Talk:Johnny Behan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
[edit] Gunfight at the OK Corral
This section is decidedly non-neutral; even weasling a bit does not help much. The comment in this section also indicates that I am not the first one to notice that. Being not particularly familiar with the topic, though, I merely added a pov-section, and will leave the npov-ing to more knowlegeable people. There are, afaik, undeniably two contrasting POVs regarding who were the "good" guys there, but then both POVs have to be shown in a neutral manner -- which is not exactly the case here. -- John Smythe 01:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Enforcement of gun ordinances and the question of authority in democracies
I have removed the following section:
Contrary to later claims that indicated the Earps were involved in the noble enforcement of the law, another opinion, more favourably towards the Cowboys, states their interests were less noble, and they were no more in the right than the Clantons were, short of having a misdemeanor law they could enforce at their disposal. The "No handguns in the town limits" law, although effective, was enforced at their convenience, which brought about animosity from the opposition, as friends to the Earp's often would not be disarmed, whereas those the Earps considered a threat or an enemy would be.
As I put in the article: So what? I fail to see how this makes Virgil Earp, police chief, no more "in the right". Any law enforcement officer, then or now, will relieve of a weapon anyone who is offensive or threatening or behaving in less than civil manner, EVEN if it's legal for them to be carrying the weapon. "Selective enforcement" of gun and weapons law as officer safety issue is just common sense. To which I might add that the disarming of Ike Clanton the day of the gunfight was in response to his going around town openly hunting Holliday with rifle and pistol. The attempted disarming of Frank McLaury was made in response not only to his open threats on the officers lives made in the presense of witnesses several days before (reported in court and no rebuttal attempted by the McLaury side), but ALSO in response to reports from several citizens of the town on the day of the gunfight, to Virgil that the McLaurys and Clantons were talking war. One of these reports, that of R.F. Coleman who was a stranger in town and didn't know either faction, is preserved in the trial record. Under such circumstances I fail to see what else an officer of the law could do, but what Virgil did. If you have any evidence that Virgil and deputies ordinarily disarmed their openly-armed political rivals, but ignored gunbelts on their "friends", please present it. That's an allegation made here and by a few partisan historians (and I see in this article, too), but so far as I can tell, without any foundation whatsoever. What happened on the day of the gunfight was under very abnormal circumstances-- so abnormal that one town citizen offered Virgil a posse of armed volunteers before the gunfight (Virgil refused). But this was not routine unfair differential law enforcement. This was a bunch of armed cowboys riding around town talking themselves into a gunfight with the police chief, and finally getting one. If they'd won it instead of lost, I have no doubt they'd have been hanged. And rightly so.
In short, if Frank McLaury wanted to be police chief of Tombstone, or one of its deputies, he should have gotten himself elected, or appointed to the job. Then he could have openly carried a weapon about town. That's the way authority works in a democracy, even if it's semi-honestly gained. For example, nobody tried to disarm Behan, whose own deputies were out of town. But also, nobody complained that Behan was only appointed sheriff in the first place, because he'd first been appointed undersheriff by a sherrif elected on a stuffed ballot box, and later thrown out of office by an election judge. How fair is that? SBHarris 02:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Folklore removal
I have removed:
Behan was closely allied with the Clanton faction, and was often at odds with Tombstone Marshal Fred White. White also was well liked by the Clanton's and the "Cow-Boy" faction, and was generally treated with more respect than Behan, who was looked upon as an ally of convenience rather than a lawman with any particular strength, whereas White was viewed as a respectable lawman who did his job regardless of biased opinion.
I had to take out a similar fiction in the bio of Fred White. Citizen John Behan arrived in Tombstone in October 1880, only a few weeks before White was killed. We have no evidence on how well the two men did or didn't get along. If White ever knew Behan, it was as a bartender at the Cosmopolitan, not as a lawman. He never saw Behan with a badge, as Behan succeeded Wyatt as deputy sheriff a few weeks after White's death, and of course it was Wyatt who arrested Brocius for the White shooting. White and the Earps had spent 11 months together in Tombstone, the last part of this time in town and county law enforcement positions, and no doubt knew each other well. But Behan was a newcomer in town at the time White died. SBHarris 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
