Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘No One Saw a Thing’: When a Midwest Town Banded Together to Kill the Town Bully

thedailybeast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 271 posts

Re: ‘No One Saw a Thing’: When a Midwest Town Banded Together to Kill the Town Bully

#131

Post by fortran77 »

dwheeler wrote: post #10

> frontier justice came for McElroy courtesy of the residents of Skidmore (population 440 at the time of the crime). Shaken by the man’s ability to evade jail even after being convicted of a near-fatal attack on a grocery store owner... Belkin also details Skidmore’s plague of subsequent violence ... the series persuasively contends that these crimes indicate that the McElroy episode taught younger Skidmore generatio…

It also seems that this is a little bit different from usual "lynch mobs" or vigilante justice because it was an act of self-defense. This man was going around shooting people and was actively making threats (though not at the exact moment he was shot).

This makes it a little more morally justified than shooting someone who committed some real or perceived wrong, but isn't a current threat to others.

They stopped him because he was dangerous.

Re: ‘No One Saw a Thing’: When a Midwest Town Banded Together to Kill the Town Bully

#132

Post by vorpalhex »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #126
bitwize wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some states, like Texas, still have the "needed killin'" defense: if a person accused of murder can prove to the jury that the victim needed killin', the jury will not convict (or will convict on a lesser charge). You have to pass a high bar to need killin': generally the defense only works if the accused can show that while not in immediate danger of life and limb, they felt sufficiently credibly threatened by the v…

This is not a facet of Texas law, or reflective of law in any other state. Sometimes jurors choose not to penalize or convict a person for homicide in extenuating circumstances. This is more about the nature of trial by jury in America, than the specific legal code of Texas.

See the recent case of the man who was convicted after punching a white supremacist in the face.. and charged with a $1 fine.

Re: ‘No One Saw a Thing’: When a Midwest Town Banded Together to Kill the Town Bully

#133

Post by smacktoward »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #123
kemiller2002 wrote: post #96

So my family actually knew the sheriff from the next county over. He picked up McElroy a couple times for various things. (I think being drunk etc.). Now when this was explained, this was 26-27 years ago, so my memory is a little fuzzy, but he explained that the man was a monster of an individual. (like huge.) The guy could pick up a hog from the other side of the fence and just walk off with it. Dead lifting a few h…

Reminds me a bit of the series Gunsmoke, which I recently watched for the first time online. Surprisingly good. Time frame is earlier but the feeling of "frontier justice" resonates.

This is also the overall story arc of my favorite show ever, HBO's Deadwood: a bunch of people, who were all attracted for various reasons to a place specifically because it had no law (the town of Deadwood stood on land that had been ceded by treaty to the Sioux, and was therefore outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law), slowly discover over three seasons all the reasons they actually need law after all.

Re: ‘No One Saw a Thing’: When a Midwest Town Banded Together to Kill the Town Bully

#134

Post by gameswithgo »

That many people feel what the townspeople did here was wrong is fascinating to me. It seems many people believe in certain ideals, as dogma, to the extent that they expect other people to suffer or even die upholding those ideals. The rule of law is important, yes. But why does anyone expect a town to let themselves be maimed and murdered to maintain the rule of law? This is an insane expectation. The people defended themselves. Nobody can criticize them for that. Yes of course it would better if law enforcement was fixed, but people often have no ability to fix that in any reasonable time frame. Meanwhile people are getting murdered.

Re: ‘No One Saw a Thing’: When a Midwest Town Banded Together to Kill the Town Bully

#135

Post by ChickeNES »

dragonwriter wrote: post #130
bitwize wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some states, like Texas, still have the "needed killin'" defense: if a person accused of murder can prove to the jury that the victim needed killin', the jury will not convict (or will convict on a lesser charge). You have to pass a high bar to need killin': generally the defense only works if the accused can show that while not in immediate danger of life and limb, they felt sufficiently credibly threatened by the v…

It's not clear if you are referring to jury nullification here (which is not particular to Texas), to the reduction of murder to voluntary manslaughter by heat of passion (which is not particular to Texas), or to some actual special aspect of Texas law (perhaps some part of the operation of the imperfect self-defense rule under Texas law). Could you provide more detail?

Possibly a reference to this case: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/us/father-not-charged-in-...

