TexasCHLforum.com

One Ken Rex McElroy was a resident of Skidmore, Missouri (northwest corner of nowhere). He was by all accounts a bully who had been accused of rape, vandalism, arson, theft, and general thuggery. In 1981, at age 47, he was found guilty of assault for shooting a man without provocation. He appealed and was released on bail.

The authorities declined (or refused, depending upon how you look at it) to take further action.

On July 10, 1981, one or more people shot him to death in broad daylight on the town's main street. More than 30 people witnessed the shooting, but they all claimed not to have seen the shooter or to have memory problems. Only McElroy's wife identified a shooter, who was never prosecuted.

The killing is still considered a cold case. It is in the news again because the prosecutor at the time of the shooting left office this week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/us/16 ... ?src=twrhp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I remember when this incident occurred. I was shocked to realize it was 29 years ago.

- Jim
[Edited to correct messed-up link]

Wow thanks for the post. Never had heard that story even though I am familiar with the area.

Small town life is so much different than life in the big city.

Interesting why the judges were so blind to a man who was obviously trouble.

Had this gone to trial, I suspect that it would have been a textbook example of jury nullification.

One of those you reap what you sow stories...

philip964 wrote:Interesting why the judges were so blind to a man who was obviously trouble.

Yes. I have never understood why.

This is not a case of "liberals" giving too many breaks to a "misunderstood yute." The guy was charged with crimes 22 times, and rural Missouri is not "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination. The guy had no wealth or political connections.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

philip964 wrote:Interesting why the judges were so blind to a man who was obviously trouble.

Yes. I have never understood why.

This is not a case of "liberals" giving too many breaks to a "misunderstood yute." The guy was charged with crimes 22 times, and rural Missouri is not "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination. The guy had no wealth or political connections.

- Jim

If this story had come from New Hampshire or Mass, I could more easily understand it. They, like the UK, don't seem to want to prosecute anyone but citizens who try to defend themselves. Career criminals and bullies are allowed freedom to do as they will.

It would be an interesting question to pose to the outgoing DA: Why weren't the crimes of the bully prosecuted?

Besides the news stories, I remember there was a movie made about this event that had some well known (not stars) actors. I've seen it on cable a couple of times and the movie seems to follow exactly the sequence portrayed in the news articles. Interesting aspect is you never know if the "good guy" in the movie was one of the gunmen. It's one of the blanks left for the viewer to fill in.

An interesting subplot in the movie was an insinuated Quid-Pro-Quo tie in with the then practicing county DA. When the DA wanted some "muscle" applied to one of his "problems" he would call McElroy and in return his boy was taken care of in court.

This real life DA didn't survive in the election following the killing and the DA that recently retired was the elected replacement. In the story in last Sunday's paper he says that this was his first case so he's spent 29 years trying to collect enough evidence to take it to trial.

Wish I could think of the name of the movie but my "Oldtimers" is acting up today.

Gerry

chasfm11 wrote:It would be an interesting question to pose to the outgoing DA: Why weren't the crimes of the bully prosecuted?

Many of the deceased's offenses were prosecuted, but he was found guilty only once. The outgoing prosecutor, Mr. Baird, obtained that single conviction. It was Mr. Baird's first prosecution as DA.

It seems that juries would not find the deceased guilty. I can only speculate that they were afraid of what would happen when he got out of prison, which he would unless rough justice got to him there.

If you read the details, he had a habit of stalking and otherwise intimidating complainants and witnesses.

- Jim

Gyrogearhead wrote:Besides the news stories, I remember there was a movie made about this event that had some well known (not stars) actors.

Several movies or documentaries have been made. They are listed in the Wikipedia article.

- Jim

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

seamusTX wrote:

philip964 wrote:Interesting why the judges were so blind to a man who was obviously trouble.

Yes. I have never understood why.

This is not a case of "liberals" giving too many breaks to a "misunderstood yute." The guy was charged with crimes 22 times, and rural Missouri is not "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination. The guy had no wealth or political connections.

- Jim

Actually, Missouri was a border state during the late unpleasantness. There is a stream of liberalism that runs deep in the "Show Me" state. Does this have anything to do with this scofflaw rascal's freedom to terrorize the local citizenry? I dunno'...

Oldgringo wrote:

seamusTX wrote:

philip964 wrote:Interesting why the judges were so blind to a man who was obviously trouble.

Yes. I have never understood why.

This is not a case of "liberals" giving too many breaks to a "misunderstood yute." The guy was charged with crimes 22 times, and rural Missouri is not "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination. The guy had no wealth or political connections.

- Jim

Actually, Missouri was a border state during the late unpleasantness. There is a stream of liberalism that runs deep in the "Show Me" state. Does this have anything to do with this scofflaw rascal's freedom to terrorize the local citizenry? I dunno'...

This was a case while I lived in Missouri. It was not a case of liberals, but a case of the people living in total fear. The guy was very violent and extremely cold blooded. The guy had gotten away with a lot of things over the years. He knew how to work the system and used it to bully everyone. It was a fact of that if this guy got arrested for something, basically anything, and made bail, he would know exactly who reported him in the small town and retaliate, up to and including murder. While I don't advocate vigilantism at all, this was one of those cases of 'some people just need killing'. Someone finally did it and the town stood behind them to finally rid themselves of this predator.

Keith B wrote:This was a case while I lived in Missouri. It was not a case of liberals, but a case of the people living in total fear. The guy was very violent and extremely cold blooded. The guy had gotten away with a lot of things over the years. He knew how to work the system and used it to bully everyone. It was a fact of that if this guy got arrested for something, basically anything, and made bail, he would know exactly who reported him in the small town and retaliate, up to and including murder. While I don't advocate vigilantism at all, this was one of those cases of 'some people just need killing'. Someone finally did it and the town stood behind them to finally rid themselves of this predator.

Wouldn't you like to see this law?

§ 123.01. DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION: HE JUST NEEDED KILLIN'
(a) It is a defense to prosecution under Section 123.01 that the person killed was a bully who, for years, committed numerous crimes against numerous people, but avoided prosecution because he threatened and indimidated witnesses who would testify to his criminal behavior.

WildBill wrote:

Keith B wrote:This was a case while I lived in Missouri. It was not a case of liberals, but a case of the people living in total fear. The guy was very violent and extremely cold blooded. The guy had gotten away with a lot of things over the years. He knew how to work the system and used it to bully everyone. It was a fact of that if this guy got arrested for something, basically anything, and made bail, he would know exactly who reported him in the small town and retaliate, up to and including murder. While I don't advocate vigilantism at all, this was one of those cases of 'some people just need killing'. Someone finally did it and the town stood behind them to finally rid themselves of this predator.

Wouldn't you like to see this law?

§ 123.01. DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION: HE JUST NEEDED KILLIN'
(a) It is a defense to prosecution under Section 123.01 that the person killed was a bully who, for years, committed numerous crimes against numerous people, but avoided prosecution because he threatened and indimidated witnesses who would testify to his criminal behavior.

Suits me

Keith B wrote: This was a case while I lived in Missouri. It was not a case of liberals, but a case of the people living in total fear. The guy was very violent and extremely cold blooded. The guy had gotten away with a lot of things over the years. He knew how to work the system and used it to bully everyone. It was a fact of that if this guy got arrested for something, basically anything, and made bail, he would know exactly who reported him in the small town and retaliate, up to and including murder. While I don't advocate vigilantism at all, this was one of those cases of 'some people just need killing'. Someone finally did it and the town stood behind them to finally rid themselves of this predator.

I think I saw some 60 minutes or other show on this a long time ago. I recall it something like that as well. Even the cops were intimidated.