Woman Kills Shower Attacker

Status
Not open for further replies.
That woman is a survivor and I wish all women would follow her example of preparedness and willingness to fight when necessary.

This is a good example to point out the next time an armchair ballistician pontificates that a .22 pistol is not good for self defense. Sure, a .38 or .44 would have been more powerful but not necessarily better if that power meant that the victim would not actually be comfortable using it.

No, the .22 didn't drop the perp in his tracks but it did make him turn the victim loose and run off to worry about his wounds. Thus, the .22 stopped the attack and that is really the objective. The fact that the perp later died is an unfortunate outcome for him but his attack was stopped.

I would be interested to know how the victim kept her handgun handy. Was it in a bathroom vanity drawer or hung from a lanyard around the shower head?
 
It was in her bedroom; she fought back in the bathroom where the attack had started, but the BG overpowered her and dragged her to the bedroom.
 
I know that the mere thought of trying to maintain some sort of ability to respond to a threat while in the shower is the source of great mirth for many folks, even on this forum, but the fact remains that we are rarely so vulnerable while awake as we are while in the shower.

So much so that at least one serial killer made use of the fact. He would follow women home from the health club, wait until he heard the water come on and then break into the house, arm himself with a knife from the kitchen and then begin the attack.

I'm glad this woman was able to prevail over her attacker.
Click to expand...

There's a reason that scene in Psycho is so scary to so many people.
 
Yes. You asked why. Then you were told why. The original expression "Hopefully she will be able to get past any guilt" as worded, expressed the possibility of guilt ("any guilt" as opposed to "her guilt" or "the guilt" which would have implied more certainty that she _would_ feel guilt).

Also being exhilarated that she won and feeling guilty over taking a human life are not incompatible emotions. People are complex and it's quite possible for a person to feel both at the same time (and to compound the feelings of guilt precisely because they feel good about having won).

Humans are remarkably complex creatures and simplistic either-or answers are usually wrong
Click to expand...

Every fact you state in this post is an actual fact. Every conclusion you draw in this post is one I can recognize.
 
lawnboy said:
Why would she feel any guilt? She oughta feel the exhilaration of righteous victory.
Click to expand...

I take it you've never killed anyone? It's one thing to feel justified. It's another to feel "exhilarated" especially after the adrenaline wears off and it gets really quiet.

I'm proud of her and I hope the knowledge that she did what had to be done outweighs the strain of facing the reality and finality of her actions.

After going back and reading the entire thread I felt the need to add this. Lawnboy, my goal wasn't to pile on criticism or in anyway call you out. You are free to think and react in anyway you want (within the realm of legality). I hope she feels proud of herself for being able to act courageously in a very intense situation. I don't think she would celebrate killing a person because she's likely lost the ability to be comfortable in her own house and maybe neighborhood because of his actions. Even without guilt, she has lost a lot and has a difficult road ahead of her. She will most likely suffer from sort of PTSD.

I also tried to think about it from the perspective of someone who had almost been raped/murdered. I'd probably get some sort of visceral pleasure from killing someone who tried rape my wife because of the hate I'd most likely harbor for him. How could I deny that she might have the same emotion?

I guess the short version is that nobody knows how she is dealing with this or even how we would in her shoes (unless you've been there). I do know we can agree on one thing and that is we are glad she made it, hope she is able to deal with it in a healthy way and can get back to the life her actions saved ASAP.
 
Last edited:
mrquimby,

No offense taken. No, never fired a shot in anger. I can see the exhilaration wearing off (or the "thrill of victory" if that is preferable).

I can also see that a whole lot of PTSD seems cultural. That is, it's a response based on societal conditioning. What is military training if not an attempt to overcome this? It may work or it may not.

It seems to me that claiming some kind of genetic imperative against taking another human life flies in the face of thousands of years of recorded history. People kill each other as naturally as they walk upright. The taboo is cultural. Not genetic. This means it can theoretically be overcome, with suitable training.

This does not make the feeling any less real. It just makes it but one of a range of possible responses. Granted the most common one, to a person raised in the Western Tradition. Which is what I'm most familiar with

My point is no more than that there is nothing wrong with being happy the other guy is dead. And staying happy about it.
 
People kill each other as naturally as they walk upright.
Click to expand...
Based on the studies I've seen, this seems to be the exception rather than the rule. The reason bullying is problematic is that it is more common for people to avoid confrontation than to meet it head on. Bullies can get their way and enjoy their power trips because the common response isn't to confront them and call their bluff.

