It's an old question- some variation of "Could you kill someone if it came down to you or them?" Sarah McKinley, the young mother who recently protected her home and family by killing an intruder, is my model for calm in the face of terror. She is resilient, a trait that will serve her well in life, and has proven that, in the face of evil and danger, she could respond- thoughtfully, aware of her options, and with a clear head. Was she terrified for herself and her baby? I would imagine so.But she was not paralyzed by emotions. She took action, after calling on the only human assistance she would have- a 911 operator. It strikes me that even though she was the victim in the situation, she still identified some choices- she refused to be totally powerless. Had she chosen a different course of action, she (and her child) might be the body(ies) in the morgue instead of the man with the knife who chose to hunt the wrong 18 year-old mother.
View the story here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/mom-kills-intruder_n_1183336.html
I'm now wondering how often I may have failed to act when faced with a situation (not this extreme, thankfully!) because I did not accurately identify my options. Instead of bemoaning a set of circumstances that I didn't necessarily ask for (or felt that I "deserved"), could I have acted/ responded decisively? Even if the outcome was not ideal, could I have done something instead of passively having something done to me?
Sarah McKinley did not ask for or deserve the situation- it simply was the situation she was presented with at that moment. Her choice was to respond decisively.
Well said
ReplyDelete