Gangmember snipzor (what if?)

[Chardok]

Piggybacking a bit on the thread RE: Metahuman registration. What if someone decided "enough is enough" and went on a killing spree of an unconventional sort. That is - he (or she) dreeses up in urban camo and stalks the night - not to bring criminals to conventional justice, per se' but to exact final judegement. That is - he/she stalks the rooftops of known gang hideouts/crackhouses, etc. and picks off gangmembers with a high powered, suppressed rifle. They don't discriminate, either.

Let's assume in this case, it's a former gang squad member familiar with the gangs in the city he stalks. He uses proper military tactics for urban warfare (applied specifically to snipers), and let's also assume he has a spotter. Assume also that he/she is putting down only adults and almost-adults (16-17). He/she also has actual knowledge that they are active gang members who bang for their set on a regular basis. Assume there is at LEAST 1 "tango down" every few days. Certainly there is not longer than a week going by without a hit. Also assume that this person is *good*. Very good, in fact. they're policing brass, wiping ledges, and other surfaces they've been, and basically doing quite a good job covering their entrances and egress. Also assume that this is a large metropolitan area (Say, Los Angeles or New York). There does not appear to be any sort of method to his/her madness. That is - he's not working his way up the heirarchy of any particular gang or group of gangs. He's taking down dealers, soldiers, enforcers, etc. He's not appearing to want to take down kingpins. (So we're not talking about The Punisher, here.)

Questions to consider:

What are the possible social ramifications? Is gang acitivty on the whole reduced? Does the populace rise up against this sick vigilante who kills "innocent" (read: unconvicted) criminals? How hard to the cops push to snag this person? How long is this vigilante able to proceed unmolested?

What are the moral complications involved here? On the one hand, he is taking down people who, in the eyes of the law are completely innocent, but by all practical measure deserve SOME form of punishment. On the other hand "the system" (In this vigilante's eyes) is clearly corrupt and allows or even encourages these people to go about their nefarious deeds.

Discuss - and please ask questions if I can clarify the scenario any further.

[Mr Bean]

Piggybacking a bit on the thread RE: Metahuman registration. What if someone decided "enough is enough" and went on a killing spree of an unconventional sort. That is - he (or she) dreeses up in urban camo and stalks the night - not to bring criminals to conventional justice, per se' but to exact final judegement. That is - he/she stalks the rooftops of known gang hideouts/crackhouses, etc. and picks off gangmembers with a high powered, suppressed rifle. They don't discriminate, either.

Oooh Oooh I know this one, it's called Without Remorse one of Tom Clancy's few decent books.

Questions to consider:

What are the possible social ramifications? Is gang acitivty on the whole reduced? Does the populace rise up against this sick vigilante who kills "innocent" (read: unconvicted) criminals? How hard to the cops push to snag this person? How long is this vigilante able to proceed unmolested?

It depends entirely on the operating tempo and most importantly how good he or she is at hiding the weapon for all this sniping. If the sniper/spotter pair go out each night in "clean" suits (IE the kind that don't leave forensic evidence easily and burn cleanly) it's going to come down to how often the pair goes hunting and how good they are at hiding their weapon. I don't think your suggesting they can retrieve the bullet meaning they have to be able to fire a gun from a building/rooftop, clean the place up and escape in a few minutes.

Also how long till the criminal world just moves it's business indoors or has people stand for them. Have the drug dealer in a 1st floor apartment or warehouse office and have some poor bastard out front to greet customers.

Also gangs are not idiots, if they start getting picked off, sooner or later they are going to canvass all the good sniping areas in the neighborhood and watch them for outsiders setting up and scrubbing the place down.

[Broomstick]

Back when I worked near a project in Chicago back in the 1990's two gangs got into a sniping feud with each other, taking positions in high rises and shooting each other.

It finally ended when one side was down to one 16 year old male who took out the other side sole remaining male - a two year old boy.

A fair number of women related to the men on each side were collateral killings as well.

It was fucking brutal.

