Fame

Almost lost in the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub shooting was the shooting death the day before of singer Christina Grimmie.  Ms. Grimmie had been a participant on The Voice.  She was shot by a deranged fan while she signed autographs for fans after her concert.

Media reports suggest that the killer was obsessed with Ms. Grimmie to the point that he underwent Lasik surgery and had a hair transplant while he dieted to slim down to win Ms. Grimmie's affection.  He shot himself dead after being tackled by the singer's brother after he killed Ms. Grimmie.

It's a sad and premature end to a young woman who was merely chasing her dreams.  Although she didn't win The Voice, she apparently was talented enough to hold concerts.  I can't say I paid much attention to her, although I vaguely remember hearing her sing because Karen watches The Voice.  Had she lived she might actually have realized her dream to be a professional singer.

Beside the sorrow and the tragedy, what bothers me about this is that for putting herself out there, Ms. Grimmie unwittingly signed her death warrant, and that's just unfair.  For chasing her dreams, her life is cut down.  There is everything wrong with that.

On one level, we all live at risk of being killed or injured by mentally unbalanced people everyday.  Someone could have a bad moment and decide to drive her car off an overpass and crash into cars on the freeway below.  Someone could burst into a store with a firearm and murder a bunch of people.  There are just too many ways where innocent lives could be taken by someone who is in need of mental health help.

But those people who put themselves in the public arena increase the chances exponentially.  Whether it be print or media reports, there's a record available for someone obsessed with a person to latch onto and view repeatedly.  The average person, unless that person is stalked, doesn't provide material for the unknown assailant.  A celebrity does.

I've never been one to seek the limelight.  Despite the fact that I can argue a case in court or teach a class without any qualms, being someone that is constantly in public view the way a celebrity is justd isn't for me.  I love watching Jeopardy and do reasonably well playing at home, but I won't even try out for it because that would entail going on television.  I run away from the limelight.

Privacy is very important to me.  There are celebrities who value their privacy but find it very hard to come by because of their chose profession.  There's a constant tension between celebrity and privacy as a result.  The courts have already ruled on the diminished privacy celebrities can expect in the public realm.  That diminished privacy does not sanction murder.

Today come reports about a trial involving a stalker of Brooke Shields.  Although there will be arguments that the stalker poses no threat to Ms. Shields or her family, how can anyone be sure?  What are the trade-offs that must be accepted to ensure the safety and well-being of a celebrity and at the same time allow for the liberty of the fan?  When can someone be determined to be such a threat that his freedom needs to be curtailed?

The easy answer is to eschew the dreams and retain the privacy and relative safety it provides.  Is that a fair choice?  As with terrorism, where if fear wins, the terrorist wins, so with stalkers:  If the fear of being killed by a stalker keeps someone from pursuing her dream, the stalker wins.

But it celebrity worth the risk?

Q.D.E.P Christina Grimmie.

(c) 2016 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles