Vigilantism brings about two sides: those against it and those in favor of it. Despite its dangerous nature, examples like Sweers have successfully arrested dangerous culprits. When it comes to the DAP, it's fathers wanting to protect their children and rightfully so. Since social media has alway been a big topic among our generation, children are more and more susceptible to be drawn to sexual predators. Despite the police rejecting any form of vigilantist acts, what if the situation falls out of their hands? Who else would be able to protect their children? That brings me to the question: If you were in the parents shoes what would you do? Are these people justified?
Friday, July 24, 2020
Your Friendly Neighborhood Vigilante: Is It Justice or Foolish Danger?
An article on USA today brings us to the attention of the town of Fremont, Ohio, where fathers of young, impressionable students have taken action against sexual predators within their neighborhood. The Dads Against Predators (DAP) group take it upon themselves to set up fake cat fishing accounts posing as teenagers to lure in suspects and bring them to justice. Despite the fathers seemingly wanting to protect their children, Ohio police says otherwise. Fremont Police Chief Dean Bliss stated,"he would not encourage citizens to take matters into their own hands, saying it can jeopardize the safety of those conducting the operation and cause issues when attempting to prosecute suspects." This is only one example of acts of vigilantism against these perpetrators. Back in 2016, Zach Sweers who resided in Grand Rapids, Michigan became a YouTube vigilante under the alias of Anxiety War. The 23 year old would also document his hunt against the suspects in a similar manner the DAP. He would trick them into addressing himself as 14 or 15 year old girl and continue to solicit extreme sexual behavior of these suspects via text messaging, all of which he would display online, at time, exposing their identity and face. As a result, Sweers has gotten 7 men arrested in suspicion of taking advantage of a minor. When the police got involved, they too, advised Sweers to stop his actions, he refused.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As good as it might sound or feel, it’s a terrible idea. Ordinary civilians aren’t prepared or trained to handle potentially dangerous situations, and could make it worse. People have bias, and more than likely will allow their emotions to dictate their actions. That isn’t to say bystanders shouldn’t intervene or defend themselves or others in the vicinity of a crime, just that they should be careful and know their abilities. There is a criminal justice system in place for criminals, though it may be flawed, the government may be petitioned for a redress of grievances, whereas vigilante groups are not obligated to the people. People going out and ‘delivering justice’ is too prone to error and abuse.
ReplyDeleteI was in the wrong account, but this is my comment.
DeleteSometimes the police aren't there on time or they arrest the criminal after they've already done a crime. With vigilantes they do the small things that the police don't do, which can have a huge impact in the end. I can totally understand why these parents want to take matters into their own hands, they not only want to protect their children, but other children that need protecting too. In my point of view there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I probably wouldn't be a vigilante because if anything happens I'm not physically capable of protecting myself, but I wouldn't mind if a friend or loved one did it with caution and awareness. Vigilantes may be a bad idea and it isn't safe, but it's better to do good then do nothing at all.
ReplyDelete