MovieChat Forums > MaximRecoil
MaximRecoil (4129)
Posts
Knorr makes the best chicken bouillon cubes
Braden had nothing to do with the ninja attack on Cho's family at the beginning of the movie, and the director agrees
New vs. old
I just went to the same eye doctor that I first went to when I was 10
Betamax myths
Is the humble cow the all-time MVP of the animal kingdom?
I just ordered 4 NOS blank VHS tapes
Check out this USPS tracking history
It's that time of year again
Kornfield Kounty Operator Assistance
View all posts >
Replies
I've never been there, but I live in Maine, so if I want lobster or other seafood, there are plenty of places to get it. It only takes an hour to drive to Belfast for example. There are restaurants there that are directly on the waterfront; fishing vessels dock close enough to unload their catch directly from the boat into the restaurant (I've seen them do it), so if you time it right you can be eating something that just came off the boat a few minutes prior. For example:
https://i.imgur.com/lyl93g1.png
"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:
<i>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, <b>because</b> there was no Constitutional protection for anyone in Wyoming at that time.</i>
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.
"that stupid Kid ruined the movie"
Nonsense. He was a great asset to the movie. His odd phrasing, his strange way of delivering lines, and his false bravado made just about everything he said hilarious.
"You don't look like no rootin'-tootin', son-of-a-bitchin', cold-blooded assassin."
"Like I was sayin', you don't look no meaner 'n hell, cold-blooded, daaamn killer."
"[...] on account of, you're as cold as the snow and you don't have no weak nerve nor fear."
"I'm a damn killer myself, 'cept, uh, I ain't killed as many as you, because of my, youth."
"Nah, it's on account of my Schofield model Smith and Wesson pistol."
"It ain't bent!"
I first saw Unforgiven in the theater when it was new, and I didn't know what to think of him at first, because his acting seemed "off" and he looked like Ricky Schroder, but he was making me laugh. I've seen the movie dozens of times since then (I've owned a copy of it since it was a new release on VHS), and he still makes me laugh, and manages to do so without being a blatant attempt at "comedy relief" by the filmmakers (intentional comic relief characters are nearly always unfunny).
"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," <b>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."</b>
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.
"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 <i>law</i> 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 <i>his</i> 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.
"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:
<blockquote>§ 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.</blockquote>
Also, the governor and secretary of the Wyoming Territory had to take an oath to support the constitution:
<blockquote>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 [...]</blockquote>
And one of the purposes of the Wyoming Territory courts was "for redress of all wrongs committed against the constitution":
<blockquote>[...] 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.</blockquote>
"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.
"Little Bill had every right to question Ned, including by force."
Wrong. This delusional world of yours in which law enforcement officers in the US and its territories have the right to use torture when questioning a suspect; what other drastic differences does it have compared to the real world?
"Little Bill inadvertently used too much force, of course, but he wasn't totally unjustified."
Yes, he was totally unjustified in using any "force" at all in the first place, obviously. The only times LEOs can legally use force are in self-defense, defense of others, and to arrest someone who is resisting, and even then, they can only use enough force to get the job done. They aren't allowed to torture anyone for any reason, obviously. Bill was a "dirty cop."
"But as the girl noted, Bill had no intention of killing Ned."
It doesn't matter; he was a criminal by virtue of assaulting/battering him in the first place; same goes for when he did it to English Bob and William Munny. Even if it's true that he didn't intend to kill Ned, he still could have legitimately been charged with and convicted of some form of murder or manslaughter.
"By law, Little Bill already exacted punishment in the form of their horses. By law, Quick Mike paid for his crime and was done."
That's another comical facet of your delusional world. In the real world, law enforcement officers are not allowed to try, convict, and sentence suspects (and the suspects going along with it makes no difference whatsoever). All of those things are matters for the judiciary.
For the record, Wyoming was an incorporated US territory in 1881 and the US Constitution is in full effect in incorporated territories.
"1) There's an additional element added to the gun. They cased Han's gun in sci-fi stuff so we wouldn't see a German pistol. In Batman, they give Joker's gun a huge barrel so we know it's different."
As I already said, the stuff on Han's gun was unknown stuff with an unknown function, because the prop makers invented it. A longer barrel isn't an unknown thing with an unknown function; it's just fundamentally a pipe, and you could custom order most any barrel length you wanted from S&W way back when, so the Joker's gun could have been 100% factory-stock.
"2) We see the effects of the gun. Han's gun fires different shots. This effect makes us know it's different. Well, we kinda see the effect of Joker's pistol, too."
The effect of Han's gun isn't standalone though; it happens in a movie universe which is already established to have highly "futuristic" (relative to the real world) technology, and we see other "blasters" fire the same plasma type shots before we see Han's do it. And it was established right from the start that it's taking place in a completely different galaxy than our own.
On the other hand, the Joker's gun is an ordinary revolver in a non-futuristic Earth setting, and we see the ordinary effects of ordinary revolvers in other parts of the movie, i.e., they can't defeat soft body armor, exactly like in reality. So when one magically becomes an anti-aircraft weapon, that's a problem, a problem that Han's blaster doesn't have.
The act of breaking your movie's internal logic doesn't count as a valid notice of departure from reality; that would be circular reasoning and would give a free pass to every internal logic inconsistency in every movie ever made. The notice has to be made beforehand.
