John Munford’s account of a clerk at Bruster’s Ice Cream facing an angry customer wielding a semi-automatic weapon was disturbing on many levels.

The incident could have very easily escalated into something tragic. I am sure that the clerk, along with her family will be affected for some time to come. It is no laughing matter to have a gun pointed at you by an angry man.

Why then would [reporter John] Munford find it necessary to end the article with a statement like “the report failed to detail the ice cream flavor that led to the customer’s armed complaint”?

An “armed complaint” triggered by a flavor choice?

Hilarious. Perhaps if the clerk was the son or daughter of Mr. Munford, his level of reverence for a dangerous and scary incident would have been different.

For now, he owes this clerk, and the rest of our community, an apology for his insensitive remark.

Rob Dugas

Peachtree City, Ga.

[The editor replies: As usual, a reporter gets blamed for an act committed by an “insensitive” editor. The editor added the facetious remark, unbeknownst to the reporter, and thus the editor alone is entirely responsible for whatever insensitivity was communicated.]