Chapter 6 - Carla’s counterattack
Carla filed a complaint against me.
That surprised nobody except me.
She claimed my kick caused bruising to her hip and lower back.
It had.
Photographs documented discoloration.
Her attorney argued I had attacked her after the skewer strike had already ended.
Video mattered.
Frank had backyard security cameras.
He forgot.
Police obtained footage before anyone could delete it.
One camera captured most of the scene from an angle behind the grill.
No useful audio.
It showed:
Carla raising the skewer.
Lily backing away.
Carla swinging.
Lily falling.
Carla lifting her arm again.
Me running in.
My kick.
Carla stumbling.
I immediately turned away from Carla and went to Lily.
Prosecutors reviewing my conduct concluded the kick occurred in immediate defense of my child while Carla still possessed the metal skewer and had raised it again.
No charge against me.
Could I have tackled instead?
Maybe.
Could I have shouted?
I had.
The law did not require me to choose the gentlest theoretical intervention while a weapon remained raised over my injured child.
That relieved me.
It did not make kicking my sister emotionally easy.
Carla told relatives I had:
“Almost broken her hip.”
False.
She told others Lily had:
“Rushed at her.”
Video disproved that too.
Then she said the skewer strike was accidental.
That became her formal defense.
She had intended to strike the swing chain beside Lily as a warning.
The video was less clear about exact target.
May you like
But Lily’s position, Carla’s movement, and later statements mattered.
The case would not be solved by one camera angle.
