• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NC - Forced to kill: 4 stories of survival

Liko81

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
496
Location
Dallas, TX, ,
imported post

crotalus01 wrote:
I was trained to kill in the Army, and have NO doubt that I would killin the appropriate circumstances. I hate to admit it, but I really don't think it would bother me all that much (if at all)as I have ZERO empathy for criminals, andif they get killed by a law abiding citizen or a LEO (or me)then **** 'em, they got exactly what they deserved, no more no less.

Having said that, I don't ever want to be in that situation, but if I am I will do what has to be done. I seriously doubt I would lose any sleep over it.

I would. I, like many other citizenseven in the Army, was not trained to kill. From an ethical standpoint, a life is a life, and the loss of a life is the greatest possible cost of an action. If you hold that view, taking alife is only justifiable if the consequence of not taking the life would result in the loss of life anyway (the very definition of a lose-lose scenario,where all you can do islose the least). You therefore have to deal with the result of a decision made in a split second while flushed with adrenaline and staring down a guy who you believewill dovery bad things.

I don't think it's possible not to second-guess making that kind of decision. You think about why a person would want to kill you. You wonder what REALLY would have happened had you not pulled the trigger; all the various scenarios and whether you would have died or not. You think of how likelyeachresult would be, and whether anything else you could have done would increase or decrease the chances of a bad outcome for you.That kind of ethical calculus can take years to resolve fully, and it's never done with the cold calculation and finality of a calculus problem; there's always another "what-if". And resolving thatcognitive dissonance does not erase the sight of death by GSW. It's never pretty; it virtually always involves big holes, disfigured faces, andfar more blood than the average American has ever seen. It's easily the stuff of nightmares for any one, even soldiers.
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

Liko81 wrote:
crotalus01 wrote:
I was trained to kill in the Army, and have NO doubt that I would killin the appropriate circumstances. I hate to admit it, but I really don't think it would bother me all that much (if at all)as I have ZERO empathy for criminals, andif they get killed by a law abiding citizen or a LEO (or me)then **** 'em, they got exactly what they deserved, no more no less.

Having said that, I don't ever want to be in that situation, but if I am I will do what has to be done. I seriously doubt I would lose any sleep over it.

I would. I, like many other citizenseven in the Army, was not trained to kill. From an ethical standpoint, a life is a life, and the loss of a life is the greatest possible cost of an action. If you hold that view, taking alife is only justifiable if the consequence of not taking the life would result in the loss of life anyway (the very definition of a lose-lose scenario,where all you can do islose the least). You therefore have to deal with the result of a decision made in a split second while flushed with adrenaline and staring down a guy who you believewill dovery bad things.

I don't think it's possible not to second-guess making that kind of decision. You think about why a person would want to kill you. You wonder what REALLY would have happened had you not pulled the trigger; all the various scenarios and whether you would have died or not. You think of how likelyeachresult would be, and whether anything else you could have done would increase or decrease the chances of a bad outcome for you.That kind of ethical calculus can take years to resolve fully, and it's never done with the cold calculation and finality of a calculus problem; there's always another "what-if". And resolving thatcognitive dissonance does not erase the sight of death by GSW. It's never pretty; it virtually always involves big holes, disfigured faces, andfar more blood than the average American has ever seen. It's easily the stuff of nightmares for any one, even soldiers.
I've never been in the Army nor have I been trained to kill and I also was terrified the first time I picked up a gun whose sole purpose was to kill someon, but I disagree with some of what you say Liko. I think most all war related psychological problems stem from a bad conscience. Is killing these people justified? Whether in self-defense or war if it is justified then there is no guilt and in fact there would have been guilt if you had *not* killed the BG. I believe, most of these moral conflicts and/or inability to recognize true and right justification for the use of deadly force is due to the wrong belief that there is nothing in this life more valuable or important than human life. To me there are principles that are more important than life itself, in fact it's these principles that establish civility and make life worth living. In other words there are things in this life worth dying for, and killing for.

