Woman Kills Shower Attacker

[Evan Thomas]

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.

Yes -- except that there's nothing particularly subconscious about it. Dehumanizing the enemy is a common strategy on the part of those who decide to make war. Those who actually have to fight it are often the intended recipients of deliberate propaganda designed to have this effect. Hence, rumors of "baby-killing" etc., derogatory names for an enemy -- "nip," "gook," raghead," -- and all the rest.

And it doesn't occur only in a military context. There's a tendency of some members here (they tend to be the more chest-thumpy ones) to label people who commit certain crimes as "predators," scumbags," even, literally, "animals." It's all about dehumanizing them, and it's unfortunate, I think. Natural, but unfortunate...

I thought I should point out that for all the people who today are saying they would never celebrate the taking of a human life, there were a whole lot of TFLers doing exactly that in the forum the other day, when the SEALS bagged Osama Bin Laden. I believe some of those people are saying they'd never celebrate such in this thread...

I trust you're not including me among such... I think my posts in that thread made it clear that I found the celebrating distasteful. By chance, this essay by a former NYC firefighter was posted this morning on Counterpunch. In criticizing the public celebration of bin Laden's death, he writes:

This isn’t a sporting event. These inappropriate celebrations violate human dignity, and the inherent sanctity of human life. Celebrating death, even an enemy's, reminds me of the anger I felt at seeing Afghans dancing in the streets the day the Towers fell.​

It's worth reading.

I'm willing to call this horse dead.

Me too.

To make an attempt to bring this back to tactics: as I think about this incident, it's forcing me to reconsider something I've taken as a given, up to now: that it's always a bad idea to hide loaded guns around the house, without locking them up in some fashion.

But I don't see how this woman could have reached her handgun if it had been locked up; it seems to me it must have been in a nightstand drawer, or perhaps in a holster behind her headboard... Don't know if we'll hear anything about this, but in that particular situation -- very close quarters with an attacker who is trying to force one to submit -- it doesn't seem that a handgun in one of those little safes, for instance, would do one much good. If there are children in the house, guns do need to be locked up or worn, I think, but if not -- I may have to rethink this.

And as I wrote above, I'd think a long gun would have been much less useful at such close quarters, with an attacker perhaps literally breathing down one's neck. I may have to rethink the shotgun as my main HD weapon, as well.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Since the horse is dead, perhaps some of our zombie masters would stop resurrecting the moldy idea that there aren't or shouldn't or wouldn't be stress reactions.

Also, triggers for violence are complex and if you want to get beyond some commentary in popular gun magazines, I might suggest

Collins, R.: Violence: A Micro-sociological Theory

- a great, scholary analysis of the built in and cultural triggers for violence.

Good analysis of Grossman's work is part of it.

Not to harp but there is a real literature beyond the conjectures of gun rag columnists. Now, the best columnists are aware of such and read it nowadays. So are the best trainers. The Insight crew, the NTI, the Polite Society, etc. all give up to date presentations.

As far as celebration for a righteous death - that's also studied - what a surprise. Revenge reactions are covered in a new book by David Barash and the immediate physiologically driven joy responses and later reactions are presented.

One can also read about cruelty - a related joyful response in :

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...761&jid=BBS&volumeId=29&issueId=03&aid=462759

Cruelty by Neil - the pain-blood-death complex.

Thus, lecture over - there's more too it than just a casual gun rag statement as an appeal to authority over what a reaction constitutes of.

The policeone.com site has very relevant and readable articles by law professionals and psychologists/social scientists that analyze such. Klinger's book, Cop Shock, Dead Force Encounters, etc. are quite accessible.

 

[bigbaby]

I wouldn't be too harsh on the "zombie masters". It is easy to talk on line without thinking; I would reserve judgement for actions rather then words.

 

[lawnboy]

I'll be interested to follow reporting on the incident and hopefully hear the answers to a few questions that spring to my mind:

• Did she have this handgun as a conscious defense choice? In other words, did she at some point in the past say to herself "hey, I need a gun for protection" or was this just a gun she had around with no prior thought about using it in defense
• Was the fact that it was .22 a purposeful selection or not.
• If she did select .22 as her weapon of choice, what was her reasoning?
• Had she trained with the weapon in preparation for the day when she might have to use it

If anyone hears any further reporting that answers these questions I, for one, would welcome hearing about it.

 

[lawnboy]

Glen,

Minor nit to pick:

One can also read about cruelty - a related joyful response in :

Cruelty is a different topic than fighting the legitimate enemy, whether that enemy is on a battlefield, on the street or an invader in your home.

I suspect that this is not what you meant. But it could be read that way.

I now have to take a break from my busy schedule of tilting at windmills. Horse beating over. I promise.

