Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters So...how bout Charles Askins, Jr.?

Ken

Hickock was deeply troubled by the killing of his deputy. At the same time, Hickock was supposed to have murdered a man with a hoe in front of a child. Killers all.

Dan

I forget whom G Gordon Liddy was referring-to (speaking of a couple of the others who became infamous for their doin's in Watergate) �

White House conspirator A, he said, would knock your mother over the side (as HMS Titanic was going down) to take her place in the lifeboat.

White House conspirator B, he said, would knock his mother over the side to take her place in the lifeboat.

I think that I can guess what he'd say about Charlie.

A man with a hoe, or a man with a 'ho?

This quote from M Ayoob in the previously given link puts much of this controversy to rest. It seems that even old Charlie agreed with the esteemed Dr Howell's opinion.

Before anybody else leaps forward to put a calculated pejorative twist on it, let me mention that Earp shot a cowboy in the back.

The cowboy, expecting to make an easy dollar, had taken money to kill Earp. He flung a shot at Earp as he galloped past.

Earp whirled and shot him as he went by.

Nothing cold or calculated there!

But it'd be oh, so easy to say only that Earp shot an ordinary cowboy in the back.

I think its kinda funny that a few people have said they would like Col. Askins on their side if the SHTF. I doubt I'd get a lot of sleep around a guy like that...I bet you could piss him off without knowing it, and end up with a bullet in your back. I have been in Law Enforcement for about 22 yrs now, before that I was in the Marine Corps. I dont think its real healthy(for your life or your career)to align yourself with someone who is so "comfortable" with killing people. Just my two cents worth...

Let me make this REAL clear so some of you silly sailors can understand.

Let's look at a few situations here, and see if you can accuratley identify what is a justifiable killing ,and what's not.

1) You're sitting with your family at the dinner table, when an armed burglar breaks into your home. As he comes at your family, you grab a gun and kill him.

2) You're at the grocery store when a man pulls a gun and starts randomly shooting innocent men , women and children. You draw your own gun and kill him.

3) Someone kills your entire family. You find out who it is, you track them down and kill them.

4) You're driving down the street, and see someone walking on the sidewalk that doesn't quite suit your fancy. You roll down the window, shoot them in the head and drive off.

Now, if you can't see the fundamental differences in those situations, I can't really help you. One is an act of self defense, one is an act of protecting innocent lives, one is an act of vengence and another is plain old murder.

Now, Charlie Askins certainly killed people in his line of work who he legally and morally was well within his rights to kill. Anyone who draws a gun and/or fires on a peace officer is essentially signing their own death warrant. And they know that. But there were other situations where he had zero right to kill people. While in Viet Nam on a hunting trip, he killed people who were a nuisance to him. Just folks wandering by. There are several stories of him firing on fellow peace officers and completely innocent civilians. Skeeter Skelton told the story of Askins nearly blowing the head off a sleeping American who just happened to be lost in the desert. He shot and missed the guy.......and was embarrassed he missed.

If you can't tell the difference between a righteous killing and a flat out murder, you probably have a real hard time telling the difference between right and wrong.

Brian.

5. Your fellow LEO has murdered an innocent, unarmed eighteen-year-old boy and is about to go on trial for the murder. There's only one witness. Before the trial, you assassinate that witness to make sure that your friend beats the rap. For the rest of your friend's life, you collect repayment favors (including but not only thousands of dollars) from him.

(Hypothetically speaking, of course!)

[sarcasm] BUT DID HE WRITE IT IN HIS BOOK THOUGH?!?!? HE'S JUST MISUNDERSTOOD! [/sarcasm]

Brian.

Wow, I am reminded of that great line on pg 1, "Hell just got fuller"...

One of Charlie's editors coined that line � his lead-off sentence in his announcement to us that Charlie had died.

Sounds like that gentleman knew what he was talking about.Again thx for the insight, this has been a great read.

Just to try to maintain fairness: the man Col. Askins wrote of killing in Vietnam was an enemy soldier. The fellow peace officers he fired on had not identified themselves as such and appeared to be an armed threat to Askins. The sleeping American Askins fired on in the desert was thought to be a smuggler and appeared to have a carbine in his hands. Askins undoubtedly murdered some people; but the events listed above should not be presented out of context.

Ahem......enemy soliders? Askins wasn't in the military at the time, he was on a hunting trip. Furthermore, the Viet Nam war was several years away. They weren't enemy soldiers to Askins or any other American at the time. By the way, Askins killed more than one person in Viet Nam. Shot a group of folks with his Savage 99 and then shot some poor donk who walked up to him with his 44 Magnum.



That must be why he was embarrased he missed those folks, huh?



It was a sleeping civilian with a shovel in his hand. When Askins made a little noise and the guy sat up, Askins tried to blow his head off. He missed, and was upset that he had. The only thing that civilian did wrong was sleep in the general area of Askins. Askins would have killed him and not thought twice about it.

Brian.

You need to read up on the matter. It was 1957; Askins WAS in the military at the time, and the man he shot was a Viet Mihn soldier armed with a French MAS rifle. The other incidents are clearly explained in his autobiography.

Sounds like a lot of folks arguing on here should read the books about and by the man before they start in on it.

I beleive that Askins was a Militaary advisor in Vietnam at the time and if memory serves he wrote about killing the Vietnam soldier with the 44 after he was fired upon

Askins wrote about a group he was with chasing a bunch of rustlers into Mexico. They surrounded the rustlers in camp as they prepared their evening meal (maybe 20 miles into Mexico). After a short firefight, the rustlers lay dead; not wanting to waste food, the Americans sat down and ate the tortillas the rustlers had so thoughtfully prepared.

For those apparently not up to speed, the war in Vietnam had been going on since 1945. By the 1950s, American military personnel were in country as military advisors to the South Vietnamese. Unless Askin's autobiography is a complete fabrication, Col. Askins was stationed there as chief instructor of firearms for the entire South Vietnamese Army.
He had arrived there with a battery of hunting guns, including one of the first .44 Magnums, and indulged in the pursuit of game at every opportunity. It was during one of these trips that he encountered the enemy soldier and killed him. Anyone is free to call this murder. My take is that Askins saw an opportunity to reduce the opposing forces by one and took it.

The American involvement in Viet Nam began in 1961. President Kennedy formed the Special Forces, who were in country after that time. Before that, the French Army was involved I don't know when Askins was in Viet Nam, however, didn't read his book, only his articles.