Neither Dirty Harry nor Walking Tall is a true vigilante movie. Each of the protagonists is an authorized law enforcement officer.

A vigilante, as such, takes the law into his own hands--no authorization or affirmation by the regulating powers.

If anything, the above mentioned two are views that while the system has problems in dealing with known and obvious criminals it has a reluctance or impotence to issue reasonable punishment because it is confined by its own language and bureaucracy.

The simple but clear minded minded protagonists produce the corrective for felons. In Harry's case, no further consequences are known to the audience while in Buford's he suffers the ultimate price for exacting justice.

These movies are not vigilante movies, rather benedictions of cops acting on their own initiatives--which are apparently just but encourage the notion that police, as we see so often, as justified no matter what they decide or how much force is applied. ( See the 2nd of the Dirty Harry movies Magnum Force which supports this.)

No vigilantes here, just cops--corrupt cops-- as also protrayed in Prince of the City, Serpico, Romeo is Bleeding, The Bad Lieutenant, The Professional.

The real vigilantes in film are shown in the likes of Shane, Ride the High Country.

In most of the world's entertainment, from Agamemnon to Hamlet to Moby Dick to Cavaleria Rusticana to Shane to Mean Streets, revenge is a, or the, principal plot situation and character-definer. That doesn't make it all "revenge" entertainment.

If you think Dirty Harry or Walking Tall weren't "taking the law into their own hands" and actually constituted "authorized law enforcement" then you're delusional. They are absolutely vigilantes because they operated outside the realm of law enforcement. Dirty Harry wasn't acting as a cop when he taunted Scorpio to pick up his gun before blowing him away. I don't know what kind of cops you've got in your town but I can assure you that it's not standard operating procedure to goad perpetrators into suicide by cop.

But anyway, I remember Dirty Harry the way you do.

pescatore:

Neither Dirty Harry nor Walking Tall is a true vigilante movie. Each of the protagonists is an authorized law enforcement officer.

A vigilante, as such, takes the law into his own hands--no authorization or affirmation by the regulating powers.

That is an irrelevant distinction. In contrast to soldiers, police do NOT serve under a different set of laws. Their use of deadly force by police is sanctioned under the same laws that apply to private citizens.

Or as Sir Robert Peal put it when he created London's first police force:

"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

It is true that some French and Prussian political scientists later chose to define "the State" as "that institution which reserves unto itself a monopoly on the legitimate use of force." However, that idea is not part of our heritage (even if England later adopted it). Our answer is that under a system of SELF government the ordinary citizen shares in the legitimate use of deadly force.

The criminal's right to a trial by a jury of his peers applies _only_ after he has surrendered to the government's authority. He cannot claim this right while at the same time actively evading the court's jurisdiction. Should he surrender to a private citizen, the citizen then has the obligation to turn him over to the authorities. Vigilantism is if that citizen chooses to judge and punish the surrendered criminal himself.

But when a private citizen shoots a man who is criminally threatening him with death or grave bodily harm, it is no different than when a police officer does it. It is no more vigilantism than when the police officer, without access to judge and jury, shoots a criminal who points a gun at him.

Why no legal consequences for Dirty Harry if, as you say, he was acting outside the law?

In Sidney Lumet's "Prince of the City" the viewer can see the consequences of illicit acts by police--no such in the first two Dirty Harry movies. DH and Buford act under the protection of the law, despite the illegal nature of their actions.

Pescatore,

Just because there are no legal consequences, it does not mean there are no consequences. At the end of "Dirty Harry," Harry throws his badge away, implying that his disillusionment is complete; that he is through (the sequels notwithstanding).

I'm not sure I see what "legal consequences" for the hero have to do with anything. Are you saying that Harry has to face punishment for his actions to count as vigilantism? I don't see that.

Also, it doesn't really help you to bring up the second "Dirty Harry" movie, in which he is fighting cops who are very clearly vigilantes--proof that one can be both at the same time.

I'll grant that the Bronson-type of movie vigilante is a slightly different species than a cop, but in both kinds of movies, the point is the same: the hero has to go outside the law to cure a social ill that the system can't deal with--an aspect of many action movies, but not all. The author of the article wrote about this on his blog (though only a little bit.). Basically, he asks what difference does it make if the hero works for the state, as long as he's doing the opposite of what the state will allow him to do to solve the problem.

Hopscotch:

Pescatore,

I'll grant that the Bronson-type of movie vigilante is a slightly different species than a cop, but in both kinds of movies, the point is the same: the hero has to go outside the law to cure a social ill that the system can't deal with--an aspect of many action movies, but not all. The author of the article wrote about this on his blog (though only a little bit.). Basically, he asks what difference does it make if the hero works for the state, as long as he's doing the opposite of what the state will allow him to do to solve the problem.

Indeed, it makes no difference whether the hero who goes outside the law works for the state; his personal source of income has no bearing on the matter. And while Charles Bronson's character ("Paul Kersey") did indeed go outside the law at times, e.g. by chasing down and killing fleeing felons -- shooting them _before_ they gave up the attack was _not_ outside the law; not even in NYC. (Perhaps the movie was irresponsible in failing to make that distinction.)

Carrying the gun without a permit was outside the law, but New York law specifies that permits are to be issued to people who have a legitimate need, and Bronson's character Paul Kersey did indeed have such a need (as do we all). The NYPD's policy in evaluating need has long been abusive ("What? You've been robbed five times? That's not a special need; everybody who lives in your neighborhood has been robbed five times! So what makes you different?") Since the Paul Kersey character never initiated violence (the criminal always first made his threat), Kersey's violation of this ordinance could be construed as an act of peaceful (in that he never initiated violence) passive civil disobediance.