By the way, Star Wars isn't completely beyond reproach in this respect, since they did use production items as the basis for some of their props (e.g., various makes/models of guns, and flash bulb handles) instead of building all the props entirely from scratch, but because of reasons I've already mentioned, it's minor compared to the Joker's magical gun.
"The third element you highlight - the opening phrase, "A Long Time Ago, In a Galaxy Far, Far Away..." I would actually argue we have as well. The Batman logo tells us this is a comic book where we have special weapons."
And a Smith & Wesson model 15 is definitely not a special weapon, no more than Bob's Colt Government Model was a special weapon, and no more than young Jack Napier's Colt New Service was a special weapon, and no more than the mugger's Smith & Wesson model 19 was a special weapon, and so on. The Joker's handheld electrocution device was a special weapon for example, albeit, an impossible one, but at least it wasn't a production item.
"As to the Joker, he frequently behaves in unpredictable and strange ways. He decides to go on a crime spree that includes mass murder and destruction of art, but he also obsesses over Vicky Vale. He uses acid to make "people art". He kills his own goons sometimes. He has a "bang" gun. That's just in this movie. The character throughout his history is anarchic and chaotic. I don't know what more to tell you. If you don't buy into that essential element of randomness, I guess we just think of the Joker very differently."
None of that means he's insane, and he certainly has a normal self-preservation instinct, as demonstrated in the movie multiple times, except for that one time when the script informs him that he'll be perfectly safe standing in front of machine guns and explosives being fired directly at him.
"I'm of the opinion that the film does have its own internal logic and you aren't."
I didn't say that. All movies have internal logic. Some of them break it more than others do, and some of them don't break it at all.
"See, for me, when I see the Joker pull out the extra long pistol, I already suspect that this is not an ordinary gun."
Except we can clearly see that it is an ordinary gun, a Smith & Wesson model 15, with an unusually long barrel, which does nothing other than increase the velocity and sight radius. The K-frame isn't even S&W's biggest/strongest revolver frame; it's their medium frame which was largely supplanted by their L-frame (medium-large) because it didn't hold up very well to a steady diet of .357 Magnum rounds. We can clearly see that the frame and cylinder are far too small to accommodate anything that's even remotely close to being an anti-aircraft round. There are no modifications you can possibly do that can make it accommodate such a round while still having it look stock from the outside, unless they incorporated the "TARDIS effect" into the Batman universe.
"I can't think of a real world chemical that will transform a person's skin white and hair green, either."
That's not a problem, because the chemical was unknown from the audience's perspective. Had the chemical been known to be, e.g., CH3CH2OH (ethanol), then it would be a problem, just like the known gun (S&W model 15) shooting down an aircraft is a problem (the problem being bad writing).
"I think Batman probably couldn't use two small pitons to create a zipline (in the art gallery) that could hold his weight and Vicky Vale's."
That's not a real-world production item with known parameters like a S&W model 15 is.
"Standing in the path of gunfire is not out of the question for Joker."
Only when the script informs him that he'll be perfectly safe, despite the hail of machine gun bullets and explosive shells all around him. Also, there was nothing in the movie that indicated he was insane, quite the opposite in fact. Insanity is a severely disordered mind, which results in a person being largely incoherent and out of touch with reality. The Joker indicated that he had a very well-ordered mind and was very much in touch with reality, enough so that he could manipulate it to his liking by putting various plans into effect.
"But, again, it's not the real world."
Again, "like reality unless noted," and again, a movie needs to have consistent in-universe logic (i.e., follow its own rules), else it's bad writing.
" So, it doesn't do a lot of good to complain that it's a K-frame revolver, because while that is true, that's only what the prop is made out of."
No, that's also what the gun was in the movie, because, again, "like reality unless noted."
"Arguing that the prop is made from a Smith & Wesson, and therefore cannot shoot down an airplane, is like arguing that Han Solo's blaster pistol is based off of a Mauser C96, and therefore shoots 7.65mm cartridges instead of blaster bolts."
Wrong. The departure from reality was first noted in Star Wars in the opening crawl: "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away." Mausers were only manufactured on Earth. It was again noted by the fact that the Broomhandle Mauser prop was dressed up with greeble of unknown functionality that a real-world one never had, and again noted when we saw it fire some sort of plasma burst, which established that, in the Star Wars universe, it wasn't a firearm of any kind.
Batman, on the other hand, takes place on Earth, and not only is there nothing noting that firearms work any differently in the Batman universe than in the real world, but it's shown that they do work like real-world firearms, such as when Batman's soft body armor stops handgun rounds, something that real-world soft body armor can do as well. Then, without noting any departure from reality with regard to firearms/ammunition (such as showing the Joker inventing some incredibly devastating form of ammunition that will miraculously fit in a K-frame revolver and not blow it to pieces when fired), the Joker shoots down an aircraft with a .38 Special. That's bad writing.
"But, when it comes to the Joker's actions... I don't think he has a self-preservation instinct."
Of course he does. Why do you think he was struggling to get free of the gargoyle that was tied to his leg when he was on the helicopter's rope ladder? Why do you think he tried to avoid getting hit again with his "You wouldn't hit a guy with glasses..." bit? Why do you think he had armed henchmen? Someone with no self-preservation instinct wouldn't last long, especially in a city. They would soon, e.g., wander into traffic and either be killed or seriously injured.
View all replies >