[Malum Prohibitum]

In front of dozens of witnesses. The law would not handle it, so the town did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/us/16 ... ml?_r=2&hp

Mr. McElroy, who had shot an elderly Skidmore grocer in the neck with a shotgun. Known for stealing livestock, harassing women, destroying property and threatening lives, Mr. McElroy had been charged with numerous felonies over the years â€" his lawyer estimated at least three a year â€" but had never been convicted.

The streak ended when a jury convicted Mr. McElroy of second-degree assault in the grocer’s shooting. A conviction should have been a victory for the people of Skidmore, but the jury set a maximum sentence of two years, and the judge, without protest from Mr. Baird, released Mr. McElroy on bond pending appeal. Mr. McElroy was quickly rearrested after he appeared in town with a rifle, but he was again released.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Bullet casings from two guns were found. As many as 60 people were reported to have been at the scene, but not one of them would say who had wielded the weapons.

 

[Hughduffel]

Mine may be the unpopular opinion, but what the town did was wrong. Let the flames begin.

 

[samman23]

Mine may be the unpopular opinion, but what the town did was wrong. Let the flames begin.

yours is the only opinion so far. but can you explain your opinion a little?

 

[RedDawnTheMusical]

Mine may be the unpopular opinion, but what the town did was wrong. Let the flames begin.

It is definitely reckless and irresponsible to advocate vigilante justice. In an ideal world it would never be necessary. However, in an ideal world we wouldn't need to carry. Law and order only works for people when it represents the will of the people. Once it stops representing the people, people are forced to implement corrections. Ultimately corrections need to happen at the legal and political level with who was failing to enforce arrest and punishment. Until then, it looks like a stop-gap corrective measure was necessary to eliminate an unresolved issue.

It looks Mr. McElroy was simply a little careless and had a accident - much like how someone can slip in the shower. Tragic. Just tragic. Oh well.

 

[GooberTim]

In our society, law resides in the hands of the people. We hire city and county officials, law enforcement officers, judges and prosecutors (among others) to make sure individuals live within the law, prosecuting and punishing those who don't. When this system fails to effectively protect the citizenry, what do we do?

 

[mountainpass]

Mine may be the unpopular opinion, but what the town did was wrong. Let the flames begin.

yours is the only opinion so far. but can you explain your opinion a little?

His last name is McElroy?

 

[livesounder]

Mine may be the unpopular opinion, but what the town did was wrong. Let the flames begin.

It is definitely reckless and irresponsible to advocate vigilante justice. In an ideal world it would never be necessary. However, in an ideal world we wouldn't need to carry. Law and order only works for people when it represents the will of the people. Once it stops representing the people, people are forced to implement corrections. Ultimately corrections need to happen at the legal and political level with who was failing to enforce arrest and punishment. Until then, it looks like a stop-gap corrective measure was necessary to eliminate an unresolved issue.

It looks Mr. McElroy was simply a little careless and had a accident - much like how someone can slip in the shower. Tragic. Just tragic. Oh well.

I have a bit of a different take.

This country was founded upon the rule of law - not the rule of man. When the rule of man starts to get the upper hand, as appeared to be the case here, the populace decided that a correction was in order to what they supported to be the rule of law.

Similar incidents have occurred periodically throughout the history of this country - and there's nothing to say they won't occur again.

What some may characterize as "vigilantism", I would characterize as a free people enforcing the rule of law.

 

[groats]

Mine may be the unpopular opinion, but what the town did was wrong. Let the flames begin.

So it's wrong for a community to dispense justice, unless they hire a person to do it for them and give him a nice tin badge to pin on?

If their employees (judges and police officers) are unwilling or unable to perform their duties, what options are left?

 

[Ken1961]

Mine may be the unpopular opinion, but what the town did was wrong. Let the flames begin.

It is definitely reckless and irresponsible to advocate vigilante justice. In an ideal world it would never be necessary. However, in an ideal world we wouldn't need to carry. Law and order only works for people when it represents the will of the people. Once it stops representing the people, people are forced to implement corrections. Ultimately corrections need to happen at the legal and political level with who was failing to enforce arrest and punishment. Until then, it looks like a stop-gap corrective measure was necessary to eliminate an unresolved issue.

