A Brief History
On July 21, 1865, a real life showdown resulting in face to face gunplay happened for the first time, the first of the classic duels we have come to know as a Wild West gunfight.
Digging Deeper
Wild Bill Hickock, later one of the West’s most famous characters, was gambling in Springfield, Missouri, but not well. Hickock lost his money playing poker, and owed his friend Davis Tutt, also a Civil War veteran but from the opposite side. (Hickock was a Union veteran, Tutt a Confederate) money to repay loans. As collateral, Tutt seized Hickock’s pocket watch, a prized heirloom. Hickock, humiliated at the loss of his watch, warned Tutt to not wear it in public.
Of course, things being what they are, Tutt flaunted the watch in public, enraging Hickock. Hickock called out Tutt in the classic television and movie Western gunfight, the 2 steely eyed gunmen facing each other on the city street, right at the town square. Each drew their pistol and fired, Tutt’s bullet missing Bill, but Bill’s finding its target, killing Tutt.
The gunfight was held at about 75 yards, an extremely long range for such a duel. At Hickock’s trial, exactly who shot first was disputed, but after 3 days Hickock was found not guilty by reason of self defense, although that seemed to be contrary to Missouri law, Hickock having gone into the street with the intention of having a shoot out.
The gunfight received much public attention, and Harper’s writer George Nichols quickly began interviewing witnesses and accumulating information that became an article in Harper’s in 1867. This incident became the basis for the classic Hollywood Western shoot-out, although actual incidents such as this were rare.
Hickock rode his fame from this gunfight to a final 1876 card game in Deadwood, South Dakota, where he was ambushed while holding Aces and Eights, now known as “The Dead Man’s Hand.”
Question for students (and subscribers): Have you ever been to Deadwood, South Dakota? Please let us know in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
For more information, please read…
Rosa, Joseph G. Wild Bill Hickok, Gunfighter. University of Oklahoma Press, 2003.
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="3131 http://www.crackedhistory.com/?p=3131">160 Comments
I think it was silly that they got in a gunfight over a watch. I feel like Bill would have been found guilty, but the court said otherwise.
I think it is extremely ironic that someone could be found not guilty by reasons of self-defense during a duel. Isn’t the purpose of a duel to have two parties shoot at each other intentionally?
I’m kind of surprised that Missouri didn’t find the Union veteran guilty, but maybe it was because there were more Union supporters on the jury than ex-Confederates. Wild Bill still got killed in the end though.
Hickock should have been deemed guilty. His intentions were to have a gun fight and he was fully aware of that. It should not have been ruled as self defense.
This was all over flaunting off a watch, a little extreme. Its Hickock fault for being in that position to begin with.
I feel that Hickock was the one that made the bet that lost him his watch and then had every intention on dueling Tutt. He should have been guilty.
I think that losing a bet was not a good reason for them to shoot at each other and i think Hickock should have been charged with murder.
Hickock should have been found guilty for his intentions. There should have not been a shoot out over a watch.
Hickock was guilty. There had to have been witnesses for this…
I think it was immature of them to get in a gunfight over a pocket watch.
A pocket watch….really?
I’ll consider Hickock guilty because this not as self defense. And there are some witness who should mention the reality.
Crazy how they got in a fight over a pocket watch. I feel like Hickock should have been found guilty.
I can’t believe the fight was over a pocket watch, but Hickock should have been found guilty.
In the movies, shootouts are made to seem like they happened in every town all the time. Also, the victor is never prosecuted in Hollywood. It’s nice to know that that is not necessarily the case. In my opinion, Hickock started the duel for petty reasons, and he should have had to face the consequences of his actions.
We always see this in movies all the time. It’s hard to believe it actually happened in real life at one time.
I love reading anything about the wild west. Especially details about the gunfights that took place then. Great videos!
It still amazes me the shoot outs were a real thing. Also I can’t believe the first one was over a watch
Never thought the old classic western TV gun fights were ever real.
It is funny that someone had to die over a watch. The shootouts have always amazed me
Wow they must have been great friends to try and kill each other over a watch.
The first of many duels in the desert that made the wild west one of my favorite eras in American history
wow i think it is crazy that they would get in a gunfight over a pocket watch. i also cannot believe it was said to be not guilty when it was a duel
I think it’s pretty hysterical that all of this nonsense ended up because Hickock was humiliated for Tutt to wear his watch in public because of gambling!
