MovieChat Forums > An Innocent Man (1989) Discussion > When it was time for Rainwood to take ou...

When it was time for Rainwood to take out Jingles...

posted 17 years ago by adamaf34
17 replies | jump to latest

Why did Jimmy, after he was in the bathroom with Jingles' back to him, wait so long to shank the guy? He actually waited for Jingles to turn around and then waited some more!
I kept saying, "What the hell are you waiting for Rainwood?! Jingles is gonna grab that Shank and you'll be a dead man!"
Jingles didn't grab it, luckily, but did Jimmy just kinda freak out for a minute or two in there and that's why he waited for Jingles to turn around and then just stand there, or....??

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 17 years ago

If Jimmy just went up to Jingles and shank him while his back was turned, I'm sure that his death would be on Jimmy's conscience, especially since he's not a murderer. I can only guess Jimmy waited for Jingles to try to attack him, and THEN kill him in self-defense. Jimmy wouldn't be carrying the guilt of murder, especially when he was facing that warden because he didn't seem to be the least bit shaken up. But anyway, that bastard Jingles deserved what was coming to him, just like the cops who framed Jimmy!!!

[–] dratcliffe-1 17 years ago

Probably because its a Hollywood movie and the good guy isn't gonna kill the bad guy by sticking him from behind, or maybe Jimmy was waiting for Jingles to finish on the toilet...

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jayhn1111 16 years ago

Yeah my take on that scene was that he was very nervous and apprehensive about killing somebody since he'd never killed anybody before. So he hesitated for a couple of seconds

[–] corrupt200 16 years ago

and that's why he thought he could say "f---" and everything

"We share the same biology regardless of ideology"-Sting, 1985

[–] corrupt200 16 years ago

and that's why he thought he could say "f---" and everything

"We share the same biology regardless of ideology"-Sting, 1985

[–] snowfairy123183-1 15 years ago

It would make Jimmy a cold-blooded murderer, which he is not. Yes, Jingles was a lower than worthless scum who deserved what he got, but if Jimmy had just killed him instantly, without allowing him to turn around, he would have been no better than Jingles, ultimately. And his death would have been on his conscious. The same reason he refused to kill that cop, instead leaving him to face justice himself.

[–] Minesweeper84 15 years ago

Stabbing Jingles in the back would not have made Jimmie as bad as Jingles.

Does anyone really believe that he would be as bad for doing that? Or is that just something that people say?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Selish70 14 years ago

"Stabbing Jingles in the back would not have made Jimmie as bad as Jingles.

Does anyone really believe that he would be as bad for doing that? Or is that just something that people say?"

It's just something people say in movies and on TV...but as such is one valid explanation for Jimmy's hesitation - after all, it IS a movie. I think most people in real life feel that if they don't start s*** and mind their own business, they are better than the "other guy". Once they have been provoked it's ON.

[–] SuperNinja 12 years ago

"if Jimmy had just killed him instantly, without allowing him to turn around, he would have been no better than Jingles"

That's just a tired old cliche that hollywood likes to keep brainwashing the viewers with.

Fact is, when it comes to someone like Jingles, it doesn't matter if you stab him in the back or the front, or weather it is done as offense or defense at the particular time.
Against someone like Jingles, any method of killing him is self defense, weather Jingles was ready for it or not.

[–] waldenpond88 13 years ago

I thought I recognized the actor who played Jingles in "An Innocent Man" also in the Russel Crowe thriller "The Next Three Days".
He is about to leave the elevator in prison together with another craftsman in order to fix something inside the prison (right after the scene where Crowe meets Liam Neeson). He's the tall black guy in the elevator.
Am I right???

[–] SuperNinja 12 years ago

I remembered seeing him as an insane asylum worker in Quantum Leap.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/159799/quantum-leap-shock-theater-october-3- 1954

And also as Raymond, in the movie "Trespass".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105636/

[–] manage-932-700755 12 years ago

I thought about that too. I assume Rainwood, not being a hardened con or even a tough guy, was still reluctant to attack Jingles. I also thought it was a good thing Rainwood was a big, strong guy, or else Jingles may have been able to take the knife away.

[–] Speed-the-plow 12 years ago

Because he's not a murderer. The only way he could pull it off was to provoke a situation that required self-defense.

Despite what many are led to believe, most people are not natural born killers. The military's greatest task is overcoming man's aversion to killing another man.

[–] benbo-3 11 years ago

There's something obvious being overlooked - he had a fragile plastic shank - would probably only get 1 shot at getting a good stab, so it had to count. It wasn't long like a stiletto either. So, he was probably waiting for the chance to take him in front so he could be sure of hitting him in the heart. Had he tried sneaking up from behind, not only would Jingles have heard him, moved, and taken the stab in the kidney (bad but not lethal) or a lung with a lucky shot, and the shank would've broken - he would've lived. Virgil probably not only convinced him to do the shanking, but also how to do it. Remember, he didn't tell him to cut his throat - he said "once you've done it, break it off inside him" - implying a torso stab. A frontal thrust into the heart was probably the surest way, with a flimsy breakable plastic shank. I guess cutting the jugular would be as lethal, but it's a lot smaller target on a big strong man.