Fretting over what you could of done different helps nothing, not you, not him, no one. Was the shooting justified? If yes, then why worry yourself? I like to use the analogy of God and all those condemned to hell. Does it not say God loves everyone, that every life is of value? But some people will still choose to go to hell. (Contrary to some peoples opinions Hell is not a punishment any more than Heaven is a reward, although there are punishments in hell and rewards in Heaven.) I digress, do you suppose that God is going to be fretting over what *might* have been for the rest of eternity? Of course not, the condemned made their choice and therefore it was only *right* that they should be sent to Hell. The same is true in self-defense. The responsibility of their choice and your *rightful* response to that choice lies with them. And you should sleep well knowing you did the right thing (assuming it was justified of course :^))
 

Liko81

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
496
Location
Dallas, TX, ,
imported post

Neplusultra wrote:
I've never been in the Army nor have I been trained to kill and I also was terrified the first time I picked up a gun whose sole purpose was to kill someon, but I disagree with some of what you say Liko. I think most all war related psychological problems stem from a bad conscience. Is killing these people justified? Whether in self-defense or war if it is justified then there is no guilt and in fact there would have been guilt if you had *not* killed the BG. I believe, most of these moral conflicts and/or inability to recognize true and right justification for the use of deadly force is due to the wrong belief that there is nothing in this life more valuable or important than human life. To me there are principles that are more important than life itself, in fact it's these principles that establish civility and make life worth living. In other words there are things in this life worth dying for, and killing for.

Fretting over what you could of done different helps nothing, not you, not him, no one. Was the shooting justified? If yes, then why worry yourself? I like to use the analogy of God and all those condemned to hell. Does it not say God loves everyone, that every life is of value? But some people will still choose to go to hell. (Contrary to some peoples opinions Hell is not a punishment any more than Heaven is a reward, although there are punishments in hell and rewards in Heaven.) I digress, do you suppose that God is going to be fretting over what *might* have been for the rest of eternity? Of course not, the condemned made their choice and therefore it was only *right* that they should be sent to Hell. The same is true in self-defense. The responsibility of their choice and your *rightful* response to that choice lies with them. And you should sleep well knowing you did the right thing (assuming it was justified of course :^))

That is, of course, what I would say to anyone who was struggling to resolve their psyche after a shooting. However, the shooter must come to that conclusion on his own; similar to many cognitive dissonance situations (the mental version of the immovable objectmeets the irresistable force; they're at odds and something's gotta give though it seems at first thatneither could do so), the decision toend a life when contrasted with placing ahigh value on life must be resolved by the person; you as an outside entity may force the person to confront the issue and introduce information that may assist in resolving it,but you cannot make him resolve it, much less resolve it in the way you wish him to. The need to resolve it is unrelated to the circumstances, nor is the difficulty in doing so.

Soldiers in war are not exempt from these veryreal questions; in fact nobody is more entitled to ask those questions than a soldier who has survived a battle. WWII is probably the greatest example of a war in which we knew what we were fighting against, and it wasone of the greatest evils the world has ever seen; thus the consciences of those who fought should be absolutely clear even if they did not know the full horror of the evil they fought at the time. Even then, 50 million people died as a consequence of that war, and thosewho survivedhad to deal with the decisions they made. Some of those decisions resulted in the deaths of subordinates, of friends, of civilians, of POWs,and sometimes of entire units. Those decisions have to be rationalized, and simple repetition of "there was nothing I could do" or "I did it to save more lives thanwere lost" is not enough because hindsight is always 20/20 and you have decades to think of things you could have done and what the people you saved went on to do versus what the guys who died could have done, or if your decision really saved more lives than it cost. I agree, it isn't productive, but it is a natural process and it must resolve itself. It isn't conscience either; it may be guilt, but you may call the guilt irrational; that doesn't make it any less real or mitigate the need for the person to overcome it, nor does it make you any more able to force the person to overcome it.

