Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[theashigaru]

He should of just pointed the gun at him,not shoot him!This is what happens when you buy a gun without thinking about why you actually need it.No Baker wasn't right,atleast when buying a gun learn how to use it.You can't just go around killing everyone who tries to mug you,sometimes you should just go with it(Or buy something safer like a taser or pepper spray).

"Killing everyone who tries to mug you?" The article states that TWO youths assaulted Baker while he was out jogging. Baker shot and killed only ONE.

Also, when Baker saw two males approaching him when it was dark, how could he have known what ages they were? Then when one of them said "I'm going to bam him.. I'm gonna knock him out," who is to say in what way they meant it. 'Bam' could easily be interpreted as shooting or something involving a gun. Though 'knock him out' is clearer in its meaning, blunt trauma to the skull often results in more than just a temporary loss of consciousness. Baker could have been facing serious brain damage or death even if the youths weren't armed.

Overall, the article doesn't really give enough to go on; however, I feel more certain that the 5 hour police interview got most of the details and they probably made the correct, most informed decision based on the laws of Florida.

 

[spartan1077]

Sorry but I have to disagree with a lot of people here. It was just a couple of kids and the guy shot him eight times. He could have fired a warning shot, I mean hes clearly capable of handling himself if hes applying for the military and keeps fit. The kid had his whole life to turn around, but now he won't get that chance. People who do bad things can change, and I don't think it was necessary to shot him eight times so he was sure he would be dead.

I had clicked yes too soon. You are completely right. He could've shot right away but missed. The kids would've stopped then because their lives were in danger and they didn't have any weapons. If he had not shot them until they were dead, they probably would turn their lives around since they could've have easily died. But now they don't have the chance...

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

That also never answers my original question about how he's supposed to know if he hit the guy given the situation. After all shouldn't whether the amount of shots fired be deemed excessive based on what he could have reasonably known given the circumstances?

No worries about the quote thing.

However, in regards to the question, I'm assuming that he'd know when he hit him when the kid fell down bleeding.

EDIT: Also, I just saw the person quoted above me. A warning shot also would have been an acceptable alternative.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

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.

There's no baker...

The dude's name is Baker...

 

[somersetal]

how do you fire 8 shots?

simply devide your pulse at the time by the number of bullets in the mag of your gun and then multiply by the number of attackers, this is the correct number of bullets to fire in self defense.

even with a cut lip and blurred vision easy maths

in a split second act there are no warning shots and at point blank you will struggle to be non lethal especially with impared vision

 

[maturin]

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"?

Indeed it is the keyword.

And stopping power has nothing to do with how many bullets you fire. It's a word referring to several semi-mythical effects accompanying the phenomenon whereby a bigger object makes a bigger hole.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

i would do the same thing :/

well... i would shoot him in the kneecaps and just leave the robber to suffer (teach him a lesson)

 

[Mrsoupcup]

There's no baker...

The dude's name is Baker...

Really? shit I probably shouldn't skim through posts. In any case the criminal is in the wrong, not baker.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

The fact that this happened and so many people condone it sickens me. Why not just make mugging punishable by the death penalty? It's the equivalent.

No, it isn't. The thing about the Death Penalty is, the guy is already caught. He can't do anything anymore, killing him is a waste.

This is different. He had to shoot the guy in self defense. What was he supposed to do? For all he knew, they were trying to kill him!

Are you honestly suggesting he should have just sat there? Seriously?

 

[HotFezz8]

thats from the daily flail, excuse me if i ignore it.

 

[Scolar Visari]

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.

Wonderful. Now that I know you've shot a gun before, I'll just ignore the part where you questioned why a man who had been cold-clocked in the middle of the night by two muggers didn't just shoot them in the extremities (because that has totally never killed anyone before). Maybe once you prove you have some realistic understanding of how firearms work I'll start taking you more seriously.

