TIL about Marianne Bachmeier who shot dead the man who sexually assaulted and murdered her 7 year old child

Title should really include this too. Utterly fucked up.

and putting the text of the voiceover in the very center of the video to make it hard to watch… it’s just so stupid

Wtf are you going on about? This is an article on Wikipedia.

"I can't remember a thing, but i do remember at one point we all gave a standing ovation. Can't remember why though".

Yep would done the same or worse to that fucker.

But it’s also a level of finality that the state would not have granted.

There is no video of the actual incident, this is from a movie

She doesn't flinch, she's calm, and she doesn't stop firing till she knows the job is done.

They don't have juries.

Gary Plauche is another person who took justice into his own hands over the kidnapping and rape of his son back in the 1980s.

Plauche learned that the suspect was being flown back to town in police custody, and figured out the flight he was on. He waited at the airport, pretending to be using a pay phone. As the suspect was escorted past him he walked up and shot him in the head at almost point blank range. A local TV station caught it all on camera and I think you can still find it if you search for it.

Plauche was ultimately convicted of manslaughter but was given a suspended sentence, probation, and community service. No jail time.

Why was she far from being a saint?

Vigilantism has 3 common sources:

1. lawless 'I am the law not you' narcissist types who think rules don't apply to them (ex: rich people, republicans, sovereign citizens etc)

2. dumbasses who think they know shit because they're insane (ex: pizzagate guy, qanon murders)

3. people with real grievances the law can't or won't address. (Luigi Mangione, Charlie Kirk's killer)

Imo, #3 is the only kind that I've seen people who aren't psychopaths express support for and its not just because #3 is more valid but its also because #3 is often carried out against the folks who are in the #1 group so its often a type of vigilante vs vigilante crime.

Plus everybody I've seen expressing support for #3 would be far happier if the legal system did the work instead of a vigilante.

Look mate, for most people this squarely falls under "I don't condone it, but I understand it."

Court room justice over mob justice any day.

Just remember more blood has been shed in wars under the shouts of "justice" or "god"..than all other spoken reasons combined. Very dangerous concepts.

Vigilante justice is NEVER acceptable. Until someone has been justly tried, and convicted they innocent in the eyes of the law. Period, and no exception.

Devil's advocate: Judicial systems throughout history have had varying levels of success. If a person repeatedly commits murder and is not held to account by the justice system, is it not acceptable for someone to kill them? The net result would be lives saved

There have been many instances throughout history where a person repeatedly commits unspeakable crimes, but is guaranteed immunity from whatever justice system exists in their society. Do you think it's entirely unacceptable for them to receive vigilante justice?

Millions of North Koreans suffer and die under the Kim regime. If a vigilante were to assassinate him, millions of lives would be saved. Do you still contend it is unacceptable to do so? Keep in mind, everything Kim Jong Un has done is perfectly legal under the North Korean judicial system

If you question that interpretation of the result, let's invoke Godwin's Law. If one of the early assassination attempts on Hitler had been successful, WW2 could have been avoided (or at least made far more one-sided), saving tens of millions of lives. Would vigilante justice have still been unacceptable to you?

Seems incredibly amoral to state it's preferable to allow a genocide than to extra-judicially murder the one perpetuating the genocide

eyes of the law

*gestures broadly*

Is this « rule of law » in the room with us right now?

The law is fake. Justice is fake. These are ideas pushed on us to maintain the monopoly on violence of the state

More and more, I become convinced in the law of consequences. I think, morally and pragmatically, that her actions were reasonable and a net benefit to society. I think most people would agree with that on some level

At some point you have to ask... What's the value of the law? Why defend it in this case?

Explicit rules are nice to tell people what they can get away with. On a deeper level, we have to decide what's right and wrong as a society.

And that's a blurry line no one should be getting near

Are you a parent?

To anyone downvoting me:

You rightly despise the perpetrator and his actions, but if you advocate vigilante justice, you are showing just as little respect for the law and all the rules of human coexistence as he did. You should all be ashamed.

all civilizational "achievement" happened because of slavery

humans being extinct from the earth believe it or not is a net benefit for the planet. Human exceptionalists need to be reminded of that. So far, as a species, we fucking suck and do not have achievements worthy of universal praise. Everything good we have right now was because of needless suffering.

We arent any better than bees on this earth. Name one human being thats more valuable net to this planet than bees, you know? You cant. Every human sucks compared to a bee. Bees rule, humans fucking drool man. We dont achieve, we steal and claim intelligence.