
‘No One Saw a Thing’: When a Midwest Town Banded Together to Kill the Town Bully - BobbyVsTheDevil
https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-one-saw-a-thing-when-a-small-midwest-town-banded-together-to-kill-the-town-bully
======
dwheeler
> 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 generations that doing as they
> savagely pleased was OK—and that they could get away with it, because their
> friends and neighbors wouldn’t speak out against them.

I'm not persuaded, at least by this text. Another possible interpretation is
that the legal system around Skidmore was completely unable to convict a
repeat violent offender (McElroy), leading to a widespread (correct) belief
that the legal system would not also provide any kind of useful restraint to
future offenders. Indeed, that interpretation seems more likely to me.

That doesn't make the actions acceptable, of course. But it does put a
spotlight on the importance of having a _working_ legal system that provides
some reasonable level of protection to the larger community.

~~~
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.

~~~
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.

------
kemiller2002
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 hundred pounds, that's hard, and really
scary to think someone can do that who doesn't like you. You don't cross an
individual like that lightly.

You have to remember this was 35+ years ago when this all happened. Things
aren't what they used to be now. People didn't make long distance calls back
then, because it was too expensive. You lived out it in the middle of nowhere
especially back then, you're on your own. No one is coming to help you if
you're in serious trouble. My parents had this joke. They said the fire
department had a perfect record around where we were. They hadn't saved a
house yet. Don't get me wrong, they really respected the firemen. The point
was that when you live 20+ miles away from the fire station, there is no
possible way they are going to save the house in time. There was no GPS, and
911 had only been invented a little over a decade before. A lot of people
didn't even own phones.

It's easy to talk about the rule of law, and how they should let the justice
system work it out, but it's a different kind of law in those parts. In a town
that size, everyone knows everyone, and you're always talking to someone's
brother, cousin, sister, etc. Oh you filed a report against someone?...yeah
word gets around. The kind you don't want. Evidence gets "lost", etc. A lot of
times it was (and still is in certain places) easier to just keep your mouth
shut and move on. I'm not saying I agree with what they did, and I wasn't in
their position, so I don't know what I'd do. I can sure see why they thought
that was the only recourse they had though.

~~~
mixmastamyk
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.

~~~
smacktoward
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.

~~~
rocqua
The lack of an ending to that show was very frustrating.

There is a movie out to wrap up the story. I haven't seen it yet, but I have
high hopes.

~~~
smacktoward
Agreed. And I haven’t watched the movie yet either; I’m too afraid it won’t be
good enough to live up to the wait...

------
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.

~~~
rocqua
Perhaps sometimes, people need to do things that, whilst we would do the same
in their position, we still want to condemn as wrong. Not because we disagree
with their action, but because we need to signal to the outside world that
actions like it are wrong. The circumstances that made such an action
acceptable to our minds privately are too nuanced, too easy to stretch to
publicly say they made it okay.

As a consolation, in these kinds of cases, taking action and dealing with
condemnation is still better than not taking action. Of course, it is not
right that people have to choose between two wrongs (living with the
situation, or taking action and being condemned for it).

But life isn't fair. That isn't a statement of 'pushing the world into a fair
state is infeasible to the point of imposiblity'. Instead, it is a statement
that 'there is no state of the world that could be described as fair.

Moreover, the effect of such 'unfair condemnation' is tempered by people like
you. I suppose that an actual working society needs both voices. Certainly,
the signaling effect does not require that the condemnation be universal, just
that it is substantial.

~~~
chrisdhoover
We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Are you the queen?

~~~
rocqua
We - members of society.

The sentence started with perhaps. Hence, this was a supposition about how
society should be.

------
mirimir
TFA doesn't explore at all how McElroy managed to "evade jail" after so many
crimes. But it seems that basically there were enough people who would provide
false alibis.[0] Maybe because he had threatened them.

0) [http://mentalfloss.com/article/574749/ken-mcelroy-murder-
ski...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/574749/ken-mcelroy-murder-skidmore-
missouri)

~~~
ascorbic
That's a much better article

------
cossatot
A similar episode was the basis for the historical novel "Killing Mister
Watson" by Peter Mattheissen, which is one of my favorite books.