In other wars, and even in WWII, the mantra of "they are the enemy" sounds more and more hollow the more people you watch die, by anyone's hand. I often refer to Tolkien, because he experienced firsthand WWI and WWII and fictionalized many of those experienced in his works. Tolkien probably gave his character Faramir the most ofhimself, and one of his quotesfrom the Two Towers movie (which I believe is right out of the book)is, when looking at a dead enemy soldier, "I wonder what his name is, where he came from, and if he was really evil at heart; what lies or threats led him on this long march from home, and if he'd not rather have stayed there". There are questions that arise simply by being in that environment, where people you know, love and respect are dying every day, and where people you don't know, who in observing them seem very sane and rational, are trying to kill you. Whether you played any part in their deaths by action or inaction, you can't help but ask "What the **** am I doing here? What's the point? Why am I killing people? Is there a God?". You must resolve these questions or you will not be able to function; you will go insane. THAT is PTSD; a buildup of cognitive dissonance that affects a person's ability to live normally, and soldiers killing people are not the only ones who can suffer from it. All moral, legal, etc. issues aside, if you shootsomeoneand they die, you personallyhave to come to terms with it.
 

Weak 9mm

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
806
Location
USA
imported post

I have ZERO empathy for criminals, and if they get killed by a law abiding citizen or a LEO (or me) then **** 'em, they got exactly what they deserved, no more no less.

So any "criminal" deserves to die whether or not it comes from LEO's or Citizens? Are you talking about violent crimials?

Are you saying that someone who is charged with or suspected of say; 3rd degree tresspassing for waiting in a car on Home Depot's property (Their parking lot), in a city they aren't familiar with, to meet their cousin simply to follow them to their home, is getting exactly what they deserve if they were killed by an LEO or "Law Abiding Citizen?"

That is a bit insane.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

Weak 9mm wrote:
I have ZERO empathy for criminals, and if they get killed by a law abiding citizen or a LEO (or me) then **** 'em, they got exactly what they deserved, no more no less.

So any "criminal" deserves to die whether or not it comes from LEO's or Citizens? Are you talking about violent crimials?

Are you saying that someone who is charged with or suspected of say; 3rd degree tresspassing for waiting in a car on Home Depot's property (Their parking lot), in a city they aren't familiar with, to meet their cousin simply to follow them to their home, is getting exactly what they deserve if they were killed by an LEO or "Law Abiding Citizen?"

That is a bit insane.
Nah, that's silly. That is confusing infractions with criminal acts. From answers.com:

"United States law An Infraction in legal sense (minor offense, minor violation, petty offense, or frequently citation, sometimes used as synonymous with violation, regulatory offense, welfare offense, or contravention) is a "petty" violation of the law less serious than a misdemeanor.
Typically, an infraction is a violation of a rule or local ordinance or regulation.
Some refer to an infraction as quasi-criminal, because conviction for an infraction is generally not associated with the loss of liberty, or even social stigma. Infractions are often considered civil cases, in which case an infraction is not even considered a crime. Nonetheless, most infractions are indeed violations of statutory law, but in differing with criminal law where the burden of proof is Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, the standard for the civil infraction is a Preponderance of Evidence."

From Barron's law dictionary:

Criminal: (adj) an act done with malicious intent, from an evil nature, or with a wrongful disposition to harm or injure other persons or property.
[line]I would agree as regarding an utter lack of sympathy for criminals in general, but even there we have to be careful about blanket statements due to the abundance of stupid laws criminalizing things that should not be criminalized. An infraction is a totally different matter both at law and morally.
 

Weak 9mm

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
806
Location
USA
imported post

I think you'll be considered a "criminal" if charged with a "crime." That definition does say criminal basically = violent (perhaps intending to harm is the best terminology?), but I don't think most people's definition of a crimial always implies violence.

My "example" was probably one of the lowest "infractions" in existence, and was really just to say there is a difference in a "crime" and a violent crime. I'm willing to bet the newspaper has some fault in my confusing crimes and infractions though, haha. I was charged with that "infraction" btw (I didn't just pull that craziness out of nowhere, lol), and it was dropped.

