7 ms·

I'm with the mob on this one. As another comment put it, he was tried by a jury of his peers... if the justice system cannot help you then you have to take thin

by tomc1985 7y ago

I'm with the mob on this one. As another comment put it, he was tried by a jury of his peers... if the justice system cannot help you then you have to take things into your own hands. Might be hard for all us city slickers on HN to fathom, particularly when these sorts of country towns are frequently mocked or derided by people like us.

wallace_f 7y ago
While this case looks to be justice, I have the fortune of experiencing real-life extreme bullying, stalking and ill will for no other reason than profit incentive and having been abused in the first place. Sometimes this sounds crazy to people and it would to me, but I think everyone sees this in school growing up, and history is all about it if you stop and think about it. I've seen examples of it, too, all the time in my life. I'd be weary of promoting justice being taken "into their own hands." But these problems are indeed very challenging, especially in a world where merit and virtue are not necessary, and even are deleterious, to your group's survival.
mcphage 7y ago
> particularly when these sorts of country towns are frequently mocked or derided by people like us You bring up a good point, because that's another thing these country towns are known for—having a lot of respect for big cities and the people that live in them.
- tomc1985 7y ago
  The feelings of contempt are mutual, which is fucking stupid.
  - mcphage 7y ago
    They are mutual, and it is stupid, but one of them is the subject of a thousand think pieces, and the other is, what, just treated like a fact of life? Have you ever read anything saying "hey country folk, maybe you shouldn't hate the people in the cities so much"?
everdev 7y ago
> if the justice system cannot help you then you have to take things into your own hands Fortunately not many people seem to feel this way, maybe because revenge doesn't work as a criminal defense. People who have been wronged are usually highly emotional and it's hard for them to put themselves outside of their circumstances and view the incident objectively. Justice is supposed to be blind for good reason. If we all carried out our own version of justice, I'm sure you'd eventually run into someone who thought being too loud at night should be punishable by death. There are many instances where victims of bullying feel they have no recourse other than revenge. I don't know the answer for how to make that situation better, but I know it's not murder.
- tomc1985 7y ago
  Then the justice system needs to resource itself appropriately. A town menace should not be allowed to continue harassing folks because the police can't be half-assed to take care of him. If your actions are causing others to suffer, and you're willingly doing nothing to prevent that, and you have expended the patience of those around you, then you get what's coming. Maybe he shouldn't have been such a shithead.
- peteradio 7y ago
  To classify this guy as a bully does no justice, he had shot numerous people and nearly beat a man to death.
- asfarley 7y ago
  This article describes a situation where a bad person did bad things, and was eventually stopped. You are saying: "That was not the solution. But I don't know what the right solution is". How can you possibly know that there is an alternative without knowing what it is? I think what you are really saying is: "I have an ideological opposition to violence-as-a-tool which I cannot rationally explain". Or, "the consequences of violence-as-a-tool are so unthinkable that I choose to stop thinking." Your line of thinking is responsible for the fact that this guy wasn't dealt with sooner. Maybe you should visit some of the victims of his behaviour before dismissing the seemingly-helpful vigilante justice in this situation. The black-and-white line you're drawing between "blind justice" and "angry, vengeful townspeople" is not so clear in reality. Do we have AI algorithms for implementing first-principles justice? Are you so sure that first-principles justice doesn't include strategies which look like retaliation and revenge?
idoubtit 7y ago
> if the justice system cannot help you then you have to take things into your own hands. If you apply this rule strictly, then the mobs could first hit the police. In many countries, police officers are violent and have a de facto impunity when they break the law. In the US, the police kills more than 1000 citizens each year, especially black men and teenagers. They very rarely face jail, not even loosing their job. In my country, France, over the past year several dozens of citizens have lost an eye because of police shooting, a few have lost a hand because of grenades. The justice system protects the policemen, even when the videos are explicit. And when a juge tries to do his work, he can't. A grandma was killed while closing her window because she received a grenade in her head. The commanding officer refused to let the juge expertise the grenade launchers of his squad. He was promoted soon after. Most people that prone self-defense and rant about some bad guys' impunity do no wish to see this fact: most policemen can break the law and not face the consequences. They're the only category of citizens that are above the law.
- areyousure 7y ago
  > In the US, the police kills more than 1000 citizens each year In case anyone is curious to see a source, the Washington Post attempts to collect data regarding police shootings: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/four-years-in-a-row-police-nationwide-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000-people/2019/02/07/0cb3b098-020f-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/four-years-in-...
  - new_realist 7y ago
    To put this in context, roughly 70 police were killed last year, and police made over ten million arrests. Your chance of being killed is roughly once in 10,000 arrests.
    - chii 7y ago
      I wonder what the number are like if the data is filtered to person of colour only.
- 7y ago
bitwize 7y ago
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 victim to believe they were at continual risk of injury or death if they didn't strike first. In most other states, homicide is only justifiable under the higher threshold of being in immediate danger.
- cjohnson318 7y ago
  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.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    See the recent case of the man who was convicted after punching a white supremacist in the face.. and charged with a $1 fine.
    - cjohnson318 7y ago
      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.
      - vorpalhex 7y ago
        How was this an exception? The attacker was charged, they chose to give a (very) lenient punishment with the circumstances considered. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/charlottesville-jury-dollar-fine-jason-kessler-white-nationalist-719985/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/charlottes...
HarryHirsch 7y ago
Something's wrong here, though. Why was this fellow allowed to carry on as he did into his mid-40s? Even if you are built like a bear you can't take on a whole village. Some group must have backed him up until he became intolerable even for them. Was it his clan, or the perhaps the lawmen? The article is silent, unfortunately.

