In this podcast he pretty much explains my own view that ordinary people should be able to go after criminals just like police do. The problem is with exactly how this is implemented, which he barely addresses. Legalman seems to hold my view that a legal system should still try vigilantes to check they were in fact responding to a crime and their actions were proportionate. But he seems to think if you kill someone who wronged you then you should get a standard criminal trial where evidence beyond reasonable doubt is needed that not only did you do the killing but that it was unprovoked or disproportionate.
But it's really easy to create a shred of doubt about that by saying the person you killed did something bad that nobody else witnessed - they raped you, threatened you, reached for your gun, stole your wallet. The prosecution would then have to prove that something didn't happen, which could be much harder than proving something did happen. So this system would allow criminals (posing as vigilantes) to get away with so much by making up excuses that can't be disproved. It might still be better than the current system, but not great.
An alternative system would be to make the vigilante prove that the crime they were responding to happened - not beyond reasonable doubt, just according to the preponderance of evidence. But how do you prove someone raped you, threatened you, reached for your gun or stole your wallet? Most crimes would have a decent amount of evidence that could be used to attempt exoneration of the vigilante but sometimes there wouldn't be much evidence at all. So this system would result in good vigilantes being punished. Furthermore if only a preponderance of evidence is needed then vigilantism becomes a way to inflict serious punishments on people without evidence beyond reasonable doubt needed, albeit with risks to the vigilante.
I think a more nuanced approach would be needed. For example, the vigilante needs at least some small amount of evidence to corroborate their story unless their story is one which is unlikely to have left evidence, in which case the vigilante has to be beyond suspicion - there is no evidence the vigilante had a motive to harm that person and they are not thought to be of bad moral character by the community.
His prior series was on jury nullification, which is an interesting court procedure everyone here should at least learn about whether they agree with it or not.
He does a lot of lyndon Spooner stuff. Yes a great podcast. I wish he had archive of all his stuff but i probably just need to pay up for his patreon.
Legalman's articles were the best. Unfortunately he stopped writing and his website is no longer online so I have to point people to archives instead: https://web.archive.org/web/20200225103240/http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/how-it-is-done-to-you/ I wish he went back to writing because I find his spoken arguments are much weaker and longwinded.
In this podcast he pretty much explains my own view that ordinary people should be able to go after criminals just like police do. The problem is with exactly how this is implemented, which he barely addresses. Legalman seems to hold my view that a legal system should still try vigilantes to check they were in fact responding to a crime and their actions were proportionate. But he seems to think if you kill someone who wronged you then you should get a standard criminal trial where evidence beyond reasonable doubt is needed that not only did you do the killing but that it was unprovoked or disproportionate.
But it's really easy to create a shred of doubt about that by saying the person you killed did something bad that nobody else witnessed - they raped you, threatened you, reached for your gun, stole your wallet. The prosecution would then have to prove that something didn't happen, which could be much harder than proving something did happen. So this system would allow criminals (posing as vigilantes) to get away with so much by making up excuses that can't be disproved. It might still be better than the current system, but not great.
An alternative system would be to make the vigilante prove that the crime they were responding to happened - not beyond reasonable doubt, just according to the preponderance of evidence. But how do you prove someone raped you, threatened you, reached for your gun or stole your wallet? Most crimes would have a decent amount of evidence that could be used to attempt exoneration of the vigilante but sometimes there wouldn't be much evidence at all. So this system would result in good vigilantes being punished. Furthermore if only a preponderance of evidence is needed then vigilantism becomes a way to inflict serious punishments on people without evidence beyond reasonable doubt needed, albeit with risks to the vigilante.
I think a more nuanced approach would be needed. For example, the vigilante needs at least some small amount of evidence to corroborate their story unless their story is one which is unlikely to have left evidence, in which case the vigilante has to be beyond suspicion - there is no evidence the vigilante had a motive to harm that person and they are not thought to be of bad moral character by the community.
His prior series was on jury nullification, which is an interesting court procedure everyone here should at least learn about whether they agree with it or not.
He does a lot of lyndon Spooner stuff. Yes a great podcast. I wish he had archive of all his stuff but i probably just need to pay up for his patreon.