I simply, like you say, hesitate to make a blanket statement along the lines of: "I don't care when a LEO or law abiding citizen kills a criminal."

Criminals take a lot of forms, and I just really don't think non-violent ones need to have violence enacted upon them. Of course, someone breaking into your home or car while you're in it would be in the violent category in my book, and in such a case I too have no problem with the victim using the necessary force to ensure their and other innocents' survival. I do apologize for the confusion this may have caused.
 

FightingGlock19

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
583
Location
, Kentucky, USA
imported post

am I prepaired to take another human life? I bring the mindset to fight, the tactics to win, the skill to overcome, and the tools to help me.

After the gunfight, I am as prepaired as I can be to fight the legal and emotional fights thatmay follow.

IMO, ifone isgoing to carry the tools that have the ability to take another human life, then one shouldn't be second guessing whether or not they could "pull the trigger," to save their own life in a deadly force self-defence situation.
 

UtahRSO

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
146
Location
Lehi, Utah, USA
imported post

I guess I don't understand what point HankT is trying to make. Is the point that it becomes an extremely traumatic experience for a basically good person to take someone's life? I think the examples HankT gave make that clear. It's worthwhile knowing that we can expect the terrible feelings that ensue, and be prepared to get help to deal with them.

But is HankT saying we shouldn't defend ourselves and loved ones because we will have to go through that traumatic experience? I would hope not, but it almost seems from reading HankT's comments that this is the point being made. To paraphrase one person's comment, HankT starts a worthwhile thread, then gives confusing comments.

I wish HankT would clarify the point being made.
 

tarzan1888

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,435
Location
, , USA
imported post

UtahRSO wrote:
I guess I don't understand what point HankT is trying to make. Is the point that it becomes an extremely traumatic experience for a basically good person to take someone's life? I think the examples HankT gave make that clear. It's worthwhile knowing that we can expect the terrible feelings that ensue, and be prepared to get help to deal with them.

But is HankT saying we shouldn't defend ourselves and loved ones because we will have to go through that traumatic experience? I would hope not, but it almost seems from reading HankT's comments that this is the point being made. To paraphrase one person's comment, HankT starts a worthwhile thread, then gives confusing comments.

I wish HankT would clarify the point being made.

HankT is a long running resident Troll. She is a very inelligent person who sets traps for those of us who truly believe in protecting ourselves and those we love.

A month or so back the hammer fell on her and she went away for a time, at least under the name of HankT.

Just ignore her, but be vigilant and watch for her under other Names.

Tarzan
 

ijusam

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
322
Location
Kent county, Delaware, USA
imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

I've never been in the Army nor have I been trained to kill and I also was terrified the first time I picked up a gun whose sole purpose was to kill someon, but I disagree with some of what you say Liko.
I'm curious, what gun is it "whose sole purpose was to kill someon(e)"?
 

Anubis

Newbie
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
451
Location
Arapahoe County CO, ,
imported post

ijusam wrote:
I'm curious, what gun is it "whose sole purpose was to kill someon(e)"?

I carry a pistol for self-defense. One view:the "sole" purpose of the weapon is to save my life. Another view:if I use it for that purpose, I accept the fact that such use may result in killing someone else. The point of a lethal weapon is to inflict lethal force. If I thought I couldn't kill if necessary, or would be psychologically wrecked (by killing in self-defense) to the point where my fate were worse than death, I wouldn't carry a pistol.

What are the alternative purposes for yours, ijusam?
 

ijusam

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
322
Location
Kent county, Delaware, USA
imported post

Anubis wrote:
ijusam wrote:
I'm curious, what gun is it "whose sole purpose was to kill someon(e)"?

I carry a pistol for self-defense. One view:the "sole" purpose of the weapon is to save my life. Another view:if I use it for that purpose, I accept the fact that such use may result in killing someone else. The point of a lethal weapon is to inflict lethal force. If I thought I couldn't kill if necessary, or would be psychologically wrecked (by killing in self-defense) to the point where my fate were worse than death, I wouldn't carry a pistol.

