Movie's message - When is killing someone ever OK?

I think most people were glad Quick Mike was killed even if he didn't deserve to die. To cut a woman's face to shred because she giggled at his little package was extreme.

I don't think clear cut had anything to do with it, the thing that made Bill Munny a survivor, was that he lived long enough and had been in enough situations that he could keep his nerve and focus. That's all. It wasn't that he was right, but it also did not make him an animal or psycho because he did kill on occasions. It was a long time ago, and I am not sure I remember a lot of that movie, but it impressed me and I put it at one of Clint Eastwood's best movies, most of which I don't care that much for. We the audience get to see Bill Munny's insides, from the camera's point of view. A view that does not really exist in reality, so Munny is a construct. He was in tough times and needed money if I recall and this opportunity came by and it was a kind of justice, so what is the problem? I'm gonna have to watch it again. ;-)

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the movie's message.

Unforgiven is another stupid anti-Big Gubmint screed/Nietzsche-ian nonsense from Eastwood. Almost all of his movies have the exact same stupid formula: 1. There's a "great man" who can save the day 2. He has to save the day, but now these stupid Gubmint officials and their stupid rules and protocols are compromising him 3. The "great man" flouts their authority, saves the day, and upstages the officials and Big Gubmit, proving how stupid, clueless and out of touch they are and how we don't need them.

This is also another pro-gun/anti-gun control screed. There's no reason why Gene Hackman's character would be that unreasonable/irrational when it came to his rules about guns in his town. But Hackman represents Big Gubmint and fruity anti-gun nuts, so of course, Eastwood was going to make him look as crazy as possible.

The whole B-plot about mentoring the kid who wants to join him but then is taught how awful it is to kill someone is just nonsense to manipulate the audience into seeing Eastwood's character as some kind of noble character, so it never questions his stance that it's okay for vigilantes to ignore rules or flout authority.

By that I mean, everyone knows that vigilantes are and always will be arrogant, smug thriller killers who only kill for self-serving reasons. Of course, they may imagine themselves to be knights in shining armor killing for a noble purpose. But this is not and never has been the reality. In the movie, Eastwood's character is imbued with so much wisdom and restraint that you don't see him for the smug, self serving vigilante thrill killer that they all are. You just see him as this completely grounded, wise sage who understands the severity of taking a person's life and would never kill anyone except for a really, really good reason.

"you'd say Quick Mike deserved to die. But did he?"

Fuck yeah.

"Davey 100% did not deserve to die."

Agreed. I dont even understand why he involved in a "perpetrator" capacity.
sure he was travelling with the bad guy , but he didnt do the crime , he wasnt even in the room , and he tried to prevent it.

Yet Bill fined him 2 donkeys,
The whores put the bounty on his head and made him as bad as mike (as far as the murder contract goes)

I was always under the impression that the movie's message was simply "Shit begets shit".

"Little Bill had every right to question Ned, including by force."

Wrong. This delusional world of yours in which law enforcement officers in the US and its territories have the right to use torture when questioning a suspect; what other drastic differences does it have compared to the real world?

"Little Bill inadvertently used too much force, of course, but he wasn't totally unjustified."

Yes, he was totally unjustified in using any "force" at all in the first place, obviously. The only times LEOs can legally use force are in self-defense, defense of others, and to arrest someone who is resisting, and even then, they can only use enough force to get the job done. They aren't allowed to torture anyone for any reason, obviously. Bill was a "dirty cop."

"But as the girl noted, Bill had no intention of killing Ned."

It doesn't matter; he was a criminal by virtue of assaulting/battering him in the first place; same goes for when he did it to English Bob and William Munny. Even if it's true that he didn't intend to kill Ned, he still could have legitimately been charged with and convicted of some form of murder or manslaughter.

"By law, Little Bill already exacted punishment in the form of their horses. By law, Quick Mike paid for his crime and was done."

That's another comical facet of your delusional world. In the real world, law enforcement officers are not allowed to try, convict, and sentence suspects (and the suspects going along with it makes no difference whatsoever). All of those things are matters for the judiciary.

For the record, Wyoming was an incorporated US territory in 1881 and the US Constitution is in full effect in incorporated territories.

It's okay when they're dangerous and by eliminating them you're protecting innocent people.