It’s crazy the first shoot out was over a watch
I find myself trying to imagine actual shoot outs going on today. I am glad they were left in the past (although shootings today are happening). I was glad to learn more about the classic Western movies, and for the record, I believe Hickock was guilty. -Allison Lester
personally i believe that Hickok was guilty. This reminds me of todays shootings.”
The article calls Hickock and Tutt friends, but I find that hard to believe. They fought on opposite sides of the Civil War which would definitely cause some conflict. They also tried to kill each other over a card game. That does not seem like friendship to me. They probably were in the same gambling circle and figured they should be civil since they were around each other so much. That clearly did not work out too well.
The “Wild West” was a violent time, and the fact that all of this came out of something small like a watch baffles me. Nevertheless, its nostalgic to hear about the shootout, but at the same time it was a senseless killing over something small.
I always thought that duels were a everyday thing that happened in the west but this said they were actually rare.
I think its kind of unfair that Hitchcock was not guilty, because he lost the watch so there for it was tutts to do whatever he wanted with it.
I think it was absurd that the conflict involving a gunfight was over a watch. I disagree with what the court ruled. I personally would have found Bill guilty.
It is surprising to me that gun fights did not happen all that much. I always thought that they were a common thing.
It is crazy that the first shoot out was over a watch, I thought the old TV shows were just exaggerating when they show shoot outs.
bill took his chance and had one shot. when bill needed to he ate up i don’t think hes guilty.
I would think that showdowns would be more common.
I think that the showdown happened because Bill was humiliated not because he lost his watch.
That is ridiculous that someone would kill another over an issue of pride.
When I think of the wild west I think of cowboys and showdowns. I didn’t know that they were not very popular. However, I think Bill’s reason was very ridiculous.
I just don’t understand why they couldn’t settle an argument a different way.
I didn’t know these showdowns were rare. I would’ve guessed that they happened a lot.
I do not see the point of the gun fights they had. Turning around and shooting it doesn’t make any sense to me.
While reading this article the only thing I could like of is “this is such a guy thing”. I’ve never heard of women having gunfights and the whole situation involving the two men seems pretty stupid.
Its crazy that they would kill over such ridiculous ideas.
I think this is really funny how someone would do such a drastic act over a watch. I understand that he owed him money and told him not to flaunt the watch even though he lost it fair and square, but for someone to lose their life over it seems ridiculous.
It was almost comical to see that there was such a terrible outcome over such a small problem.
This was so petty he shouldn’t have been making bets if he couldn’t afford it.
The fact that there was such a terrible ending over a small problem is sad.
Hitchcock not being found guilty is crazy.
In the movies they’re portrayed to be super close but in the original gun fight they were almost a whole football field away from each other
I never knew it was Hitchcock who held the “dead mans hand” I always wondered who found the hand and how it got spread to todays society in cards.
True display of irrational behavior. I have heard the phrase “The Dead Mans Hand” but never really knew what is was. Now I have new fun fact.
I do not understand how Hickock could be found not guilty saying that it was self defense when both men intended on killing the other. Also, I think Tutt was asking for it by flaunting Hickock’s watch after he warned him not to.
One thing that really jumped out at me is that the gunfight was seventy five yards long. This really just shows that the behavior amongst the men was very erratic being that they had to fight at such a distance.
I honestly had no idea that these types of gun fights were a real thing. I had always imagined that they were just an old Hollywood film scene that made for good Wild Wild West fight scenes.
I love country westerns, they never get old. It is interesting to see how the law worked in the wild west and how brutal things could be. It definitely was not any easy way to live. Guns fights always drew a crowd back then.
Amazing to think the stuff of legends was over a game of poker. I agree with Elizabeth (see below) it was certainly not an easy way to live.
From playing video games such as Red Dead Redemption and watching movies that depicted battles of the Wild West I would have assumed the face offs would have been 20 to 30 feet away. The article claims the face off was 75 years away!
I think it is incredible that people can get so rilled up over something as silly as a poker game! But interesting to think that gun fights drew in a crowd of people to see what all the ruckus was about
Being older, I was able to grow up watching Westerns on TV. Right or wrong, this gunfight was not about a poker game, it was about respect. Tutt disrespected Hickock by wearing the watch in public and that is why Hickock called him out. Hickok was shot by a coward in the back.
I completely agree with Diana (below) about it being about respect and not about the poker game itself. Hickock warned Tutt to not wear the watch in public, and he did causing Hickock to feel disrespected. I have heard about “The Dead Man’s Hand” because I grew up playing card games and always found that part of the story interesting.