What are the alternative purposes for yours, ijusam?
My guns are merely tools. Some have protected me, some have fed me, and some have provided challenge and entertainment. If they were created merely for the sole purpose of killing someone, then all but possibly one have never fulfilled their purpose. I have to entertain the possibility that a 1903 Springfield may have taken a life in the past.

Even in the military, my m-16 was only used to train me to shoot accurately in case I was called on to go to war. I was even trained that a wounded enemy was preferable to a dead enemy as they consumed more resources, tended to emotionally damage the enemy more than just a dead body, and required personnel to treat and care for them. While I have never used my gun to kill a person, I do carry one for self protection and am willing to do whatever is necessary to protect my family, self, or an otherwise helpless third party. Being a reasonable person I have considered how much that action may cost me and weighed it against being a victim and subject to another’s criminal intentions. This wasn’t even a close decision.

IMHO I do believe most people will suffer some self doubt and possibly some remorse at the necessity of taking a human life, but feel once they have come to grips with the fact that the choice and fault lies with the criminal, they should be alright. This will be easier for some than others.



The above statement that you quoted was intended as a humorous reminder to not think as an anti does:

GUNS ARE EVIL!! GUNS ARE DANGEROUS!! GUN ARE ONLY FOR KILLING PEOPLE!! IT WAS AN ASSAULT RIFLE!(AR-15). We all know better and I was not directing comments to any individual.

George
 

Pointman

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
1,422
Location
, ,
imported post

nickerj1 wrote:
It makes you wonder why the criminal's family always sue the defender for civil stuff but the self defender never sues the criminal's family for emotional damage.

It says a lot about the character of the people in these situations, and how they were raised (their families).
That's because the shooter was a participant, and can be sued. The family of the attacker were not participants, and therefore cannot.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Pointman wrote:
nickerj1 wrote:
It makes you wonder why the criminal's family always sue the defender for civil stuff but the self defender never sues the criminal's family for emotional damage.

It says a lot about the character of the people in these situations, and how they were raised (their families).
That's because the shooter was a participant, and can be sued. The family of the attacker were not participants, and therefore cannot.
Mmm I'm not so sure. Criminal's family raised him to be a criminal, etc etc. Bring in joint and several liability, and you might have a good case on your hands.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:
Pointman wrote:
nickerj1 wrote:
It makes you wonder why the criminal's family always sue the defender for civil stuff but the self defender never sues the criminal's family for emotional damage.

It says a lot about the character of the people in these situations, and how they were raised (their families).
That's because the shooter was a participant, and can be sued. The family of the attacker were not participants, and therefore cannot.
Mmm I'm not so sure. Criminal's family raised him to be a criminal, etc etc. Bring in joint and several liability, and you might have a good case on your hands.
Unless the BG was a minor I would doubt there would be a case there, but then IANAL. As far as suing a surviving BG or a deceased BG's estate, if the BG is mugging/robbing/burglarizing I doubt if his estate has any $ worth suing over, and if he survives and goes to prison, you will likely spend a lot more money getting a judgment than you will ever collect on it. Just my thoughts on it.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
imported post

No, but any judgement could mitigate any awards against you.

deepdiver wrote:
Unless the BG was a minor I would doubt there would be a case there, but then IANAL. As far as suing a surviving BG or a deceased BG's estate, if the BG is mugging/robbing/burglarizing I doubt if his estate has any $ worth suing over, and if he survives and goes to prison, you will likely spend a lot more money getting a judgment than you will ever collect on it. Just my thoughts on it.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

lockman wrote:
No, but any judgement could mitigate any awards against you.

deepdiver wrote:
Unless the BG was a minor I would doubt there would be a case there, but then IANAL. As far as suing a surviving BG or a deceased BG's estate, if the BG is mugging/robbing/burglarizing I doubt if his estate has any $ worth suing over, and if he survives and goes to prison, you will likely spend a lot more money getting a judgment than you will ever collect on it. Just my thoughts on it.
Great point! Wonder if this has ever been approached this way and what the outcome was.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

HankT wrote:
I doubt very many people are.



