"The state will always have an excuse for why the recipients of its force deserved it." You should put that on t-shirts, mugs, etc. I'd buy at least one of each.
Nice thoughtful piece, as usual. And it’s true that troubled imperfect people who break the law but are otherwise non-violent do not deserve to be gunned down. Period. But the real issue is of course race. These days, the example I use to remind people about the inequitable application of “Justice” and use of force is the guy who broke into Speaker Pelosi’s home in SF. To recap this white guy breaks into the freakin Speaker of the House’s home,threatens to kill her, beats her husband with a hammer in FRONT of the police who then apprehend him without a taser being launched or a shot being fired- even though he was clearly violent. There can’t be doubt in anyone’s mind that if this were a person of color, they’d be dead. Or more recently the 84yo racist who thought it was ok to try to kill a black man for knocking on his door. Fortunately, he didn’t kill him and was arrested and hopefully will spend the rest of his years behind bars. And he will definitely deserve it.
But let's not forget the young woman who was gunned down for turning into the wrong driveway. She died and her friends in the car(s) were assaulted and traumatized for life...for turning into the wrong driveway.
Or the cheerleaders in Texas who were shot for getting into the wrong vehicle.
Race is a big part of it and minorities are easiest to get away with victimizing, but even a child murderer doesn't deserve mob justice. White, black, not-guilty, guilty...the only way we can rationalize the state monopoly on violence is when the rule of law applies equally to everyone, in all circumstances.
Interesting essay, but the comparison breaks down in a significant manner. King was a victim of police abuse, while Neely is a victim of vigilantism.
Both are symptoms of a society in decay, but the rise of vigilantism should be particularly alarming in an era where states are eliminating all barriers to gun possession.
Thank you, though that wasn't my point. Ken's point that a victim 'deserving' of extrajudicial measures from police is not a valid factor is a magnitude difference when such measures are delivered by another citizen.
I took the exact opposite from the essay: that it doesn't matter who does the violence or to whom the violence is done, it's still inappropriate to get into a debate about the merits of the people. I thought he was commenting on the normative statements we use in these situations.
You might be right about the intent...it's difficult to say. In any event, we both agree on the central point that no one deserves extrajudicial justice. The danger is exponentially greater when anyone, anywhere on this country feels empowered to wield this power.
I'm unaware of any caselaw suggesting that defensive force is illegal unless it is "the minimum force necessary." That standard would be basically impossible to meet. The actual standard is whether the force used is reasonable and proportional to the threat. If it's wildly disproportionate, then you may end up in an imperfect self-defense situation where the perpetrator is guilty of manslaughter.
Ah, yes, Heinlein's oft-quoted postulate. If it were true, America would be among the most polite nations in the world. The south side of Chicago would be noted for its courtesy.
A polite society is just a civilized society. Arms have little to do with it.
I live in the NYC metro area and from local reporting, Neely was not an imminent threat to anyone. Just ranting and raving. If the guy knows how to do a chokehold, he would have known how long it took to suffocate someone. If he didn't know, he shouldn't be doing a chokehold. He could have restrained him by grabbing his arms in a locked position with help of the other guys who helped him restrain him on the floor. Regardless once the 3 of them saw, Neely struggling to breathe, they should have stopped but they didn't. That's murder.
I live in the New York metro area too, and I am hearing conflicting reports on exactly how threatening Neely was. There’s security footage of the incident somewhere, but I have not seen it yet. Until it’s available, any characterization of the event is pure speculation.
As for the chokehold, anyone who has watched an action movie in the last 20 years knows what it looks like. If TV was his only source of knowledge, our vigilante might very well have thought he was supposed to hold the choke until Neely stopped moving. Given that he was a retired Marine (Edit: former marine, he was 24), he should have known better, but that does not necessarily mean that he did know better.
We just don’t have enough information yet determine whether this was murder.
“... it’s so foolish and perilous to let the state (or the mob) decide who deserves rights and who doesn’t. Neither the state, nor the mob, will ever conclude that you deserve justice if it sets its eye upon you.”
