Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Pyode]

If you're going to be allowed to kill someone on the spot for an offense then you might as well have them executed afterwards if you didn't kill them in the process.

Killing someone in self defense is not the same as killing someone "for an offense." "For an offense" implies that the threat is over and the person simply took the law into their own hands and opened fire. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a criminal being shot while in the process of attacking someone. Again, this isn't even remotely the same as execution.

I do indeed intend to be judged as better, but more importantly I want to be better than everyone else and I would be quite happy if everyone else joined in and decided to try and make the world a better place.

The idea that rolling over and letting criminals do whatever they want without fighting back would "make the world a better place" is frankly absurd and has no basis in reality.

Also, I can't kill, I know if I did it would be worse than dying myself (I wouldn't have to live with it), but we must remember that this kid had a family and they grieve at his loss as much as Baker's family would have done. He wasn't wrong to fight back but he shouldn't have killed the kid or shot at him as shooting at people has a reasonable forseeablility that someone will die.

Yes, I feel sorry for the kid's family and loved ones but the responsibility for his death rests solely on himself. Baker didn't ask to be mugged. He didn't instigate anything. It was the kid who made the decision to attack someone and therefore everything that follows is entirely his responsibility.

As for Baker using his gun, he had no way of knowing what these kids where going to do to him and therefor it is completely logical for him to assume the worst and act accordingly. It is unreasonable to expect the victim to incur further risk of harm by assuming anything other than the worst.

True you may disagree with everything I said but thats fine, I know its personal and you don't have to believe it just don't hassle me over the issue. I'd rather take a hit than hit someone else because it usually ends better..

You have an opinion and I respect that, but it's just silly to say something on a public forum and expect someone not to comment on it.

For example, you can't make a claim that has no basis in anything, like how being hit "usually ends better" than hitting someone, and expect me not to refute it.

Yes, if someone punches you and proceeds to walk away, attacking them wouldn't help maters but if someone is currently attacking you it is not only your right but (depending on the situation) arguably your responsibility to forcibly stop the person, not only to protect yourself from harm but to protect the people and property around you from suffering collateral damage.

 

[Kortney]

Wow. 91% of people think it is perfectly fine to shoot a kid eight times with hollow point bullets because you were just punched in the head?

Heh. Can't say I agree.

More like I think it's acceptable to shoot until you can be sure the threat's gone. Given that it is doubtful that he could tell how many times he hit and as it turns out he only hit 4 out of 8 times it seems pretty reasonable.

As for 'just' being punched in the head, I really doubt the kid just stopped, or just would have stopped, there since his intention was to knock Baker out.

And explain the reason why this man couldn't of just raised his gun and told them to back off? Mugging someone does not deserve death. I think both parties were incredibly stupid and aggressive. You don't pull your firearm and unload into someone because they assault you.

I doubt this guy is going to get away without gaol time. To use the self defense pardon of a crime you must not use any amount of excessive force.

P.S "Just punched in the head" means "recently punched in the head".

You don't think it is likely at all that when that close to the other guy there might be an issue with the guy taking the gun from him?

Nope. I don't. I think the kid would of ran away. It's all conjecture anyway - but not many people are psycho enough to take on someone with a firearm.

 

[Alphavillain]

If he was armed with a gun he knew there was a real threat of being attacked. Was he doing something essential to his life? Jogging doesn't sound too life-and-death an activity to put yourself in that situation if you don't need to be there.

Yeah, of course he has the right to be out and about any time he chooses, but he'll have to live with himself, whether he was right or wrong.

 

[^=ash=^]

Wow. 91% of people think it is perfectly fine to shoot a kid eight times with hollow point bullets because you were just punched in the head?

Heh. Can't say I agree.

More like I think it's acceptable to shoot until you can be sure the threat's gone. Given that it is doubtful that he could tell how many times he hit and as it turns out he only hit 4 out of 8 times it seems pretty reasonable.

As for 'just' being punched in the head, I really doubt the kid just stopped, or just would have stopped, there since his intention was to knock Baker out.

And explain the reason why this man couldn't of just raised his gun and told them to back off? Mugging someone does not deserve death. I think both parties were incredibly stupid and aggressive. You don't pull your firearm and unload into someone because they assault you.

I doubt this guy is going to get away without gaol time. To use the self defense pardon of a crime you must not use any amount of excessive force.

P.S "Just punched in the head" means "recently punched in the head".

Being mugged doesn't deserve death either which happens and this could have possibly lead to. Noone knows what could have happened if Mustelier wasn't shot.

