When opposing Kane's argument, I went with the excuse that the violence created would ruin the town's reputation. The other excuses make sense, they pay him to be a sheriff and they shouldn't have to do his job or that it isn't his job anymore and he should leave. In all arguments, there is a little truth, but they don't talk about what's best for everyone in the town. Ruining the town's reputation would set back the town from expansion "5 years". The town will be the same with or without Kane and he shouldn't ruin the towns future; especially if he plans on leaving.
What surprises me is that the men think about themselves. No one really thinks about Kane's life and is willing to sacrifice their life for him. If everyone were willing to stand up to Miller and his guys, there wouldn't have been much of a fight. With not much of a fight, there wouldn't be anything to ruin the town's reputation. I can't believe no one said that.
Had Kane left, would the town need him to deal with Miller? Kane would probably wonder the same. Kane stayed because he had to see his job fulfilled, he had to make sure the town was safe, and that they didn't have to deal with "his" mess.
So do you think the town's reputation is still a viable excuse given that later on you say that if the whole town had rallied behind Kane, there wouldn't have been much of a fight to report on? What's better for the town's reputation - letting a murderer roam the streets or citizens stand refuse to let criminals run their town?
ReplyDelete(See also previous comments about comma splices.)