"Yes, but the law *was* in his hands to take."
No, it wasn't. He was merely a law enforcement officer.
"There was no Constitutional protection for anyone in Wyoming at that time."
That's blatantly false. I thought it was common knowledge that people in incorporated territories had full constitutional protection, but after reading some of the threads on this board, I guess it isn't. I don't understand how anyone could believe such a thing though. Does it really make sense to you that the federal government, which has to abide by the constitution, would create a territory and then just let them ignore the supreme law of the United States?
In any case, the Wyoming Territory was created by the Wyoming Organic Act of 1868, which says:
§ 16. Federal constitution and laws extended to Wyoming
The constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Wyoming as elsewhere within the United States.
Also, the governor and secretary of the Wyoming Territory had to take an oath to support the constitution:
The governor and secretary to be appointed as aforesaid, shall, before they act as such, respectively take an oath or affirmation before the district judge, or some justice of the peace in the limits of said territory duly authorized to administer oaths and affirmations by the laws now in force therein, or before the chief justice or some associate justice of the supreme court of the United States, to support the constitution of the United States [...]
And one of the purposes of the Wyoming Territory courts was "for redress of all wrongs committed against the constitution":
[...] and the said supreme and district courts, respectively, shall possess chancery as well as common law jurisdiction and authority for redress of all wrongs committed against the constitution or laws of the United States or of the territory affecting persons or property.
"And let's not forget that Little Bill was the law"
Again, no he wasn't. He was a law enforcement officer, and taking the law into his own hands made him a "dirty cop" by definition.
"and was within his power to settle "disputes" and hand out sentences in his best judgement."
Wrong. LEOs have no such power. That's a matter for the judicial system, which was specified in the Wyoming Organic Act of 1868.
"There might have been a federal judge assigned to Wyoming by the U.S. government, but it's likely the federal judge would have backed up Little Bill anyway."
There was a supreme court, district courts, probate courts, and justices of the peace (see § 9. Courts; jurisdiction; judicial districts; clerks; appeals). And any judge who sided with Bill would have been as corrupt as Bill.
reply
share
strntz (11154)
a month ago
You're taking what I said way too literally and building a strawman to attack. I was responding to the poster who questioned Little Bill's meting out justice for Delilah.
Saying "Little Bill was the law" in that town is an expression - it doesn't literally mean he made up laws - he still had to abide by the code, but he had a lot of leeway in this regard and unless someone was willing to try to take this up with a higher court, then the way he handled "his" town (throwing air quotes around that so we don't go off on that tangent) and the way he dispensed the law was going to stand. Unless someone in the Governor's office was going to go against Little Bill, then his decisions to settle disputes and hand out sentences in his best judgement was going to stand. The territorial governor had bigger fish to fry. In other words - Little Bill was the law...
You're right in that I didn't realize that the Constitution extended into the territories, but again we're back to whether someone was going to go the Supreme Court for justice if they got none under the territorial Governor or laws or administration thereof, which was the point of the discussion with Little Bill.
Like it or not, Little Bill was the law.
reply
share
Filmtenk2 (3512)
a month ago
In the Deadwood movie sheriff Bullock had a line "My job ain't to follow the law. My job is to interpret it." I think back then they had considerable powers of discretion. Bullock was no villain in that show he was probably the most honorable character.
reply
share
strntz (11154)
a month ago
Correct, same with Sheriff Teasle in First Blood. Rambo asked if there was any law preventing him from getting something to eat, and Teasle said "me"..
Getting into a right or wrong discussion about old west justice is another topic entirely, but in Big Whiskey anyway, Little Bill was the law.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4214)
a month ago
"You're taking what I said way too literally."
No, I'm not.