Sun, Jul. 29, 2007

Forced to kill: 4 stories of survival

WHAT IF YOUR LIFE WERE IN DANGER? HOW WOULD YOU REACT? THESE PEOPLE SAVED THEMSELVES AND COPED WITH THE RESULT

What if your life were in danger? How would you react? These people saved themselves and coped with the result


GREG LACOUR



Every year in the United States, about 200 people kill someone in self-defense. It's legal. It's often necessary. But it can emotionally scar the people who do the killing.
From 2001 through 2006, Charlotte-Mecklenburg police investigated 25 homicides later ruled justified.
Generally, police warn the public not to fight robbers because, they say, criminals are more likely to hurt or kill anyone who challenges them. But sometimes people feel they have no choice.
At least four times this month, would-be crime victims in Charlotte fought back against people trying to rob them. Two suspects were killed, two injured.
The latest occurred Monday, police said, when a clerk killed a man trying to rob her northeast Charlotte store. Prosecutors haven't decided whether to charge her. But "she is emotionally devastated by the decision that she was forced to make," her lawyer said in a statement.
Four Charlotteans say they understand how she feels. All fatally shot someone while trying to protect themselves. None was charged. But all four say the killings altered their lives.


ROY PARKER
May 19, 2000: Roy Parker, asleep upstairs at home, heard the doorbell ring, then loud banging. Clutching a revolver, he ran to the sunroom. "Stop!" Parker yelled. Outside, a man threw an iron patio chair against the window, shattering it. Parker fired two shots, safety bullets that are designed to disintegrate on impact. The man swung the chair again. The remaining bullets were real. Parker aimed a third time and fired.
Parker said he never second-guessed his actions.
He said officers who responded to the shooting of Mitchell Regis, 24, told him they would have done the same thing. Parker said he never wrestled with guilt.
Before the shooting, he believed deeply in the principle of self-defense, and he and his wife had taken a course on carrying a concealed weapon. He'd owned his .357 Magnum for 20 years, though he'd never shot at anyone. What happened didn't change his views.
"You don't retreat at 1:30 at night when somebody is breaking into your house," he said last week in his south Charlotte home. "He left me no choice. It was his choice, not mine."
But after the initial shock wore off, he found his mind replaying the event, the loop endless. "I cried for several days," he said. The former marketing executive, now 58, was in training for a new job. But he couldn't concentrate and didn't start work for more than a month.
Police referred him to a therapist who works with officers who have killed in the line of duty. Parker showed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
He took anti-anxiety medication and saw the therapist until, after three years, he could function normally again.
"I killed a person, and I don't like to shoot animals," Parker said. "When somebody attacks you and you defend yourself, you still think, `This is a person who doesn't even know me, and he wants inside my house, and he's not going to stop.'
"I was trying to make sense of the whole thing."


JULIE WILLIAMS
Jan. 1, 2000: Someone had broken into Julie Williams' bail bonding business but the stillness inside made her think she was alone. She flicked on the lights and stepped through the mangled front door. Suddenly, a man lunged at her with a crowbar. She raised her gun and fired.
Today, two deadbolts secure every outside door of Julie Williams' home. A security system monitors the inside. Video cameras and a Rottweiler guard the yard.
The retired Charlotte cop installed the security after the shooting because she was afraid.
Now Williams says she keeps her house locked down because she doesn't want to have to kill again.
"I just never, ever want to be back in that position," she said.
Williams, 55, fatally shot Judus Lewis Caudle, 38, on New Year's morning 2000. She'd stopped at Absolute Bail Bonding and interrupted the burglary.
"There is no doubt in my mind, had I not defended myself, he would have killed me," she said. "But even though you take a life in defense of your own, it's something you have to live with. I live with it daily."
Williams never returned to the Kings Drive building where the shooting occurred. She now runs an embroidery and screen printing business.
After the shooting, she became depressed. Then angry. At first, she said, she couldn't talk about the shooting. But now, she thinks it helps.
"I don't think there are very many days that go by that I don't think about him," she said. "When I wake up, I think about it. When I'm on my (motorcycle), I think about it."
Williams had been a police officer for 20 years before she retired in 1996 as a sergeant. She never fired her weapon on the job.
She has a permit and totes a loaded handgun in her purse or pocket.
After dark, she lays it on the seat of her car. She carries it in her hand as she walks into her house.
She still remembers Caudle coming at her. "He looked like he was 10 feet tall."
She remembers him struggling to breathe after he fell to the ground.
And she remembers stepping over his body to call for help.
But Williams has forgotten his face.
"God blocked that image out to help me deal with it," she said.
"I think that was God's grace."