It is so interesting in digging into the history and find out the truth. In this article, I believe that Hickok was guilty.
The history of Wild Bill looks like a movie clips. We always say that movies are from life. It is truth.
I’ve watched many Westerns with my grandpa. It was surprising to find out that the famous shoot out scene was actually based off a real event.
This refreshed my memory on learning about Wild Bill Hickok on a visit to Old Tuscon Studios in Tuscon, Arizona. On display was “The Dead Man’s Hand” and some background information about Wild Bill, where they talked about his famous shootout.
I have never heard of this “Wild West Shootout” before. Most of the time, you just think stuff like this happens in the movies. I actually kind of find it humorous that the shoot out was over a poker game. They must have really taken poker seriously back then haha.
The “Wild West Shootout” sounds like something that occurs in movies and not real life. After reading this article, I was quite shocked that this is something that happened in real life and makes me wonder if there were similar shoot outs because of something stupid like a poker game?
I have heard of “The Dead Man’s Hand” from card games that I used to play with my Grandpa. He was really into Western movies. We used to watch these a lot but I would have never thought that these types of things happened in real life, I though they were just made up acts in Western movies.
I always thought shoot outs were just something in shows that my grandpa watches. It’s extremely surprising to me that people actually did that over stupid things.
I really thought that shoot outs were a common thing. I also thought this made sense because you always here about a lack of a law presence. This does not seem to be the case.
It amazes me how much people were able to get away with during this time. I have heard about duels and shoot outs before but it is hard to believe that people actually did those things. It appears to me that many fought over stupid reasons. I am glad we have more established laws today but I think it would have been interesting to live during this time.
It is unbelievable how different the justice system is today. It is hard to imagine how back then any fight could possibly turn into a gun fight easily. I am glad people do not commonly shoot others over games anymore.
I have heard of the Wild West Shootout but I did not know the details so it was interesting to read about it.
For this event to be so popular this is the first time I’ve heard about it in detail. It cool tthat this influenced Hollywood Western shootout.
Its new to me to know that these were not just for the movies but actually happened in real life at some point. But 75 yards doesn’t sound all that far away from each other, and for a shootout it sounds like its not far enough.
It’s one thing about watching a shootout in a movie and another reading about the details. Very interesting!
This must be that moment that everyone uses so often in TV shows and in the movies. To me, I can not even imagine being one of those two to face off.
It’s crazy that they would allow him off on self-defense. While the argument is incredibly smart for court, I cannot believe it was upheld because of his intention to shoot that was mentioned in the article.
Hunter, I agree with you about it being bizarre that they let him off the hook for self defense, especially because it was in the public spotlight and brought on so much attention.
I do not Know why the people can have gun in public place that very dangerous.
Self-defense today requires that you (the shooter) can not start the altercation in the first place. I would say back then self-defense was looked at in a literal sense. “He shot at me first”.
Making a spectacle of someone else to be spiteful can end up costing them their life.
It is interesting to note that these shoot outs or duels were actually rare. Having seen so many depicted on television and in film it was portrayed as common place.
I would love to be a fly on the wall for one of these duels. I think it would be so cool to see encounters happen like this even today. Everyone settles their business in a duel!
I think the whole idea of going to trial was a waste of time. They both voluntarily participated in the shootout. I feel self defense wasn’t necessarily the best description given that both men had the intention of shooting the other, as well as being shot at.
I think its interesting that an incident that happened in such a short amount of time has engraved itself into Springfield, Missouris culture. So much to the point where they are reenacting the event 152 years latter. Usually we see reenactments of large scale battles from well known wars.
Very Interesting. I’ve really only heard of a shoot out on TV shows and movies. Something that is so common yet rarely heard of for my age.
This is a very interesting article and a very interesting piece of history. I have enjoyed watching western movies since I was a young child. The fact that gun fights were very rare during this period of time is interesting, mostly due to the fact that there is a gun fighting scene present in every western movie that I have ever had the pleasure to watch. This is the first that I have ever read about Wild Bill Hickock (However, I have heard of the legendary man). I find it unbelievable that Wild Bill was merely charged with self-defense pertaining to the famous shootout, as both men had intensions of killing one another. Also, this is the first that I have heard of “the dead man’s hand” (Aces and eights) this is an interesting piece of history.
