12 year saves mother by killing her attacker

[tellner]

There were other "right" things he could have done (called the police, hit the man over the head with a chair, etc.) that would have been less likely to be fatal

He needed to stop a deadly attack quickly.

If he'd called the police his mother would have died.

Hitting the guy over the head with a chair probably would not have done anything. If it had he would have had to defend himself against an enraged, murderous grown man or hit him hard enough to render him unconscious for a significant amount of time. That generally means a persistent coma. In other words, we're back to deadly force but deadly force.

In a situation like that keeping the innocent people alive is the only real concern. Doing it with as little harm to the attacker is a minor grace note to be played if you have the luxury. He didn't have the sheer physicality to easily and safely overpower the bad guy. He wasn't highly trained in arcane ways of harmlessly immobilizing people and didn't have access to specialized weaponry designed to do just that. He had to make a life or death decision within seconds in a chaotic environment. I wouldn't dream of second guessing the choice.

Grown men who are trying hard to kill with their bare hands is on a whole different level than what people see in the dojo. It's a far cry from what most ever go through including a lot of police officers. As usual I have to quote the great jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes "Calm reflection is not possible in the face of an upraised knife."

 

[Mark L]

... doing so in such a person, up-close fashion will only exacerbate the difficulties this boy will (hopefully) have in dealing with this issue. I hope, for his sake, that his mother seeks counseling to help him deal with the emotional fallout he will (hopefully) feel in the future.

I don't understand your statements. Are you saying you hope this boy will have difficulties in dealing with the situation, and you hope he will feel emotional fallout? If so, I can't agree at all. Hopefully, he will rest comfortable with the knowledge that he protected his mother from this felonious dirtbag. I'd prefer that the attacker survived, at least for a little while, so that he could feel difficulties and emotional fallout from his actions. Let's keep in mind who the victims are, wishing them more turmoil is simply wrong.

 

[Sukerkin]

I think you slightly misheard what Kacey meant Mark. My understanding is that she wasn't wishing any adverse emotional consequences upon the boy but rather venturing the opinion that, by certain moral lights, it would be better for him to 'deal' with the emotions of remorse (whether justified or not) than to develop a hard-shell around it and ignore it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Just a though regarding the comments about how what he said ("I had to kill him...") might work against him...
While what he said may not have been the best choice of words, he's only 12, he's not going to have the background/training that most of us have. While there may be a time where we find ourselves in a situation where we know we have to kill the guy to survive, we're trained to say "I was in fear for my life and was just trying to make him stop" (or something of that nature). Better yet, we shut up entirely and let our lawyer do the talking. Hopefully, this won't count against him.



The problem I have with your statement is: what would have happened if he had tried a "less lethal" alternative (hitting him with a chair, etc.) and it didn't stop the threat? To do that would possibly be to give up his only chance to actually prevail against the person. I personally feel that there are situations where the immediate use of deadly force is not only morally justified, but also tactically correct.
And seriously, what good would it have done to call the cops? Does anyone really think that they would have been able to show up in time to keep the guy from choking the kids mom to death?

The truth is the 'I had to kill him' won't really hurt him in CRIMINAL court, where the discussion is mainly objective reasonableness.....if you were justified in using lethal force, you were.....and the burden of proof rests on the state.

Where that statement is MOST dangerous is the inevitable lawsuit most of us would face for wrongful death.....and where the burden of proof is on merely proponderance of the evidence......but, as this kids mom was living in a boarding house, I really doubt he has any assets to make it worth some attorney's while to sue him.

MORE dangerous in a criminal trial is some statement like 'It was an accident, I didn't mean to do it!'.......it's possible for a sharp prosecutor to consider that evidence that you WEREN'T acting in self-defense, because the death wasn't the result of a DELIBERATE justifiable action, but NEGLIGENCE!



So your advice is SPOT ON! 'I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO MY ATTORNEY BEFORE MAKING ANY STATMENTS!'

And for a COP! 'I INVOKE MY RIGHTS UNDER GARITY!'

 

[Mark L]

I think you slightly misheard what Kacey meant Mark. My understanding is that she wasn't wishing any adverse emotional consequences upon the boy but rather venturing the opinion that, by certain moral lights, it would be better for him to 'deal' with the emotions of remorse (whether justified or not) than to develop a hard-shell around it and ignore it.

That's not how it reads to me, but I hope you're correct. My intent is not to be argumentative, but to recognize that this young boy did nothing wrong.

 

[Kacey]

The problem I have with your statement is: what would have happened if he had tried a "less lethal" alternative (hitting him with a chair, etc.) and it didn't stop the threat? To do that would possibly be to give up his only chance to actually prevail against the person. I personally feel that there are situations where the immediate use of deadly force is not only morally justified, but also tactically correct.
And seriously, what good would it have done to call the cops? Does anyone really think that they would have been able to show up in time to keep the guy from choking the kids mom to death?

I repeat: the boy did the right thing in a difficult situation. I would add that few children his age would do as well. However, it is at least possible that there were other options available - what, we cannot know, as we were not there.

I don't understand your statements. Are you saying you hope this boy will have difficulties in dealing with the situation, and you hope he will feel emotional fallout? If so, I can't agree at all. Hopefully, he will rest comfortable with the knowledge that he protected his mother from this felonious dirtbag. I'd prefer that the attacker survived, at least for a little while, so that he could feel difficulties and emotional fallout from his actions. Let's keep in mind who the victims are, wishing them more turmoil is simply wrong.

I think you slightly misheard what Kacey meant Mark. My understanding is that she wasn't wishing any adverse emotional consequences upon the boy but rather venturing the opinion that, by certain moral lights, it would be better for him to 'deal' with the emotions of remorse (whether justified or not) than to develop a hard-shell around it and ignore it.

That's not how it reads to me, but I hope you're correct. My intent is not to be argumentative, but to recognize that this young boy did nothing wrong.

Sukerkin is correct. So many people are concentrating on what he did, and very few are discussing how his actions are going to affect him in the future. He should feel remorse; I would expect him to feel remorse - but consider: he is, likely, being told repeatedly what a wonderful thing he did in saving his mother - and don't get me wrong, it was a wonderful thing. At his age, it will be very difficult for him to differentiate between the praise he receives for his action in saving his mother, and the remorse he feels for his action in causing the death of another person. This is a very hard thing to deal with for adults; how much harder will it be for an adolescent who is, I suspect, receiving conflicting messages about what he did? Nor would I be surprised if, in the course of telling him what a great job he did, people tell him he needs feel no remorse because it was the right action at the time - so he will then have difficulty dealing with his remorse, and possibly even drive it underground, thinking that he is wrong to feel that way - and then it will fester.

IMHO, the boy needs to talk to someone uninvolved in the event, someone outside his family, who can understand what he did and help him work through what I expect are very strong, and very conflicting, emotions about what he did. The exact qualifications the person needs to have will vary based on the needs of the child. He may need long-term counseling; on the other hand, it's possible that a conversation with a LEO or someone with similar experience may help him understand that what he did was right in that situation, but not in others, and that it is normal to feel both proud and remorseful. It may be that neither situation is right for him - but he needs to work through what happened with an appropriate person(s).

 

[Mark L]

Kacey,
I recognize and agree with your point, my bad for misreading the intent of your post. Essentially, my issue is with the boy feeling remorse. I suspect he, as with most of us, feels horrible about what had to happen to protect his mother. But I don't think he should feel remorse about his actions, he did the right thing. Counseling, if needed, should absolutely reinforce that notion.

I have two 12 year old sons. I can't imagine what I would say to comfort them in a similar situation, other than to say they rightly dispatched a horrible human being that was attempting to deprive them of the precious company of their mother. Sometimes the ends justify the means.

 

[Jade Tigress]

Essentially, my issue is with the boy feeling remorse. I suspect he, as with most of us, feels horrible about what had to happen to protect his mother. But I don't think he should feel remorse about his actions, he did the right thing. Counseling, if needed, should absolutely reinforce that notion.

I agree here. He did the right thing. I understand the conflict Kacey is concerned about, it's a valid argument. Counseling would need to focus on helping the child process the event. It would have to be reinforced that it was a terrible thing that happened and he did the best he could under the circumstances. He should be helped to process the remorse over the EVENT which occurred without being told he should feel "guilty" over his actions.