Again, hindsight is 20/20. Sure, any of those things could have happened. Hell, a Valkyrie could have rode down on a Unicorn and washed away all of humanity's hate. It's real easy to sit here in our nice comfy chair and say "Well If he had just done this, then everything would have absolutely worked out fine". Because you totally know for sure that it would right? Because he had the time to think about all of his possible options while being assaulted in the middle of the night.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

There's no baker...

The dude's name is Baker...

Really? shit I probably shouldn't skim through posts. In any case the criminal is in the wrong, not baker.

Yeah. The people defending the mugger strike me as a little silly...

I skim posts all the time. Man, do I have some embarrassing stories...

 

[Bender Rodriguez]

Muggers are scum, think about losing what you've worked hard for.

Should have kept him alive though, for a proper beating.

 

[LondonBeer]

The guy shot 8 times, only hit 4. The doesn't seem to be a crack shot or really trained because 50% is pretty bad, especially at close range. One could wager that the guy got punched in the face, pulled the gun, and started firing randomly in the general direction of his attackers. And considering he only aimed and didn't shoot at the other kid who ran away showed that he actually did have some constraint.
It would be pretty silly to chide someone for reacting in the way he did, if someone starts beating on me, it doesn't make sense to try and run back, pull a gun, and try to get the attackers to surrender. Another fist could easily hit you in the back of the head or temple and knock you out, the attackers are close enough and possibly stupid enough that when you're pulling the gun and not firing they could try to take it. And who knows the story could've gone much differently if the guy didn't come out with his gun firing, he could've ended up with the gun turned against him and him dead on the ground and two teens at large with money in their pocket laughing it up.

I take it youve never handled a pistol, 50% accuracy under stress at a target that isnt paper is good. Im intrigued by the accuracy of the reporting the concealed carry fire arm had a laser sight & was loaded with hollow points ? Im assuming that state allows those otherwise the Baker chap woulda been in all manner of shit.

As to too many shots, usually Id say no but if it was a .45 4 hits was excessive. No one could argue the first two if centre massed didnt do the job.

However its irrelevant dont hit people then they wont shoot you dead. The thing the liberals commenting oh no that was wrong to kill the person attacking you' are glossing over is the attacker struck first. If they had struck any number of points or hard enough to knock Baker over theres a good chance hed be dead or paralyzed. A single blow to the head can kill you, not a kung fu boxing punch a simple rugged tap meant in jest.

 

[Dogstile]

Do you people all think its easy to shoot someone in the head after being jumped and punched in the face? It's hard as hell to swing a punch back, let alone shoot a guy in the leg. There was no time for warning, and no time for threats, he had to do something.

Have you people ever been jumped? No? Then you haven't got a clue what it's like, stop assuming you can be calm and controlled, you can't. I've been in fights where i've been in complete control of the situation, and you know what, I still lost my shit when it happened. It's horrible and chaotic and there is no way you can be co-ordinated.

 

[cWg | Konka]

wow wtf has happend to the world when people think i criminal shouldnt die for his crime? its madness

tbh any one who attacks someone else for no reason should get shot and if they die, meh at least they arnt wasting my tax on kepting this scumbag locked up

 

[[.redacted]]

Oh noooooo!

Not the person trying to fucking mug someone!

What a loss to society!

 

[Blitzwarp]

Okay, time to be unpolular, I guess. :/

No. He wasn't right. He had the right to defend himself, but there's a very wide line between fighting back and getting away, and firing a gun with a laser sight on it eight times into another person. The article states that all Mustelier did was punch Baker in the face. That was it. One punch. And rather than pulling out the gun and threatening Mustelier with it, or punching him back and legging it (Baker was a jogger, so surely he could have gotten away fast enough?) he shot the kid. Eight times. That is beyond excessive force.

And no, Mustelier himself was certainly not in the right, but there's a far cry between giving someone a split lip (ABH at best) and mugging them, and taking a life. To my mind, Baker ought to have been charged with some form of manslaughter.

 

[captaincabbage]

For fucks sake, he was trying to rob someone. Unarmed. In AMERICA. What the hell did he think would happen?