People on the right, people on the left, and those between must all take this to heart.
I wonder, if the record and privileges allowed to police officers in using violence against citizens have made it such that using force against police is considered reasonable self-defense? Can you stand your ground against someone known to use unreasonable levels of force for the circumstances?
Good question. As a practical matter, however, resistance to cops might make legal principles moot, as you will certainly suffer immediately, and may not live to testify after the fact.
God. Kelly Thomas. Hadn't thought about him in so many years. What they did to that poor man was beyond criminal. If there is someone or something that judges our time on earth after we die, those bastards will pay a heavy price.
I'm sorry to say, I don't believe that our justice system will be fixed. As long as the wealthy can do what they like, why should politicians try to create a fair system for the rest of us?
I feel like you made too much of the word "deserve". I have to believe most people mean that NOBODY deserves to be beaten like that when they say that HE didn't deserve to be beaten like that. Still, it was an interesting and informative essay, so thank you for sharing it.
“It’s been edited for my general illiteracy and to remove dead links.”
I’ve read this before, but read over the phrase “dishing out desserts” a dozen times trying to figure out if it was wrong or clever wordplay (potentially unintentional clever word play). The phrase is “just deserts” even though it is routinely misstated as “just desserts.” But if you’re dishing them out like ice cream, maybe it is desserts in this case.
Desert is an archaic word for deserved reward or punishment. That’s not how the word is used anymore, hence why people misstate the phrase as just desserts.
Its says something about our society when a bunch of keyboard warriors complain about how an ex-marine inadvertently killed a hostile and dangerous felon on a subway car devoid of police officers. Leave it the liberal readers to Monday morning quarter back a very dangerous situation. And I say liberal because it is those people who dont want anything done unless its done perfectly and serves all people at all times - aka impossible. Same reason why you have to spend 1.5million dollars to build a toilet stall in San Francisco. It is a truly a luxury of the out of touch and over educated to sit back and judge those who take action in dangerous situations. It is my firm belief that the victims of a crime have the right to defend themselves, period. Now you can’t expect a bystander to have a gun, taser, and handcuffs like a trained police officer, so they must use what they have - their hands. What that marine did was very difficult and not ideal - because there should have been someone with the proper law enforcement tools closer by. But we can’t blame him and the other bystander that helped him in doing the best they could do in a dangerous situation.
The attitudes of the comments I have read thus far foster the same attitude that lets women get raped in public on a subway with no one intervening. God forbid they do an improper chokehold, so lets just be good citizens and let the woman be attacked. Better safe than be judged by the mid wit Monday morning keyboard quarterbacks.
I hadn't considered the unhelpful framing of "deserving" or "not deserving" violence, whether from the State or a vigilante. Our rights are inviolable regardless of how anyone feels about the circumstances of our lives. Thank for this, Ken.
“He didn’t deserve that, says the other side, unwittingly lending support to the implicit argument that there are some who do”
The supposed Liberals in Hollywood play into this all the time, every time a movie or TV Show has a cop threatening a perp with the idea he’ll be raped in prison, if tells us that a prison system where it’s known rapes happen is A-OK and that it’s a useful tool for cops to use to get information to solve crimes
"The state will always have an excuse for why the recipients of its force deserved it." You should put that on t-shirts, mugs, etc. I'd buy at least one of each.
Just like any abuser.
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Aye. Likewise the recipients of its largesse, regardless of its obscenity.
Solid idea.
Nice thoughtful piece, as usual. And it’s true that troubled imperfect people who break the law but are otherwise non-violent do not deserve to be gunned down. Period. But the real issue is of course race. These days, the example I use to remind people about the inequitable application of “Justice” and use of force is the guy who broke into Speaker Pelosi’s home in SF. To recap this white guy breaks into the freakin Speaker of the House’s home,threatens to kill her, beats her husband with a hammer in FRONT of the police who then apprehend him without a taser being launched or a shot being fired- even though he was clearly violent. There can’t be doubt in anyone’s mind that if this were a person of color, they’d be dead. Or more recently the 84yo racist who thought it was ok to try to kill a black man for knocking on his door. Fortunately, he didn’t kill him and was arrested and hopefully will spend the rest of his years behind bars. And he will definitely deserve it.
