Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout
The chairman was trying to figure out what the gunman wanted, he was aware that the gunman's interests lied with his wife. That's why he kept going back to find out who his wife was, what she did, keep him focused on her.
By simply telling the gunman what he wanted to her he would have been dismissive, as evidenced by the person sitting next to the chairman that said he'd help his wife get a new job. He wasn't interested in that. We're not sure what he was interested in.
The argument you're talking about is over the raising of taxes. Not knowing if the chairman was right/wrong, I'll assume he did campaign on having sales tax to support public schools. If that's true, he was merely correcting the gunman's mistaken belief. Was that the right thing to do? At the time I think so, as the gunman was actually rather calm until he held up the gun and started pulling the trigger.
|
I thought the chairman was very brave and he should be commended for trying to defuse a very bad situation. Some people will say that he should have agreed to whatever the gunman said, but I think that too could have back-fired. Suppose he agrees that he flip-flopped on the sales tax issue. What if that makes the gunman even more enraged? I think in a situation like this, you are better off trying to reason with the guy rather than allow him to successfully paint you as the villain that he believes you to be. If a gunman accuses you of sleeping with his wife when you didn't, you aren't going to agree with him just because he has a gun. I think the chairman did the right thing.