251. The Execution of Ken McElroy -- Wait in the Truck

Рет қаралды 2,751

Prosecutors Podcast

Күн бұрын

This is the story of how one small town plotted to get rid of the town bully... permanently.

Пікірлер: 20

@trucrimeluver 3 ай бұрын

Sure appreciate your presentations! Thanks for all your hard work and research. You make a super team!

@legallypinkb7901 3 ай бұрын

In my law school class for Criminal Law, we briefly touch on the 'social contract' of the rule of law, and I think it should be elaborated on further because this case is exactly what happens when that contract falls apart. When democratic society elects political representatives, they hold power because the people vest it in them. Not because they are intrinsically powerful. The social contract of a democratic society functions with the people seeing those in power wielding the vested power within scope, effectively, transparently and with the societies best interest in mind. When criminalised conduct is not effectively dealt with, the harm it perpetrates goes beyond the victim of the crime, and spreads to the wider communities and societies. When that is repeatedly perpetrated, it creates a wound, and it pours salt in it over and over when something like this happens until the society feel the only way to heal it is to take mattes into their own hands. While I cannot say what I would do in this situation because I have never been in it, I know I'm not a good liar. I would not be able to carry the idea that I was party to another persons death, but the alternative of doing nothing is akin to being party to numerous harms and potential deaths in this situation. So what does one do. The ideal is that the justice system handles it, but that doesn't always work as we have seen here.

@drewb007 3 ай бұрын

What an extremely well thought out comment. I appreciate the fact too that by the time the town took matters into their own hands it wasn't solely about what Ken had done but also a visceral fear of what he would do. To that end, the shooting he engaged in were not simply an attack on the individuals, but on the town as a whole. Then the town watched Ken "walk," on so many charges and that had to have a group psychological effect. That's shown on the day of the shooting when the collective surrounded his bar table. They were done. They had seen the social contract fail on at least two occasions. I see how this type of "justice," can be abused and I understand the reason we allow guilt to be determined by what we hope are impartial juries. But this case was different. Had legal justice done its job town justice wouldn't have been needed.

@legallypinkb7901 3 ай бұрын

@@drewb007 Aw, thank you so much, I really appreciate your kind feedback! Even though I just spotted a typo and it is now all I can see in my comment lol Perfectionists unite I guess ha! I totally get where you're coming from, too, and I agree. The community had watched the legal system so catastrophically and fundamentally fail to safeguard them from harm, so many times, with this particular individual alone and I can entirely understand why what happened did. I'm not even sure I really 'blame' them, too. Obviously, as someone hoping to become a lawyer, I believe in the functional law system but in studying it - even if I hadn't been aware before now - I've become more and more aware of its flaws and dysfunction. A legal system that does not serve ALL , only serves to fail all. Justice should never be something applicable to some, within that too I can understand why the people metering it out, cut and ran. Wouldn't you? I'm not sure I can say I would not have quit and moved too, we all have an instinct towards self preservation. I like to believe I would have stood my ground, but it is ever too easy to say what one would do in a situation they have not been in, and would probably never be in. The balance of things, the needs of the many juxtaposed against the needs of an individual who was doing harm prolifically, that is kind of core to the justice system too. That we balance the interference of individual rights and liberties against the good of the community. It's part of the harm principle some argue underpins why the state criminalises conduct. When you talk to citizens, no one argues that violent crime, or the like are things that should be dealt with by the law. But, if you ask them whether taking what you need to feed your baby from a big conglomerate store, is something that amounts to punishable conduct, the answers are often mixed. While the crime here does have a face, the harm principle of interfering with the rights and liberties of an individual to prevent harm and assure the safety of the wider many of the community, sort of still applies despite the vigilante nature. I can't say this was morally wrong, anymore than I can someone ensuring their children are fed, would be. Yes, objectively, they are both criminal conduct. But, while we do our best to separate legality and morality, it is a lie to say they are a distinct line of separation. The morality of a society, which evolves over time, is reflected in common law precedent from the courts. For example, before 1991 a wife in the UK was considered to have 'consented' to 'activities' in her marriage vows and therefore a husband could not SA her. In 1991, a case with a husband beating his spouse so severely she almost died, paired with changing societal standards and expectations and years of lobbying for the change, finally saw the law change (The case is R v R [1991] UKHL). So yeah, to conclude, I feel conflicted lol. Life is much more complex than a legal textbook, or any area of human study, would ever be able to summarise neatly. People are messy, and I've no doubt there were aspects amounting to MkElroy's conduct in his history psychologically, that weren't entirely his choice. But, the aspects of him that WERE in his control were not controlled by him at all. It's very easy to look back at earlier periods with a 2020's lens and that is, too, a little unfair and somewhat biased. We know more, more freely with the internet, than we ever could have imagined we might back then. People do the best they can, as imperfect beings, with limited information and no crystal ball. I try to offer everyone grace, now and then, because I think it's easy to look in hindsight and see a string of intentional actions almost like there was an ultimate goal or aim. In actuality, it is more often independent decisions made in isolation that lead to something the individual in the moment couldn't have imagined would be the culmination. Life is hard, if we can make it not harder on each other I think we should. They ultimately did that for each other, when it boils down to the core.

