrest for first degree intentional homicide. (Rittenhouse’s victims were all white, but the protest he traveled to was against the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man. Rittenhouse’s defense team said that he traveled across state lines to the demonstration to “help people”.)

Acquittal of white vigilantes takes place for several reasons, said Brodin. For one, standards of self-defense are based on a perpetrator’s testimony that they believed they were in danger, with the burden of proof in a criminal case high and jurors being “vulnerable to fear mongering by the defense lawyers”.

The acquittal of Daniel Penny is yet more proof that White vigilante violence is A-OK.

See Also:

The Dean's Report: MAGA’s cheering of Daniel Penny killing Jordan Neely is what white supremacy looks like

[h0nezyray777-except-i-post]

Wonder which CEO’s next.

New advent calendar!!! Its a mystery and a gift all wrapped up in one!!!

[racefortheironthrone]

How have superhero stories grappled with the more grounded depictions of fighting crime? Which is to say, someone with much higher power than those they’re fighting breaking bones and causing harm in real circumstances?

It’s like there’s a disconnect between some of the more “straight” stories of someone who is seemingly nice on every level as a hero but goes out during their nights to beat the hell out of people with their alter ego and power , and ofc how that image links with punitive justice / brutality status quo of justice enforcement

On the worst end, you get Rorschach’s (part of the point of the character I know) who throw suspected criminals down elevator shafts, and on the best end you get spidey or flash harmlessly webbing guys up or tying them up before they can hurt anyone

Ideally you’d get heroes going out to defend others lives and doing so in as non harmful ways as possible and incapacitating without violence, and addressing the root issues of criminals at the same time (inspired by your Batman post) while putting thr buck of energy towards the real masters of evil propagating the system

One of my favorite recent stories was the Zdarsky daredevil where it shows how easily a fatal accident can happen in a normal fight, and how dangerous any kind of violence is, but I’m not sure how much of an outlier / regular that is.

Maybe vague, but what I’m getting at is how, if at all, has this trend changed in superheroes over the years? And how successfully have they grappled with the “Ka pow” solution and what would actually come of it?

I've talked about this a bit in the past with regards to Batman (although I think the Punisher is the better case study) and vigilantism in general.

I think it's genuinely important that superheroes avoid the trap of "Spidercop" et al. (the Playstation Spider-Man games really pissed me off on this topic, as amazing as they are in other aspects) and grapple with what it means to be a vigilante in society, both the good and the bad of it.

That being said, though, I think this is basically a solved issue in superhero comics and has been practically since the beginning.

Building off their initial focus on organized crime coming out of the pulps - because pace to my abolitionist and restorative justice brethren, but that shit does not work on mobsters - superhero comics pivoted by creating the supervillain.

While many supervillains get their start as exaggerations of the organized crime figure, and there are some great punch-clock villains out there, most supervillains exist outside of the framework of criminal justice reform because their motivations are usually sui generis and their criminal activities are so baroque and often have more to do with personal vendettas and dominance displays than anything that actually motivates real-world violent crime.

[youabandonedthem]

[courseyoulovemeyoudontknowme]

Taxi Driver (1976, Martin Scorsese)

28/01/2024

Taxi Driver is a 1976 film directed by Martin Scorsese, written by Paul Schrader and starring Robert De Niro. Set after the Vietnam War in New York, it is about a vigilante with neo-noir and psychological detective elements.

The screenwriter Paul Schrader stated that he was inspired for the film's themes by European existentialism and in particular by Jean-Paul Sartre's Nausea and Albert Camus' The Stranger, as well as by the story of Arthur Bremer, who attempted in 1972 to assassinate Democratic US presidential candidate George Wallace. Particularly notable is the performance of Robert De Niro, defined by the American journalist Robert Kolker as "the last of the noir heroes in the noisiest world imaginable". The very young Jodie Foster won two BAFTAs in 1977 as Best New Actress and Best Supporting Actress (also for Bugsy Malone).

The film won the Palme d'Or at the 29th Cannes Film Festival in 1976 and was nominated for four Academy Awards, including the Best Film category in 1977. The American Film Institute placed it 52nd among the 100 best films of all time, while it ranked 17th on the list of the 500 best films in history according to the British magazine Empire. In 2012 it was placed in 31st place, ex aequo with The Godfather - Part II, in the ranking of the best films of all time drawn up by critics and published by the English magazine Sight and Sound, while in that drawn up by directors it found itself in fifth place. In 1994 it was chosen for preservation in the National Film Registry of the United States Library of Congress.

[azspot]

But while thousands reacted with laughter emojis to Thompson’s murder, and with love-heart emojis to his alleged murderer, I was sickened. Vigilantism is always wrong. If you celebrate someone gunning down a defenceless person in the street, then you advocate for a world in which this is an acceptable thing for anyone to do. You in fact advocate for a world in which a stranger can decide that you’re also a bad person, and gun you down in the street. In such a world, I promise you, your health insurance would cost much more.

The Riddle of Luigi Mangione

[karmaspidr]

Why don't more crossover fics have Peter as a vigilante in the world of MY Hero Academia? Peter would never support a system where heroes are commercialised and ranking high on a leaderboard is more important than helping people.

At the very least, if you want to make him a student have him be reluctant about it or have him confront his teachers about the errors of their society.

[lesewut]

From the pursuit of justice to a destructive obsession -

Is the pursuit of justice justified if it undermines order (of an unfair and corrupt system)?

‘Law and power must unite so that the weak are not oppressed.’

//

‘If justice perishes, the world shall perish with it!’

‘Don Quixote of rigorous bourgeois morality.’ [Ernst Bloch]

//

‘I didn't write to you last night, it was too late because of Michael Kohlhaas (do you know him? If not, don't read him! I'll read it to you!), which I read in one sitting, except for a small part that I had already read the day before yesterday. Probably for the tenth time. This is a story that I read with real fear of God, one astonishment over the other, were it not for the weaker, sometimes crudely written ending, it would be something perfect, that perfection that I like to claim does not exist. (I mean, even every supreme work of literature has a tail of humanity, which, if you want and have an eye for it, easily starts to twitch and disturbs the sublimity and godlikeness of the whole.)’ [Franz Kafka to Felice Bauer]