And that's what I think would happen - you'd get a sniping war going on until all parties involved were dead.

[Chardok]

Back when I worked near a project in Chicago back in the 1990's two gangs got into a sniping feud with each other, taking positions in high rises and shooting each other.

It finally ended when one side was down to one 16 year old male who took out the other side sole remaining male - a two year old boy.

A fair number of women related to the men on each side were collateral killings as well.

It was fucking brutal.

And that's what I think would happen - you'd get a sniping war going on until all parties involved were dead.

Interesting. I wonder, then: would this be such a bad thing if it ended up this way? I imagine that in our sniper's case, utilizing full-on stealth/military-style techniques would render tem all but immune to return attack, so one gang thinks it's the other and so on until all involved were eliminated....certainly in your case with the two year old, it's very sad. But I would pose the question: Was the collateral damage worth it given the number of people the gangs would've (either directly or indirectly) killed?

[Broomstick]

It's only "good" if you don't give a fuck about other people - what the hell kind of question was that, Chardok?

I fucking knew the two year old in question. He was a sweet kid. And his life ended with his brains splattered all over the sidewalk and up and down his mother's coat and stuck in her hair. That's not sad, that's tragic to the point of puking up my lunch.

Fucking hell - just fucking go to hell.

[PeZook]

In any sort of a realistic scenario, he's not going to have perfect knowledge about the gangs, and he's not going to be perfect in carrying out his hits. You can expect "collateral damage", you can expect fuckups (what does he do if someone stumbles upon him and his buddy setting up for a kill?), misses, misidentification of targets, or ambushes that end in shootouts.

Furthermore, you can expect a gang war, and like Broomstick pointed out, gang wars are fucking brutal. Families are targeted for retaliation, innocents die in drive-bys, there's arson, bombings, shootouts etc.

When a gang member is shot or arrested by police in an official fashion, it doesn't spark a street war because, well, that's the risk all gang members have to accept when they join up. They will sometimes seek revenge on a particular cop, but won't go to war with the police as a whole (because they'd lose, obviously). Some gangs tried to do that and were wiped out.

Furthermore, the smart and powerful gangs have some ex-military people (some even send their members to the military for the specific purpose of getting them training). Your assumption that using military tactics makes the guy immune to counterattack is flawed: it's likely he'll be ambushed eventually. Hell, if he's really unlucky, he can spark a temporary truce between rival gangs just to hunt him down - and although a trained soldier can probably handle one douchebag with a gangsta-gripped gun, twenty such douchebags are another matter entirely.

All things considered: it would be ugly as all fuck, brutal and likely to result in many deaths of actual innocents. You have to be insane to think killing a two year old "gang member" (whose membership was probably on the line of "he was a relative") is somehow acceptable as collateral damage.

The sad reality is that society has a great many inefficient institutions that fuck up individual cases of justice all the time, so that the greater good can be preserved as much as possible, because vigilantism, for all its supposed benefits, is much worse.

I mean, it's difficult enough to establish what the fuck happened in 90% of all criminal cases where you have evidence, witnesses, months of meticulous police work etc.

A lone vigilante simply won't be able to easiy tell who's guilty or not, because appearances can and often are deceiving.

[Chardok]

It's only "good" if you don't give a fuck about other people - what the hell kind of question was that, Chardok?

I fucking knew the two year old in question. He was a sweet kid. And his life ended with his brains splattered all over the sidewalk and up and down his mother's coat and stuck in her hair. That's not sad, that's tragic to the point of puking up my lunch.

Fucking hell - just fucking go to hell.

Jesus - if you don't want to participate, GTFO. I Asked if it was such a bad thing that there are now two gangs off the street. The collateral damage *AGAIN* was sad, yes, but how many would've been killed had the gangs remained? How many FAMILIES would be ruined by drugs sold by the gang members? How many innocents MURDERED in countless drive-bys and retaliatory drive-bys? How many innocents were saved being raped, robbed, stabbed, or left for dead? How much money does the city now save by not having to jail the now-eliminated gang members?