"Saying "Little Bill was the law" in that town is an expression - it doesn't literally mean he made up laws"
Except, he does make up laws, such as the imaginary law that allows him to skip due process, and the imaginary law that allows him to appoint himself as "judge, jury, and executioner," and the imaginary law that allows him to use torture as a method of interrogation, and the imaginary law that allows him to assault/batter people in order to "send a message" to other would-be assassins, and the imaginary law that allows him to vandalize other people's property (e.g., English Bob's revolver).
"he still had to abide by the code"
He doesn't abide by the code, though (see above).
"but he had a lot of leeway in this regard"
Not legally. Legally, his job is only to enforce legitimate laws.
"and unless someone was willing to try to take this up with a higher court, then the way he handled "his" town (throwing air quotes around that so we don't go off on that tangent) and the way he dispensed the law was going to stand."
Of course. That's the way corruption always/inherently works, even today. Those are called "scare quotes" by the way, and you should have put them around the word law too, because what he dispensed was absolutely not real law in any way, shape, or form. He was nothing but a violent criminal/murderer acting under the color of law, which makes him worse than a normal violent criminal/murderer, such as William Munny.
"Unless someone in the Governor's office was going to go against Little Bill, then his decisions to settle disputes and hand out sentences in his best judgement was going to stand. The territorial governor had bigger fish to fry."
Again, that's the way law-enforcement corruption inherently works.
"You're right in that I didn't realize that the Constitution extended into the territories"
And that negates your post that I originally replied to, because it was based on the false premise that there "was no Constitutional protection for anyone in Wyoming at that time," so "the law *was* in his hands to take" and that it was "within his power to settle 'disputes' and hand out sentences in his best judgement." Just because he probably would have gotten away with it (had William Munny not taken the law into his own hands and put an end to Little Bill) doesn't make any of those things true, no more than when dirty cops get away with such things today.
reply
share
strntz (11154)
a month ago
And that negates your post that I originally replied to, because it was based on the false premise that there "was no Constitutional protection for anyone in Wyoming at that time,"
My point wasn't based solely on the Constitutional protection issue, and even though I erred in my belief and even if my only point was based on the lack of Supreme Court protection for territorial residents, any intervention by the Supreme Court wasn't going to ever happen anyway, so nothing would change in Big Whiskey from the Feds.
At the end of the day, Little Bill interpreted the law as he saw fit, and absent any kind of oversight action from the territorial gov (unlikely) or the Supreme Court (virtually impossible), Little Bill did what he thought was best for the town in general if not Delilah specifically.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4214)
a month ago
"My point wasn't based solely on the Constitutional protection issue"
When you quoted me you left out relevant parts of my sentence. Here it is again:
And that negates your post that I originally replied to, because it was based on the false premise that there "was no Constitutional protection for anyone in Wyoming at that time," so "the law *was* in his hands to take" and that it was "within his power to settle 'disputes' and hand out sentences in his best judgement."
Those assertions you made (which I "bolded") are entirely dependent on your "no constitutional protection" premise being true, and since that was a false premise, it negates those assertions which follow from it.
"and even though I erred in my belief and even if my only point was based on the lack of Supreme Court protection for territorial residents, any intervention by the Supreme Court wasn't going to ever happen anyway, so nothing would change in Big Whiskey from the Feds."
The case going to the Supreme Court wouldn't be required at all. Even the lowest courts routinely strike down blatant violations of the constitution, such as evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure, and many other things.
In any case, like I said, whether or not he would have gotten away with his crimes had he lived is irrelevant, because the fact remains that they were crimes, not legitimate acts of law enforcement as you tried to paint them.
reply
share
strntz (11154)
a month ago
And that negates your post that I originally replied to, because it was based on the false premise that there "was no Constitutional protection for anyone in Wyoming at that time," so "the law *was* in his hands to take" and that it was "within his power to settle 'disputes' and hand out sentences in his best judgement."
Again, we're getting to to semantics. You can say otherwise, but sheriffs and marshals had enormous latitude back then to settle things as they saw fit. The law code is 1000X times more detailed today, but in the 19th century, the laws were far less specific and covered relatively few things compared to today.