I disagree on the point that he had other options that could have resulted in a better outcome. If this is brought up in counseling it would surely hurt him more than help him. The man was killing his mother. He was strangling her. Calling the police and waiting for their arrival would have been too late. Whatever form of defense he chose had to be sure of it would have either not fazed the attacker, or raised his level of rage and we could be reading about the murder of a 12-year-old boy and his mother.

I don't believe the boy's intent was to kill. It was a "lucky" strike. I believe he meant to incapacitate, but not kill. He should have someone to talk things out with, to process the event and deal with whatever troubles him most over this. I would just hate to see him led into unwarranted guilt over his actions.

 

[KenpoTex]

He should feel remorse; I would expect him to feel remorse - but consider: he is, likely, being told repeatedly what a wonderful thing he did in saving his mother - and don't get me wrong, it was a wonderful thing. At his age, it will be very difficult for him to differentiate between the praise he receives for his action in saving his mother, and the remorse he feels for his action in causing the death of another person.

I don't agree that he should feel remorse. The way I look at it, if one's actions were justified, you might regret the necessity of those actions, but you shouldn't feel guilty (or allow yourself to be made to feel guilty). Unfortunately, due to his age and impressionability (is that a word? if not, I'm calling it one ), I'm sure some counselor will get a hold of him and really screw him up.

 

[Jade Tigress]

The way I look at it, if one's actions were justified, you might regret the necessity of those actions, but you shouldn't feel guilty (or allow yourself to be made to feel guilty).

You said it better than I. :asian:

 

[chinto]

give the kid a medal!!! and publicize it widely when you do!!! bar the attacker's relatives from suing and other wise help the kid and mom out.. and get her and him some training in good martial arts and weapons!!

 

[Taiji_Mantis]

I will be interested to see how this case unfolds.

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

I trust most media accounts as far as I could throw the press that printed them....

Just for the sake of debate, presuming the account to be accurate - - - it is a sad sign of the times that the government would deliberate over 4 seconds on charging this brave young man with a felony. Once upon a time, the decision over letting a nut murder mom on the kitchen floor or defending your family would've been a no brainer, the young man hailed as a hero by the police and the community rallying around the family.

What a sheeple society this is becoming.

It's in PG county Maryland, so I can beleive they are contemplating charges.
See in liberal states like Maryland, the Govt. doews not want you to protect yourself, that is their job. Once you accept their protection (such as it is) you shall accept their control.

I live in Virginia, here we are free and this kid would all but get a parade.
Their should be zero thought between protecting your own over someone else. W kill bugs all the time, same damn thing when you thin about it.
I hope the kid comes out alright, he has killed, that's enough weight on his heart as it is.

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

Just a though regarding the comments about how what he said ("I had to kill him...") might work against him...
While what he said may not have been the best choice of words, he's only 12, he's not going to have the background/training that most of us have. While there may be a time where we find ourselves in a situation where we know we have to kill the guy to survive, we're trained to say "I was in fear for my life and was just trying to make him stop" (or something of that nature). Better yet, we shut up entirely and let our lawyer do the talking. Hopefully, this won't count against him.



The problem I have with your statement is: what would have happened if he had tried a "less lethal" alternative (hitting him with a chair, etc.) and it didn't stop the threat? To do that would possibly be to give up his only chance to actually prevail against the person. I personally feel that there are situations where the immediate use of deadly force is not only morally justified, but also tactically correct.
And seriously, what good would it have done to call the cops? Does anyone really think that they would have been able to show up in time to keep the guy from choking the kids mom to death?

Exactly, cops are for clean up in situations like this and and the best way to take the guy out at the time is what should be used, be it a bat, a gun or whatever. (It's a bit of justice that he used the knife that hurt his mother.)
I was told as a youth, younger than this boy that fighting for your life is serious and you do whatever it takes to win, especially cheat. Never shoot a man in the face you could shot in the back of the head."
That dont mean go around murdering people, but it means if you come across what this boy did, see your loved one having a fatal technique being used on them and blood, you dont say anything, you kill him while he is still unaware of you.

The idea that him saying he thought of he had to kill him can harm his case shows you how mamby pamby our system is becoming.
Of coarse that's what the boy should think "Kill! KILL! KILL!" is even better.