[Broomstick]

Short version - NO, THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE IS NOT "WORTH IT".

I don't view people as disposable, or unimportant. Is that clear now? I vehemently disagree with your position that what you propose is somehow OK or acceptable.

[Molyneux]

Let's assume in this case, it's a former gang squad member familiar with the gangs in the city he stalks. He uses proper military tactics for urban warfare (applied specifically to snipers), and let's also assume he has a spotter. Assume also that he/she is putting down only adults and almost-adults (16-17).

This is an invalid assumption - how good are you at distinguishing a 16-year-old from a 14-year-old, through a scope, at night?

He/she also has actual knowledge that they are active gang members who bang for their set on a regular basis. Assume there is at LEAST 1 "tango down" every few days. Certainly there is not longer than a week going by without a hit.

Invalid assumption. How is that knowledge acquired? Is it foolproof? If this guy has such reliable tips, why not just give them to the police?

Also assume that this person is *good*. Very good, in fact. they're policing brass, wiping ledges, and other surfaces they've been, and basically doing quite a good job covering their entrances and egress.

Possible, but unlikely. Given sufficient time, everyone makes mistakes.

What are the possible social ramifications? Is gang acitivty on the whole reduced? Does the populace rise up against this sick vigilante who kills "innocent" (read: unconvicted) criminals? How hard to the cops push to snag this person? How long is this vigilante able to proceed unmolested?

I'd say either a gang war, with massive damage to civilians, or a gang truce while they take down the Punisher-wannabe, is likely. Either way, innocents will die. If this idiot is shooting teenagers as well, expect a massive community outcry and police manhunt.

Dead gang members have grieving parents, and neighbors, and friends - who remember them as sweet little kids, more often than not.

What are the moral complications involved here? On the one hand, he is taking down people who, in the eyes of the law are completely innocent, but by all practical measure deserve SOME form of punishment. On the other hand "the system" (In this vigilante's eyes) is clearly corrupt and allows or even encourages these people to go about their nefarious deeds.

Bull. How does this guy know that they "deserve" punishment? Does he have proof that they've committed crimes? If he does, why can't he go to the police with it? If he doesn't, then how does he know he's not murdering innocent people?

I'm with Broomstick on this one.

[Formless]

Interesting. I wonder, then: would this be such a bad thing if it ended up this way? I imagine that in our sniper's case, utilizing full-on stealth/military-style techniques would render tem all but immune to return attack, so one gang thinks it's the other and so on until all involved were eliminated....certainly in your case with the two year old, it's very sad. But I would pose the question: Was the collateral damage worth it given the number of people the gangs would've (either directly or indirectly) killed?

And once all the gangsters and half their family members are dead, a new generation of young men and women grow up in the same poverty stricken ghettos with no upward socio-economic mobility and the same urban decay surrounding them. New gangs form in the schools selling the same heroin, cocaine, meth, etc as the old gangs; stealing the same cars, guns, and old electronics as the old gangs; doing all the same crimes as the old gangs if not a few new ones their predecessors didn't think of committing. The vicious cycle repeats itself.

Gang problems cannot be solved with bullets alone, all other problems with this proposition aside.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Short version - NO, THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE IS NOT "WORTH IT".

I don't view people as disposable, or unimportant. Is that clear now? I vehemently disagree with your position that what you propose is somehow OK or acceptable.

His position? Unless I misread something Chardok has not stated his position. Anyway, I guess the short answer will have to do since it is clear you don't want to discuss in detail.

[Formless]

I don't know about you, but the way he phrased his question seemed to imply he can't see what's wrong with the idea (as enumerated by everyone else in the thread), which is reason enough to blast him for it. Yeah, Broomstick got worked up pretty fast; but then again, she has seen this shit up close and personal, so it might not be so surprising she would take offense to the suggestion that it was somehow "worth it".