I find it ironic that gambling led to the demise of both Tutt and Hitchcock, even though Hitchcock was the one to end Tutt’s life in the first place. Hitchcock at that point in time probably felt high and mighty considering that he was the victor of the first Western shootout and that the shootout made him a household name. It just goes to show how karma worked against Hitchcock in the end when he was shot in Deadwood!
Being that I work in the world of law, I would like to discuss how this more likely than not, violated Missouri state law. I would find it hard to believe that Hickock would be found not guilty, when clearly he had malice intent, when he drew his gun. This story is the definition of pre-meditated murder. While it is true that Hickock was protecting himself, the act of showing up to the duel in today’s world would most likely convict him on pre-meditation.
I found this article interesting as well. The first thing I thought of was how they had to have so many witnesses to this duel. Both men agreed to meet and have a duel, whether it was from 75 feet or 10 feet. It is fascinating regaurdless how things were handled back then.
Interesting article, I have read some about Wild Bill before and knew how he was killed, but I had never known how his legend began. Good read!
Obviously somebody spent more time at the range than the other. Practice pays off.
Article is interesting in it’s self, how do you go into the street with intention to draw your gun and have a shoot out with someone and actually kill them. Then be found not guilty due to self defense when Hickock called Tutt out for a gun fight all over gambling. A piece of history that I never knew about so it was good knowledge to learn.
It is remarkable that one incident could start a precedence for a whole era. Hitchcock is a well-known person for the period and set a path for the law to define self-defense for its time. I do not necessarily agree that that the shooting was self-defense, but it goes to show how culture changes over time. As a gun enthusiast, I find if interesting that someone was able to shoot someone at 75 yards with a pistol. It is very hard to hit something at 75 yards, alone with enough velocity to cause death to someone.
The justice system sure has changed since this took place. Hickock initiated the gun fight, however, Tutt could have ignored the invitation but that would have made him look like a coward.
I found the article interesting, specially the part that they both serve in Civil War on opposite sides and now they were sitting across each other playing cards. I also found interesting that Hickok was found not guilty in his case, by using the self-defense law, which would not work now in state. Hickok was also very interesting because he went from been arrested for murder to running for Deputy U.S. Marshal in Kansas.
It is very interesting about the two of the people being from the Civil War. They were able to play cards together but then they ended up shooting one another because of a lost bet where he lost his watch.
It is crazy to think that both of them survived a war, and everything that goes along with war but still fell into trouble with gambling and a petty argument over a watch.
these guys were in the war then end up in a gambling problem. Hickock did owe a debt and tutt wanted to collect. However they should not of argued and ending up in a shoot out that is wrong. Tutt should of been charged because he went there with the intention of a shoot out.
It’s sad that something as mundane as wearing a watch could bring a man to want to kill someone. Gambling is a very sad addiction that so many people are affected by.
Killing someone over a watch that was lost in a gambling bet gone wrong is something that we do not even think about happening today. The issue that I find to be controversial is that Hickock was found not guilty by reason of self defense. He clearly walked out onto to street and drew his gun with the intent to shoot Tutt.
I find it hard to believe that t gunfight took place a distance of 75 yards that time the rifling in the barrels of those handguns were extremely poor, I also find it intriguing at Wild Bill stayed at such a distance with being a personal matter, in matter it is sometimes hard to that things have only gotten worse in terms of violence in this county.
I understand that there is a bad apple in every bunch, and you can not use this individual story to define the entire American population during the late 1800’s… but take this situation and apply it to today’s time. Thankfully, the thought process has changed and this is not a situation that would be glorified now.
I find it kind of sad that someone would take someone’s life over a watch and gambling debt. It makes you question humanity. From a more modern day perspective, it still happens today when people still murder people over petty disputes and quarrels. It makes you ask yourself how far have we really come in society? Look at the violence in Chicago for example. I also found it humorous that Wild Bill Hickock ran for Town Marshall after the incident. Challenging someone to a gunfight does not have the makings of a lawman. Nonetheless, hitting someone in a gun fight at 75 yards is impressive.
People can be aggressive emotional beings. This still rings true today. I don’t feel any type of way about the events that transpired between wild Bill and Tutt. I think it makes for an excellent story and has created a source for Hollywood movies and folk tales.
I tend to agree that the verdict regarding the gunfight beween Hickock ,and Tuttt did not seem to make any sense due to their state law at that time. Also, it seemed silly that they got into the gunfight over a pocket watch.