People feel very free to say that if faced with a bully, do thus and so and you will resolve the situation promptly, but when actually put into the situation most people won't take the direct approach, they will avoid confrontation.

Killing, in one very real sense, is the ultimate form of confrontation.

SOME people kill very naturally and easily, but that's not at all the norm. Some studies suggest that killing is a barrier that as much as 99% of the population will find extremely difficult to overcome except in the most dire circumstances. Grossman delves into this topic in his works and even if you disagree with his conclusions, his research is interesting.

Training helps, but it won't change the mental makeup of a person. Cirillo points out in his book that while well-trained individuals could often perform well in deadly force encounters, if they didn't have the proper mental makeup they would be subjected to extreme stress. By 'extreme' I mean 'life-threatening', I'm not talking about amnesia, bad dreams or the jitters. He became interested in the topic when some members of the NYPD stakeout squad began literally dropping from stress related illnesses while others seemed to be largely unaffected. He eventually put together a "profile" for what made a good gunfighter. Some of the traits were learned (traits that could be instilled by training/conditioning), but certainly not all of them were.
 
Last edited:
Americans are closer to the time when we had to be 'less civilized' simply because we faced so many immediate threats, due to the untamed nature of the continent just a few hundred years ago. That said I would dispute the characterization that the 'west' is more accepting of killing. Humans have a natural aversion to inflicting violence on their fellows. That is why tolerating the use of violence must be learned, at home, on the streets, in the service; where ever. The military uses a lot of basic mind influencing techniques to adjust their recruits. Their main goal is unit cohesion and overcoming our natural aversion to violence, assuming the recruit still has one by then. Training is a whole other matter and unit cohesion is a major goal as well but the mind games stuff is different from training in my experience. The fact that the military makes such a major effort as they do and still requires so many MH resources is because of our natural aversion to the use of violence. That said of course humans have instincts to kill and to attack even other humans, but they are generally under extraordinary circumstances.
 
Is that Dave Grossman? Sounds like a good read. Most of the research I've read has focused too much on recent history, in my opinion. Admittedly, it is hard to study the long past. But conceptually the fact that war is a human constant should lead to at least the thought that the ability to kill is built in.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue against the idea that CURRENTLY killing is a societal taboo that is reinforced strongly from an early age. This does not seem to stop the carnage though. I think it is at least conceivable that the taboo is a learned behavior and not inherent.

Large numbers of people take up arms against each other with the intent of killing each other every day. This is a fact. The question seems to me to be whether the training they undergo (if any) overcomes a cultural or genetic disposition or unlocks something inside them. The truth lies somewhere in there.
 
many LEO's have bad probs after shooting someone and my grandfather wouldnt talk about anything he did in WWII except the fishing in the south pacific. i shower with my .45 on the vanity and all the doors deadbolted. you never know when you'll need your gun so i keep one with me everywhere.
 
Is that Dave Grossman?
Click to expand...
Yup, I omitted an 's'. I don't buy all his conclusions but he's done a lot of good research and his books are worth the read, in my opinion.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue against the idea that CURRENTLY killing is a societal taboo that is reinforced strongly from an early age. This does not seem to stop the carnage though. I think it is at least conceivable that the taboo is a learned behavior and not inherent.
Click to expand...
Grossman points out evidence to support the idea that it's not merely a current societal norm. As far as it being a taboo, I think it would be more accurate to call it a very common phobia instead. One that's so common as to be almost universal.

It's difficult to categorically state whether it's learned or intrinsic, but I think it's certainly accurate to say that regardless of how people develop this phobia it's something that's very difficult to unlearn. To the point that those who can unlearn it effectively are in the small minority.

By the way, Grossman isn't the only one with this view. The U.S. military had to come to grips with it when they revived the sniping program during the Vietnam war after some snipers had breakdowns due to their inability to cope with killing. Subsequently a screening process (as opposed to simply requiring more rigorous training/conditioning) was implemented to eliminate this issue. Effectively an admission that only certain types of soldiers were mentally suited to this type of killing regardless of the amount of training/conditioning.
 
I've read a lot of threads on several forums with jokes about carrying your pistol into the shower. Seems kind of paranoid but after reading the article it isn't so weird.

