MovieChat Forums > Red River (1948) Discussion > Isn't the Duke's character guilty of mur...

Isn't the Duke's character guilty of murder?

posted 11 years ago by starmarker
5 replies | jump to latest

Just wondering if there is any legal basis for John Wayne's character (Dunson) to get away with killing anybody he wants, whenever he wants. I mean, there were laws against murder in 1866 in the US, weren't there? We're talking post-Civil War here! He shoots the character who sets off the stampede (Bunk?) and then proposes to hang the two men who decide to abandon the cattle drive.
I know this movie borrows from Mutiny on the Bounty, but I'm pretty sure you can't "mutiny" on a cattle drive! It's just quitting your job. Just wondering if Dunson could really get away with murder like that.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thbryn 11 years ago

I don't think Dunston was above murder. Whether he actually did it or not probably is a matter of interpretation.
If the charter wasn't played by the Duke it's pretty easy to see that he'd be thought of as more of a psychopath.

Kisskiss, Bangbang

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 11 years ago

The people Dunson shot were shooting at him, remember? They initiated the gunfire by drawing their weapons and trying to shoot Dunson. One of them even creased him, IIRC.

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae

[–] crood 9 years ago

Technically, he probably was, but proving something on a thousand mile cattle drive through the wilderness is another thing. Also, remember he would have been the owner of the supplies they'd need to take with them when they quit, so they'd have technically been stealing and putting the other hands who remained with the drive in danger. He might have owned the horses they road, as well. Stealing horses could get anyone hanged and the killers considered justified.

[–] MAGolding (1096) 6 years ago

Don't forget that Dunstan killed the representative of the landowner that Dunstan stole his ranche from.

Dunstan was a murderer.