This article was interesting. They were friends or accquaintences throughout war, and something as simple as a loss in a card game triggered something. Hickock obviously knew what was going to happen when he was gambling.
This is quite the story. Tutt and Hickock might have been friends but only to a certain extent. They were on opposite sides of the war. The poker game was lost. Even today, no one likes to lose especially when money is involved. The situation does seem unfitting regarding the outcome of the trial.
It is quite the story to compare to today’s life. Never would you think that you would be killed due to a watch you lost while gambling. I do feel that Hickock knew what was going to happen when he began gambling.
It is interesting that he was found not guilty by reason of self defense even though it contradicts to MO law.
It wasn’t simply losing the watch that Hickock asked for a dual. It was that Tutt was flaunting it in public after being asked not to even wear it in public. This was about pride, together with embarrassment. In my opinion the dual was fair game. Today that pride causes people to kill with no dual.
It was interesting to find out that the famous “shootout” was not as common as depicted in media and films that have been so popular in our culture.
When I read the history of this duel, I wonder about the modern-day equivalent, which I believe would most commonly be litigation. Although legal action is much less violent and more fair, I don’t know if I would go as far as to say it is obviously a less painful way to “settle a score.” Bleeding out in the street would clearly be an awful way to go, but is it worse than rotting away in prison?
I thought this was an interesting article. I think it is interesting that situations very similar to this still happen today.
The most interesting aspect of this piece for me, was the description of the shooting stances of Hickok and Tutt. From everything that I had ever seen or read regarding the infamous shootout, those two were in the stereotypical “shootout position” that we’ve all seen before in the media (movies, TV, etc). Apparently, that wasn’t the case…
I think it is very interesting they held a trial for the shootout. Considering it is an act of murder but both parties agree to the event knowing it could lead in death.
I think this is a very interesting article, because the gunfight was getting public high attention, it also became the one of the Hollywood classic western shooting plot.
I never realized there was a trial after old western shootouts. I suppose the survivor could always claim self defense at Bill did.
This was an interesting read. I had no idea there was a trial afterwards or that the duel was such a long distance.
It is an interesting article by knowing one of the historical incident that way later becoming one of the classic HollyWood western shoot-out.
I’ve always heard of Wild Bill’s game with the “Dead Man’s Hand”, but never heard of the game prior to that with Tutt. It is interesting how different the law worked back then compared to now. There’s no way two people would be permitted to end an argument in a duel, with one dead and the other successfully beating the charge with a self-defense claim.
This was interesting. I’ve always been interested in what causes a Wild West gunfight, and this was interesting to see the very first one was because of a card game disagreement.
When watching a Western film, I always look forward to the classic shootout scene. I find it so interesting that these shootouts actually have historical context behind them dating back to the Reconstruction Era. I do however think its a little ridiculous to fight over a watch; that is definitely not something I would want to risk losing my life over. I also find it interesting that ” The Dead Man’s Hand” originated from Hickock’s ambush.
I find it interesting this went to court because with my very little knowledge of history I assumed all gunfights never left the street it was in meaning, I never imagined it went to court. I also think it is ridiculous it was over a watch. And found it interesting that the “dead mans hand” had history with it.
I find it Interesting that Hickock was found not guilty even though he had the intend of having a gun fight and he clearly killed Tutt.
I thought this was pretty interesting. I never really knew that western shoot outs are rare. Every western movie, tv show, or clip I’ve seen had something to do with a gun fight. I was also pretty surprised that Hickock got away with it.
The most interesting thing that I found about this article was the fact that there was a trial after this shoot out. I didn’t think that was something that could happen in that time frame, so that was cool to read. I also found it interesting that Hickock was found not guilty for self defense. I personally think they wanted the shoot out all along, so him being found not guilty is something I even think shouldn’t have happened.
I find it interesting that Hickock was not found guilty and it was ruled “self-defense”
It surprised me that Hickock got away with the shooting, and was not found guilty.
When I think of Western movies, I usually associate some kind of gun fight. Though they were not common occurrences in real-life, I find it interesting that this particular gun fight was the one that gave way to the iconic Western scene. I also was surprised that Hickock was found not guilty despite his intentions. This vaguely reminds me a corrupt justice system that we occasionally see nowadays.
It is interesting to see how the classic shootout came about but I also think the ruling from the court was interesting too since the article stated it was contrary to the law at that time.