It looks Mr. McElroy was simply a little careless and had a accident - much like how someone can slip in the shower. Tragic. Just tragic. Oh well.

I have a bit of a different take.

This country was founded upon the rule of law - not the rule of man. When the rule of man starts to get the upper hand, as appeared to be the case here, the populace decided that a correction was in order to what they supported to be the rule of law.

Similar incidents have occurred periodically throughout the history of this country - and there's nothing to say they won't occur again.

What some may characterize as "vigilantism", I would characterize as a free people enforcing the rule of law.

What he said.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Mine may be the unpopular opinion, but what the town did was wrong. Let the flames begin.

It is definitely reckless and irresponsible to advocate vigilante justice. In an ideal world it would never be necessary. However, in an ideal world we wouldn't need to carry. Law and order only works for people when it represents the will of the people. Once it stops representing the people, people are forced to implement corrections. Ultimately corrections need to happen at the legal and political level with who was failing to enforce arrest and punishment. Until then, it looks like a stop-gap corrective measure was necessary to eliminate an unresolved issue.

It looks Mr. McElroy was simply a little careless and had a accident - much like how someone can slip in the shower. Tragic. Just tragic. Oh well.

I have a bit of a different take.

This country was founded upon the rule of law - not the rule of man. When the rule of man starts to get the upper hand, as appeared to be the case here, the populace decided that a correction was in order to what they supported to be the rule of law.

Similar incidents have occurred periodically throughout the history of this country - and there's nothing to say they won't occur again.

What some may characterize as "vigilantism", I would characterize as a free people enforcing the rule of law.

...essentially guilty until proven innocent.

 

[NTA]

When I started this thread I thought hey, I remember a story just like that from a long time ago.
Same story !

( great story )

 

[Hughduffel]

Mine may be the unpopular opinion, but what the town did was wrong. Let the flames begin.

It is definitely reckless and irresponsible to advocate vigilante justice. In an ideal world it would never be necessary. However, in an ideal world we wouldn't need to carry. Law and order only works for people when it represents the will of the people. Once it stops representing the people, people are forced to implement corrections. Ultimately corrections need to happen at the legal and political level with who was failing to enforce arrest and punishment. Until then, it looks like a stop-gap corrective measure was necessary to eliminate an unresolved issue.

It looks Mr. McElroy was simply a little careless and had a accident - much like how someone can slip in the shower. Tragic. Just tragic. Oh well.

I have a bit of a different take.

This country was founded upon the rule of law - not the rule of man. When the rule of man starts to get the upper hand, as appeared to be the case here, the populace decided that a correction was in order to what they supported to be the rule of law.

Similar incidents have occurred periodically throughout the history of this country - and there's nothing to say they won't occur again.

What some may characterize as "vigilantism", I would characterize as a free people enforcing the rule of law.

Slippery slope metaphor applies.

So lets have some fun with this:

Ok, someone killed a guy that was widely perceived to be a threat to the community, and everyone kept quiet about it because they figured he had it coming. What next? Thats all I really have to ask. Next time, someone sees a guy stealing from a store. Police can't do anything, they didn't restrain him at the time and they can't find the stolen item. So, they corner him, beat him/mutilate him (just to throw in some flavor). Because a bunch of people unguided by law decided that their personal concept of justice was more appropriate than the system which we hold to as americans.

No man has the right to decide if another man deserves to die. Thats called murder. A group of people doing it is called a lynch mob. Defensive killings are justified because, to quote eastwood, "deserve's got nothing to do with it". A disorganized group of people don't have a semblence of impartiality that a government run court system is supposed to provide. The constitution legitimizes a government run justice system. It does not legitimize individuals, not elected by their peers (or other elected officials) to represent them or uphold their ideals, dispensing their own concept of justice. A person or group of people deciding that their concept of justice is not bound by constitution and the government it legitimizes is a THREAT to my liberty.