This lady was amazing. Knife at her throat yet she fights back in the shower. Lures the thug into the bedroom telling him she has money and then grabs her revolver. Has the presence of mind to aim and work the trigger without shooting wildly. Continues to shoot and forces him the thug to retreat. Scrams out of the house and runs for help.

Superior mental functioning while buck naked and in the most helpless situation in the home. That is a warrior. Wow.
 
I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue against the idea that CURRENTLY killing is a societal taboo that is reinforced strongly from an early age. This does not seem to stop the carnage though. I think it is at least conceivable that the taboo is a learned behavior and not inherent.

Large numbers of people take up arms against each other with the intent of killing each other every day. This is a fact. The question seems to me to be whether the training they undergo (if any) overcomes a cultural or genetic disposition or unlocks something inside them. The truth lies somewhere in there.
Click to expand...

I agree with what both of you are saying. I would add though, that in war, there is often extreme cultural differences in the two sides fighting.

There is usually (not always) at the very least, language barriers between the fighting sides. In many conflicts, this is coupled with racial and religious differences. It would not surprise me a bit if this helped soldiers subconsciously alienate the opposing force into something less than human in their minds.

I believe it would be MUCH harder for a soldier to take the lives of enemies of the same race, religion, and speaking the same language, without suffering adverse mental side effects. Especially if it were a government sanctioned war not a citizen sparked war/revolution.

Im not an expert in anything, just food for thought.
 
This woman should definitely be a role model for all women.
Not some of these atrocities media/corporate outlets bombard them with.
Didn't matter what her political affiliations were. She was deemed vulnerable and attacked as such. Simple as that.

Fortunately she had previously picked the right affiliations and mind set. No doubt that firearm gave her something to fight towards.

0.02
 
With regard to killing other people, including in wartime, I'm of the opinion that we civilized people are no higher than most of whom we call savages. Among many so-called primative societies, wars were fought and conflicts were often settled with a kind of ritualized fighting. I don't know how well things were ultimately settled but it couldn't have been any worse than in all those European wars that repeat themselves every 20 or 30 years and not so many people get hurt. Of course, when someone comes along and decides to play by different rules, it's a whole new ball game, as the saying goes.

Wars are fought and men fight (women too, sometimes) for a multitude of reasons. One of them is for the opportunity for men (women too, sometimes) to prove themselves, both to themselves and to others, and to see just what they're made of. Colin Fletcher said a man carries a monkey around on his back until he finds that out. I'm not so sure about that but in some societies it was considered a braver thing to just touch the enemy rather than kill him. Or better yet, to steal something from him.

None of this has much to do with self-defense, however.
 
This case is a good example of why dogs are great to have around. Odds are she'd have at least had some advance warning, if a dog or dogs had started snarling and barking.

There are also decent odds an intruder would have chosen a home that did not have dogs, after he heard the initial noise.

I normally bring underwear and shorts or pants to the shower area, so I can put something on after drying off. If I have shorts or pants, I have a handgun. That, plus deadbolts, plus dogs, seem to me a pretty good combo.
 
Dogs are great for security; they generally provide a good warning. Too bad mine is deaf and nearly blind. The old boy is 14 now, but he tries to still do his job!
 
Large numbers of people take up arms against each other with the intent of killing each other every day. This is a fact.
Click to expand...

"Large number" is relative. A percentage of population would be a more telling "fact". I agree with others- most people will avoid confrontation. It seems to be universal.
 
It's not Universal. If it were no one would kill anyone. It is common. Even very common. Perhaps extremely so. But definitely not universal.

And we have veered off into a slightly different topic. The capability to pull the trigger with intent is not the same thing as the capability to deal with the aftermath of the action.

I do not see how it can be argued that people can't be trained to kill people. This flies in the face of everything we know. It would seem to me more proper to say "SOME people CAN'T be trained to kill people". This is exactly what we see from experience and shouldn't be disputed very much. I think.

I do think that in our Western derived culture in the USA in 2011 the reaction to having killed someone is most likely to be remorse/guilt/PTSD or something of that sort. But at the risk of beating a long dead horse, this is not the only possible reaction. Nor is it the only normal reaction. Too many people on this here forum have reported otherwise.

I'm willing to call this horse dead.

Here's hoping that the woman deals with whatever she feels in the aftermath of the event well. And that she is well treated by LE's, Courts, Family and friends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top