Who Is Right?

[Steezie]

Two scenarios that revolve around the same group in the same city. Neither man has any children.

Jack- Jack gets a phone call one day and is told that his wife has been killed. Members of a gang harassed her outside the grocery store and she resisted them. They followed her and ran her car off the road then shot her. Jack is overcome with grief and makes the proper arrangements for burial. He lets the police handle the investigation and tries to get his life back in order.

Andrew- Andrew gets a phone call one day and is told that his wife has been killed. Members of a gang harassed her outside the grocery store and she resisted them. They followed her and ran her car off the road then shot her. Andrew purchases several weapons and starts asking around. He makes provisions for his remaining family and takes care of his other affairs. Eventually he finds the gang's hangout and kicks down the front door with weapons drawn. In the ensuing firefight, six gang members die and Andrew himself is killed. The gang members who committed the murder are among the dead.

Which of the two men has done the right thing, why is it the right thing, and why is the other choice the wrong thing?

 

[happydance]

I voted for Jack, but appreciated the initiative Andrew to in tracking down the killers (anti- I 4A I).

1. Revenge is illegal.
1a. Andrew died.
2. Andrew apparently killed some innocent people.

 

[quatona]

What purpose did Andrew pursue when breaking into the gang´s house?

 

[.Sabre.]

Jack did the right thing.

Revenge is wrong. Andrew got himself killed.

 

[Beanieboy]

Vigilantism isn't smiled upon from the law.
The ironic thing would be that even if Andrew survived, he may have spent the rest of his life in prison.

Andrew kills 6 gang members, and some of them are the murderers (as far as we know.) And some are not (killing possibly innocent people, which is what he was seeking revenge on.) Andrew is now dead. The end? Hardly.

What do you think happens then? They will want to take revenge, and since Andrew is dead, why not kill some or all of his family?

 

[Paulos23]

Jack did the right (and legal) thing, though it would have been better if someone would have called the police before she was run off the road.

 

[MsAnne]

And where are you going with this? Judging by your previous posts, I can't imagine this being a simple poll to initiate water cooler conversation.

 

[Beanieboy]

I'm guessing it homework

 

[clarksided]

I don't approve of vigilante justice.

Jack wins. Assuming he's from somewhere with a reliable police force and not, say, North Korea.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

I agree with all of the above. And comment on the Pan's Labyrinth picture.

 

[godlessagnostic]

There is something called Law in America (If thats where it took place), and there's a reason we have it. Vilgilantism is illegal for good reason. Revenge only ever brings more sorrow. There's a great movie about a buddhist monk's path to englightenment that is geared towards a story like this. It is called Malipera, Magician , Murderer, Saint. I would recomend seeing it if you get a chance.

 

[Verv]

Vigilantism is not appropriate if the government is capable of providing justice. People must go through the institutions offered by their government.

If the outcome is a failure, a total failure, then it is simply a terrible miscarriage of justice and one should campaign to have a stronger government in place and have better police enforcement.

Tragedy cannot justify murder.

Always the proper route is to go through established authorities.

 

[Avatar]

Jack did the right thing. But if Andrew had survived and I was on his jury I would not vote to send him away.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I know Jack did the right thing, but sometimes I still wish I wasn't too goody too shoes not to take Andrews way out

 

[Bombila]

Andrew's approach is suicidal and murderous. He may have avenged his wife's death, but he killed possibly innocent people, deprived his and his wife's families (kids are not the only family you have, usually) of the comfort of his being with them through a time of grief, even presenting them with another tragedy.

Revenging vigilantism is never a good thing, and always spreads grief to other people.

I knew a young man who was shot to death on his front steps, by people who mistook him for someone else. His older brother is still in jail for almost killing a possible acquaintance of the murderer. His two younger brothers, calm happy children before these events, were devastated by this double loss, and are growing up with violent, vengeful thoughts of their own.

Violence never stops, once started, unless somewhere along the line some sane person says 'enough', and does what is right as opposed to what feels good.

 

[SimplyMe]

Reminds me of the Chinese proverb, "The one who pursues revenge should dig two graves."

When we allow ourselves to take anger out on those who wronged us, it prevents us from healing, from sorrowing over the loss and getting past it. Even if Andrew had lived through his revenge killing, there is a good chance he never would have overcome his wife's death and the murders he committed.

 

[happydance]

When I read the OP, I was led to remember the incident of a father shooting his son's abductor, in an airport. The accused child molester was in police custody at the time of the killing. I failed to find the story, but included a link to the video of the father shooting the abductor.

Violet video clip of the father's revenge:
http://spikedhumor.com/articles/38182/Father_Of_Kidnapped_Son_Gets_Revenge.html

 

[Fin1234]

Neither. If andrew was in my eye's correct, but he conducted it wrong seeing as not all gang members died andrew was identified as the killer and andrew was gunned down.

The best situation would be killers dead the killer is unknown and still alive.

 

[*Starlight*]

Neither of them did anything actually wrong, but assuming that the police would catch all the gang members and they would go to prison, what Jack did is much more reasonable, because he didn't risk his life.

 

[Fin1234]

it's actually quite rare for criminal gangs to be caught by the police. It's organised crime for a reason. Most gangs know what they are doing and are very good at avoiding the law.