200 armed men in a mob bent on murder should be shot. As often as possible.
Joe was being held pending trial by agreement with the governor, who had guaranteed his safety.
I believe Joe and the other prisoners were entirely justified in trying to use lethal force to protect their lives.
I think Joe was guilty of a great many crimes and should have been prosecuted and punished for them. Not murdered by a mob in cahoots with those who were supposed to be protecting him.
This type of mob action was an ongoing problem in IL and other American states at the time. Six years before the murder of Smith, an obscure young IL lawyer gave a speech on the subject, just 100 miles away. I agree with him.
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm
“I think Joe was guilty of a great many crimes and should have been prosecuted and punished for them. Not murdered by a mob in cahoots with those who were supposed to be protecting him.”
I agree. Joe was guilty and the frontier often acted outside the law to bring justice.
I would have preferred to see Joe face a jury.
Was justice done? Hard to say. A jury might have punished him in the same way. Did Joe reap what he had sown? I think so. His life was a tragedy that has gone on to afflict millions.
And you know exactly how many armed men there were how?
And you absolutely know that NONE of these armed men were prison guards who knew Smith had been weaponized how?
Not murdered by a mob in cahoots with those who were supposed to be protecting him.
Well, I agree...
#1...the jack Mormon sheriff charged with protecting Smith should have done his duty and not be so easily overrun (without a fight)
#2...Unless, of course, the jack Mormon sheriff already knew that two guns had been smuggled into Smith and didn't want to risk his own harm -- or anyone in his employ -- of trying to confiscate those weapons. And if that was the case, no wonder he let the mob take on an armed prisoner...
I imagine if any of that mob heard about the guns having been smuggled into Smith that they felt justified in storming his room.
Or do you advocate that prisoners with a loaded weapon in any prison today not be confronted with an armed response?
Seems to me you're saying that if a prisoner today knows he is a target of say -- another prisoner -- who has been weaponized...that it's "OK" for that prisoner to likewise become weaponized in self-defense.
Is that what you advocate for our prison system today?