AA Shooter of Kayson Helms Justified?

Suddenly the story we discussed last year of a young man trying to hold up an AA meeting in South Carolina received a lot of attention. There were a dozen or so comments and many more hits. I took this to mean the story was back in the news, probably the courts declaring the action of the shooter justified, but I couldn't find anything this morning.

The main interest seems to be, like when the story first broke, about what constitutes a justified shooting. Some say, since you can't read the criminal's mind, you should presume the worst and act accordingly to protect property and life. In fact that pretty much describes the pro-gun attitude. I don't think I've heard one pro-gun commenter ever question the righteousness of a DGU; to them they're always justified.

Gun control folks, on the other hand, question if in some of these shootings a bit more restraint might not have worked better for everyone.

About the Kayson Helms killing, I wondered if the old adage of "two wrongs don't make a right," might not apply. A young kid comes into an AA meeting with a gun. Chances are he's not a killer. Most likely - I believe statistics about how often armed robberies turn into actual murders supports this - he has no intention of killing anyone. If no one there has a gun and no one resists, as incomprehensible as that is to the gun-owning law-and-order types, the kid would take the coffee money and a watch or two and be on his way.

Part of the problem is that folks who carry guns often disparage the very humanity of criminals. They call them names like "goblins" and "scumbags," careful never to hint at the slightest racial slur. But the disparaging of an entire class of people, yes people who have rights like everybody else, is not dissimilar to any other bigotry that's so politically unacceptable that only the truly hardcore would fail to conceal these feelings.

Dividing people into two separate classes, criminal and law-abiding, has its problems too. There exists a third group in between, often referred to as "the gray area." This is comprised of the many people who break minor rules, take shortcuts, and engage in risky behavior, but do not really fit the profile of either the criminal or the law-abiding. It's possible this group is the largest and that's one of the reasons why it's dangerous for people to go around with guns and the attitude of adjudicating the actions of others.

Another interesting angle on this case, which no one mentioned, is that the shooter was presumably an AA member. As I understand it, and most people do understand 12-step recovery programs these days, having been popularized on TV and in the movies like they have, is that the Program of Recovery is about surrender to a Higher Power and not about self-reliance. Part of that Program of Recovery is described in Step 12.

Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

The idea of "carrying the message," seems antithetical to the actions of the shooter of young Mr. Helms, who very possibly was an addict and alcoholic himself. The idea of surrender to the will of the Higher Power also seems antithetical to the self-reliance so graphically demonstrated by the shooter.

What's your opinion? Was the shooter justified? Is it the same rationale that says Christians can protect themselves with guns as AA members can? Do you think there's a gray area in the categorizing people for lawful adherence?

Please leave a comment.