Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[TheRightToArmBears]

Hmmmm... Eight times? Seems a bit much. Granted, he panicked, but if you're going to panic in those situations you shouldn't have a damned license. I think he should get some form of punishment, although not a large one.

Here's the thing though. Do you want to just fire one shot and learn you missed when he stabs you, or would you rather keep shooting in order to increase the odds that the threat is neutralized?

Yeah but eight shots? That seems a bit over the line to me.

And how many shots would have been enough? 4 out of 8 missed.

Two? If you're going to and miss wildly you should have a license. If America must let it's citizens have guns, at least make sure they're competent.

Oh, so they train you to shoot in the dark after being hit in the head and take down a target with two shots?

Yes but I would have thought that a competent gun user would manage better than 50% accuracy in that situation.

Oh, so you expect him to take down the person in a single shot? I think your expectations of what people need to be able to do with a gun to even carry one are a bit high.

No, I don't. That's not what I said. I said he should be able to manage better than 50% accuracy. Now, I'm not going to turn into Barney The Dinosaur here but I'm guessing you know that 4 is 50% of 8. Hence, I think he could have done better than that anyway.

And besides, any sensible person would just give them the damned money and not walk around with that much anyway. Over here that's what the police tell you to do.

I am wondering where you get this information that they even asked him for the money. It isn't in the article. All I see is that they introduced themselves by punching him. In fact reading the article seems to suggest he didn't.

The teen told told police Mustelier decided he wanted to rob Baker, telling him: 'I'm going to bam him.. I'm gonna knock him out.'

Baker told investigators he was suddenly confronted by Mustelier who punched him in the face.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346574/Jogger-Thomas-Baker-shot-dead-unarmed-mugger-released-charge.html#ixzz1BKO8f0nw

So he tells his friend he's gonna knock Baker out. I don't see him saying he's going to so much as ask for his money. Instead it looks like the scenario is that Mustelier came up and punched Baker without so much as a warning.

Seems like any sensible person would at least talk about the scenario in the article =/

Seems like any sensible person would at least pay attention to who they're talking to. =/

Lets think about this situation. What the hell do you think he's being mugged for? What do most muggings happen for? What do you think they guy is going to do if you give him 50 dollars, let alone 500? He probably won't beat the crap out of you, that's for sure. Rather than shooting him you could have not killed anyone and lost a bit of money. If the guy's packing a revolver I doubt he's short of the stuff.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Hell, no it won't.

If that person is hopped up on enough drugs to ignore enough electricity to paralyze their muscles and nervous system, they might not even notice a 9mm through the lung or gut. Reagan didn't realize he'd been shot until someone noticed the blood all over the car. Teddy Roosevelt took a bullet and then finished his speech. And they were only a little high. (I kid, I kid.)

Keyword here is a bullet.

When taking someone down, you don't shoot a bullet at the centre of mass. You shoot a series of bullets in rapid succession.

Ever heard of a little term called "stopping power"?

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

I don't think lethal force is ever justified. He could have shot him in the leg, or arm, or something.

You must not know how hard it is to shoot someone in the leg or the arm or the something, wherever that something may be. It's not Call of Duty. Besides, this guy got punched in the face -and- he missed 4 out of 8 times. His aim clearly wasn't good, and getting punched right to the face probably effected that. Add that to the fact that it's nighttime, too. Yeah. He could have shot him in the leg or arm, but chances are that he would have most likely missed every single hit. Police are taught to aim for the chest. The army is taught to aim for the chest. Why? Because it's the easiest target to shoot at in a short amount of time and taking your dear sweet time to actually aim for an arm or a leg can get you killed. When you are defending yourself, it's kill or be killed. Yes, it's sad that the kid died and I feel sorry for the family that has to forever live without a son who made the terribly stupid choice of mugging someone, when one of the consequences of mugging someone is that they might have a weapon they can use to defend themselves.

What about saying "I have a gun, I'll shoot you." I can forgive poor aim, but not the use of lethal force automatically when faced with danger. I'm not saying the shooter should get life in prison or anything, but getting off completely free is just wrong.

 

[Littlee300]

I don't think lethal force is ever justified. He could have shot him in the leg, or arm, or something.

You need to understand that this is a civilian not a trained police man or military unit.

I understood that perfectly. It doesn't take training to realize that even threatening the kid with the gun would have stopped him.

EDIT: Also, the kid was shot four times. How is that not excessive?

The baker was punched so the kid already started the attack and after that there isn't much time for warnings.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

Besides, this guy got punched in the face -and- he missed 4 out of 8 times. His aim clearly wasn't good, and getting punched right to the face probably effected that.

Which means four shots went wild.