And seriously, this is so obviously a bad idea its hard to believe its even being asked. What kind of retard thinks that starting a gang war is a good idea? FFS, that's when gangs are at their most dangerous, to say nothing of the fact that gang wars have happened many times without the gangs going away for good.

That's why we tend to leave policing gangs up to... the police. Like yourself.

[Kamakazie Sith]

What are the possible social ramifications? Is gang acitivty on the whole reduced? Does the populace rise up against this sick vigilante who kills "innocent" (read: unconvicted) criminals? How hard to the cops push to snag this person? How long is this vigilante able to proceed unmolested?

If these two are able to carry out a lengthy campaign with success then yeah I think gang activity would be seriously reduced as it would become clear to the gangs that they can't stop these two and neither can the police. So, they would need to stay inside which would mean they can't go out and contribute to the crime in the city.

The populace would rise up against it because as others have repeatedly stated...innocents will likely die even if their innocence is just perceived (just look at how many feel that Lovell Mixon was innocent).

The police will push very hard to snag these two because the benefits would not outweigh the consequences. Another consequence to consider by the police would be an all time low of public mistrust thank to the preception that the police are allowing these killings because the victims just happen to be gang members.

What are the moral complications involved here? On the one hand, he is taking down people who, in the eyes of the law are completely innocent, but by all practical measure deserve SOME form of punishment. On the other hand "the system" (In this vigilante's eyes) is clearly corrupt and allows or even encourages these people to go about their nefarious deeds.

That's a tough question because it depends on each individuals idea of morality. Basically, do you think it is ok for innocents to die if it will save many lives?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I don't know about you, but the way he phrased his question seemed to imply he can't see what's wrong with the idea (as enumerated by everyone else in the thread), which is reason enough to blast him for it. Yeah, Broomstick got worked up pretty fast; but then again, she has seen this shit up close and personal, so it might not be so surprising she would take offense to the suggestion that it was somehow "worth it".

I disagree. He asked a question. Allowing emotions to project implications into a question is not good for discussion. How about everyone just answers the questions and explains why instead of trying to give commentary on what they think Chardok is really saying. For the most part people have been doing that...just I find the emotional rage over a hypothetical scenario just wasteful.

And seriously, this is so obviously a bad idea its hard to believe its even being asked. What kind of retard thinks that starting a gang war is a good idea? FFS, that's when gangs are at their most dangerous, to say nothing of the fact that gang wars have happened many times without the gangs going away for good.

Well, I would add that gang wars never really result in the elimination of an entire gang because the police put a stop to it. Someone that might think this is a good idea is someone who has been the victim of gang violence and feels that the police aren't able to stop it because of all the red tape.

[Gil Hamilton]

Jesus - if you don't want to participate, GTFO. I Asked if it was such a bad thing that there are now two gangs off the street. The collateral damage *AGAIN* was sad, yes, but how many would've been killed had the gangs remained? How many FAMILIES would be ruined by drugs sold by the gang members? How many innocents MURDERED in countless drive-bys and retaliatory drive-bys? How many innocents were saved being raped, robbed, stabbed, or left for dead? How much money does the city now save by not having to jail the now-eliminated gang members?

If the lives of the gang members are worth less than the benefits of their deaths, why not have the police themselves round them up and summarily execute them? After all, you'd get everything you described PLUS the people carrying out the executions would be known, identified officers of the state who can be held responsible for mistakes and can be made to operate under guidelines (unlike Rorschach). If the cops just shoot or hang every gangmember they catch, those gangmembers can't sell drugs, kill anyone in drive-bys, rape innocent women, or force the state to pay for their existence in an expensive prison cell. That's a good thing, right?

If not, and you don't approve of the police themselves executing gang members outright, how is a masked vigilante doing any better?

[Kamakazie Sith]

If the lives of the gang members are worth less than the benefits of their deaths, why not have the police themselves round them up and summarily execute them? After all, you'd get everything you described PLUS the people carrying out the executions would be known, identified officers of the state who can be held responsible for mistakes and can be made to operate under guidelines (unlike Rorschach). If the cops just shoot or hang every gangmember they catch, those gangmembers can't sell drugs, kill anyone in drive-bys, rape innocent women, or force the state to pay for their existence in an expensive prison cell. That's a good thing, right?