wallace_f 7y ago

While this case looks to be justice, I have the fortune of experiencing real-life extreme bullying, stalking and ill will for no other reason than profit incentive and having been abused in the first place. Sometimes this sounds crazy to people and it would to me, but I think everyone sees this in school growing up, and history is all about it if you stop and think about it. I've seen examples of it, too, all the time in my life. I'd be weary of promoting justice being taken "into their own hands." But these problems are indeed very challenging, especially in a world where merit and virtue are not necessary, and even are deleterious, to your group's survival.

mcphage 7y ago

> particularly when these sorts of country towns are frequently mocked or derided by people like us You bring up a good point, because that's another thing these country towns are known for—having a lot of respect for big cities and the people that live in them.

tomc1985 7y ago
The feelings of contempt are mutual, which is fucking stupid.
- mcphage 7y ago
  They are mutual, and it is stupid, but one of them is the subject of a thousand think pieces, and the other is, what, just treated like a fact of life? Have you ever read anything saying "hey country folk, maybe you shouldn't hate the people in the cities so much"?

everdev 7y ago

> if the justice system cannot help you then you have to take things into your own hands Fortunately not many people seem to feel this way, maybe because revenge doesn't work as a criminal defense. People who have been wronged are usually highly emotional and it's hard for them to put themselves outside of their circumstances and view the incident objectively. Justice is supposed to be blind for good reason. If we all carried out our own version of justice, I'm sure you'd eventually run into someone who thought being too loud at night should be punishable by death. There are many instances where victims of bullying feel they have no recourse other than revenge. I don't know the answer for how to make that situation better, but I know it's not murder.

tomc1985 7y ago
Then the justice system needs to resource itself appropriately. A town menace should not be allowed to continue harassing folks because the police can't be half-assed to take care of him. If your actions are causing others to suffer, and you're willingly doing nothing to prevent that, and you have expended the patience of those around you, then you get what's coming. Maybe he shouldn't have been such a shithead.
peteradio 7y ago
To classify this guy as a bully does no justice, he had shot numerous people and nearly beat a man to death.
asfarley 7y ago
This article describes a situation where a bad person did bad things, and was eventually stopped. You are saying: "That was not the solution. But I don't know what the right solution is". How can you possibly know that there is an alternative without knowing what it is? I think what you are really saying is: "I have an ideological opposition to violence-as-a-tool which I cannot rationally explain". Or, "the consequences of violence-as-a-tool are so unthinkable that I choose to stop thinking." Your line of thinking is responsible for the fact that this guy wasn't dealt with sooner. Maybe you should visit some of the victims of his behaviour before dismissing the seemingly-helpful vigilante justice in this situation. The black-and-white line you're drawing between "blind justice" and "angry, vengeful townspeople" is not so clear in reality. Do we have AI algorithms for implementing first-principles justice? Are you so sure that first-principles justice doesn't include strategies which look like retaliation and revenge?

idoubtit 7y ago

> if the justice system cannot help you then you have to take things into your own hands. If you apply this rule strictly, then the mobs could first hit the police. In many countries, police officers are violent and have a de facto impunity when they break the law. In the US, the police kills more than 1000 citizens each year, especially black men and teenagers. They very rarely face jail, not even loosing their job. In my country, France, over the past year several dozens of citizens have lost an eye because of police shooting, a few have lost a hand because of grenades. The justice system protects the policemen, even when the videos are explicit. And when a juge tries to do his work, he can't. A grandma was killed while closing her window because she received a grenade in her head. The commanding officer refused to let the juge expertise the grenade launchers of his squad. He was promoted soon after. Most people that prone self-defense and rant about some bad guys' impunity do no wish to see this fact: most policemen can break the law and not face the consequences. They're the only category of citizens that are above the law.

areyousure 7y ago
> In the US, the police kills more than 1000 citizens each year In case anyone is curious to see a source, the Washington Post attempts to collect data regarding police shootings: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/four-years-in-a-row-police-nationwide-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000-people/2019/02/07/0cb3b098-020f-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/four-years-in-...
- new_realist 7y ago
  To put this in context, roughly 70 police were killed last year, and police made over ten million arrests. Your chance of being killed is roughly once in 10,000 arrests.
  - chii 7y ago
    I wonder what the number are like if the data is filtered to person of colour only.
7y ago

bitwize 7y ago

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 victim to believe they were at continual risk of injury or death if they didn't strike first. In most other states, homicide is only justifiable under the higher threshold of being in immediate danger.

cjohnson318 7y ago
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.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  See the recent case of the man who was convicted after punching a white supremacist in the face.. and charged with a $1 fine.
  - cjohnson318 7y ago
    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.
    - vorpalhex 7y ago
      How was this an exception? The attacker was charged, they chose to give a (very) lenient punishment with the circumstances considered. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/charlottesville-jury-dollar-fine-jason-kessler-white-nationalist-719985/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/charlottes...

HarryHirsch 7y ago

Something's wrong here, though. Why was this fellow allowed to carry on as he did into his mid-40s? Even if you are built like a bear you can't take on a whole village. Some group must have backed him up until he became intolerable even for them. Was it his clan, or the perhaps the lawmen? The article is silent, unfortunately.