Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[theriddlen]

Baker was right to defend himself.

The thing i don't like, is that we lack easy-to-use repetitive non-lethal weapons. Hear me, H&K, FN and other arms producers? Create something both efficient and non-lethal.

 

[Ickorus]

It's always unfortunate when someone is killed but Baker had a very legitimate reason for pulling the trigger.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Yes the hard working Blue collar guy trying to feed his family is the bad guy here. *face palm*

The fuck? The fact that we even have to have this debate is a bad sign for this country. Of course Baker was right, he was getting mugged.

And 8 shots is completely reasonable. Thats self-defense 101: aim at the center of mass and dont stop pulling the trigger till the attacker drops.

I was defending the baker, I'd hardly call a thief a hard working blue collar guy. More like a lower class criminal.

 

[Tiny116]

Having read the article I have decided to vote "No"
Now before I'm flamed let me explain. I work in healthcare and we are told we can defend ourselves against attackers with appropriate and reasonable force. This Baker character shot at the mugger eight times hitting him four with Hollow Point bullets, now correct me if I'm wrong but hollow points do considerable damage to body tissue.
The Fact of the matter is Baker could have just pulled out the gun and the youth would probably have baked off, armed or not. Seeing that Baker empted half his magazine at the boy is shockingly aggressive, he got hit and immediately fired off 8 shots probably in rapid succession.

It's my point of view that Baker should be tried for use of excessive force, if for example someone hits you or endangers your life and you then hit them and keep hitting them until they are dead...this situation is very similar to that scenario.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

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?

How many times does the police shouting "STOP POLICE!!" actually stop people on the first try? How many times do people still run from or attack multiple trained officers? Hindsight is 20/20 no? Maybe threatening them would have scared them off, but it seems like this gentleman was too busy getting cold-clocked but some muggers in the middle of the night to decide what the most moral thing to do would be.

He fired that many shots because:

1. It was dark and he couldn't see who the attackers were very well.

2. He had just gotten punched in the face.

3. No little X pops up when you hit your target in real life. A bullet can leave the barrel of a gun at a couple thousand feet per second and be through a person's body before they even realize they're hit.

4. You fire until they're no longer a threat. Any police officer can tell you that.

Please stop reducing me to the stereotypical sheltered child who views video games as real life. I've given no indication that I'm that type of person, and if you must know, yes I have shot guns in real life, but no, never at a person.

I stand by my stance that shooting an unarmed kid to death is wrong. There's anynumber of alternate solutions for this problem.

He could have threatened him with the gun.
He could have punched him.
He could have run away.
Anything that didn't end with death.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

I certainly don't think that the dude deserved to die, but I also can't fault the guy for acting in self defense even if he may have gotten carried away. Most normal people aren't able to act entirely rationally or efficiently in a combat situation, after all. It's still too bad the kid died, but trying to mug someone carries that kind of risk and he should have been prepared for to accept it.

Threatening them with the gun doesn't sound like it would have been viable if they were close enough to have already punched him in the face, and shooting someone in the leg in the dark is both a lot harder and a lot less effective than most people seem to think, especially when there's no way to know if the mugger might also have a gun. I don't think that hollow point bullets should be legally available to civilians, but it's not this guys fault that they are and he shouldn't be punished for having had them in the gun at the time (it's not like he could have just switched clips on the fly as he pulled it out). Having so much money on him was a dumb idea, but it's not like the muggers could have known how much he had when they jumped him, so only carrying a twenty wouldn't have helped him avoid the situation. Eight shots are also well within the limits of what people are trained to do in that kind of situation, and factoring in blind panic at being unexpectedly assaulted he can hardly be faulted for that. I wouldn't call it excessive force unless he continued shooting the kind after he was already on the ground and immobile.

I do think that non-lethal options should be made available for these kinds of situations so that the fire power people are allowed to tote around for self-defense can be safely reduced.

 

[Brightzide]

It's a tragic waste of young life, But I find myself siding with Mr. Baker every time. He feared for his life, and he responded the way his instincts told him to. The fact is that mugging is wrong, and so is shooting people. There was no good outcome to this story, Mr. Baker just chose the outcome that best suited him. Fair enough in my opinion

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

snip

snip

Sorry for finding the death of an unarmed teenager morally repugnant?