 

[Evan Thomas]

I just did a quick search on Google news, and there doesn't seem to be any new information on these questions; just that she shot the attacker multiple times, and he only made it as far as her back yard before collapsing.

So I'll just give her one more tiny, tasteful "Attagirl!"

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Killing a righteous enemy (as self-defined) or acting cruelly to a person (waterboarding righteously an enemy) - or whatever - my point was that we have neurophysiological mechanisms that reward us for such harmful behavior.

Whether the righteous killing is justified by defending truth, justice and the American way or the torture is justified by preserving us from Satan (as in the Inquisition), inflicting harm has a set of brain structures that support such. Just as there are a set that inhibit such actions.

Also, as we know such mechanisms and predispositions are subject to both learning and experience expectant neural developmental process based on critical perionds.

Legitimacy on inflicting harm is in the eye of the beholder, the doer and the victim.

It was righteous to some to set babies on the back of Japanese mothers on fire as their country was a legitimate enemy. Whether you are appalled or cheered depends on all sorts of things.

 

[lawnboy]

Glen, we are working from a different set of definitions.

 

[markj]

Why would she feel any guilt?

Maybe because most people find killing another human being, no matter how justified the killing is, to be a traumatic event.

My Grandma didnt, a guy was brakeing into the house, she warned him he came thru the back door, she shot and killed him. She was all upset over the mess and very relieved he didnt hurt her in any way. So she felt relief and anger over the mess HE made she lived to be 97.

My nephew felt remorse over killing afgans, but glad he wasnt killed and glad he killed them that killed his corps brothers.

Not knowing the gal in question or what she has said in the aftermath, I cant say what or how she is feeling, I can only go by my expir.

My Uncle killed some HAs (He was a county mounty) he felt like he did his job removing the bad guys from society and would gladly do it again he told me.

My UIncle was in Nam sent me pics of those he fragged, he told my dad he got his limit hunting every day. Sounded like he was into it and enjoyed it.

 

[Big Shrek]

Lawyer Daggit

We are conditioned from a young age not to kill. A reaction can therefore be regarded as a normal event- even when you have an excellent excuse.

Mostly...City folk are raised that way...country & some suburban folk kill critters almost daily...but with a specific purpose.
Farm folk know what it is to extinguish life on a regular basis. Sitting quietly while waiting for a fox/coyote...
hitting a cow/pig/sheep between the eyes with a sledgehammer because its cheaper than a bullet...
(yeah, we got those nifty pneumatic hammers nowadays, but the old way was how I was taught)
Hunting deer/hog/bear/other game animals during their appropriate seasons...killing is killing.

Even notice that the soldiers who grew up in the country/on farms have less of a problem with the afteraffects of war??
Having already dealt with death regularly, they can understand that the killing of a human,
in time of war, or in time of self-defense, is no different than killing a predator aiming for their livestock.
You hate to have to kill a beautiful cougar, but if you don't, it might harm someone you love, a neighbor, or your livestock.

That being said, I still remember the first person I ever put in the sights of my M16A1 while in the Army...
what they were doing just before I pulled the trigger (walking thru a field with a squad of troops)...but I don't feel bad about it.
It was only what needed to be done. Otherwise, they would have done the same to our squad given half a chance.

I can't see where taking a criminal out is any different. But I've not shot a criminal yet.
Hopefully I won't have to...but I have the feeling it won't be a huge issue with my mental well-being.

 

[TailGator]

Kind of amazing that we would expect a woman who fled her home naked, collapsed, and was weeping and hysterical after the shooting to celebrate it a bit later.

Equally amazing that folks would try to teach, debate, and second-guess, rather than learn from, a professor of psychology with a doctorate in the subject, who makes it clear by his repeated scholarly references that he is extremely well read in his field.

 

[aarondhgraham]

Easy TailGator,,,

a professor of psychology with a doctorate in the subject, who makes it clear by his repeated scholarly references that he is extremely well read in his field.

His head is big enough as it is,,,
Mustn't Feed the Beast!

Aarond

In case it wasn't readily apparent,,,
That was satirical humor.

.

 

[lawnboy]

Equally amazing that folks would try to teach, debate, and second-guess, rather than learn from, a professor of psychology with a doctorate in the subject, who makes it clear by his repeated scholarly references that he is extremely well read in his field.

A degree does not confer anything but a degree. Speaking for myself, I reserve the right to disagree with experts. I certainly will not accept the word of any expert in anything just because that person is an expert. I will accept it if it passes my personal reason test and I can think of no serious objection.

An expert can be found to support virtually any assertion. All this means is that a great many experts are wrong. It also means a great many are right. You and I get to decide which are which on each and every topic we consider. Including firearm related topics.

