Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Color Me Skeptical

Every few months you get a story about the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry turning to violence or death, and here's the latest example:
A woman accused of running down a man in her car after a Red Sox-Yankees argument in a bar never hit her brakes as she accelerated toward the small group he was in, a prosecutor said Monday.

"She never braked, and she accelerated at a high speed for about 200 feet. She went directly at this group of people," prosecutor Susan Morrell said of Ivonne Hernandez, who is charged with reckless second-degree murder in the death early Friday of Matthew Beaudoin, 29.

Invariably, the first reports that come out of these things play up the baseball angle, and of course, every media outlet runs with that. Also invariably, the actual thing that set everyone off -- alcohol, a girl, or other non-baseball-related idiocy -- comes to light. In light of that, I imagine that we'll soon get a statement revealing that the point of contention among these pathetic people was something other than just baseball.

Even if we don't, we should probably remember that in an alcohol-fueled burst of fan-related violence, the alcohol is approximately 75.4% responsible, underlying personality defects 24.5% responsible, with the impassioned fandom making up the remaining bits.

3 comments:

Ken Dynamo said...

if only there was a way to ban the red sox and yankees, stuff like this would never happen... well i can dream, cant i?

Osmodious said...

People argue about the stupidest things...and those arguments often turn violent (think about your last really bad argument with your significant other...was it something really dumb that triggered it?). The newspapers are filled with such accounts, and it is a periodic plotline in many crime shows on TV. As you state, the alcohol involved is a factor, as restraint goes right out the window...but alcohol doesn't make you do things you would never do, it just lowers inhibition enough to allow you to do what you really, really want to do.

In other words, I can understand how this stuff happens, even if I don't really 'get it'. The one I can never figure out, however, is 'celebratory violence'...a la Chicago after the Bulls won the NBA title. I mean, 'hooray, I'm so happy that I'll destroy my neighborhood' just doesn't make a whole helluva lot of sense to me (the whole 'I'm mad as hell so I'm going to destroy my neighborhood' is only marginally more sensible, though destroying the homes of those you are peeved at would make infinitely more sense).

There were reports of celebratory violence in Boston back on '04, if I recall correctly. I just can't wrap my mind around it...how is destroying stuff or beating people 'celebration'?

tadthebad said...

Osmod,

I remember seeing the Chicago violence you referred to. I remember subsequently thinking that if the Sox were to ever win the WS, the city of Boston would be razed. Many years later, there was some violence after the '04 championship, but I remember it being pretty well-controlled by the police. I happened to be in boston for Game 1 against the cards and recall united cops walking the streets around fenway outfitted in some serious garb. After the sox won the WS, Boston Police formed a wall around fenway so as to limit access and, by extension, damage.

Despite the apparently well-intentioned police, a young woman was killed shortly after the ALCS victory over the Yankees when she was struck in the eye by a sort-of "pepper spray mortar" used to dispense crowds. Terrible.