Discussion in 'Art & Culture' started by KilljoyKlown, May 31, 2012.
And now I'm holding my breath waiting for the next one, "The Vikings,"
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Under modern law, in states with a death penalty, all three of them would be charged with murder. They didn't just "knife" him, they stabbed him repeatedly, again and again and again. It was a MERCY to shoot him, rather than let him die like butchered animal.
They intended to kill him, and only an idiot would think otherwise. Their only defense would be to claim the crime was committed in a fit of passion, and get prison time instead...but in 1880s West Virginia or Kentucky, prison was a very rare sentence, especially in the back country.
Oh, and they didn't just lose a brother...they lost a father, uncle, etc. Why the fuck would the penalty for the crime be based solely an Anse Hatfield's subjective loss (a brother) and no one else's? Do you not factor in that the man they murdered was actually only involved because he was trying to prevent the fight his murderers were trying to start?
80% McCoys, 20% Hatfields, I say.
The real problem between them happened when old man Hatfield deserted his buddies in the army. However, from his point of view they were on the losing side and why should he throw away his life by staying in a lost cause, when he had his family to think about? I mean McCoy looked like a stupid shit to me, and that impression never changed all the way to the bitter end.
I know hon, but we have to look what the law was back then, and I still don't have to agree with the law. If 20 people kill 1, do you think it is fair to kill all 20?? To me it is not, but hey, we are different.
Apparently you didn't see the series. He did survive for 2 more days...
They were all drunk and they were fighting. We already agreed that you didn't see the movie.
....the Hatfields started the whole thing 12 years earlier by killing a McCoy? Then the stolen pig, etc. You should really get familiar with the story first. THEN you can start to argue...
So report back in a week what you have learnt, will you???
But it was a fist fight and it was 3 McCoys against one unarmed Hatfield. No court then or now would think it was not murder for all 3 McCoys. Old man Hatfield made a big mistake not taking this bad business through the courts. But the problem with extracting personal revenge over the law and justice is a feud that creates more of the same.
Yes, you for some incredibly ill-conceived reason believe that only the person who landed the final blow should be charged with the murder, and the rest should receive a minor beating. How fair.
As you say, he lingered and yet you ignorantly assert that the gun shot killed him. You obviously didn't see the show or your realize that the rather large number of stab wounds he sustained almost certainly played as big a role, if not a bigger role, given that there were so many.
That "the Hatfields" killed a McCoy (not the particular Hatfield murdered in this case, but the family as a whole, because you apparently believe in collective guilt, except when the McCoys are doing the killing), and so that justifies the killing of a different member of the family, years later, even though his murderers clearly were NOT attacking him because of the prior crime, but rather for no fucking reason at all other than the fact that he tried to put an end to the fight they were trying to start.
I thank God that the law has never been as you say you would prefer to see it. And by the way, modern law and the law of the 1870s are largely the same on the point of "accomplice" liability for murder. It's an ancient principle. You know who assassinated Caesar? Many people did. You know who was blamed for his murder? All of them, and rightly so.
Not just Brutus because "Brutus stabbed him last".
The last-blow-struck doctrine you propose is offensively stupid and arbitrary, since you might as well at least blame the person who inflicted the *first* potentially lethal wound (in fact, though that too would be stupid, that would actually be *more* sensible rule, since the first man to cross that line into potentially lethal violence often serves as an inducement to the subsequent attackers to also cross that line).
Think things through before you post, son. Don't just vomit out whatever is on your mind.
They already done a hour long show on that...
I liked it.. An now they claim they made it to the interior of the U.S.A not just the coast. An that lead to a crusader voyage here. An the crusaders passed on that knowledge to Christopher Columbus.
All we can do now is speculate though..
In the very beginning, (12 years earlier) it was a bunch of Hatfields against 1 McCoy, who was basicly hunted down. So we could call that even...Here is how it is all started:
"Asa Harmon McCoy was murdered on January 7, 1865. Jim Vance, the uncle of Devil Anse Hatfield, despised Harmon because he had joined the Union Army during the American Civil War. Harmon was discharged from the army early because of a broken leg. He returned home to a warning from Vance that Harmon could expect a visit from Devil Anse's Wildcats. Frightened by gunshots as he drew water from his well, Harmon hid in a nearby cave, supplied with food and necessities each day by his slave, Pete, but the Wildcats followed Pete's tracks in the snow, discovered Harmon and shot him fatally."
Sounds like a cruel manhunt to me, anybody care to argue against that???
Now I apologize to Cavalier, but I won't read his long ramble (generally I don't read long shit, specially from vile people), he lost the privilege of talking to me. Next time he might try to be nicer or more knowledgeable... Like reading about Hatfields killing bounty hunters (who were acting lawfully) and threatening other lawmen.
I don't doubt what you say. But come now, starting a feud in a Hatfields & McCoys thread?
Well, just explaining what happened. Most people (including me) think/thought that it was a feud with even wrongdoing on both sides. After knowing the facts, one can see that the Hatfields were mostly to blame. Most of the McCoy killings wasn't even done by a McCoy...
As I said, Hatfields 80% McCoys 20% as blame goes...
Either side could have stopped and if the McCoys hired mercenaries to do their killing that's still on them. But then when two families feud anybody else with a grudge can kill one on either side and know they won't get blamed. So I'll still blame both sides evenly for keeping the feud going.
That was long too...
I never said you have to read it...
But since you guys are too lazy to look it up in the Wikipedia....
Long? His post took all of 30 seconds to read... I fear for the future of the written word if we are now considering things like that "long."
Even one sentence can be to long if it's a bit insulting.
The Scottish immigrants to NA brought clan issues and feuds with them - part of the honor society characteristic now of the American Southeast.
Some guy has pointed out that recent Somali immigrants show some similarities with the Highland immigrants - men in dresses, killing each other in clan feuds - so we may have another round of that to muddle through.
Probably a Romeo and Juliet story in there somewhere - dibs on the movie rights.
Tribes, clans, gangs & cartels all share the tit for tat mentality. If they don't respond to any show of disrespect, they show weakness or lose face which can spiral out of control and the leader would lose his support, which means he would be ousted or killed. It's pretty much built into those systems and cannot be avoided no matter how stupid it might be.
We are always. "Re running" the same feelings. An it seems that to be human you must be a fighter in some way..
Nothing wrong with fighting for you beliefs, if they don't needlessly get your friends and family members killed off.
That would have been 30 seconds of MY LIFE. Second, he came on as a giant ass in his previous post and clearly expressed that he doesn't know the facts.
Now as long as you are factual and logical, I can put up with your assholeness, but all 3 together is a big no-no...
Separate names with a comma.