Philippines Prez Elect to Citizens: Go Ahead and Shoot Drug Dealers


Rodrigo “Digong” Duterte isn’t wasting any time. The plainspoken law and order candidate was elected president of the Philippines a few weeks ago and even though he hasn’t yet been sworn in, he’s already addressing some of the island nation’s biggest problems. This weekend, he turned his attention to the country’s drug trafficking problem. And in an effort to make the Philippines great again, the former prosecutor is enlisting the help of everyday Filipinos. Well, those who are armed, anyway. He’s given the go-ahead to citizens aware of drug-related activity to enforce the law. “Please feel free to call us, the police, or do it yourself if you have the gun, you have my support.” . . .

And if the bad doods don’t comply, the pugnacious Pinoy is down with taking things to the next level.

If a drug dealer resists arrest or refuses to be brought to a police station and threatens a citizen with a gun or a knife, “you can kill him,” Duterte said. “Shoot him and I’ll give you a medal.”

Empowering citizens to off drug dealers apparently stems from Duterte’s suspicion that the criminal justice system is riddled with corruption.

He also said he would order a review of dismissed criminal cases against active law enforcement officers because he suspects that some might have bribed their way back onto the force after getting busted for criminal involvement or drugs.

“If you’re still into drugs, I will kill you,” Duterte said. “Don’t take this as a joke. I’m not trying to make you laugh, son of a bitch. I will really kill you.”

Maybe it’s time to try something like this in Chiraq.


  1. avatar JohnF says:

    Three words: Hell’s Angels, Altamont

    Four more: Ireland, Black and Tan

    1. avatar Joe2 says:

      What you moaning about, Willis?

  2. avatar River Walker says:

    The drug trade is running from north to south in the Philippines. If he doesn’t grab control now it will end up like Mexico. Remember that Singapore was able to rid themselves of this disease but it requires regular hangings. I wish him the best.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      Except Singapore has 23/100 the land area spread over 1000 odd islands and 1/20 the population of the Philippines so the same approach isn’t likely to work.

  3. avatar David B says:

    Vigilantism should be condemned not celebrated.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah… Tell more more about how the original committees of vigilance didn’t bring law and order to an entire section of the US.

    2. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

      So you sympathize with violent criminals? Lol, prog troll discovered.

    3. avatar jwtaylor says:

      “and threatens a citizen with a gun or a knife, “you can kill him,” ”
      That’s what you call vigilantism?

    4. avatar Sian says:

      When the legitimate authorities are unable or unwilling to deal with the problem, there is not really an alternative.

    5. avatar jwm says:

      Is it vigilantism if the .gov tells you to go and do it. Sounds more like a militia that’s .gov sanctioned.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        This guy doesn’t have an authority to speak for the government on this matter. Separation of powers, due process and all that boring stuff that makes republic a republic.

      2. avatar RJ says:

        Vigilantism works. Just like the possess that used to be used regularily during the old West 1800’s area. The problem is that these groups usually start out meaning well, but they tend to go to far.

  4. avatar 16V says:

    The problem is that it is illegal. That’s the cause of the problems.

    One can purchase drugs anywhere on earth (I would wager even Antarctica). The penalty is merely reflected in the tax. There’s drugs all over places where they kill you for any drug trafficking.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Right… Because having a slew of stung out homeless drug addicts roaming the streets will cause absolutely no problems… [/sarc]

      1. avatar 16V says:

        So, if you could buy heroin or cocaine at the pharmacy, or the Sears catalog (which one could do incidentally) you would instantly become a strung out fiend, eh? I can assume that you’re a raging alky, since that’s available legally anywhere, no?

        We have the same basic addiction rates now, as we did back when it was all legal (and pharma pure, and inexpensive), The cost is what puts people on the streets, there’s millions hooked on prescription opiods right now. They get up, go to work, and nobody knows. Because they’re cheap, and legal, and pharma pure.

        Want to help people? Spend the money on treatment for those who want it.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Given the difference in addiction rates between those drugs? Yes.

          Cocaine is a great example. It is directly linked to massive addiction and psychotic episodes.

        2. avatar 16V says:

          And yet, millions of people use cocaine and heroin recreationally (the overwhelming majority) and don’t get addicted. They may spend a bunch of money, but they don’t turn into addicts.

          I’m not advocating drug use, but the policy we have now doesn’t stop anyone who wants drugs from getting them. Anywhere, anytime. One can readily get drugs in prison. I realize there’s tens of thousands of bureaucrats reliant on the ‘war on drugs’ for their fat paychecks and easy jobs. Other than the employment program, prohibition is a quixotic task.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          It just means we need to step up enforcement. Summary execution by impalement for drug dealers and addicts seems like a good start.

        4. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          Hey since we’re playing this game, let’s just go with summary execution of drug warriors. This way we won’t have to hear their high-horse preaching any more.