But again, this is a strawman. Little Bill was the Law in Big Whiskey...
So yes, using the expression that the law was in Little Bill's hands to take was not in any way inaccurate, regardless of whether there was any Supreme Court protection or not (there wouldn't be for Delilah). Again, I didn't say he could make law, but interpretation of the law was how many things were handled and Little Bill was no exception. That was the reason for the OP's post.
As far as what Little Bill did, I never tried to paint them as "legitimate" crimes, only the way things were handled, often by necessity given the times and the distances (and the days or weeks it would take to get back to the east).
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4214)
a month ago
"Again, we're getting to to semantics. You can say otherwise, but sheriffs and marshals had enormous latitude back then to settle things as they saw fit. The law code is 1000X times more detailed today, but in the 19th century, the laws were far less specific and covered relatively few things compared to today."
Again, that's irrelevant, because you used the "lack of constitutional protection" false premise to support your assertions, indicating that what he was doing was within his rights / legal, which obviously isn't true. Had you simply said he could do those things because no one was stopping him, that would have just been stating the obvious, and there would have been no point of contention.
"So yes, using the expression that the law was in Little Bill's hands to take was not in any way inaccurate, regardless of whether there was any Supreme Court protection or not (there wouldn't be for Delilah)."
No, it wasn't, because you painted it as legitimate use of power due to supporting it with the false premise (see above). Without that false premise, you could also say that the law was in William Munny's hands to take, which would also be stating the obvious, since he did exactly that at the end of the movie (he appointed himself as Little Bill and Skinny's judge, jury, and executioner). But of course, it was in no way legitimate, just as Little Bill taking the law into his own hands was in no way legitimate.
I'll rephrase what you said in a way that means exactly the same thing, but clearly demonstrates why your false premise negates your assertions:
Yes, but the law *was* in his hands to take, and Little Bill was the law and was within his power to settle "disputes" and hand out sentences in his best judgement, because there was no Constitutional protection for anyone in Wyoming at that time.
Since everything that follows the word "because" is false, it inherently negates everything before it.
You're trying to move the goal post now that you're aware that your original premise was false, by changing it from him being allowed to do those things because there was no constitutional protection in Wyoming at that time, to him being able to do those because he probably won't get caught. Those are two very different things, i.e., in the former he wouldn't be a criminal and in the latter, he is a criminal.
And why do you keep mentioning the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court isn't needed for anything Little Bill did. They don't deal with assault/battery and homicide cases, which is what Little Bill could have legitimately been charged with.
Also, blatantly violating the law in the ways that Little Bill did doesn't count as an "interpretation" of the law. For example, the law uses a "reasonable man" standard, and no reasonable man could interpret the law to mean it's okay for him to torture someone to death, nor torture someone at all, under any circumstances.
"As far as what Little Bill did, I never tried to paint them as "legitimate""
Yes, you did, by using the supposed lack of constitutional protection in Wyoming as that time as the reason why he could do what he did. Had that premise been true, then Bill's actions would have been legitimate.
reply
share
strntz (11154)
a month ago
I only read your first sentence. Honestly, you're like a yapping dog that won't let a bone go. I don't intend to go point to point to again disprove you're wrong.
You can dance around this all you want and build as many strawmen as you want, but the fact is that in western territories, sheriffs pretty much handled the law and interpreted as they saw fit.
If anyone thinks the U.S. Constitution was going to be of any help for Delilah, they're wrong.
That was my point, you're wrong, and that's all the time I'm going to waste with you.
Enjoy your final yap (which I won't read..)
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4214)
a month ago
Your entire post is a non sequitur (i.e., it doesn't logically follow from anything I typed nor from the point of contention in general), and since you didn't address, let alone refute, anything I said, your tacit concession on the whole matter is noted.
"(which I won't read..)"
Your resignation is accepted.
reply
share