I think it is fascinating how in today’s age when we think of “westerns” one of the first things to pop into our heads is the gunfighting. However, in this article is states that they rarely happened but Hollywood has made it a trademark trait for such a genre.
I found it amusing that this incident was the basis for Hollywood shoot-outs. Also, I don’t understand the logic of ruling Hickock’s case to be self-defense. I guess he got what he what was coming for him when he was ambushed in 1876
This article is interesting because it relates to the “wild west” stereotype of gun fighting. However, the content in this article was new to me, and it surprised me how much attention it actually got.
I found it interesting that though not as common as made to be, two men went out in public which the intention to shoot each other. If this were to occur in today’s time, there would be a wide spread panic.
I used to watch wild west movies with my grandmother when I was just a child, and remember thinking how scary it seemed, because it seemed as though gun fights could break out at any moment. It’s interesting to read above, that this would have been a practical fear. It makes me appreciate the time that I was born in.
The most surprising thing in this article to me was the distance of the gun fight, 75 yards. This is a very long range to shoot something from with accuracy and is actually quite impressive considering the time period. One must imagine that the sights on the guns in these days were not half of what we have today.
One of the first wester gun fights between two gunslingers was over a pocket watch. Can only imagine how that would hold up in court if it happened these days.
This article is very interesting to me because it became the basis for all Hollywood gunfights. It also amazed me that Hickock was able to to hit Tutt at a distance of 75 yards with a pistol considering how inaccurate guns were in that time. It also surprised me about the court ruling on the case, I can see how the “who shot first” could cause many problems with the law.
It is surprising that they debated over who shot first even though Hickock had clear intentions of having a gun fight with Tutt.
This article is neat because it describes a scene every Western movie includes-but in a real life description. I think it is ironic that the article states that this situation is rare but yet is found numerous times throughout Hollywood-showing how movies can exaggerate things.
75 yards is a very impressive range, and the fact that Hicock was found not guilty is also fascinating.
I think it is amazing that the gunfight started over gambling and Hickock actually hit Tutt from 75 yards away.
I think it is funny that the whole dispute started over a watch! What would classic Hollywood be like without shootouts if this never happened…?
This article informed me that there really weren’t a lot of shootouts in real life like there were in movies. Perhaps that is why this gunfight gained so much attention from the public because it was like a movie. I also figured a gun fight would be over something more serious than losing in poker and giving up a watch.
I thought this was very interesting because this dispute led to a shoot-out which became the framework for shoot outs in Western movies.
This article is exceptionally fascinating to me since it turned into the reason for every Hollywood gunfight. It likewise astounded me that Hickock could to hit Tutt at a separation of 75 yards with a gun considering how mistaken weapons were in that time. It likewise astounded me about the court governing looking into the issue, I can perceive how the “who shot first” could cause numerous issues with the law.
This article is interesting to me because it became the basis for all Hollywood gunfights. It surprised me about the court ruling on the case, I can see how the “who shot first” could cause many problems with the law.
I found this article really interesting, in that Hickock wasn’t found guilty for the shooting due to self defense, even though this was a planned gunfight.
I found this article to be interesting and it actually made me laugh a little because Hickock wasn’t found guilty even though the shoot out was planned and they both fired at the same time
I found this article interesting because it shows how two friends, stated in the first paragraph, turned on each other because of pride and selfish humiliation. Their pride got in the way of a friendship which ultimately resulted in one persons death.
This article is funny because it escalated very quickly. At the beginning Hickock playing poker and by the end he’s having a shoot out with his best friend because the best frien stole Hickocks watch.
I thought that this article was very interesting because I now know where the basis for the Hollywood Westerns came from! I just assumed Hollywood exaggerated scenes like these, but the article made it seem like they were just as dramatic in real life.
I thought this article was interesting in that Hickock was not even found guilty at trial, even though it was in direct contradiction with Missouri’s law. The fact that he was found not guilty due to an act of self defense was also quite funny to me as well.
Why would Hickock expect that someone would not flaunt a new prize watch ?
This article was interesting to read because it described a real life gun fight rather than just seeing them in movies. 75 yards is a long range for a gun fight.
It is so intriguing in diving into the history and discover reality. In this article, I trust that Hickok was blameworthy.
I think this history is very interesting, let me know the events of past history. I think this is the most common lawsuit. Although the legal action was not so violent, he was still convicted for self-defense
I liked this story I am a fan of the old west and what happened in those days. I have been to Tombstone, AZ and found it very educational.