        5. avatar Joe2 says:

          “We have the same basic addiction rates now, as we did back when it was all legal ”

          Horsehit. Go peddle your lies and your drug use somewhere else.

        6. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          As usual, the drug warrior ignores facts and data and relies on hyperbole, emotion and shrieking like a woman.

      2. avatar Arkansas kurt says:

        just means we need to step up enforcement. Summary execution by impalement for drug dealers and addicts seems like a good start.
        You sound like a died in the blue liberal. Our policies didn’t work. We should double down on them. IMHO, you’re a fucking idiot.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          He already stated repeatedly that he’s a sincere Trump supporter, so you’re being redundant.

  5. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I read that way to fast and saw “Dingdong”.

    1. avatar dph says:

      I’m married to a filipina and I can tell you everybody in the PI has a nickname and some of them seem very odd to anglo’s. How about Ketchup, Cherry Pie, Bongbong, Boomboom, Bebot, Bhoy and yes, even Dingdong.

      1. avatar MeRp says:

        Also, sometimes their actual given names sound just as ridiculous to anglos (e.g. Cherry)

      2. avatar Mike H in WA says:

        I’m soon to be married to a Filipina and… yep, pretty much.

        Depending on the area, a lot of the time the nickname is just the first syllable repeated (Jakjak, Matmat), but not always. But, yeah, I only have met a handful who didn’t have a nickname.

      3. avatar John Dennis says:

        We had a friend whose nickname was Dingdong. We met his daughter called Dingdang. At first we laughed thinking that it was a joke. It wasn’t.

  6. avatar Tom in Georgia says:

    I don’t know how that’ll work out for them, but you can’t say that it didn’t get my attention 🙂


    1. avatar Kapeltam says:

      It will be an interesting thing to watch to see the outcome over time. People keep saying that criminals are less likely to do something illegal when the risk is too great. Hope this guy proves those words true.

      1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

        Darwinian principles as usual will prevail. Some will adapt by getting out of the business. The ‘weaker’ ones will perish. The ‘fittest’ will continue. These are stronger, smarter, meaner, more well organized and have nothing to lose or no fear of death.

  7. avatar BDub says:

    He’s promised to pay cash bounties for dead drug dealers. It will be a matter of weeks after he takes office before people are making a cottage-industry of shooting people, planting drugs/guns on them, and cashing in. In short, he will be trading one problem for an arguably worse one – Fighting corruption by morally corrupting everyone.

    1. avatar TruthTellers says:

      That’s up to the morals of individuals. You can’t predict what people will do, but when faced with drug problems that threaten to destabilize another nation, a nation where the justice system is seemingly corrupted, the response has to be extreme.

      If people didn’t use this to kill people they didn’t like and make it look okay by putting drugs on them, using it solely to deal with drug dealers, what would you say then?

    2. avatar CLarson says:

      So someone would seek out a drug dealer, buy drugs, find and kill an innocent person to plant the drugs, then collect a bounty? If you have legitimate bounty target right in front of you why would you pay him then go find and murder an innocent third party? Seems like a really bad business plan.

      1. avatar StuckinChicago says:

        What about the drug dealers who have a great line on whatever product they want that just start murdering people, leaving a small plant, and cashing in on bounties? Whoops!

        Chances are the people more inclined to actually listen to this are scared rural folks and up and coming drug deals. The latter leads to interesting motives of government funding gang on gang violence that could either be on one end a terrible Al Pacino style show of Darwinism or on the other you might end up with the drug dealers being killed off by each other with the rest knocked off by police.

        1. avatar B says:

          That’s stupid. Why would they do that when they can just sell the drugs? I doubt the bounties are worthwile to a dealer.

      2. avatar Joe2 says:

        Shut up, you are going to confuse the idiot with common sense.

  8. avatar I1ULUZ says:

    Maybe he can run for mayor of Chicago next. Sorry it’s the next story down, just seems like the next logical move up for him.

    Wonder what his feelings are about ID thieves, I happen to know a name of one living there that thought using mine was a good idea, sending the USAA credit card issued in my name to his retired US Army, GS 11 Fort Lee housing office employee to use at a Sun Trust bank ATM, Hong Kong seems to have an interest in the lad also.

    1. avatar Ozzallos says:

      Last I checked, Chicago politics hasn’t declared open season on dealers.
      Nice try, though.

      1. avatar StuckinChicago says:

        I wouldn’t be so sure about that. After the black lives matter protests with active policing way down and shootings and murders blowing away previous years…not that Rahm has come out and said please kill drug dealers and here is some money if you do…yet.

      2. avatar I1ULUZ says:

        Always hope for the future. Then again they are pretty good about taking out each other. Shame they hit innocent people due to lack of marksmanship. Seems to be a lot of hit in the rump when you read the news stories.