 

[Kortney]

Being mugged doesn't deserve death either which happens and this could have possibly lead to. Noone knows what could have happened if Mustelier wasn't shot.

So when you are in doubt, shoot someone?

My point is that this guy didn't even try to solve the situation without taking someone's life.

 

[Murderiser]

Last time I checked, mugging someone did not carry the death penalty. These guys are muggers, looking for an easy person to rob. Firing off a shot from his gun would have convinced them otherwise. Shooting someone eight times is a bit far.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

He wasright to shoot a warning shot or even with intention to injure but he wasn't right to shoot to kill. The mugger was 18 he probably would have run the moment Baker pulled his gun out. That said the bullets were hollow point and the man did stay with the dying mugger (although that may have been so that he didn't try to run before the police arrived) so it may be he intended to scare or merely injure the victim or that he only fired 8 shots in the confusion.

There is no "shooting to injure". It's a myth.

Any type of gunshot wound can and will kill, and you have to assume that the shooting will kill the person. People survive gunshot wounds all the time, but people also die of getting hit in the hand all the time.

If you shoot at all, you're shooting to drop and potentially kill the person.

 

[Dastardly]

I agree. What if the shooter simply pulled out his gun? Would the mugger have fled upon realising the danger to his life? Or even just a bullet to the leg. I don't think the shooter should be punished but this is a case of excessive force.

While I understand the sentiment behind a statement like this, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of firearms, shooting, and the proper use of both.

1. There is no such thing as "a warning shot." Every bullet goes somewhere, and if you're not controlling where, that doesn't protect an innocent bystander.

2. There is no such thing as "shoot to wound." If you are shooting at someone it must only be with the intent to kill. You can't guarantee any sort of shot will be survivable, so you must be willing to kill every time you draw and fire.

3. When you are shooting at a target, training teaches you to aim for "center mass." That's basically the upper torso. This is NOT because it is more lethal (though it is). It is because this ensures the greatest chance of the bullets a) hitting the target and b) imparting enough energy to stop the target. The leg is an extraordinarily hard target to hit. Almost as hard as hitting the head. Shooting at someone's leg is shooting to miss, except in movies.

4. Do not forget that there were two assailants. Say he pulled the gun as a warning only... okay, which one can he warn? What if while he's "warning" one, the other draws a weapon and attacks or shoots? An amateur with a knife can, in fact, take down a cop with a gun from within 25 feet--that's a pretty good distance--so if they were armed, both muggers were very real threats. Why is the burden of proof on the victim at this point?

Here's what I mean by that. Typically, our "innocent until proven guilty" jargon (at least in the US legal system) means that we believe the defense in a case unless there is evidence presented to the contrary. We call this placing the "burden of proof" on the prosecution--in the event of a "tie," defense wins.

In the case of this incident, a man was out jogging and was attacked. The burden of proof should be on the attacker to demonstrate whether or not they are armed and/or dangerous. In the absence of any proof otherwise, the defense (victim) has every right to assume this person, who obviously means them harm, came sufficiently prepared to do said harm.

You shouldn't have to wait until an attacker draws on you. That just doubles the body count.

 

[Crazy_Dude]

I think he was right shooting the guy. He had a license to do so and reading through the story I think he was in immediate danger and almost all judges would agree with me.

Sure he might have shot 8 times (and hit 4) but it was dark and he was fearing for his live. I am pretty sure more people would shoot more then once when its dark and they are fearing for their live.

 

[^=ash=^]

Being mugged doesn't deserve death either which happens and this could have possibly lead to. Noone knows what could have happened if Mustelier wasn't shot.

So when you are in doubt, shoot someone?

My point is that this guy didn't even try to solve the situation without taking someone's life.

Ok then, it's a dark night and you are out for a jog. Out of nowhere you get jumped and hit in the face dazing you, you have a firearm but decide not to use it. The guy keeps beating you knocking you to the floor, since you are dazed the chances of landing a successful deterring punch are low so this is probably where you would end up. Of course you could tell him you have a gun, to the attacker this could easily be an empty threat since they haven't seen it. Or perhaps they will believe you and hit you harder so you can't use it and they can.

Now then you would hit the floor pretty hard after some blows to the head wich could render you unconcious and/or fracture your skull do you think a mugger of all people would phone an ambulance, wait with you until it arrives. No, no they wouldn't because the blood would be on their hands. So you're left in the alley, bleeding out of your head.

This is of course all conjecture, however it could have happened. Sure there are other scenarios but in this on you die. If there is a possibility you could die, being aprehensive could render that being how it turns out.

