[tomc1985]

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.

[idoubtit]

> 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.

[LyndsySimon]

> 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.

Advocates of our Second Amendment - the right to keep and bear arms - understand this. This idea was the primary reason for the Second Amendment's inclusion in the Bill of Rights.

In the words of Tench Coxe:

> Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

In my opinion, minorities in particular have reason to arm themselves and to be prepared to defend themselves if necessary. Armed protest against civil government by blacks and others has a long history in the United States: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/black-panthers-california-196...

If you're interested in this sort of history, I'll recommend a couple of books: "Negroes with Guns", by Robert F. Williams; and "This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed", by Charles Cobb, Jr.

Robert F. Williams is a very interesting personality in and of himself. Among other things, he founded the Black Armed Guard - an NRA-sponsored rifle club dedicated to the defense the black community from racial violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams#Black_Armed...

[hanniabu]

> This idea was the primary reason for the Second Amendment's inclusion in the Bill of Rights.

Thank you eit bringing this up. While recent events with shootings are unfortunate, what's more unfortunate is the media taking advantage of these events to push an agenda by claiming the 2nd amendment is only for hunting and they only interview people that dat the same, then go down the road of saying these guns aren't needed for hunting and should be made illegal.

Call me crazy, but I'd wager this is all done out of initiative and agenda and not out of ignorance. Reasons being to disarm the population of any meaningful ways to defend against government suppression.

For those thinking that our own army would never attack their own people, a good amount of our military is now contractors from other countries that are paid mercenaries.

[wtdata]

> In my opinion, minorities in particular have reason to arm themselves and to be prepared to defend themselves if necessary.

That's an interesting take, since minorities commit - by very, very far - the greatest amount of violent crimes per capita in the USA.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

[LyndsySimon]

Yes, and if anything that supports my position. Minorities are statistically more likely to be both perpetrators and victims of violent crime. Members of those communities therefore are more likely than non-members to have a legitimate need to defend themselves.

[wtdata]

But, gun ownership clearly correlates with gun related violence (i.e. violent crime). Less guns, less violent crime.

[AnimalMuppet]

I'm not sure that's true. Less gun related violent crime, certainly. But that can lead to higher rates of other kinds of violence, as those who are good with knives or their fists are now the top of the food chain. It is not clear that the total amount of violence would go down significantly. (The total number of deaths might, though.)

For example, there is very little gun violence in the UK. But the amount of knife and fist violence might surprise you.

[myrandomcomment]

A number of stories on the front page of the BBC (UK) in the last week have been about the issues of the rise Knife violence. The band guns, and now there is an increase of murders via a knife. Bad people do not follow the law.

[naasking]

Correlation, not causation. Less violent environment leads people to wonder why they need guns, and so they give them up. Seems equally plausible as the contrary to me.

[areyousure]

> 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-...

[new_realist]

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]

I wonder what the number are like if the data is filtered to person of colour only.

[bitwize]

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.

[dragonwriter]

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?

[Bartweiss]

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.

[dsfyu404ed]

>That last clause is pretty bizarre

It makes more sense if you consider it the other way around. Theft and criminal mischief are considered violent crimes for the purposes of self defense if they happen at night.

The line between theft and burglary is blurry and subjective when you're talking about situations where someone is stealing something from someone's property at night and said theft causes them to be woken up and respond. The law is basically saying that for the purposes of self defense theft can be considered burglary by default in those cases.

[ChickeNES]

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

[cjohnson318]

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]

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]

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]

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/charlottes...

[cjohnson318]

It is an exception because it is not representative of most assault charges in the US. Getting charged for assault, and then a pat on the wrist, for punching a Nazi is by definition an exceptional event. Rolling Stone, a cultural icon, does not gamble advertiser money on boring, unexceptional events.

[rocqua]

I thought that (beyond the death penalty) the jury does not get to determine sentencing, just guilt.

[vorpalhex]

Depends on the Jurisdiction.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/charlottes...

[CydeWeys]

So killin' wasn't involved?

[dylan604]

Your going to need to show some proof that exists. Sure, there is the stand your ground type of rules, but that a self-defense situation. "Needed killin" sounds like some people outside of Texas believe Texas hyperbole.

[LorenPechtel]

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.

[cjohnson318]

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.

[pavel_lishin]

[citation needed]

[wallace_f]

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.

[HarryHirsch]

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.

[everdev]

> 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.

[asfarley]

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?

[rocqua]

The line of thinking could be different from

> "the consequences of violence-as-a-tool are so unthinkable that I choose to stop thinking."

And instead be something along the lines of.

Admitting exceptions where we allow violence-as-a-tool is more harmful than the harm prevented by violence here. Simply because the consequences of an exception set a precedent that lasts for a long time.

This does involve condemning people to their fate. Alternatively, you can take the position that sometimes people really should take an action they should simultaneously be condemned for.

[LorenPechtel]

It stems from a fundamental faith that there is a good solution. Therefore, any non-good action is due to a failure to look hard enough for the good solution.

[Teever]

Which is a totally reasonable position to take except it overlooks the reality of time being a finite thing.

[peteradio]

To classify this guy as a bully does no justice, he had shot numerous people and nearly beat a man to death.

[tomc1985]

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.

[Ma8ee]

I didn’t interpret the people’s action so much as revenge as a way to protect themselves. And in this instance maybe it was the most rational thing to do when the justice system failed to protect them.

[mcphage]

> 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]

The feelings of contempt are mutual, which is fucking stupid.

[mcphage]

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"?