RUTH ROBINSON
June 10, 2000: Inside the Busy Mini-Mart, Ruth Robinson watched as her husband struggled with an armed teenager. She ran to the counter and grabbed a gun. Crouched behind the counter, she fired blindly.
Ruth Robinson was 66 when she killed Marquis Sanchez Vinson, 17. It was only the second time she'd ever fired a gun, she said.
"I don't know how to shoot a gun," she said. "He was trying to kill my husband. When I shot, I didn't mean to shoot him. I was just trying to scare him."
She returned to work at the northwest Charlotte store the next day.
She and her husband, James, started closing at midnight instead of 2:30 a.m. And they hired a man, kind of like a security guard, to hang out in the store.
Before the shooting, she and her husband had talked about defending themselves in a robbery.
"I wasn't mad. I wasn't sad," she said. "I was disappointed that somebody would come and try to rob you when you work so hard."
Robinson, now 73 and a widow, still runs the register at a relative's store one day a week. She said she thinks about the shooting, most often when she hears about robberies on TV.
"These young kids, they need to go to school and get an education so they can get a decent job. They don't have to rob people," she said.
She didn't know the teenager and can't remember his name now. His brother came to see her a few weeks after the shooting, she said, and let her know his family didn't blame her.
Still, she said, she won't ever forget it.
In yet another encounter with a convenience store robber, Robinson herself was nearly killed last year.
Two teenagers walked into her sister's store on Beatties Ford Road and ordered her to give up the money. As one came around the counter, she said, he saw her going for a gun and shot her in the mouth.
She shot back but missed. She believes she would have hit him if not for her arthritis.
Robinson spent three months in a hospital. Now she has to eat pureed food. Still, she'll probably reach for a gun next time.
"If you work that hard for your money," she said, "you shouldn't let someone come in and rob what you got."


ELIJAH HACKETT III
Feb. 12, 2006: As he sat upstairs, he heard a thud and two bangs. Elijah Hackett III said he grabbed his shotgun. A second later, he heard someone charging up the stairs. Just as he fired, he recognized the man.
Elijah Hackett III killed his mother's ex-husband.
Hackett said he still doesn't know how Joe Scott Odell, 42, got in that night or why he came rushing up the stairs.
Because of break-ins, Hackett, 30, was staying at the west Charlotte plumbing business he runs with his mother.
Odell used to work at the plumbing business, but he'd been on the outs with Hackett's mother. Hackett and Odell didn't get along.
"Why did he run up the stairs? My truck was parked outside. He should have recognized it," Hackett said. Hackett said he still doesn't know whether his former stepfather had a weapon. Prosecutors cleared him in the case.
Sometimes he and his mother, Jackie, try to figure out why Odell showed up there or what he planned to do. They both referred to his death as "a relief" in some ways. They said there had been tension and threats -- and his mother feared violence loomed.
"I wish I had done it, not him," Jackie Hackett, 54, said. "I wish it were my burden instead of his."
Elijah Hackett said he had no choice, but feels for Odell's family.
"This is nothing I'm proud of. It's not something anybody should have to do. I hate that had to be a part of my life."

http://www.charlotte.com/112/story/215469.html





Bump.

Dedicated to Carnivore, TechnoWeenie and da gang at:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum60/29591-3.html
 
Top