A ruthless man named Edgar Watson, who had purportedly killed several people
in Oklahoma and Florida, settled in the coastal Everglades of Florida
(Chokoloksee area) around the turn of the last century and started a sugar
cane plantation. He was known for the 'Watson payday' where, at the end of the
harvest season, he would gather all of the drifters and ne'er-do-wells he had
hired as fieldhands and gun them down. Additional bad behavior toward his
neighbors lead to all of the town's men standing in line and gunning him down
as he landed his boat on Chokoloskee Island one day.

------
futureastronaut
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy#1981_killing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy#1981_killing)
for a more to-the-point account.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Thanks, was going to write that this article was rather disappointing. It is
more concerned with metadata about the miniseries and economic consequences
rather than the story at the center.

------
commandlinefan
There was a case not too long ago in India where a serial rapist kept evading
conviction, so the women in the town gathered together, stabbed him to death,
and then all confessed to the crime together. None of them ended up being
convicted.

------
SolaceQuantum
This is a review of the documentary covering a 'Town Bully' who had evaded
authorities and continued to harm people repeatedly. In order to protect the
community, a group of vigilantes murdered them, and the community refused to
issue any statements to authorities regarding anyone's involvement.

I think broadly, I wonder what the place of vigilanteism like this should
serve. The sentiments to protect the community against a man who isn't being
recieved adequate justice- this in my opinion seems to echo the justification
of other movements I'm aware of. There's often community discouse online on
what to do with known bad actors when moderatorship isn't adequate for
example.

~~~
leetcrew
it seems like a more extreme version of jury nullification. if it became
widespread, it would essentially be the end of rule-of-law. but in isolated
and rare situations, perhaps it's a beneficial escape valve? easy to suggest
from my comfy office in a quiet suburb of course.

~~~
vkou
It's not a 'beneficial escape valve' when the community decides to, say, kill
the n_______ who had the audacity to sleep with a white woman.

Which is a far more common application of lynching. We should not be
glorifying this.

~~~
harimau777
Regardless of whether or not vigilantism is ever justified, I don't think that
killing someone that has made a credible threat which law enforcement has
shown they are unable to protect you against is equivalent to killing
motivated by racism.

~~~
vkou
Lynching has _always_ been driven by people reacting to what they believe was
a credible threat, that law enforcement has failed to protect them from.

In the historic case, that 'credible threat' was 'race mixing', uppity
______s, jews that were too well off for their own good, etc.

When you let the most violent members of a small town community unilaterally
decide what is, and what is not a credible threat, that is exactly what you
will get.

~~~
AndrewBissell
Are you comparing a townspeople who faced daily threats of actual violence
from a pedophile bully, and who watched him routinely evade justice in the
courts, to lynch mobs who executed random people of a certain skin color for
looking at someone's daughter the wrong way?

"Credible threat" has an actual meaning beyond just "whatever people think a
'credible threat' is".

~~~
vkou
It was credible enough to them that they would kill another human being over
it.

The whole point of a lynch mob is that you get to throw out any objective
standard of credible threat, and replace it with a subjective, heat-of-the-
moment one, proposed by the thugs leading it, who know they will face no
accountability for their actions.

That's what happens when you normalize lynching. Shitty people will happily
use it as a weapon for injustice.

~~~
AndrewBissell
"credible enough to them" is a meaningless phrase which elides the crucial
distinction at hand. The people of Skidmore were objectively justified in
feeling physically threatened by McElroy. Lynch mobs were not.

If you want to argue a slippery slope exists (and I think that may indeed be
the case), blurring these very different motives together does not bolster
your case. I mean, the town of Skidmore _didn 't_ go on to exact this kind of
vigilante justice on anyone else, did it?

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Exactly. Hindsight is 20-20 and with hindsight we pretty much agree this guy
got what he had coming to him (even if the proper legal procedures weren't
followed) whereas the people who got lynched for racial reasons didn't.

------
douglasfshearer
Criminal, the podcast, did an episode about the killing of Ken McElroy. [0]

An episode that stuck in my head.

[https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-66-bully-5-5-2017/](https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-66-bully-5-5-2017/)

------
yellowapple
> Britt Small, in fact, says that the only mistake made during the entire
> ordeal was not killing Trena too

Wait, what did Trena do to also be a potential target here? Just guilt by
association? Or was she actually actively participating in the criminal acts
(and not being coerced to do so, as I imagine one might be before/while/after
marrying a violent criminal at age 12)?

The article couldn't, you know, delve into this a bit more?

~~~
Verdex
I remember watching some news program about the event (maybe the 60 minutes
piece mentioned in the article). I believe they interviewed Trena and she
expressed anger that her husband was murdered and nobody would testify or try
to bring the murderer(s) to justice.

