I guess we both missed Mark's invisible footnotes. Sorry.
Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:58
In most books including the best on these subjects, like "Doc Holliday The Life and Legend" and "Wyatt Earp The Life Behand the Legend" the footnotes are so clear and easy to follow. A few books, like Mark's, make you struggle for the footnotes as they are very hard to follow in comparison to the well done footnotes in the two volumes above. Hers is the second book where I missed the footnotes altogether as I had not anticipated the struggle. I am embarrassed but believe the publisher of such footnotes should be much more so. Sorry for this rant.
As that is the way the legal/court system is set up, I don't think it is fair to question those forced to act in the system as it existed and still exists.
I sense you have a contempt for the system? I certainly do for the same reason, its near contempt for the truth. Many say the contest in court of competing interests produces the truth better than any other system. I'm not sure but think that is bull and the courts are rank with corruption as they put winning ahead of all else and fail to confront the corruption in their everyday lack of ethics. We could probably go along time listing what is wrong with the legal system. I think the weight of its years and decades of being in love with itself invites a revolution to bring it crashing down or force real reforn or the guillotine for many in that business. Other than that I am quite moderate about the matter! LOL
I see everything wrong with putting a shotgun in Doc's hands and having him there at all. If other people equally as reliable in Virgils view were available, he should have taken them instead. Yet Spicer seemed to understand the choice and excuse it while criticizing it also? He likely is in a better position to judge than me. I think they should have all had their guns out and presented to make their demands impossible for the cowboys to ignore. Like Spicer tho, I find no criminality in what Virgil did, only poor judgment. The cowboys brought this down on themselves because they did not obey the law. If it turned into a fiasco of poor thinking all around, the weight of the results rests on the outlaws who were breaking the law and started the process towards confrontation. IMHO
Wyatt and Virgil said they were caught off guard because they believed Behan had said he disarmed them. Going down there they assumed it was going to be more than a standard arrest or why take a shotgun. It seems to me they were assuming they would need either additional fireposwer in a possibly murdserous fight or the same to deter a fight with some pretty tough guys?? Virgil got four or five hours of sleep like you:-) Bronk probably could have been there if it was critical but why wake him when you have plenty of help if you think you need it--35 vigilantes to pick and choose from, one of which was a former LAPD officer. Virgil felt he had the men he needed right there and ready. We might want to criticize him for that decision but lack of available additional help was not the basis of his decision. Help was right there and ready. Virgil made that choice for better or worse.
I think you might be on to something with the cowboys not understanding the seriousness of their actions that day. It seems to me they were not prepared to fight and might have been venting with their threats if they made them. But after Ike's performance earlier trying to back up his threats, such venting, if it occurred publicly was foolish beyond belief. Their bad choices made Virgil's bad choices seem tame by comparison and both combined made a fiasco. IMHO
Sorry about the question mark after the quote. I guess I was asking why she wouldn't list a source regarding that comment. You explain it perfectly, who would not try and win. Everyone tries to win... more
I guess we both missed Mark's invisible footnotes. Sorry. Tom Gaumer,Tue Apr 17 10:58