It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Vandalism Ever Be Justified?!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Acts of vandalism and misdemeanors are often committed for the desire to play the role of Robin Hood...or to express political or personal opinions...

Do you think they can be justified? What if you got caught in an act of vandalism that you felt was justifiable and the officer actually politely conceded the floor over to your defense? What would you say to certify to the law that your actions were appropriate??

Some of us have been in the situation when we knew we were doing something wrong but we did it anyways...and sometimes we knew we were doing something wrong, but we felt confident and often have no regrets when reflecting on that situation later...Where does that line cross?

Any thoughts??

EDIT: Pay no attention to my avatar....



[edit on 10/5/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

[edit on 10/5/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I don't think it can be justified in any way really because vandalism usually involves the defacing of someone else's property. When you affect someone elses person or property, its kind of hard to call it justified, no matter how much you hate bush/kerry/whatever. No matter how much you may want to go up and spraypaint on the house of a known racist, pedophile, rapist or such it never makes it legally right.



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
You're overly vague in your description, but I would ask if you are talking about vandalism or sabotage?

In either case, when you commit a crime, you might very well rationalize it, but you can't just justify it. There may be times when an act may be justified by mitigating or extenuating circumstances, but in such cases the act is not considered a crime, e.g., if you commit homicide while defending your life or the life of another, it is not criminal.

If you burn down a house to protest "urban sprawl," that's arson. If you smash a window at a candidate's headquarters, that's criminal damage. So, if I am interpreting your post correctly, damaging the property of another to make a statement is not a mitigating circumstance and therefore is a crime. There are much better ways to make any kind of statement than by acting criminally. That is the beauty of the system under which we live.


[edit on 04/10/5 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Good points...

Of course, I should make it clear up front, I'm in no way supporting vandalism or suggesting that those who do should use this for advice (er...maybe they should - lol).

Rather, I'm interested in where you draw the line...Is an insult shouted across the room more jusitifiable than an act of revenge carried out in the middle of the night?

You make an interesting clarification Grady between vandalism and sabotage...I see the two as seperate but sharing common threads of desire...Are there not periods in our history when sabotage has been justified?

Of course there is always the more sensible and responsable course of action...but at the end of the day, which will you have wished you had done if you knew you could get away with it? Consider the modern-day revolution of whistle blowers...is this a form of vandalism? Clearly their voice was not being heard by the usual route, so they resorted to more controversial means of addressing the issue...

[edit on 10/5/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

[edit on 10/5/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
There is no justification for vandalism...and if someone claims that one does exist...let their property become vandalized...and see how their tune changes...people who vandalize to "prove a point" or "make a statement" either 1) dont care 2) are frustrated 3) like attention



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I agree, no justification in vandalism...

you're defacing, tearing up, or ruining something that does not belong to you, it's wrong.

here in NW Ohio, people are vandalising campaign signs, it's all over the news.... and funny if you ask me..



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Justified? Sure. Legal? No



posted on Oct, 5 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I will have to echo the other's sentiments on this one.



Main Entry: vandalism
Pronunciation: 'van-d&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property


If it's not your property, then you really have no right to destroy it.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 03:47 AM
link   
several years ago a group of young thugs were taking great pleasure in terrorizing a local housing estate with mainly elderley residents (my grand parents included) the police seemed powerless to stop them and repeatedley gave out pathetic "slap on the wrist" style punishment (this is the U.K. for you) my freinds and i caught the ring leader one evening,after bashing his face off the bonnet of his car for 5 minutes and then smashing all his windows he suddenley decided that he would no longer pursue his hobby of vandalising locals houses,steal from local peoples houses upset and scare any one ever again (in between urinating in his trousers).
Vandalisation of his face and auto mobile justified? Totally.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Vandalism is an ugly word unless you think about what it really is, it is most of the time a bunch of bleep heads wasteing there time, lives and valuable spray paint other times its some smart ass putting a joke on the wall so when you walk past on your way to work you think "is that ment to be funny?" and every once in a while you get a guy who has some real opinions that he or she cant voice any other way. Yes in my opinon it can be justified.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I don't believe it can be justified in any way.... by vandalising something you are damaging or destroying propety which is not your own....

