The point I was making… Is that the article brought a red herring fact that has nothing to do with anything
Why did they bring it up?
The point I was making… Is that the article brought a red herring fact that has nothing to do with anything
Why did they bring it up?
It was not a red herring in the least, and it struck to the very core of my own criticisms: while some vigilantes may be very stringent about their own investigations and targets, others may not.
In this example, these vigilantes artificially engineered a target where none was likely to ever exist. They drew the target in using the profile of a perfectly legal 18yo woman, but then turned around and claimed that the target was actually chasing the profile of an 17yo - and illegally young - girl, when he was in fact not doing so.
This was a very clear situation of entrapment by false pretenses.
That’s what police already does tbh
Also, if somebody is doing that and gets caught, I doubt they will get any sympathy from society.
Vigelanty justice only works when target deserved like the dead CEO, otherwise it just crime.
Vigelanty justice only works when target deserved like the dead CEO, otherwise it just crime.
You clearly see the world in black-and-white, when it really is made up of shades of grey.
Which means that since you haven’t already gotten the point, all the crayons and construction paper in the world isn’t going to help.
I am sorry somebody said something you didn’t like online search ;)