My guess is that Small doesn't like that she caused waves after the murder. As
opposed to just going along with it.

------
AndrewBissell
Would have liked to have heard more detail about why the local justice system
was unable or unwilling to restrain McElroy.

The whole situation raises some interesting parallels to wealthy & powerful
malefactors routinely skating past legal consequences in our federal courts
system.

------
kenforthewin
I highly recommend the book In Broad Daylight, which the TV movie was based
on. Surprised they didn't mention this in the article.

~~~
betenoire
It's there:

> ...an incident that became so notorious they even made a TV movie about it
> (1991’s In Broad Daylight, starring Brian Dennehy, Cloris Leachman, Marcia
> Gay Harden and Chris Cooper)

------
IronWolve
This is still going on in Alaska, many remote areas have some bullies getting
away due to no police. I'm sure some end up missing too, but there is a big
lack of funding for state marshals to deal with the problems.

~~~
jascii
I am not saying you are wrong, however this comment would be a lot more
useful/interesting if you mentioned some sources.

~~~
majos
Not parent, but this well-researched and gripping anecdote [1] may offer a
helpful picture of American places where the law is not so dependable.

[1] [https://magazine.atavist.com/outlaw-country-klamath-
county-o...](https://magazine.atavist.com/outlaw-country-klamath-county-
oregon-guns-murder)

------
praptak
A similar incident from 2005:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_at_W%C5%82odowo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_at_W%C5%82odowo)

------
myrandomcomment
One could see this as a man being tried by a jury of his peers.

------
HocusLocus
OBVIOUSLY this vigilante justice was not planned over the entire time span of
McElroy's rein of terror, or it would have happened long before. So there is
no intrinsic aspect of flash-mob vigilantism we should be concerned about.

OBVIOUSLY no one here is in a position to exonerate any of the specific crimes
McElroy committed.

Sounds like a nice place to live, but if you were to be drawn there because of
this they probably wouldn't want you living there. That is the attitude of
people who feel resentful that 'doing what needs to be done' has drawn more
national attention than the collected crimes of McElroy ever did.

------
sunstone
This kind of thing has been happening since humans roamed the plains of
Africa. A smallish group of humans can only take so much anti-social behaviour
before a permanent solution is required. Now, with larger groupings of towns
and cities, society can afford to be somewhat more merciful.

------
prestonbriggs
Peter Matthiessen's book "Killing Mr. Watson" centers on a similar story in
south Florida.

------
dmix
[https://www.amc.com/shows/no-one-saw-a-thing/full-
episodes/s...](https://www.amc.com/shows/no-one-saw-a-thing/full-
episodes/season-01/episode-01/the-killing-of-ken-rex-mcelroy)

------
logfromblammo
Midwesterner here: Skidmore, MO, is not in The Midwest. It is on The Prairie.
Which is the easternmost part of The West.

The Midwest starts west of the the line between Fort Duquesne in Pittsburgh to
the southwest corner of New York. It is north of the Ohio River, and east of
the Mississippi River. St. Paul is Midwest. Minneapolis is Prairie.

St. Louis is "the Gateway to the West", not "the Gateway to More of the
Midwest".

~~~
bediger4000
Midwesterner here: grew up in or near Kirksville, MO, about 165 miles east of
Skidmore. I hereby swear or affirm that Skidmore is in the Midwest,
geographically and culturally, although northern Missouri/southern Iowa have
their own version of "midwest". That part of the world is definitely not
plains geographically or biologically: it's oak/hickory forest growing on
dissected glacial till. You don't get to "plains" geographically until you're
well into Kansas at that latitude, and even then, Kansas and Nebraska are
culturally midwestern, despite their pretensions to cowboy.

~~~
logfromblammo
You might say "pop" instead of "soda", but you will never escape your
Louisiana history. No _true_ Midwesterner grows their corn and soybeans
anywhere west of the river.

It's not our fault that _true_ Midwestern culture is so rich and interesting
that the folk of the Great Plains were compelled to emulate it. But to be
fair, you are the second-best completely-distinct-and-separate cultural region
in the US, so don't feel too bad about it.

~

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

"The Midwest" is poorly-defined. Most polls conclude that Midwesterners
believe that the Midwest is at least their state and neighboring states, and
non-Midwesterners have basically no idea where it starts or ends.

The census region more or less covers the Northwest Territories plus that part
of the Louisiana Purchase that became Missouri Territory. Largely settled by
Germans and Scandinavians, and mostly free states (except Missouri itself).

I refer to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States#Cultu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States#Cultural_overlap)
for further info on how the definition of "Midwest" differs depending on what
part of the Midwest you're from.

------
neaden
To be clear, community murders like this happened all the time in US history.
The thing that makes this special is that the man killed was white and
actually guilty of crimes.

