Justia - August 11, 2025

Joseph Margulies - The Question We Must Never Ask - Aug 11, 2025

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies examines the recent mass stabbing...

Click here to view in your browser if you are having trouble viewing this email.
Verdict - Legal Analysis and commentary from Justia.

The Question We Must Never Ask

Joseph Margulies Aug 11, 2025

On July 26, 2025, a man walked into a Walmart in Traverse City, Michigan, and stabbed eleven people, ranging in age from 29 to 84. Miraculously, all of the victims survived. As far as we can tell at this time, he had no prior connection to any of the victims or to the Walmart where the stabbing took place, and the victims apparently had no connection to each other. Police describe the attack as “totally random.”
The criminal legal system now has to ask itself one of two questions: What does society do with a man who stabs eleven people for no good reason, and what does society do with Bradford James Gille? The two questions are not at all the same. Gille is the (alleged) assailant. Though he was restrained by people at the scene and arrested shortly thereafter, he was not identified by authorities for several hours. During that interval, we knew almost nothing other than the bare facts of the crime, at least as initially reported by witnesses. In other words, we did not know what happened in Gille’s life that brought him to that store on that day. We only knew that a nameless man had stabbed eleven people for no good reason. What does society do with that person?
But even before he was identified, when he was just a man without a name who had stabbed eleven people, I knew there was a story to be uncovered. I didn’t know what it was, but I knew it was there, waiting to be unearthed, and that the story would complicate the picture. That story would summon to life a human being, and not a nameless avatar of random, senseless violence. I knew it not because I am clairvoyant or particularly wise, but because a story is always most apt to be found precisely in those crimes that seem most incomprehensible. Crimes like this—a random stabbing of complete strangers, unknown to each other and to the assailant, in the middle of the day in a public place, with no precipitating event—just don’t happen without a back story.
And so it was. Within hours of when Gille was identified, reporters began to unearth his long history of mental illness, which apparently began when he was in his mid-teens and experienced some form of psychotic break, perhaps because he smoked some contaminated marijuana. According to his brother, Bradford “never came out of it. He couldn’t even go back to school it was so dramatic of a change and such a dramatic shift.” For the next 28 years, the family has struggled unsuccessfully to find long-term psychiatric care for Gille. “There’s nothing available and there has been nothing available,” his brother told the local press. “There’s only temporary spots for him and he would … get medicated for a little bit and start doing really good,” and then the doctors would release him. His mother told reporters she has lost track of the number of times he has been institutionalized and released.
And soon after he is released, his psychosis catches up with him. “He’s fine when he’s on his medication,” his mother explained. “The problem is, his illness tells him that he is fine and doesn’t need to take his medication.” So, he’d stop taking his drugs, decompensate and eventually disappear. He’d vagabond around the country, homeless or itinerant. His family would lose touch with him until the inevitable news that he was once again in police or psychiatric custody. On one occasion, they were called “in the middle of the night from the police in Pennsylvania that he’s running down the highway naked.”
In 2002, a defense attorney successfully defended Gille on an assault charge and said it was clear even then that he was mentally ill and in need of intervention. In 2007, his mother was interviewed by a local reporter and traced her son’s frequent run-ins with the law to his diagnosed schizophrenia. In 2016, he was arrested at a local cemetery after he tried to dig up the casket of a man who had died two months earlier. He told police the man had been buried alive and that he was trying to rescue him. His mother said he thought the man was his father, who was very much alive. Gille was found not guilty by reason of insanity and confined to a psychiatric hospital. Two days before the stabbing at Walmart, the local police secured a court order to take Gille into custody because he was a danger to himself or others but they were unable to locate him. At the scene, a witness described him as “wild-eyed.”
This is obviously not the whole of the story, and from these few snippets, we still don’t know what happened in Gille’s life that brought him, knife in hand, to that Walmart in July 2025. But it is enough to assure us that there is a story waiting to be discovered. Perhaps the story implicates an over-worked, under-funded mental health system or the current limits of psychiatric knowledge, as many people have speculated. Or it might involve Gille’s genetic history, the circumstances of his childhood and early adulthood, or the contaminated drugs he ingested as a teen. But above all, it reveals the fragility of the human condition, since no baby is born mentally ill and no child asks to suffer from schizophrenia. A forgiving society must insist that we uncover that story before we pretend to know what should be done with Gille, and that we judge him not as some incomprehensible monster but as one of us.
***
By long experience, I have learned not to ask the first, and frequently the last question in a case like this: What does society do with a man who stabs eleven people? Or with a man who shoots and kills four strangers in a skyscraper, as Shane Devon Tamura did two days after Gille’s attack. Or with anyone who commits what seems to be an act of senseless, ruthless violence. These questions simply have no meaning to me—they are utterly incomprehensible—since they imagine that society can intelligently decide what should be done with people without first considering their humanity. The questions are literally dehumanizing, and their very formulation is abhorrent. They are questions that must never be asked.
In the spirit of thoughtful conversation, if you have any reactions to this or any of my essays, feel free to share them with me at [email protected].
Joseph Margulies is a Professor of Government at Cornell University. He is the author of What Changed When Everything Changed: 9/11 and the Making of National Identity (Yale 2013), and is also counsel for Abu Zubaydah, for whose interrogation the torture memo was written.
RECENT ARTICLES
AI’s Limitations in the Practice of Law NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and JD candidate Lior Polani examinee the limitations of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal practice, focusing on the technical constraint of “context windows”—the limited amount of information AI systems can process at once—which hampers their ability to handle complex, interconnected legal documents and tasks requiring nuanced judgment. The authors argue that while AI can boost efficiency in narrow, rule-based legal functions, its fundamental constraints make fully autonomous legal analysis unreliable, and they emphasize that AI should be used as a supportive tool under human oversight rather than a replacement for legal professionals.... Read More
It Is Not Enough for States to Abolish the Death Penalty by Statute or Judicial Decree; They Must Make It Unconstitutional Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Delaware’s historic efforts to constitutionally ban the death penalty, positioning the state to become one of the few U.S. jurisdictions with an explicit constitutional prohibition against capital punishment. Professor Sarat argues that to ensure lasting abolition, death penalty opponents across the country should pursue constitutional amendments rather than rely on statutes or court rulings, which are more susceptible to reversal.... Read More
No Pierogies for Alan Dershowitz! Is Political Discrimination Illegal? Should it Be? Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses Alan Dershowitz’s threat to sue a pierogi vendor who refused to serve him over political disagreements, using the incident to explore whether laws should prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on political affiliation. Professor Dorf argues that while such discrimination is currently legal in most jurisdictions, including Massachusetts, and rarely occurs, creating laws against it could be both unnecessary and costly, and might conflict with First Amendment protections.... Read More
Forward this email.
Have friends who like law? Forward this email.
Like Verdict on Facebook
Like Verdict
for legal discussions on Facebook.
Follow @verdictjustia on Twitter
Follow @verdictjustia
for news and updates on Twitter.
Justia Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.



You received this email because you have subscribed to the Verdict News E-Mail Feed.


If you are experiencing problems with this newsletter, please email our tech support team at [email protected].


Justia | 1380 Pear Ave, Suite 2B, Mountain View, CA 94043