It is TOO easy to say that because a person got what they deserved, HOW they got it doesn't matter. Thats how the progressives think. If you have a principle that you truly believe in, it should always apply, not merely when it is convenient. How much would any of you look the other way for your political advocate to accomplish the agenda you favor by whatever means?

 

[Hughduffel]

Mine may be the unpopular opinion, but what the town did was wrong. Let the flames begin.

It is definitely reckless and irresponsible to advocate vigilante justice. In an ideal world it would never be necessary. However, in an ideal world we wouldn't need to carry. Law and order only works for people when it represents the will of the people. Once it stops representing the people, people are forced to implement corrections. Ultimately corrections need to happen at the legal and political level with who was failing to enforce arrest and punishment. Until then, it looks like a stop-gap corrective measure was necessary to eliminate an unresolved issue.

It looks Mr. McElroy was simply a little careless and had a accident - much like how someone can slip in the shower. Tragic. Just tragic. Oh well.

I have a bit of a different take.

This country was founded upon the rule of law - not the rule of man. When the rule of man starts to get the upper hand, as appeared to be the case here, the populace decided that a correction was in order to what they supported to be the rule of law.

Similar incidents have occurred periodically throughout the history of this country - and there's nothing to say they won't occur again.

What some may characterize as "vigilantism", I would characterize as a free people enforcing the rule of law.

What he said.

You can't enforce the rule of law by breaking it. Due process?

How can you say the rule of man was corrected by the rule of man? That makes absolutely no sense. If the rule of law cannot correct the rule of man, then the LAW needs to be corrected.

 

[RedDawnTheMusical]

Mine may be the unpopular opinion, but what the town did was wrong. Let the flames begin.

It is definitely reckless and irresponsible to advocate vigilante justice. In an ideal world it would never be necessary. However, in an ideal world we wouldn't need to carry. Law and order only works for people when it represents the will of the people. Once it stops representing the people, people are forced to implement corrections. Ultimately corrections need to happen at the legal and political level with who was failing to enforce arrest and punishment. Until then, it looks like a stop-gap corrective measure was necessary to eliminate an unresolved issue.

It looks Mr. McElroy was simply a little careless and had a accident - much like how someone can slip in the shower. Tragic. Just tragic. Oh well.

I have a bit of a different take.

This country was founded upon the rule of law - not the rule of man. When the rule of man starts to get the upper hand, as appeared to be the case here, the populace decided that a correction was in order to what they supported to be the rule of law.

Similar incidents have occurred periodically throughout the history of this country - and there's nothing to say they won't occur again.

What some may characterize as "vigilantism", I would characterize as a free people enforcing the rule of law.

...essentially guilty until proven innocent.

I wouldn't say that - I would say that he was re-judged by his peers (and for safety sake, a much larger jury pool this time), found guilty, sentenced to the death penalty, with sentence carried out immediately.

 

[RedDawnTheMusical]

If the rule of law cannot correct the rule of man, then the LAW needs to be corrected.

Bingo. And, because that can be a long process, the issue of a repeat offender had to be dealt with on the side. In this case I don't know if it was the law so much as the enforcement and punishment (lack thereof) that was the issue. Law enforcement and judges are put in place so people don't need to form lynch mobs anymore.

 

[MyFred]

In our society, law resides in the hands of the people. We hire city and county officials, law enforcement officers, judges and prosecutors (among others) to make sure individuals live within the law, prosecuting and punishing those who don't. When this system fails to effectively protect the citizenry, what do we do?

+1 :righton:

 

[MyFred]

I say that if you are faced with a gang busting in your door at 3:00 am and you use deadly force to stop them then you are guilty of being a single vigilante. You should have asked them to not hurt you or your family and let the "justice system" deal with them!!!......jackwagons!!!!

 

[CoffeeMate]

I say that if you are faced with a gang busting in your door at 3:00 am and you use deadly force to stop them then you are guilty of being a single vigilante.

Not at all the same thing.

 

[commodore_dude]

Couldn't read the NYT article, but from the Wiki article I don't see what they did wrong.