And any expert who demands that all debate stop once he has spoken has failed step one in my personal logic test. Debate is part of the process of learning from experts. No expert here has done that, to my recollection. But if they did, no longer worth listening to in my book.

 

[mbquimby]

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.

Good points and well put. I agree to some degree with killing being "natural" as nearly everything in nature does this. I'm sure I have PTSD but it manifests itself by making me overly aware of my surroundings. An issue that actually helps me at work but can make crowded places nearly intolerable because I can't observe everything and everyone around me. I also feel like my body is quicker to dump adrenaline and go to a higher state of "readiness" for lack of a better word. My PTSD isn't as much a result of my taking lives as it is having numerous close calls of my own life and spending long periods of time having to be super-aware of my surroundings to stay safe. That is the kind of PTSD I was referencing. The PTSD that comes with being hunted, not being the hunter. Nice talking with you.

 

[lawnboy]

The PTSD that comes with being hunted, not being the hunter.

That is an interesting perspective! It opens up very different lines of thought than what I and others have been discussing here. Different but absolutely worth considering.


Thank you!

 

[HotShot.444]

The first step, in Phu Bai and A Shau, never forgotten.

First I decide who the "enemy" is. I always acted alone. Know your rear ("six"). Eliminate fear and eliminate conscience. He and I, the worst battle. Forget it. Many will misunderstand that. I does not matter. I am not a psychiatrist, nor do I portray one in the movies; but I am keeping two of them gainfully employed at the V.A. Never assume you "... know what you are going through ..." You don't. ☭ 道 Dao.

 

[bigbaby]

There are a lot of people in Baltimore that are very casual about killing and most of them have never even seen a cow or any other critters that aren't feral. They kill for nothing more than a minor insult or a pair of shoes, regularly and with no demonstrated remorse, except at their sentencing on the rare occasion that they are prosecuted. Don't bother to say 'well they are just criminals or scum or skells' they were all just babies, same as the rest of us once. Some had good mommas and some didn't; there are many places where one can become conditioned to accept violence.

 

[WANT A LCR 22LR]

"" Yes -- except that there's nothing particularly subconscious about it. Dehumanizing the enemy is a common strategy on the part of those who decide to make war. Those who actually have to fight it are often the intended recipients of deliberate propaganda designed to have this effect. Hence, rumors of "baby-killing" etc., derogatory names for an enemy -- "nip," "gook," raghead," -- and all the rest. ""

In the late 90's someone I knew that was in WW2 _still_ would not drive a Japanese car because of what " Them Japs would do to a certain body part of females. " It's doubtfull any of that occured on a large scale but, he still believed it all those years later.

As for the poor criminals kid crying at home because someone defended them selves. Would that kid be crying if the criminal kill the lady in the shower? When a criminal comits a bad act, _they_ are the ones who decided to inflict pain on their family and give up all rights to safe passage.

Celebrating Osamas death is wrong, celebrating that the threat has been removed _is_ cause for celebration. To that end, when confronted with a attacker, the threat of recieving grave bodily harm should be enough to counter any felings of remorse. ( RE killing someone that is walking down the street is way different than someone that has a gun to your head. )

 

[carprivershooter]

guilt

Like would like to respond to lawn boy. Even police officers feel guilt when they have to kill a bad guy. many members of the armed forces have guilt after returning from combat. So this young women needs support and understanding to cope with the truma of the attack and the shooting. Maybe i took your comment wrong.

 

[TenRing]

This is an interesting thread with some interesting debate. Not only are the facts being debated, but we are debating the issue of what conclusions can be drawn from the facts.

I feel that there is no question that there will always be an element of society for whom killing another person is tantamount to killing fish. There are some who will show more concern for a suffering dog or cat than for a fellow human sufferer. For proof of this, we need only read the newspapers or TV news web sites of any medium or large city in America. The same phenomena can be seen in small towns and villages but it is certainly more common in the larger cities since there are simply more people there. Men, women and children are routinely murdered and sometimes the motive is nothing more than the desire to steal a pair of sunglasses or to prove one's willingness to kill in order to join a street gang. The perp in this story seems to illustrate the type of person who looks for opportunities to use force against unsuspecting people while the victim could be an example of a person who minds her own business and has no desire to hurt others.

I'm neither psychologist nor criminologist but based on what is going on in this country, I am convinced that there is no universal taboo against killing. Some people may have been conditioned to reject the idea of killing due to their upbringing, their religious convictions or their personal experiences. But there are those who look for opportunities to kill for the same reasons. The criminal who is conditioned to kill finds it easy to take advantage of those who are not violent since their intended victim assumes that other people are not violent. The offender finds that his willingness to do violence is a big advantage over the person who has no desire to harm another person.