Again: Baker is damned lucky the kid was the only one he killed.

That's completely true. It would be even sadder if someone actually innocent had gotten shot, or even the other boy. The kid who did die didn't deserve death, but that was a possible consequence to it. And one death is far enough as is.

What about saying "I have a gun, I'll shoot you." I can forgive poor aim, but not the use of lethal force automatically when faced with danger. I'm not saying the shooter should get life in prison or anything, but getting off completely free is just wrong.

Except Baker stated he didn't know that they were unarmed. When you're being mugged, it's best to assume that the assailant is armed because muggers probably are usually armed. Saying, "I've got a gun, I'll shoot you." most likely isn't going to stop a criminal whose desperate enough to mug a random person and would alert a potentially armed assailant to the fact that you were armed, notifying them to get their weapons out, too.

Although, why wouldn't they start out armed if they were mugging someone and they did have weapons? Probably because criminals are stupid. Very, very stupid.

 

[kokirisoldier]

Hell yeah I would have done the same thing.

 

[smaug85]

8 TIMES!?! 8FREAKING TIMES!?! And you agree? Most standard hand weapons have a ten-twelve round round clip unless he was using a larger clip (*which is illegal*) or a military issued weapon, or a very rare gun though most likely not. And to the person who said hollow points ar the safest, they are actually quite the opposite they use them, yes for making sure the bullet doesn't exit, but they also are made to expand on impact making the hole larger and tearing more flesh, quite dangerous, plus it was 8 times all in the chest. You warn them by showing the weapon first and if you see them try to pull out a weapon, fire, but don't pull the trigger till it runs out or jams, i would be fine with 3 or 4 shots but NOT LETHAL SHOTS. I get it though he was in shock, but there should be another investigation going on here, because who knows, maybe they knew each other, and he owed the kid money, but i'm kidding that would be like a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance.

 

[moretimethansense]

You were beaten to it pal, A short enough time for panicked firing, seems legit to me.

No problem, I just wanted to demonstrate to a few of the "omg eight rounds is excessive" that we are talking about the potential amount of time of only a few seconds.

Ultimately I think the fixation on the number of rounds fired is superfluous to the situation. If he had fired only a single round and killed him, that would somehow be a better? Or say if he had a knife instead and stabbed him once and he bled out? Or if he simply hit him back and managed to break his neck? The outcome is exactly the same.

The discussion really should focus on whether you think there is just cause in using deadly force to defend yourself against a perceived threat of death.

As I said in my initial post, of course he did, I brough up the fire rate because I was unsure ho fast on could fire, if it took say, 7 seconds I'd think that would be a long enough time to see that one was running and the other was hit.

I think most people's issues with the number of rounds is that they are used to games and films where one or two torso shots will incapacitate and/or kill the target instantly, imagine if this had happened in a film:

He is struck to the face, reeling he dodges back smoothly drawing his weapon and coldly unleashes a hail of gunfire.
Thinking about it with that mindframe it somehow seems wore doesn't it?

As for the method "he hit him once and the assailent died from the blow" sounds much less severe than "he beat the man to death with several blows to the head" or he stabbed the man repeatedly".

 

[Littlee300]

Who the hell brings a gun jogging?

I wonder if we're getting the whole story here...

Obviously a smart guy since it could of saved his life.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

What about saying "I have a gun, I'll shoot you." I can forgive poor aim, but not the use of lethal force automatically when faced with danger. I'm not saying the shooter should get life in prison or anything, but getting off completely free is just wrong.

Yeah, the innocent victim should give ample opportunity for the criminal scum to cease and decist, despite the fact that the criminal scum didn't provide the victim with the same opportunity. They just walked upm to the guy and punched him in the face and kept attacking him.

Makes perfect sense. (not)

 

[icame]

He didn't deserve to die. But baker did do the right thing, he defended himself. If the idiot was stupid enough to try to rob someone, you are risking your own ass, so if you get hurt you don't have my sympathy.

 

[DanielDeFig]

Agreed. To jog at night, with $500 in cash, in what might have been a fishy neighborhood (or at least somewhere you don't frequent at night), doesn't fit with the common sense i thought most people were taught.
And for a former military man to do so with a powerful weapon, clearly ready to use it in an emergency, to be unable to use said weapon responsibly (8 shots in a daze is NOT responsible, but how i expect an untrained terrified civilian to act) seems strange. Maybe he was old, and it's been a while. But why keep such a powerful weapon if you are not sure you can handle such a situation calmly?

Hmm you make a good point, it would have been perfectly acceptable to carry a stun taser around to knock out or just stun the assailants. Its also quite a powerful pistol, surely a smaller caliber and less destructive ammunition should have been used.