@drewb007 3 ай бұрын

@@legallypinkb7901 Well, my delay in responding was that typo. I mean, come on.... how dare you! ;) I appreciate your distinction between the sometimes cold and emotionless words that describe law and the very emotional aspect of human behavior. It's probably a good thing that la can be so dry and so cold. Were it to be the other way, we'd all be in real trouble. This case seems to me quite clear in regards to the motivation of the townspeople. But I can also see situations where people might look at this case and shorten the fuse so to speak. Imagine a situation where the authorities were unable to pursue someone for harassing the people of a community due to technical aspects of law and the people of the town meet and talk about Skidmore and take from that situation that their own can be handled the same way. We don't let the family members of victims of violent crimes sit on the jury of their case precisely because we need justice to be blind. Is it? You have more experience and knowledge on that then I do. But at times it's clearly very fair to argue that it isn't. As a true crime junkie, I've read many stories about people being stalked and or harassed having terrible a terrible time getting law enforcement to act. Many times that's due to laws that need to be enacted that are not at the time of the offense. Just look at stalking laws. Were there stalking laws 30 years ago? Again, you'd know better than I. But I don't think there were. Should a stalking victim in 1980 be "allowed," to dispense justice by way of taking a life? While I would sympathize with the massive abuse that stalking is, I would hesitate to say yes. I'm rambling now and for that, I apologize. Gold convo though.

