From: firstinitiallastname@texas.net   
      
   Coalbunny wrote:   
      
      
   > Gerald, while I feel that in many instances such an action would be   
   beneficial   
   > to a community, I always think of the other side of the coin- what if these   
   guys   
   > are just looking for a reason to do someone in?  Like come on Gerald, you   
   can't   
   > tell me that never happened!  Even today cops harass people they don't like.   
   > Back then I'd figure it was easier.  E.G.- Someone is robbed and so   
   they"look"   
   > for the person.  They find the guy they don't like, and kill him, claiming he   
   > fought back.  Regardless if he did it or not, and regardless if he fought   
   back   
   > or not.  Hell, he may not have even been armed.   
   >   
   > Please realize that's only an example.  But it could have happened.    
   Everything   
   > has a downside.   
   > Carl   
      
   The most frequently killed "innocents" were probably in cases where   
   unknown bandits were hunted, and the first group that fit the profile   
   got wacked.   
      
   But if you study reliable accounts, what strikes the modern eye is how   
   often known crooks were allowed to go on for years before anyone took   
   them in hand and finally mustered the gumption to decorate an convenient   
   oak tree with their carcasses.   
      
   Your notion that a significant number of incidents had someone doing in   
   someone they just didn't like, using an unrelated bad man as an excuse   
   grows, I think, out of a couple of errors. One was that the west was as   
   full of annonymous folks as today's cities. When you read contemporary   
   accounts by those who participated in events, its remarkable how many   
   people on the frontier knew so many of the same people. It's really   
   striking when you find that people like Charlie Siringo and James Cook,   
   both of whom wrote very readable accounts of their lives, ran across the   
   same characters in their travels. In small communities, someone who   
   committed a heinous act was well-known and recognized by many, if not   
   all who pursued them.   
      
   The other is the mistaken believe that most people on the frontier would   
     kill casually and frequently. I think this grows out of a practical   
   reality for people in places where there is no effective law. A quite   
   clear distinction was made between types of homicide.   
      
   One has been called "an unfortunate happening", including such things as   
   two people with a history of bad blood meeting in the wrong time and   
   mood and events taking their course. Considered unfortunate, but   
   understandable. And likely not punished or even held very strongly   
   against the survivor.   
      
   Another has been call "a killing", which was something considered   
   necessary. It might involve a continuing high hazard to the community or   
   a man who declared he would kill another the next time he saw him.   
   Should the person threatened come out on top, it was considered   
   justified. There was one here, a long time ago. A sheriff of Caldwell   
   County was shotgunned as he walked home one evening. Everyone knew who   
   had done it, because more than a few saw it happen. In about 1978, I   
   talked to an old man who saw it when he was a boy. I have never learned   
   what the sheriff had been doing to make the community feel it was   
   justified, but the shooter mover two counties over and was never pursued   
   or charged.   
      
   The third was "murder", killing for meanness or to steal. And "a   
   killing" might naturally follow, should no effective legal recourse be   
   at hand.   
      
   This isn't to say that a known crook didn't, from time to time, get   
   wacked for something he hadn't actually done. But most often he was   
   really getting wacked for doing many other things like it, without which   
   he wouldn't be targetted.   
      
   And if you happen to live somewhere where it's generally true that the   
   police harrass those they arbitrarily take a dislike to, you should   
   actively protest it. I personally don't know many who have time to   
   harrass innocents, having far too much to do with real crooks.   
      
   Orwell's line:   
   --   
                          Gerald Clough   
       "Nothing has any value, unless you know you can give it up."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)