  9. avatar Wilson says:

    As someone with more of a Libertarian view on narcotics I can’t say I support what this guy is talking about but hey, it’s their country, they can do as they like.

    This is an interesting dovetail to the article yesterday asking if not getting involved was cowardice.

    1. avatar dph says:

      I think this will probably turn out bad for them, but extreme problems sometimes require extreme solutions. Big problem in the PI is called shabu, we call it meth. It isn’t like they’ve just got a bunch of potheads. By official estimates 10% of the population is using. Compare that to the US at about .5% to 1%. I’m a live and let live kinda guy, but meth is some bad sh!t and fuels a lot of crime, especially in a country with very high unemployment and rampant poverty.

      1. avatar Wilson says:

        I can see a lot of people getting away with cold-blooded murder with a policy like this.

        Some guy owes another guy money, so he grabs a couple bags of dope, kills his creditor and plants drugs on the body to get a payday. Now he’s making money and out of debt. Same for a jilted spouse finding their former lover with a new guy or gal or any other kind of day to day dumb crap that gets people killed.

        As I said, it’s their country they can do what they like, but our drug war hasn’t been a success. In fact it’s been an abject failure.

        We spend billions every year on interdiction, incarceration and the court system and what have we gotten for our troubles? A shredded Bill of Rights (Amendments 4,5,6 and 8 are pretty well dead and the 2nd is under daily attack), a militarized police force that can’t get the right address and shoots innocent people and pets, the second highest incarceration rate in the world, a black market that encourages violent behavior and all the while drugs get cheaper and more pure every year.

        In short, we’ve gained absolutely nothing and lost more than I care to think about. For what? To keep people from ingesting certain chemicals because “we” don’t think they should?

        1. avatar dph says:

          Like I said, I don’t think this will end well for them.

        2. avatar CLarson says:

          Or maybe he could collect the bounty off the guy selling the dope, pay off the debt, and live happily ever after?

    2. avatar CLarson says:

      I actually think legalization is the answer to the drug war, but I believe bounties and private policing are a legitimate way for society to stop crime. There is a U.S. constitutional basis for it with letters of marque, for example. Private individual law enforcement has some huge advantages over government law enforcement. A private person has almost no way to bother another person just based on suspicion. If a private person shoots the wrong person, uses excessive force, or executes a family pet, they actually would go to jail.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    Digong’s idea is okay, but there has to be a financial incentive to shoot a drug dealer.

    Hey, I know. “Kill a drug dealer, keep his drugs.” That would work.

    1. avatar I1ULUZ says:

      Wasn’t that the theory in Riddick? “You keep what you kill.”

  11. avatar Lee says:

    This would be a great policy for chicago. All the gang bangers will eventually be dead or in jail anyways.

  12. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Vigilantism is not a viable option. What a fool.

    1. avatar Ozzallos says:

      “…threatens a citizen with a gun or a knife, “you can kill him,”

      Re-read the definition of ‘vigilantism’ and get back to us, okay? Because last I check, self-defense is a basic human right.

  13. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

    The level of support from the so-called PoTG for this proposal is highly disturbing.

    1. avatar Benzo says:

      Everything is relative. If you lived in a slum full of drugs and crime, had lost family members to the drug dealers, etc – it might be tempting to take one or more of the bad guys out. For me in my situation, or you in yours (I assume), no, it’s not a viable option. Violence is never the best option, but sometimes it’s the only one.

      1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

        That the PoTG feels the need to participate in a government manufactured war is the disturbing part.

        That slum dwellers often murdered by police goes unmentioned. What’s the word on vigilante violence against cops?

    2. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

      Possession of drugs may not be a “crime,” but one illegal activity does invite the dregs associated with others. I wouldn’t draw down on some dude offering me coke on the sidewalk. The coke dealer’s friend who pulls a knife with the intention of borrowing my wallet is another matter.

  14. avatar Keystone says:

    Best of luck to them. Hope it works for 2 reasons:

    1: People deserve to live free of scum like drug dealers, and the trouble they bring
    2: If it works, it’ll be a great example to throw in the faces of bleeding hearts who mewl “Vigilantism is outrageous, let the police deal with it!”

    1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

      “People deserve to live free of scum like drug war fanatics, and the trouble they bring”

      There, FTFY.

      1. avatar BB Bob says:

        Reading your responses is like watching a little chihuahua barking at the mailman. It has no hope of actually doing anything but the yipping is amusing to watch.

        1. avatar More Dead Soldiers says:

          Yet you responded. So apparently it did do something. 🙂

          And speaking of doing absolutely nothing, how is that drug war going?

  15. avatar John Gancho says:

    Ya gotta go pretty far to upstage Trump, but this guy’s done it.

  16. avatar LHW says:

    Will Trump adopt this position?

    1. avatar Robert says:

      Only regarding various manginas like yourself.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email