.jpg)
Most of you guys who know me personally know that I'm a forum lurker. I tend to not post or comment on anything unless it really interests me. As we know the IWC (internet wrestling community) is full of more idiots than intelligent people nowadays - no thanks to this PG-era of wrestling, so I tend to not get caught up arguing with marks. It's a complete waste of my time that could be put towards something more productive.
Regardless, when I read the following on one message board in particular, I couldn't keep my mouth closed on this situation:
The use of kayfabe lawsuits and criminal complaints in professional wrestling always has been quite laughable. After all, it’s difficult to inject legal principles into a business where arguments are settled with the use of folding chairs.
The Steve Austin/Brian Pillman home invasion comes to mind as a scenario that provided a somewhat logical basis to suspend reality, as it occurred outside of the wrestling environment. Unfortunately, we’re all-too-often asked to invest in a storyline surrounding some sort of legal action that occurs within the confines of the arena.
Attack and injure a wrestler from behind with a lead pipe? Shocking, but not criminal.
Lay your hands on Paul Heyman in the middle of the ring? You better have your attorney on speed-dial.
WWE once again has thrust itself into the legal realm with the current storyline involving the Big Show and the recent update that criminal charges for trespass and assault are being pursued by the Pittsburgh Police. This situation is kayfabe and somewhat absurd in the world of wrestling, but is it at least logical and legally sufficient? Do the circumstances present a picture that separates itself from the run-of-the-mill criminal activity that takes place every Monday night on Raw?
Because these actions occurred in Pittsburgh, we need to turn to Pennsylvania statutory law as a guideline. Our first stop is Section 3503 of the PA Crimes Code, which provides the likely charges that would be brought for criminal trespass in a real-life scenario:
***Warning*** ***Beginning Legalese*** ***Skip below to avoid headache***
The section explains that an individual is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he, without permission or license to do so, “enters, gains entry by subterfuge or surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3503(a)(1)(i).
The section also explains that an individual is guilty of a felony of the second degree if he, without permission or license to do so, “breaks into any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3503(a)(1)(ii). The term “breaks into” is defined as follows: “To gain entry by force, breaking, intimidation, unauthorized opening of locks, or through an opening not designed for human access.”
***End Legalese***
In layman’s terms, these statutes tell us that a person commits criminal trespass when he is unauthorized to be present in a building, yet gains access or remains in that building in one of two ways. If you do so secretly, you’re guilty of a felony of the third degree. If you do so by utilizing force or intimidation, you’re guilty of a felony of the second degree.
Under this framework, the question is whether or not Big Show committed a logical offense even in a world filled with over-the-top criminal antics. The simple answer is yes.
When Big Show was “terminated” on Monday night, his license or permission to remain in the business had been revoked. His permission to enter and remain in the Consol Energy Center was contingent upon his employment with a company that was licensed to operate in that building on that night. Once he was ejected from the building, he certainly could have attempted to regain a license to enter the building through a ticket purchase. However, any such ticket contains restrictions regarding the areas of the building that can be accessed. The ringside area certainly is included within such restrictions.
The only remaining question is how he entered or remained in the building. Did he hide in the back or sneak back in, or did he use force or intimidation to enter? In either case, Big Show would be looking at a felony charge for criminal trespass in a real world situation.
With criminal trespass in the mix, the possible assault charges somewhat speak for themselves. Sanctioned combat that occurs with the consent of the parties involved operates as an exception to criminal assault charges. If we stretch our imagination and assume that the kayfabe privilege of being a WWE employee requires consent to attack or be attacked by any other WWE employee, it is easy to see that Big Show lost this exception to the law when he was terminated.
While I could break down the differences between simple assault and aggravated assault, I think it’s pretty safe to say that by now, many of the readers have resorted to ogling the Bella Twins and Eva Marie in the links below (you’re welcome Crave).
In any case, the ultimate take-away from this column is the fact that you can breathe easy and take solace in the fact that Big Show’s pending “criminal charges” are no more absurd than the average wrestling storyline.
I wonder if they make ankle bracelets large enough to fit the Big Show?
***Nothing in the preceding column is intended to be construed as constituting legal advice***
***Adam Gorzelsky is an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania***
Credit: WrestleZone.com
Now keep in mind. I don't have a thing wrong with this article/report, but it's the forum comments that spawned from it. I watched user after user reply with comments like "Logic doesn't belong in wrestling!" or "Who needs logic anyway? It's wrestling!" I couldn't help but sit back and double facepalm as I read these comments, occasionally banging my head on the desk.