If not, and you don't approve of the police themselves executing gang members outright, how is a masked vigilante doing any better?

The answer is because having the police do it is not the scenario he described, and is off topic.

Also, he's not asking if it is "OK". He is asking what the benefits/consequences would be..."OK or not OK" is not showing your work which is what Chardok wants.

[Formless]

Well, I would add that gang wars never really result in the elimination of an entire gang because the police put a stop to it. Someone that might think this is a good idea is someone who has been the victim of gang violence and feels that the police aren't able to stop it because of all the red tape.

But then again, the police will intervene. That's a given: if the sniper(s) try to instigate a gang war, the police will intervene to stop the gang war. If the sniper(s) don't try to play the gangs off one another, they are making enemies out of everyone, whether they be gangsters, police *, or even just other citizens worried about being mistaken for a criminal and getting shot for it **. Edit: And what happens once the guy decides cops should be shot too? I mean, the guy you describe probably doesn't like them either.

Plus, there is the socio-economic problems I mentioned-- as soon as the sniper retires from vigilante justice for whatever reason (arrest, return fire, taking a vacation, getting too old, etc.) the gangs will spring back to life. And if he's going after organized crime of the more mafioso type, they can just take their operations someplace else.

* out of curiosity, would this have any chance of getting the Feds involved?

** actually, this is an important point unto itself. If the killings involve too many innocents, then the public might see the vigilante as more dangerous than the gangs! After all, they don't necessarily know what motivates the sniper(s), and it may not be obvious that gang members are the primary targets of the shootings, especially after the first couple people are misidentified as gangsters/criminals and subsequently attacked.

[Gil Hamilton]

The answer is because having the police do it is not the scenario he described, and is off topic.

Also, he's not asking if it is "OK". He is asking what the benefits/consequences would be..."OK or not OK" is not showing your work which is what Chardok wants.

No, it's central to the question. If it is "not OK", then the answer is the consequences outweigh the benefits. If it is "OK" then the benefits outweigh the consequences. That's straight utilitarian ethics; a "good" action is defined by what produces the greatest good for the most people. Hence, if he cannot state that the police executing criminals is a good action and he can't demonstrate that a masked vigilante is somehow better, then he's got his answer, that the costs must outweigh the benefits. If he says such a thing is wrong, then he be able to easily derive why.

[Formless]

KS obviously understands utilitarianism, I think what he's complaining about is that Broomstick and yourself aren't being more specific about what the consequences would be, so Chardok can weigh the net good/harm for himself.

[Kamakazie Sith]

No, it's central to the question. If it is "not OK", then the answer is the consequences outweigh the benefits. If it is "OK" then the benefits outweigh the consequences. That's straight utilitarian ethics; a "good" action is defined by what produces the greatest good for the most people. Hence, if he cannot state that the police executing criminals is a good action and he can't demonstrate that a masked vigilante is somehow better, then he's got his answer, that the costs must outweigh the benefits. If he says such a thing is wrong, then he be able to easily derive why.

I disagree. I think the potential impacts are going to be different. With the police you have identified who is doing this and they have government backing in addition they are carrying out acts which are illegal under the current law. While in Chardok scenario you have a criminal victimizing other criminals.

[Gil Hamilton]

I disagree. I think the potential impacts are going to be different. With the police you have identified who is doing this and they have government backing in addition they are carrying out acts which are illegal under the current law. While in Chardok scenario you have a criminal victimizing other criminals.

In Chardok's scenario, the person carrying out the executions is completely illegal as well, since he's going out and hunting gang members (unless there is a law I don't know about where victims of crime are allowed to commit crimes). A police force doing this with government backing wouldn't be illegal, since presumably "government backing" means the law has been changed to allow the police to do it. But that's almost tangential to the point, why is it worse for the police to execute gangmembers than it is masked vigilantes?