 

[Dastardly]

Being mugged doesn't deserve death either which happens and this could have possibly lead to. Noone knows what could have happened if Mustelier wasn't shot.

So when you are in doubt, shoot someone?

My point is that this guy didn't even try to solve the situation without taking someone's life.

Because that's not his job. His job is to go home alive, and that is it. He is not responsible for the safety or comfort of anyone other than himself, because he was not doing anything that would interfere with the safety or comfort of anyone other than himself.

These two (please remember there were two) assailants were the ones that instigated the confrontation, by surprise even, and demonstrated enough ill will for this man to reasonably believe they intended to keep him from going home alive. Had they not done this, he would have had no reason whatsoever to feel that way, and he would not have shot.

 

[Brandon Storck]

Self-Defense, his life, liberty, or property was threatened or in danger. That alone gives him the right to defend himself.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

He wasright to shoot a warning shot or even with intention to injure but he wasn't right to shoot to kill. The mugger was 18 he probably would have run the moment Baker pulled his gun out. That said the bullets were hollow point and the man did stay with the dying mugger (although that may have been so that he didn't try to run before the police arrived) so it may be he intended to scare or merely injure the victim or that he only fired 8 shots in the confusion.

There is no "shooting to injure". It's a myth.

Any type of gunshot wound can and will kill, and you have to assume that the shooting will kill the person. People survive gunshot wounds all the time, but people also die of getting hit in the hand all the time.

If you shoot at all, you're shooting to drop and potentially kill the person.

Well what about firing a warning shot to scare someone of? Is THAT shooting to kill.

 

[Hader]

Wow. 91% of people think it is perfectly fine to shoot a kid eight times with hollow point bullets because you were just punched in the head?

Heh. Can't say I agree.

More like I think it's acceptable to shoot until you can be sure the threat's gone. Given that it is doubtful that he could tell how many times he hit and as it turns out he only hit 4 out of 8 times it seems pretty reasonable.

As for 'just' being punched in the head, I really doubt the kid just stopped, or just would have stopped, there since his intention was to knock Baker out.

While he may have been acting in self defense, using force greater than that used against you is generally a bad idea. From a legal standpoint though. What would be considered a proper response is to do no more damage than what is done unto you, or what is very likely to be done unto you.

 

[Dastardly]

If he was armed with a gun he knew there was a real threat of being attacked. Was he doing something essential to his life? Jogging doesn't sound too life-and-death an activity to put yourself in that situation if you don't need to be there.

Yeah, of course he has the right to be out and about any time he chooses, but he'll have to live with himself, whether he was right or wrong.

Actually, that time of night is ideal for that king of jogging due to 1) lower temperatures and 2) less traffic (which is historically not friendly toward pedestrians). He was not only well within his rights, but well within the bounds of good decisions.

The fact that muggings often (but not exclusively) happen at night doesn't mean he should have to change his perfectly reasonable plans.

 

[martin's a madman]

The shooter should definitely not be charged. I'm glad they made the right call.

 

[chadachada123]

Being mugged doesn't deserve death either which happens and this could have possibly lead to. Noone knows what could have happened if Mustelier wasn't shot.

So when you are in doubt, shoot someone?

My point is that this guy didn't even try to solve the situation without taking someone's life.

When someone is attacking you, there isn't a reasonable way to try and solve the situation without violence, nor should that be expected of you when you life is pretty clearly in danger.

This man, only out for a jog, was attacked by unknown forces with unknown weapons without any known reason. For all he knew, they were armed (and threatening them could have easily lead to his death).

For all he knew, they were going to kill him even after robbing him, or were there SOLELY to kill him.

It isn't "when you are in doubt, shoot someone," it's "when you are attacked without reason with no end in sight, it's VERY reasonable to use whatever means at hand to defend yourself."

It really isn't a hard concept for anyone with a wish to live. Plenty of people have been murdered after being robbed just so the mugger knows there won't be any witnesses. In those 5-10 seconds, there's no reason to expect this man to not defend himself from possibly would-be murderers.

There's no reason to think that, after having a gun pulled, the would-be mugger wouldn't try and take said gun given the very small distance between the parties, especially if the mugger was on some sort of drug. Given that the man was just punched in the head randomly, it wouldn't be a stretch to believe the kid(s) were hopped up on something and thus wouldn't respond to a simple threat.

 

[almostgold]

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.

Ah. Got it. Sorry about that. I think I know where the misunderstanding happened though: Baker was his name, not proffession