Dutch national gunned down in Misamis Oriental

I was brought up to believe it's wrong to take the law into your own hands. Extra judicial killings are just that regardless of whether you are a sex offender or a druggie. I doubt there are any people on this forum that do not believe anyone has the right to trial and judgement by their peers. It's reasonably safe to say most of us want that trial to be fair and most of us ex-pats come from countries where give or take we can expect that.

All those victims of the current 'drug war' and the case above have not had the luxury of that. The premise is presumed innocent before guilty. We all would want that if we were in any situation where the law might have been broken rather than turning up in some ditch somewhere. This alleged paedophile should have appeared in court with defence where all the evidence about his activities can be scrutinised by a jury. Down to a prosecutor to make the case, down to a lawyer to defend him, down to a jury to decide, down to a judge to administer the sentence if found guilty. End of.

I don't know if there are many countries left in the world that use the Napoleonic System of justice, that it's down to the accused to prove their innocence as they are seen as guilty before trial. But these killings are step back toward such a system. Where does it stop? Traffic violations? Failure to pay tax?
Dropping your guts in Church on a Holy Day?

 

In Denmark they still have the Napoleonic system according to my neighbor.
I couldn't agree more that disputes civilization and criminal should be settled in a court of law. That's also how I was brought up.
From what I see here the justice system has failed. A case that is clear cut can take years and a lot of money to settle. For the life of me I can't understand why a family has to prosecute the murderer of a family member.
Frustration is with the justice system is probably the leading cause of EJK'S.

 

I take it you have never been to Tax court? If you can't prove you don't owe it they will take property or possibly send you to prison for tax evasion. In the US a small but successful designer clothing company disputed $500 of their tax bill but paid the rest and the IRS seized $300k in assets and basically put them out of business. The clothing company eventually proved they didn't owe the $500 and got their assets back but had lost their lease and business because they had massive problems not being able to pay their debts, suppliers and their lease. Definitely guilty until proven innocent.

 

At least you know what to expect because it's more fun there unlike somewhere that seems to be okay but actually at the top of the world's conviction rate due to...

 

Been under tax investigation once or twice, and yes it got legal. When you assume you make an "@ss" out of "you" and "me". Keep the receipts. At least you don't wind up in a back alley with a bullet in your neck; though it might feel like one up the @ss with the IR after you. Agree with Show Pony, failure of justice is a breeding ground for this sort of stuff.

 

You said
"I don't know if there are many countries left in the world that use the Napoleonic System of justice, that it's down to the accused to prove their innocence as they are seen as guilty before trial. But these killings are step back toward such a system. Where does it stop? Traffic violations? Failure to pay tax?
Dropping your guts in Church on a Holy Day?"

You are guilty until proven innocent in tax court. If you hadn't produced receipts, what would have happened? Would they have just said see you later?

"I take it you have never been to tax court?" was a rhetorical question, NOT an assumption. Someone here (C) might be assuming something but it wasn't me.

Since when, did asking a question equate to an assumption? Is that what they taught you in school?

Reading is SO fundamental. That way you don't respond to what you "feel" I said or what you wish I had said but to what I actually did say.

 

It's liability in a tax case based on the IR audit/assessment of your tax records not guilt. The IR bring a case to civil court if all 'reasonable' avenues to recovery have been exhausted.

Please clarify in future if your questions are assumptions or rhetorics - which incidentally seem to be the basis of most of your arguments on this board. If you don't like what I post don't bother to answer. Slightly adrift of topic, EJKs are wrong. If you want a list of where I went to school, university please pm me I'd be happy to let you know. Please also write 400 lines: "I can not read others minds or emotions. That is a delusion worthy of medication."

 

Acknowledgedly that the IRS has some unusual powers and there have been abuses. I think the number of abuses is relatively small when compared to total number of taxpayers. The IRS behavior acts as a deterrent to people who might try to take advantage of the system. Do innocent people sometimes get lost in the system, of course, no system is perfect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us/law-lets-irs-seize-accounts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required.html

If you take the analogy about the small business that went out of business you can apply the same type of logic to the government. It needs tax revenue to operate, so it slants the system so that it favors the government. The laws are written to deal with people who try to escape paying taxes. Like the $10,000 reporting requirement mentioned in the article above, some people are trying to game the system and some aren't.

That said, if I had to chose between a bullet in the back of the head or having my money confiscated and having to go to court to get it back, I know what I'm going to choose. Hard to have your day in court when your 6ft under.

 

Vigilante systems come into place when a judicial systems that does not work, or when people just do not like the outcomes of the judicial systems. Vigilantism is an indication the locals are not satisfied, or are impatient with the state operated justice system. Families and other affected parties decide their own system of justice, and aply it as they like. With Vigilantism a juridical judgement is decided than a mock trial of some type is held to support the judgement: Sometimes the only directive of the trial is do not open your eyes or splatter blood on me. There is two competing law systems operating then. Vigilantism is a long standing cultural systems with the political clans in the Philippines, and most likely came into play with the Dutch Expact. EJKs seem to come into place with corruption and an judicial system that does not work. The discipline of law systems in the Philippines does not seem to have matured a whole lot from the war lord cultures of the past.