Woman Kills Shower Attacker

[JohnKSa]

Is that Dave Grossman?

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.

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.

[NWPilgrim]

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.

[cracked91]

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.

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.

[DRBoyle]

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

[BlueTrain]

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.

[MLeake]

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.

[bigbaby]

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!

[TChase]

Large numbers of people take up arms against each other with the intent of killing each other every day. This is a fact.

"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.

[lawnboy]

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.

[aarondhgraham]

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.

Amen brother.

Aarond

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by cracked91

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...

Originally Posted by MLeake

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.

Originally Posted by lawnboy

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/action...=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]

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]

Originally Posted by lawnboy

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!