@legallypinkb7901 3 ай бұрын

@@drewb007 I shall get my cat and nine tails out posthaste and punish myself thoroughly for such egregious behaviour, I assure you! :p LOL I love your sense of humour though, it jams with mine well, I think. There are a lot of different 'schools of thought' on the law, some I mesh better with than others, I think that's quite normal and expected as with any other area of study. The thing about the law is, it's kinda weird. You do have to have these clear drawn and proscriptive lines in the sand, but equally the whole thing is built upon, empowered by, and dealing with the messy human experience. The earliest societies and communities had forms of prohibited conduct which society felt were unacceptable collectively, and that it could not be left to the individual person to punish. These wrongs are typically agreed to have been of such nature that they wrong the collective, theft is one of the weird outliers in that in a lot of ways as I mentioned in my other comment and while it does offend some wider societal harms particularly when perpetrated against small independent business's. Widely, when it's a chain stores bottom line, theft is somewhat a grey area, morally for many. But legally, it is not. And that's kinda the point of the law, right? Where people vary in morality, the law is clear in legality. Sometimes this leaves the law lagging behind in its reflection of current sociocultural expectations and acceptability of conduct, and this is in part why we have juries. They're the community inclusion. There's a case referred to as 'Bushel's Case' which led to the revocation of the UK Court's ability to punish juries. William Penn and William Mead had been arrested in 1670 for illegally preaching a Quaker sermon and disturbing the peace, however the four jurors refused to find them guilty. Rather than dismissing the jury the judge sent them back to deliberate further. The judge *demanded* a guilty verdict, despite the jury unanimously acquitting Mead of all charges, and Penn on disturbing the peace but guilty of preaching. The judge kept the jury for three days without 'meat, drink, fire and tobacco' to force the preferred verdict. When this also failed, the judge ended the trial, and as punishment imprisoned unlawfully all the jurors until they paid a fine. The jurors refused, and after MONTHS, a writ of habeas corpus was sought. The Court of Common Please, Chief Justice Vaughan stated the power to punish a jury was 'absurd' and banned judges from exercising it again. So we have a protocol for when people are messy, but the law is clear. The legal system, its clarity and proscriptive nature trickles down and instructs law enforcement. What they can and cannot do, how they can complete it etc. But we do not, and I don't know how could, have anything immediately in place for when people are messy and so is the system in place, as was the case in this situation. The resulting justice by the community is of course to be discouraged. We do not want this sort of thing to occur regularly, and while no conviction would likely result, it is dangerous as a message to leave it as that. Because ultimately, the message is, if you feel sufficiently wronged and are not assisted in the manner you feel appropriate by the proper channels, you'll find vindication and possible celebration in your own justice. Maybe that sounds 'okay', maybe sometimes it can result reasonably enough. But, I've seen things like the to catch a predator stings with untrained civilians cause so many more problems, ruined lives, destroyed multi-year multi-jurisdiction cooperative investigations go to waste because someone with absolutely the best intentions to help prevent the victimisation of others got involved without knowing the full landscape of what they were doing. The same is true in a case like this. While it is absolutely unfair for people to have to live in fair, and the system is failing them and continues to fail so many, regardless of jurisdiction, we see it daily. By taking justice into ones own hands, you're becoming culpable yourself. The unfortunate and only way is to identify what is wrong with the system, and work to collaboratively change it. But that in itself is almost impossible when it is so intrinsically linked with political interests. Separation of powers in the UK is in theory meant to bar that from being the case, and I believe similar is in place in the USA. However, from studying the law in the limited capacity of an undergrad student, I know that it is absolutely not the case in practice. Whether that is because the separation is flawed inherently, or the application in current iteration is broken, I'm not sure. But when criminal justice is leveraged as political fodder and dropped the moment a candidates secured their role, never to be spoken of again, because they know full well that to fix the problems would require resource heavy investments that they are unlikely to have, wish to expend, and frankly that they are unlikely to receive acclaim and re-election for. The saddest thing is, much like ones health, criminal justice and the system surrounding it is often assumed to broadly work. It is only when one is shoved into the grossly neglected system head first, often without their wishes, whether as a victim or defendant, that they see in stark totality how fundamentally falling apart it is that they realise how badly it is in need of attention; and at that point it is too late for them to do much about it, at least for their own circumstances. Most of the social programmes - health care, education, criminal justice, even water works and libraries for goodness sake. People presume they function, not without flaws but they're functional. It is only when they call upon them that they realise, holy hell how is this as bad as it is, and why is no one talking about it?! Sometimes this world makes me so sad. So I have a folder on my phone called 'Happy things for sad days', anything that makes me smile goes into it - my dogs, pink things (I love pink, lol). If you ever want happy dog things, you're welcome to look at my channel :) I think you're probably one of the good humans, and that's really quite a hard thing to be in the world right now sometimes. If you ever wanna talk, lemme know. Keep finding things to smile about, okay? :)

@drewb007 3 ай бұрын

@@legallypinkb7901 I appreciate your self-correction but it needn't be that extreme. I was thinking of something less...severe. For example, how about an exercise in poorly constructed methods of communication even outside of this forum. I appreciate writing and often find myself using parentheses. The ( ) aren't really the point and in and of themselves should be ignored. But what is written inside of them matters a great deal as it relates to communication and in writing. And letters strung together form sentences and on and on it goes. You didn't commit the sin of mixing up "and," and (an) so you are probably a pretty good writer. Well, you are a very good writer but I digress. I once spelled visible as (vizible) accidentally and was appropriately mocked. I'm far from the smartest guy in any room but that was really a very ugly mistake. Imagine my embarrassment when I sent that letter out via gmail and received my friend's response. Ugg. I am fascinated by law and to prove how much of a dork I am, I have several podcasts--aside from this one, which I love--which covers Supreme Court cases in the US. Why does one Justice dissent while the other sides with the majority when applying the same words found in law and those lines in the sand you mentioned? I don't know, I am just fascinated by the entire aspect of really understanding law as it relates to some of my other interests. That sounded bad. I assure you, it's not. But in true crime, cases are obviously decided by law. Anyway, feel free to reach out. You now know how Hope you are having a great day. -Drew

@LyricalTampon Ай бұрын

Accepting Kelly Anne Conway as a sponsor is such a confession of intellectual and ethical bankruptcy.