Let's start with the definition of logic:
Logic (from the Greek λογική, logos) has two meanings: first, it describes the use of valid reasoning in some activity; second, it names the normative study of reasoning or a branch thereof.
Maybe it's because I'm one of the few older fans still watching wrestling today or maybe it's from analytic qualities I picked up from majoring in film studies and media arts in college, but I don't watch television or anything for that matter across all forms of media without asking "Why?" - Why did the director/creator make this film? What message are they trying to get across? What does the creator want his/her audience to feel after witnessing this spectacle? There's a LOT more questions I can add in , but for now, I'm just keeping this simple before I turn this article into one of my old film theory textbooks.
The point that I'm getting at is that logic has a time and place in professional wrestling, whether people like it or not. The sad thing is that the average viewer won't recognize it in today's product until someone else explains it for them.
For example, let's look at a match back on WWE Monday Night RAW from a few weeks ago. The team of Santino Marella and The Great Khali (w/ Hornswoggle) faced 3MB (Heath Slater, Drew McIntyre, and Jinder Mahal). At one point of the match where it looked like Santino was ready to win with his signature Cobra finishing maneuver, Jinder Mahal started playing a flute to "charm" The Cobra. Hornswoggle provided a distraction that allowed Khali to obtain the flute and put The Cobra back under Santino's control.
To the unwashed masses (shoutout to Sandow...), this entire ordeal is seen as entirely pointless and silly without any logic behind it what so ever. Truth be told, there is logic behind this comedy act. When Santino was feuding with Antonio Cesaro back when Cesaro held the United States Championship, it was proven that The Cobra could be swayed out of Santino's control when it was "charmed" by Aksana's advances.
I'm not against wrestling having random bouts of comedy, such as the previously mentioned example, but if viewers want to act professional wrestling has no logic at all, I suggest they turn to any episode of Family Guy if viewers wish to see a product that has next to no logic at all, aside from random clips and pop culture references scattered across cliched sitcom narrative.
Let's look at another example of logic in professional wrestling. This time, we shall look at an example that is not using comedy to drive the point home. Rewind the clocks back to roughly 2008 where Shawn Michaels reportedly found himself broke and was forced to do John Bradshaw Layfield's bidding to continue providing money to support his family at home. So where do you ask is the logic behind this as roughly everyone knows Shawn Michaels makes more than enough money to provide for his family whether he is still wrestling or not? Simple, this is merely kayfabe (fantasy/make-believe in the wrestling world). The logical reasoning why WWE did an angle like this is to reflect the state of the current economy in the United States at the time. It's basic knowledge in film theory is that your audience (or spectators) will feel more attached to a narrative (or storyline in wrestling terms) if the viewers can identify with what is going on.
What I'm getting at is for the people who are screaming and complaining about "there's no logic behind wrestling!" is that mindset is completely false, simply for the fact that their logic doesn't cater to your (as a spectator) type of thinking. If the viewing audience cannot identify with the onscreen spectacle (in this case, the average WWE storyline/angle), then it is easy for the audience to brush off the angle as having no sense of logical reasoning behind it. At the end of the day, it comes down to whether or not the viewing audience are capable of open-minded thinking or simply trapped and limiting their enjoyment of this art form by continuing a bare-bones track of closed-minded thinking.
As an added bonus, I shall break down the current dilemma with The Big Show. Much like the HBK/JBL angle that was previously mentioned, WWE are capitalizing on audiences identifying with The Big Show's plight to do everything in his power to say employed, given the state of the current economy and despite how much he hates doing Triple H and Stephanie McMahon's dirty work. The million dollar question is why involve law enforcement and criminal charges to this angle after it seems like there shouldn't be any issue with physicality in wrestling, right? Once again, there is a method to this madness... The Big Show was fired, so of course, Triple H wants to take legal action instead of dirtying his hands with a revenge match against the World's Largest Athlete that he could potentially lose. Just look at his track record against Brock Lesnar. I know that I wouldn't risk anymore close calls like that either. Let's be serious though - the logical reasoning behind this is that it is a step towards making the angle a bit more realistic. Of course, it's not going to look real to anyone who has been watching wrestling since the days where Stone Cold Steve Austin found himself arrested at the end of almost every other RAW broadcast.
Like it or not, logic exists in professional wrestling. So, the next time you're are throwing your hands up and going "WTF? There's no logic in this at ALL!" Sit down and think about it, as you're not looking hard enough. There's always a method to the madness...
Post a Comment