How would that person feel if the vandalism victim decided to spray paint all over the orignal vandals house.... would that be fine with them??.... i think not



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Try telling that to my mom and three other people in my neighborhood who got her back window smashed in monday night becuase of a Kerry sticker.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
The Boston Tea Party was vandalism, the destruction of loads of quite valuable tea. Maybe even "terrorism" if you had asked the British government. Even so, this mass destruction of private property is taught in public schools in the US as some sort of great heroic act.

This is a case where vandalism has been justified by the way the event fit into a larger historical context. Strangely enough, it would seem like the vandalism would have to be pretty big, and not just a few teenagers playing around, to have a the kind of impact to be glorified after the fact by the majority.

America was literally founded on the shoulders of vandalism and 'terrorism' against the British (the colonists' own government!). Its not so surprising that we would see a similiar reaction with the political polarization that's taken place in the last three years (i.e. people feeling unrepresented and/or powerless against their government). Not the best choice if you ask me (or Gandhi), and as unjustifiable and fundamentally unconscious as most violent acts, but not surprising.

I'm a little less sure what to make of those smashing in car windows for Kerry stickers. I guess it falls in with the ideaology of pre-emptive attack though....



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
I don't believe it can be justified in any way.... by vandalising something you are damaging or destroying propety which is not your own....

How would that person feel if the vandalism victim decided to spray paint all over the orignal vandals house.... would that be fine with them??.... i think not


True i would not like it to happen to me i think thatif its a government building its ok they take enough tax off us to be able to deal with it.

I think for some people the homeless for instance its the only way they can get there point across most people do it to be stupid but some IMHO dint have anyother way of voiceing there ideas and fly posting we arn't desicussubg that but thats illegal and disfigures building and they useally say less that grafitti.

I want you all to know i only adressing graffiti here no other forms of vandalism.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
True i would not like it to happen to me i think that if its a government building its ok they take enough tax off us to be able to deal with it.


I'm sorry but that is a really daft statement


Just because the Government taxes us it doesn't give anyone the right to vandalise the Government building. The Government will have to spend our tax money to repair the damage, this wasted money could go to a better cause like health care or crime prevention.

[edit on 7-10-2004 by UK Wizard]



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
It could but it wouldn't i am sure you no how the imigration system works they move to England they give them out taxes. I dont mean to sound racist. UKwizard do you not think that homeless, poor,disabled and whatever other disadvantaged people as well as the upperclass have the right to speak there mind! The government doesn't



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
It could but it wouldn't i am sure you no how the imigration system works they move to England they give them out taxes. I dont mean to sound racist. UKwizard do you not think that homeless, poor,disabled and whatever other disadvantaged people as well as the upperclass have the right to speak there mind! The government doesn't


Above quote doesn't make much sense to me


-------------

I don't care whether they want to speak their mind or not, they can find another vandalism free way of expressing themselves. Vandalism is a crime and its a crime for a reason.

[edit on 7-10-2004 by UK Wizard]



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty
Vandalism is an ugly word unless you think about what it really is, it is most of the time a bunch of bleep heads wasteing there time, lives and valuable spray paint other times its some smart ass putting a joke on the wall so when you walk past on your way to work you think "is that ment to be funny?" and every once in a while you get a guy who has some real opinions that he or she cant voice any other way. Yes in my opinon it can be justified.


Like i said up there most Grafitti is a pointless but some isn't. There should be a way to voice there ideas that our great Labour government should provide. How would you do it. What other ways are there of voiceing ideas or opinions for those people.

If you dont want vandalism (dont get me wrong i dont either) take part in trying to let these people voice there opinions in a legal manner.



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by shorty

Like i said up there most Grafitti is a pointless but some isn't. There should be a way to voice there ideas that our great Labour government should provide.


Why should the tax payer provide????


Originally posted by shorty
What other ways are there of voiceing ideas or opinions for those people.


ATS for starters...

Art... vandalism isn't an art before you say
Poetry....
Writing....
Debating...


[edit on 7-10-2004 by UK Wizard]



posted on Oct, 7 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Homeless people have accese to ATS i dont see how that is possible.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join