Re: ‘No One Saw a Thing’: When a Midwest Town Banded Together to Kill the Town Bully

#136

Post by Akinato »

gameswithgo wrote: post #134

That many people feel what the townspeople did here was wrong is fascinating to me. It seems many people believe in certain ideals, as dogma, to the extent that they expect other people to suffer or even die upholding those ideals. The rule of law is important, yes. But why does anyone expect a town to let themselves be maimed and murdered to maintain the rule of law? This is an insane expectation. The people defende…

You can only act reasonable so long as your enemy is willing to extend the same courtesy. When someone is this far gone, there's nothing you can really do other than violence, if the legal system has failed you. It sounds like they tried all reasonable options and were left with just one.

Re: ‘No One Saw a Thing’: When a Midwest Town Banded Together to Kill the Town Bully

#137

Post by cjohnson318 »

vorpalhex wrote: post #132
cjohnson318 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a facet of Texas law, or reflective of law in any other state. Sometimes jurors choose not to penalize or convict a person for homicide in extenuating circumstances. This is more about the nature of trial by jury in America, than the specific legal code of Texas.

See the recent case of the man who was convicted after punching a white supremacist in the face.. and charged with a $1 fine.

See it where? This anecdote sounds more like a jury or a judge making an exception in an extenuating circumstance, than the exercise of an existing law, or precedent.

Re: ‘No One Saw a Thing’: When a Midwest Town Banded Together to Kill the Town Bully

#138

Post by cjohnson318 »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #128
bitwize wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some states, like Texas, still have the "needed killin'" defense: if a person accused of murder can prove to the jury that the victim needed killin', the jury will not convict (or will convict on a lesser charge). You have to pass a high bar to need killin': generally the defense only works if the accused can show that while not in immediate danger of life and limb, they felt sufficiently credibly threatened by the v…

Sounds like Texas got it right. Normally the law expects you to go to the police if the threat isn't imminent--but that assumes the police can do something about it. Generally they can't.

No. This idea of "innocent because X needs killing" is a bad idea. Everyone's idea of "needs killing" is different. Imagine how this hypothetical law would work out for minorities. It would not go well.

Re: ‘No One Saw a Thing’: When a Midwest Town Banded Together to Kill the Town Bully

#139

Post by jacobolus »

Retric wrote: post #107
jcims wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my prevailing theory as to why minority enclaves in metropolitan areas tend to have higher violent crime. It's not socioeconomic as much as it is folks being forced to mete out justice on their own.

Alternatively, crimes are more common in metropolitan areas due to increased contact. Crimes are also more likely to be reported in poor metropolitan areas. Poor minorities are more like to stay in metropolitan areas. Resulting in a rather insidious bias that's hard to adjust for. http://www.hngn.com/articles/75816/20150309/dea-was-told-not... PS: It is also easier to hide a body in the country, so missing persons ca…

> crimes are more common in metropolitan areas due to increased contact

Is there evidence for this contact theory? It doesn’t match my understanding of crime patterns. For example there are many very dense cities around the world without much crime, and some sparsely populated rural areas with lots of crime.

A Google search turns up

http://science.time.com/2013/07/23/in-town-versus-country-it...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/big-city-crime-murder-rates-a...

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/are-big-citie...

Re: ‘No One Saw a Thing’: When a Midwest Town Banded Together to Kill the Town Bully

#140

Post by Bartweiss »

dragonwriter wrote: post #130
bitwize wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some states, like Texas, still have the "needed killin'" defense: if a person accused of murder can prove to the jury that the victim needed killin', the jury will not convict (or will convict on a lesser charge). You have to pass a high bar to need killin': generally the defense only works if the accused can show that while not in immediate danger of life and limb, they felt sufficiently credibly threatened by the v…

It's not clear if you are referring to jury nullification here (which is not particular to Texas), to the reduction of murder to voluntary manslaughter by heat of passion (which is not particular to Texas), or to some actual special aspect of Texas law (perhaps some part of the operation of the imperfect self-defense rule under Texas law). Could you provide more detail?

This made me curious too, so I went looking. Texas self defense law seem thoroughly standard for a southern/rural state. It has 'stand your ground' rules and a low charge rate for claims of self-defense, but neither is unusual.

There are only two exotic elements I can find. First, Texas permits the use of deadly force to stop some non-violent criminals (e.g. burglars, robbers) from escaping with property. Second, it allows deadly force over theft and criminal mischief only at night.

That last clause is pretty bizarre, but none of it adds up to anything like "needed killin". Deadly force to recover property is somewhat unusual, but that wouldn't apply to the case in the article either.

Post reply on HN