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.

AA Shooter Cleared of All Charges

Philly.com reports on the decision taken by the South Carolina prosecutors.

A South Carolina prosecutor says an attorney was justified when he shot and killed a robber at an Alcoholics Anonymous club in Columbia earlier this year.

The State reported Thursday that prosecutor Barney Giese (guh-ZAY') concluded that 61-year-old James Corley acted in self-defense when he shot and killed 18-year-old Kayson Helms of Edison, N.J.

Giese's decision means to charges will be filed.

The prosecutor says Helms had pulled a pistol when he entered the club April 11 and took the cell phone of one of the people.

Corley says he knew he would be cleared.

When we spoke about this before, I referred to the shooting as a "summary execution." Although some people took strong exception to that characterization of the incident, in retrospect, and considering the prosecutors decision, I think it pretty well describes what happened. Yet, I fully realize that a man carrying a concealed weapon who becomes the intended victim of an armed robbery, cannot be expected to read the robber's mind to understand his intent. So, legally, it's justified.

The problem with the increase of concealed carry activity among the gun folks is that we're going to have an increase of defensive shootings like this. The percentage of armed robberies that turn murderous is very small, so the more defensive killings we have the more unnecessary ones we'll have. That's the problem.

What's your opinion? From what you've read about Kayson, had James Corley not gunned him down, do you think murder would have taken place that day? In other words, if no one but the criminal had had a gun, what do you think would have happened? I'd say, those alcoholics would have lost a few bucks, cell phones and watches and then they would have had their meeting, thanking the Higher Power for their lives. Instead they had a dead kid on the floor of their club bleeding all over the place. And most people are saying "he asked for it."

Please leave us a comment.

Kayson Helms - Summary Execution for Armed Robbery

We had a discussion yesterday about the case of Kayson Helms who was shot dead trying to rob an A.A. meeting in Columbia South Carolina. What I don't understand is the seemingly hard attitude on the part of the pro-gun crowd. Basically they all say the same thing: "If a criminal is stupid enough to show a gun and one of us is around, he deserves whatever he gets. He asked for it."

Now, that may be perfectly true, the "asking for it" part, but what is it with that attitude, that macho, tough-guy talk? It's usually followed by referring to the dead criminal as a "mutt" or a "goblin." What kind of talk is that? I'll tell you what kind. This is typical pro-gun, us-against-them mentality. It's the pro-gun guys against the anti-gun liberals. It's the pro-gun guys against the criminals. I say the pro-gun crowd are as anti-social as the criminals. It's difficult to find one of them who can take criticism and disagreement without resorting to personal attacks and insults. I believe they make the society worse not better. Here's an example.

When an armed robbery takes place how often does it result in loss of life? When an armed robbery takes place and one of you concealed carry guys is present, how often does it result in loss of life? The answer to the first one is very low; the answer to the second one is very high. That's why educated and intelligent anti-gun pro-safety experts recommend that cooperation with the robber is the best bet.

I know what the gun crowd says, what about this and what if that happens, well I suggest it's not the variations and possible twists on the scenario that worry them. What worries them is that the idea of allowing a thief to take what he wants, even if it means that statistically your chances of survival are greater, is contrary to their macho thinking. It's absolutely opposed to their don't-tread-on-me mentality. It's about their feeling like real men, regardless of the true benefit to themselves and those nearby.

What's your opinion? I thought the last Anonymous comment was quite compelling, the one about the gun having been put in the face of the writer's daughter and that Kayson got just what he deserved. The only problem is that even staunch supporters of the death penalty usually don't recommend death for robbery.

What do you think about that dilemma we talked about yesterday? What should the responsible gun owner do, shoot first and worry about the morality later?

What's your opinion.