~~~
braythwayt
100% true. This is the history of lynching in America. Community murders where
nobody saw a thing, and the justification was always that the murdered person
was a degenerate who would not receive what the town thinks would be adequate
punishment under the law.

~~~
vinceguidry
Great reading on the culture that gave rise to lynching:

[https://www.quora.com/Did-slave-masters-actually-lynch-
slave...](https://www.quora.com/Did-slave-masters-actually-lynch-slaves-
themselves-or-did-they-have-authorities-do-it/answer/Erik-Painter)

~~~
chrisco255
Grotesque but the fact is that these public square hangings were done since
medieval times and probably earlier. From the Salem witch trials to the San
Francisco vigilantes, it happened in many town squares, and it was believed to
be justified: [https://www.legendsofamerica.com/ah-
lynching/2/](https://www.legendsofamerica.com/ah-lynching/2/)

~~~
vinceguidry
These weren't all that long ago. Someone claimed that there are people walking
around today that went to one of these events. I couldn't corroborate that
claim but we're talking less than a hundred years ago. While the Middle ages
were some 5-900 years ago.

Also what makes these public killings so notable is the fact that it was a
deliberate effort of an entire society to instill fear into a minority. That
you don't see very often. There wasn't even an attempt at justice, they didn't
even try to make it seem like these people weren't being killed just because
of the color of their skin.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Also what makes these public killings so notable is the fact that it was a
> deliberate effort of an entire society to instill fear into a minority. That
> you don't see very often.

I _prefer_ the version of history suggested by the last sentence, but
unfortunately cannot _accept_ it was accurate.

Looking around the world, I see it frequently and with broad geographic
distribution. (Though it's not the whole society, just the dominant group,
both in the immediate example and the general case across time and space.)

------
fallingfrog
Over the long timespans of human evolution I’m willing to bet that this is a
significant selective pressure.. bullies probably just disappeared or were
kicked out of the community to fend for themselves

~~~
nostrademons
He had 14 children, though - that doesn't seem like a failure to pass along
his genes.

~~~
pixl97
Well, its probably easy to have kids with a large number of women if you
actively include 'poor choices' relative to your social standing. Seemingly
most people want to move up or at least stay equal in social ladders when it
comes to the choice of a mate.

------
scarejunba
If the man were innocent and the town’s people ganged up on him, Salem style,
would the evidence look different?

~~~
raquo
> For more than two decades, McElroy was suspected of being involved in theft
> of grain, gasoline, alcohol, antiques, and livestock, but he avoided
> conviction when charges were brought against him 21 times—often after
> witnesses refused to testify because he allegedly intimidated them,
> frequently by following his targets or parking outside their homes and
> watching them.

> McElroy began stalking the Bowenkamp family, and eventually threatened Bo
> Bowenkamp in the back of his store with a shotgun in hand. In the ensuing
> confrontation, McElroy shot Bowenkamp in the neck; Bowenkamp survived, and
> McElroy was arrested and charged with attempted murder. McElroy was
> convicted at trial of assault, but freed on bail pending his appeal.
> Immediately after being released at a post-trial hearing, McElroy went to
> the D&G Tavern, a local bar, with an M1 Garand rifle with a bayonet
> attached, and made graphic threats about what he would do to Mr. Bowenkamp.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy)

Does an innocent person look like this? You tell me.

~~~
scarejunba
Oh, I don’t think he’s innocent, but all information about this is post facto.
All those sources exist _after_ he was killed.

I’m less conspiracy theory about this, and more just remarking (pointlessly, I
suppose) how information deteriorates over time. Some may even be true, but
used as a tool to build the rest around.

~~~
raquo
He was convicted of attempted murder while he was very well alive. He was also
charged for many other crimes for two decades, the charges just never stuck
because he intimidated the witnesses. Plenty of information about his deeds
was recorded prior to his killing.

~~~
scarejunba
Whoops, I goofed. This stuff is pretty well documented actually. I look like a
conspiracy theorist now.