Yay! I found a sane person(according to poll, it's 31 so far)! This thread is starting to terrify me.

OT: Non-lethal weaponry and basic self-defense training seems like an equal investment of time and money, as lethal weapons and the training neccary to obtain a licence for those. Now you can defend yourself in extreme emergencies, but you don't have to be forced to resort to lethal force.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Hmmmm... Eight times? Seems a bit much. Granted, he panicked, but if you're going to panic in those situations you shouldn't have a damned license. I think he should get some form of punishment, although not a large one.

Here's the thing though. Do you want to just fire one shot and learn you missed when he stabs you, or would you rather keep shooting in order to increase the odds that the threat is neutralized?

Yeah but eight shots? That seems a bit over the line to me.

And how many shots would have been enough? 4 out of 8 missed.

Two? If you're going to and miss wildly you should have a license. If America must let it's citizens have guns, at least make sure they're competent.

Oh, so they train you to shoot in the dark after being hit in the head and take down a target with two shots?

Yes but I would have thought that a competent gun user would manage better than 50% accuracy in that situation.

Oh, so you expect him to take down the person in a single shot? I think your expectations of what people need to be able to do with a gun to even carry one are a bit high.

No, I don't. That's not what I said. I said he should be able to manage better than 50% accuracy. Now, I'm not going to turn into Barney The Dinosaur here but I'm guessing you know that 4 is 50% of 8. Hence, I think he could have done better than that anyway.

And besides, any sensible person would just give them the damned money and not walk around with that much anyway. Over here that's what the police tell you to do.

I am wondering where you get this information that they even asked him for the money. It isn't in the article. All I see is that they introduced themselves by punching him. In fact reading the article seems to suggest he didn't.

The teen told told police Mustelier decided he wanted to rob Baker, telling him: 'I'm going to bam him.. I'm gonna knock him out.'

Baker told investigators he was suddenly confronted by Mustelier who punched him in the face.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346574/Jogger-Thomas-Baker-shot-dead-unarmed-mugger-released-charge.html#ixzz1BKO8f0nw

So he tells his friend he's gonna knock Baker out. I don't see him saying he's going to so much as ask for his money. Instead it looks like the scenario is that Mustelier came up and punched Baker without so much as a warning.

Seems like any sensible person would at least talk about the scenario in the article =/

Seems like any sensible person would at least pay attention to who they're talking to. =/

Lets think about this situation. What the hell do you think he's being mugged for? What do most muggings happen for? What do you think they guy is going to do if you give him 50 dollars, let alone 500? He probably won't beat the crap out of you, that's for sure. Rather than shooting him you could have not killed anyone and lost a bit of money. If the guy's packing a revolver I doubt he's short of the stuff.

So after this guy starts attacking him he's supposed to just start offering money up while being assaulted? That doesn't make sense in the least. If someone starts attacking you then it's pretty clear he isn't interested in a peaceful solution.

Yet firing 8 shots is hunky-dory is it? There's no mention that he even tried to warn him or anything. Besides, if you give the guy the money what else do you think he wants?

 

[Ponce Master-General]

He didn't have to kill him. I mean, I think what he did was right, if a bit hasty. He should have pulled the gun without firing first, and if that wouldn't have an effect, aim for the leg or something. Killing should be a last resort, even when it comes to self defense with a gun (I know that sounds pretty stupid, but think about it).

 

[RelexCryo]

i hate to use the "slippery slope" fallacy, but well... it is. where do you draw the line? in Montana, where i live, a Wal-mart employee recently shot another when they got in an argument. the state had recently passed a law similar to Florida's "stand your ground" law, and he claimed he felt his life was in danger (even though they were both at work, in Wal-mart...). who's to say if he was right or wrong? all i know is someone got shot at Wal-mart over a stupid disagreement and a potentially dangerous law, setting an even more dangerous precedent.

granted, in Baker's case, his life was more clearly in danger, but shooting him 4 times seems excessive. idk... not gonna pass judgement here. on one hand the mugger deserved it, but i just see this leading to bad things.

*edit* relevant information i forgot to add: the case i cited in Montana? the "assailant" wasn't armed, or even threatening overt violence. he was angry, and he was physically larger than the shooter, and that was deemed sufficient cause for the shooter to fire in self defense.

Some people have been known to be shot 7 times with .45 ACP and keep going until physically beaten unconcious. Resistance to hydrostatic shock varies from person to person, you have no way of knowing how much ammo it is going to take to stop them. Hence, many people(including police) are trained to either keep shooting until the gun is empty or until the attacker is on the ground, whichever comes first.

Moreover, the vicitim of a violent crime is not obligated to put the well being of his attacker as a higher priority than his own well being.