*black kid. He was a kid.
But let's not forget the young woman who was gunned down for turning into the wrong driveway. She died and her friends in the car(s) were assaulted and traumatized for life...for turning into the wrong driveway.
Or the cheerleaders in Texas who were shot for getting into the wrong vehicle.
Race is a big part of it and minorities are easiest to get away with victimizing, but even a child murderer doesn't deserve mob justice. White, black, not-guilty, guilty...the only way we can rationalize the state monopoly on violence is when the rule of law applies equally to everyone, in all circumstances.
Interesting essay, but the comparison breaks down in a significant manner. King was a victim of police abuse, while Neely is a victim of vigilantism.
Both are symptoms of a society in decay, but the rise of vigilantism should be particularly alarming in an era where states are eliminating all barriers to gun possession.
Ken might be forgiven for not writing about Neely 11 years ago.
Thank you, though that wasn't my point. Ken's point that a victim 'deserving' of extrajudicial measures from police is not a valid factor is a magnitude difference when such measures are delivered by another citizen.
I took the exact opposite from the essay: that it doesn't matter who does the violence or to whom the violence is done, it's still inappropriate to get into a debate about the merits of the people. I thought he was commenting on the normative statements we use in these situations.
You might be right about the intent...it's difficult to say. In any event, we both agree on the central point that no one deserves extrajudicial justice. The danger is exponentially greater when anyone, anywhere on this country feels empowered to wield this power.
I'm unaware of any caselaw suggesting that defensive force is illegal unless it is "the minimum force necessary." That standard would be basically impossible to meet. The actual standard is whether the force used is reasonable and proportional to the threat. If it's wildly disproportionate, then you may end up in an imperfect self-defense situation where the perpetrator is guilty of manslaughter.
Isn't it said, "An armed society is a polite society"?
This rather pre-supposes vigilantism.
And I suspect it's more, an armed society is a cowed society.
People say lots of stupid things. That platitude (canard?) about an armed society has always bugged me.
Yes, it is stupid. And wrong. Just wrong.
Ah, yes, Heinlein's oft-quoted postulate. If it were true, America would be among the most polite nations in the world. The south side of Chicago would be noted for its courtesy.
A polite society is just a civilized society. Arms have little to do with it.
Before we say this was vigilante murder, we need to answer the following questions:
1) Was Neely sufficiently erratic and threatening to justify being restrained?
2) Was the fatal strangling deliberate or accidental?
3) If accidental, was it sufficiently foreseeable that it should be considered manslaughter or murder?
I live in the NYC metro area and from local reporting, Neely was not an imminent threat to anyone. Just ranting and raving. If the guy knows how to do a chokehold, he would have known how long it took to suffocate someone. If he didn't know, he shouldn't be doing a chokehold. He could have restrained him by grabbing his arms in a locked position with help of the other guys who helped him restrain him on the floor. Regardless once the 3 of them saw, Neely struggling to breathe, they should have stopped but they didn't. That's murder.
I live in the New York metro area too, and I am hearing conflicting reports on exactly how threatening Neely was. There’s security footage of the incident somewhere, but I have not seen it yet. Until it’s available, any characterization of the event is pure speculation.
As for the chokehold, anyone who has watched an action movie in the last 20 years knows what it looks like. If TV was his only source of knowledge, our vigilante might very well have thought he was supposed to hold the choke until Neely stopped moving. Given that he was a retired Marine (Edit: former marine, he was 24), he should have known better, but that does not necessarily mean that he did know better.
We just don’t have enough information yet determine whether this was murder.
“... it’s so foolish and perilous to let the state (or the mob) decide who deserves rights and who doesn’t. Neither the state, nor the mob, will ever conclude that you deserve justice if it sets its eye upon you.”