That doesn't even answer what I said at all. You finding it morally repugnant doesn't tell the guy how many times he hit. I would think understand the situation ought to come before moral repugnance anyways. Like knowing how many times it would be reasonable for the guy to shoot.

The rest of my post, which you left out, had quoted and agreed with another person that the shooter could have threatened him first, and that people who "shoot first, ask questions later" should not buy guns in the first place. That's what tasers and pepper spray are for.

 

[Hosker]

I think he did. He would probably be off doing the same thing again if it wasn't fatal.

 

[ShadowKatt]

...The guy was being mugged. His assailants were physically attacking him and he had a permit to carry the weapon. Baker was in the right from my perspective. The only problem I see is that he shot the teenager 4 times, but that's about it.

It had been me, I would have emptied the magazine. I don't shoot once and then check to make sure it hit before firing again.

 

[DanielDeFig]

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

ok that's a bit far kiddo

I do agree that the man was in his right to defend himself, and maybe he did panic and overdo it, however by the book what he did was fine

but I don't disagree that non-lethal force is an equally viable option...and admittedly this guy probably should have been smarter with the whole jogging at night in a sketch neighborhood (maybe) with $500 in his pocket heh

Pretty much how i see it. You have proven yourself sane!

Eh. I'm convinced most people here are sane and intelligent. But if more people would consider the non-lethal option and equally viable option (like yourself), and encourage that it be used rather than lethal force, then a lot more people would survive incidents like this (criminals and victims alike).

 

[Section Crow]

im with that baker guy, if your going to commit a crime, do it knowingly that there is a chance of you dying.

not saying its moral but its the guys own fault for trying to mug someone

 

[LordXel]

I'm afraid I'm going to disagree. The kid punched him, one punch shouldn't lead to him being shot. Maybe a kick, maybe a punch back at him, maybe he should have thrown himself at him, or maybe he should have shot him in the leg. Those are the things I would've done. Of course I still think that the man had a right to defend himself, and the mugger was an idiot who was going to get it one day, but what does his family think about this?

Ah well, such a shameful waste. RIP, because the dead do deserve that at least.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Was he right to shoot? Yes.

Was he right to shoot that many times? No.

He got what was coming to him but Baker had no right to shot him eight times in self-defence.

I'm gonna address you two first. When you shoot someone, they don't stop. There's a couple of minutes before anything happens, during which they're pretty much just pissed. Sure, a lucky shot could disable them, or they could go into shock, but if you shoot someone, you have to keep shooting until they stop moving.

There's numerous cases where someone would shoot their assailant once or twice, like how it works in movies. The assailant shoots them back before succumbing to his wounds, and then they both bleed to death. If any shooting at all is justified, fatal shooting is justified.

Yes the hard working Blue collar guy trying to feed his family is the bad guy here. *face palm*

Trying to feed his family by mugging someone? No. He is the bad guy here. He could have killed the guy he was mugging. He took his life into his ends, and he got what was coming. Where does it even say he was blue collar, or hard-working? He might have been mugging the guy for drug money. Violence against innocents is never justified.

 

[Erja_Perttu]

Was he right to shoot? Yes.

Was he right to shoot that many times? No.

I think tis guy pretty much has it right. Git had it comin, but maybe he didn't have to get it so hard.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Baker's not only right he's a bloody hero

if anyone tried to mug me I'd break their knee caps and light them on fire

making the world a better place one dead mugger at a time should never be considered a crime

that 16 year old should have died too for not stopping Mustelier

people can't be allowed to think they can get away with muggings

 

[Mikeyfell]

Was he right to shoot? Yes.

Was he right to shoot that many times? No.

someone attacks you while your jogging in the middle of the night
how do you they don't have a knife or a gun, or are going to mug you or rape you or kill you
or are waring a bullet proof vest

someone attacks you unprovoked they deserve to die no question

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Yes the hard working Blue collar guy trying to feed his family is the bad guy here. *face palm*

Trying to feed his family by mugging someone? No. He is the bad guy here. He could have killed the guy he was mugging. He took his life into his ends, and he got what was coming. Where does it even say he was blue collar, or hard-working? He might have been mugging the guy for drug money. Violence against innocents is never justified.

I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE BAKER. A CRIMINAL IS NOT A HARD WORKING BLUE COLLAR PERSON, A BAKER IS.

 

[X10J]

Some times just threatening people with a gun isn't enough. Some people will cotinue to fight.

@ above: His name is Baker, not his ocupation.