@handybunny 3 ай бұрын

When the system fails, you have to do something. Sorry.

@MultiLlewis 3 ай бұрын

Wow! Incredible story. Reminded me of the Agatha Christie, murder on the Orient express.

@hanwagu9967 3 ай бұрын

Enjoyed the episode! Could there be a legal theory for community or collective self-defense? Didn't SCOTUS confer personhood to corporations in several cases, with the last being Citizens United? SCOTUS ruled in Citizens United that corporations are "associations of citizens" and hold collected rights of the individual citizens. Aren't incorporated towns also an "association of citizens" and by extension the individual citizens of the town hold a collected right as an individual entity: in this case, a collected individual right of self-defense?

@karmafrog1 3 ай бұрын

In my view, they didn't have much of a choice. All recourses through law enforcement were tried and defeated by a criminal willing to leverage every advantage up to and including violence. Someone's life was in the balance. It's not like they went from one offense to vigilante justice. Every other recourse had been tried. I believe this is one of those special cases where the act was justified.

@VTPSTTU 3 ай бұрын

Thanks for the podcast. I'm not advocating for vigilante justice, but there must be a time when we look carefully at the characters of everyone involved in a self-defense shooting and evaluate things accordingly. One of the current favorite internet expressions is FAFO which stands for F Around and Find Out. When an FAFO situation happens, we need to refrain from prosecuting the one acting in self-defense or defense of someone else. That means that we don't prosecute that person for killing the instigator of the problem and we don't prosecute that person for some lesser crime that will cause problems in that person's life. If we are chosen as jurors, we don't vote "guilty" on any charges if the person who was shot instigated the problem. If someone threatens a bus full of kids in the way that McElroy does and gets shot and killed by a parent who is afraid for the kids on the bus, we don't prosecute. If we are jurors, we refuse to vote guilty. In the moment that McElroy was following that bus, he was a danger to all of those kids. The rape of Trina McCloud was imminent whenever he started following the bus. Shooting someone who is about to rape a little girl is justified self-defense. The problem is that prosecutors would have brought charges against anyone who took that step to protect the little girl. It becomes easy for prosecutors and other politicians to say that we should all stand back and let the system handle the problem, but the system wasn't handling the problem. I admit that there's a fine line between shooting McElroy in revenge after he's violated a little girl and shooting him in self-defense (or defense of the innocent) immediately before he violates a little girl. There will be times when that's a tough line to define. I also realize that there are stupid people who think the worst of everyone that they don't like. Those stupid people are likely to kill anyone and make up an excuse for doing so if we let things go too far. Justice is not served by letting people just kill people that they don't like because they can imagine the worst about that person. On the other hand, justice is not served by prosecuting someone who shoots a bully while the bully is hurting that person. Much depends on teaching kids to leave others alone. I'm reminded of a story about a school bully who spent all day telling another kid that he was going to beat the other kid badly as soon as school was over. The bully had been harassing and hitting the other kid off and on for a long time. On that afternoon, the bully's victim got to his car before the bully could catch him. When the bully caught up to the victim at the victim's car, the victim had been able to retrieve a firearm. As the bully started hitting the kid, the kid shot the bully. The jury did the right thing and acquitted the victim. The family ended up having to move from the area because the kid was so traumatized and become some people stupidly took the bully's side. On one hand, I know the parents of the bully were badly hurt to lose their son, but they shouldn't have raised their son in a way that he would be a bully. We have to become a society of people who learn to leave each other alone.

@Douglas_Hamilton 3 ай бұрын

I've heard of this guy but had no idea what a terrible pos he was and what he got away with.

@buttercat1058 3 ай бұрын

This was great and all, but I want Alice to do a u tube while she’s cooking. Not daily, weekly or even monthly, just a few times a year. I’m a visual person and a terrible cook! It would be very entertaining.