People on the right, people on the left, and those between must all take this to heart.
"It grieves me how little has changed" <-- this, every day. Thanks, Ken.
I wonder, if the record and privileges allowed to police officers in using violence against citizens have made it such that using force against police is considered reasonable self-defense? Can you stand your ground against someone known to use unreasonable levels of force for the circumstances?
Good question. As a practical matter, however, resistance to cops might make legal principles moot, as you will certainly suffer immediately, and may not live to testify after the fact.
Apparently this past week, shoplifting at Walgreens in San Francisco is a capital offense, sentence executed by a rent-a-cop. It goes on. https://missionlocal.org/2023/05/walgreens-banko-brown-michael-earl-wayne-anthony-video/
God. Kelly Thomas. Hadn't thought about him in so many years. What they did to that poor man was beyond criminal. If there is someone or something that judges our time on earth after we die, those bastards will pay a heavy price.
I'm sorry to say, I don't believe that our justice system will be fixed. As long as the wealthy can do what they like, why should politicians try to create a fair system for the rest of us?
A great quote from a great movie. For those who don't know, now you know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFJm9xbFzc0
Ken should have credited the movie!
Ken gave the readership credit for knowing the movie.
I feel like you made too much of the word "deserve". I have to believe most people mean that NOBODY deserves to be beaten like that when they say that HE didn't deserve to be beaten like that. Still, it was an interesting and informative essay, so thank you for sharing it.
“It’s been edited for my general illiteracy and to remove dead links.”
I’ve read this before, but read over the phrase “dishing out desserts” a dozen times trying to figure out if it was wrong or clever wordplay (potentially unintentional clever word play). The phrase is “just deserts” even though it is routinely misstated as “just desserts.” But if you’re dishing them out like ice cream, maybe it is desserts in this case.
How do you dish out a "desert?" Is it desert in the geographical sense or in the sense of deserting someone in the desert to go eat dessert?
Desert is an archaic word for deserved reward or punishment. That’s not how the word is used anymore, hence why people misstate the phrase as just desserts.
I almost asked if it was biblical in its origin.
Its says something about our society when a bunch of keyboard warriors complain about how an ex-marine inadvertently killed a hostile and dangerous felon on a subway car devoid of police officers. Leave it the liberal readers to Monday morning quarter back a very dangerous situation. And I say liberal because it is those people who dont want anything done unless its done perfectly and serves all people at all times - aka impossible. Same reason why you have to spend 1.5million dollars to build a toilet stall in San Francisco. It is a truly a luxury of the out of touch and over educated to sit back and judge those who take action in dangerous situations. It is my firm belief that the victims of a crime have the right to defend themselves, period. Now you can’t expect a bystander to have a gun, taser, and handcuffs like a trained police officer, so they must use what they have - their hands. What that marine did was very difficult and not ideal - because there should have been someone with the proper law enforcement tools closer by. But we can’t blame him and the other bystander that helped him in doing the best they could do in a dangerous situation.
The attitudes of the comments I have read thus far foster the same attitude that lets women get raped in public on a subway with no one intervening. God forbid they do an improper chokehold, so lets just be good citizens and let the woman be attacked. Better safe than be judged by the mid wit Monday morning keyboard quarterbacks.
I’ve never met a person who uses “mid-wit” non-ironically who wasn’t a waste of skin. Still haven’t.
I hadn't considered the unhelpful framing of "deserving" or "not deserving" violence, whether from the State or a vigilante. Our rights are inviolable regardless of how anyone feels about the circumstances of our lives. Thank for this, Ken.
“He didn’t deserve that, says the other side, unwittingly lending support to the implicit argument that there are some who do”
The supposed Liberals in Hollywood play into this all the time, every time a movie or TV Show has a cop threatening a perp with the idea he’ll be raped in prison, if tells us that a prison system where it’s known rapes happen is A-OK and that it’s a useful tool for cops to use to get information to solve crimes
Appreciate the article, thanks Ken.