Talk:Carl Switzer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Plagiarism
The following text was removed from the section "Professional dog breeding". It is blatantly plagiarized directly from Morbidly Hollywood, which is a copyright and wikipedia policy violation. I suggest somebody reword at least some of this information since the following paragraph about Stiltz now makes no sense at all. Fife Club 19:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Between acting jobs, Switzer worked as a bartender, and although the pursuit never really worked out, he masterminded a part-time bear hunting scheme. His customers included, among others, Roy Rogers and Henry Fonda. Before one of his hunting expeditions, Switzer borrowed a hunting dog from a friend, Moses "Bud" Stiltz. The dog ran away, and Switzer offered a $50 reward for its return. A few days later, a man found the dog, and brought it to the bar where Switzer worked as a bartender. Switzer paid the man, along with giving him $15 worth of free drinks. Several days later, after a night of drinking, Switzer drunkenly decided that Stiltz owed him the $50 he had spent to get the dog back. So he went to Stiltz' home in Mission Hills to retrieve the money.
It's blatant editorializing inappropriate to an encyclopedia for this article to pronounce a ruling on the justifiability of Switzer's homicide as either "erroneous" or "correct". Furthermore, the article's own reporting makes it abundantly clear that Switzer's killer would have been justified even if Switzer had had no weapon at all. If an assailant is illegally assaulting you with their fists, and bashes your head with a lamp, and confines you to a closet, the measures you are entitled to take to stop them include shooting them, and are not limited to forms of force comparable to those available to the assailant. In other words if a boxer attacks you illegally, you are not legally constrained to fight back futilely using only your fists while he beats your brains out because he's a boxer and you're not, and it's not true that using a gun while he has only fists would be "unfair" while for him to cripple you would be "fair" because you have fists too. Wrong. You are entitled to use a gun, if you have one, against fists. Switzer was, according to this very article, charging at Stiltz to inflict more abuse when Stiltz fired.64.131.188.104 (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
