MovieChat Forums > High Noon (1952) Discussion > Why not 'arrest' the 3 gunman before the...

Why not 'arrest' the 3 gunman before the train arrived?

posted 12 years ago by ChicagoToffee
22 replies | jump to latest

It baffles me why the marshall didn't confront the 3 gunmen before the train came into town, and tell them they were under arrest for loitering (or drinking in public, or spitting, etc.). After all, one vs. three is a lot better odds, than one vs. four.

If the 3 gunmen let themselves be arrested, fine. And if not, blast 'em away for resisting arrest with your trusty sawed-off shotgun.

In either case, the marshall could then face down Frank in a fair gunfight when he arrived in town.

[–] mam13143 9 years ago

The most important reason is that it would result in a fifteen minute movie. 😐

Actually he does tell someone in the film when they ask the same question that he can't arrest them if they haven't done anything.

[–] gary_w_trott 9 years ago

I guess that he could have arrested Colby, Miller, and Pierce before the train arrived, and then arrested Frank Miller when he got off the train. Then the next day turn them over to the new marshal and then drive out of town with Amy to open a store somewhere else. Of course the new Marshall would have set all four of them free and then they would have pursued Kane to wherever he had gone. And that result is the reason why he turned back in the first place.

[–] Bob_Brooker 9 years ago

What I do not understand is why Kane first said he could not arrest the three thugs as they haven't done anything wrong yet. But in the final act he opens fire on them anyway, still without a good enough reason to do so. Just doesn't make sense to me.

__________
Last movie watched: The Big Heat (8/10)

[–] gary_w_trott 8 years ago

He only fired on them, killing Ben Miller, after he called to them from behind and they turned to face him while drawing their guns. He fired in self defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZil728hUy0