[Formless]

Well, there is public perception of social stability. Thomas Hobbes Leviathan and all that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

In Chardok's scenario, the person carrying out the executions is completely illegal as well, since he's going out and hunting gang members (unless there is a law I don't know about where victims of crime are allowed to commit crimes). A police force doing this with government backing wouldn't be illegal, since presumably "government backing" means the law has been changed to allow the police to do it. But that's almost tangential to the point, why is it worse for the police to execute gang members than it is masked vigilantes?

It is worse because the people expect the government to provide due process to those that break the law. Chardoks scenario is a what if that happened in this universe and in, I'm assuming here, the United States. The government couldn't legally allow the police to do that. Nobody has expectations for a vigilante besides the standards that they set. So, the social impacts would be different.

What is morally worse? They are both just as bad...

[Kamakazie Sith]

Plus, there is the socio-economic problems I mentioned-- as soon as the sniper retires from vigilante justice for whatever reason (arrest, return fire, taking a vacation, getting too old, etc.) the gangs will spring back to life. And if he's going after organized crime of the more mafioso type, they can just take their operations someplace else.

I think he's talking gangs like the Bloods and Crips. I wonder if the behavior of these gangs would be changed due to the actions of the sniper. If the sniper did this for years that would leave a psychological impact. I just don't know what the result would be. Would the gangs take on a different role...perhaps stop their violence for fear of this vigilante returning? Would they become more violent?

* out of curiosity, would this have any chance of getting the Feds involved?

Yeah, probably.

** actually, this is an important point unto itself. If the killings involve too many innocents, then the public might see the vigilante as more dangerous than the gangs! After all, they don't necessarily know what motivates the sniper(s), and it may not be obvious that gang members are the primary targets of the shootings, especially after the first couple people are misidentified as gangsters/criminals and subsequently attacked.

I think even if this sniper has a perfect record he is going to be considered an enemy by the public because he is denying the right of due process to these criminals. Not all gang members have participated in drive by shootings...

[Chardok]

This is the kind of discussion I was hoping to incite. I actually do wonder what sort of psychological impact there would be if all gangmembers knew they were a potential target and could get hit any time, any where, and it didn't matter if they were a low level toadie, or a big-time vato. So if I may - I'll try to answer questions behind our guys' motivations. they're obviously nuts, of course, and obviously a criminals, but in his mind, he's completely justified and is even performing a public service, you're very welcome. note that none of the public will know this information.

Just for funsies - let's also say it's widely circulated that it is known that these hits are *not* being peformed by rival gangmembers. How they arrive at that conclusive is irrelevant, let's just say that they have, and it's widely known within 2 weeks of the spree.



To the window in our vigilante's mind:

"I'm sorry for your loss, but your relative's (Who was a gang member) life was a necessary sacrifice to save countless others the same pain you're feeling right now."

"I took your <relative>'s life and as a result, little 2nd grader Jimmy Jones here will not see joining a gang as an attractive alternative to dropping out of high school to sling dope for his set."

"My actions may not have an immediate impact - but over time the gangs will fear me, their ranks will thin, recruiting will become much more difficult, and the lives I take save countless others - every gang member is a target."

"It could've been any of those guys in the group. The one I took will serve as a messenger to the others."

"I respect the police, they do all they can, but are constrained by failed logic in a failed system that coddles the gangs and their members. I will act in their stead, and mete out the justice they cannot. After all, if the system worked, we wouldn't have gangs in the first place."

"I will not kill innocents, even in my own defense. One shot, one kill. Fire and move on."
(with this I will give the example: he will not carry PDWs like pistols, SMGs, etc. he carries his suppressed rifle, ammo and nothing else. spraying 30 rounds towards a crowd of gang members may result in innocent deaths, which is precisely what he is trying to avoid)



Also remember that we're assuming this guy only takes people he KNOWS are gang members (Personal observation of banging activities, flying colors, throwing signs, tagging, etc.).