Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Hader]

Given that he got off all charges I'm not sure why it would be a bad idea. As for just not doing more damage than was done to you, that's ridiculous since the issue isn't about giving back what you get, it's about making sure you're safe. As for what is very likely going to happen to you, Baker thought that death was possible. And given the circumstances it seems reasonable to think so.

Well it does always depend on the situation. I wasn't really saying anything specific to this case, just giving a somewhat general legal principle (at least from what I remember, I am probably off somewhat).

I can understand what Baker thought at the moment, however I don't think shooting the man in the head was necessary. In the heat of the moment though, quick judgment can take a backseat to better judgment.

 

[Autohellion]

U

Ha! Creepy ass white guy shoots black youth... Sounds exactly like every case of "defence" where the attacker was killed. Physicly attacking someone is stupid as shit and rediculous. But so is hauling around guns whos sole purpose is to kill anyone whos a "threat". The guy shot the kid 4 times, one was sufficiant, he paniced and desided to kill not wound. Im not seeing any revolutions happening against our insufficiant corrupt government (and no not the Obama administration, the government as a whole) so we dont need guns. Tazers work just as well, or why dont we start getting non fatal ways of defending ourselves from attackers. They will always exist as long as poverty does, and even then there will always be those batshit insane Manson's out there. Killing the ones in poverty for trying to survive in poverty is unjustifiable.

Ugg did you read the previous posts... No you dident. YOU CANNOT SHOOT TO WOUND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. And for the last sentance that is the dumbest thing ive seen all day. If im hungry should it be ok for me to hit you with a baseball bat and take your sandwitch? No its not. Poverty is bad but it is NEVER a excuse.

 

[Kortney]

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.

Sorry. I just don't buy it for a second. I think this man could have acted in a way that would of left this kid alive. Instead he panicked and killed someone and he will most likely see some gaol time for it.

By the way, welcome to the Escapist!

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.

I'm afraid that is his "job". That's not how the legal system works. Everyone has a duty of care to each other and self defense in the courts entails using necessary violence. This guy will go to gaol.

I believe you are responsible for the safety of everyone you encounter. You are legally supposed to act in a way that does not result in someone dying.

I think that's much too much to expect someone to assume. He doesn't know anything about this person who just attacked him, why would he think this person would act reasonably? The attacker's actions have been unreasonably aggressive thus far.

Fair enough. I think it is too much for someone to assume that pulling the gun and threatening them is a waste of time.

Differences of opinion. Makes the world go round.

---

Let's leave it there guys. I'm really not all that interested in this topic to get my inbox flooded. I said what I think and nothing is going to change my opinion, nor will anything change yours. I don't believe this man acted within the legal boundaries of self defense and I expect he will be punished whether we like it or not. Personally, I think it is upsetting that this man didn't try to avoid killing someone. You guys don't and you think he acted reasonably. Fair enough. People think differently. No point going on about it.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

There's a problem with this, though.

First of all, if you take a "basic self-defense training" class, and the first thing they tell you to do is not "Find any weapon you can get your hands on," you are enrolled in a bullshit, useless self-defense class. Period. Grapple holds and snap kicks are just not going to work in the real world. You're not guaranteed a fair fight, even weight match, or even the same number of opponents.

Good self-defense classes don't teach cute "moves" and "tricks." They teach practical information. Every self-defense class should begin with the following points:

1. In a fight, you WILL get hit. Period. Learn how to deal with it.
2. If the attacker has a knife, you WILL be cut, even if you have a knife or gun. Be ready.
3. Assume the attacker has a weapon and/or partners. If they didn't have an advantage, they wouldn't have attacked.
4. Grab a weapon. Trash, a bottle, a rock, ANYTHING. There is no "honor" in fighting unarmed.
5. You will NOT put an opponent down with one hit, so be ready to keep going until they're still.

That's bare-minimum stuff. So, these classes are teaching people to use lethal force as well... or they're teaching them a false sense of security and how to get dead.

Onto non-lethals:

1. Pepper spray: Civilian stuff is largely ineffective. Propellant is weak, and it's not strong enough to really put someone down. If it hits (big if), you might have a few seconds to run, but now they're PISSED.

2. Stun gun: If you're close enough to use it, they're probably touching you. You risk stunning yourself by closing the circuit. No good unless you have surprise (and then it's not exactly defense). And either way, having to be that close to your opponent guarantees you'll get stabbed if they have a knife. Even a stunned person can shank you in the gut before going down.

3. Taser: Anything a civilian would be allowed to use is going to be to "iffy." It might not get the hooks through the clothes, you might not get the arc you need, and of course you could always miss. Anyway, tasers are not self-defense measures--they cannot effectively be used on someone who has gained the element of surprise, due to the prep time before it can be put into effect. Tasers are non-lethal apprehension tools, meant to be drawn before approaching a subject, not after being approached.

4. Batons/sticks/etc.: Again, getting in that close means you're probably getting stabbed anyway. What's more, a person can take a huge amount of punishment from one of these before it even makes a difference, so good luck stopping them before they use their own weapon... or even take yours an use it back, since it's conveniently located right next to them.

Handguns are compact, they have relatively few moving parts or things that can go wrong (like batteries, etc.), and they have enough power to stop people in their tracks. What you should be asking about is whether or not they could make more effective non-lethal ammunition for civilians.

 

[Caligulust]

It's not as if this man beat one of them to death with his bare hands in retaliation.
He wasn't walking through a run down town waving rolls of money at the beggars, hoping some would nobly rise up and stick it to the man so he could test his new gun.

I'd rather that people just leave each other alone. Shooting a man isn't an adequate way of punishing him. Stealing from one isn't a condonable way to support any of your personal endeavors.
A man still has his money, one kid has one less friend, and the other is short on more than cash now.
I hope the sixteen year old rethinks his priorities. It would be a shame for his friend to die and continue to partake in the actions which killed him.

 

[The Man With the Soap]

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.

The article said he was suffering from blurred vision. This could probably cause him to panic. The fact that he shot that many times indicates that he truly did fear for his life.

I salute Baker. He is getting ready to serve our country. The idiot shouldn't have tried to rob him.

 

[Furyaki12]

I can't say I've ever shot a gun, nor have I ever been a victim in a mugging or any such experience. Having said this, my opinions probably don't hold much sway.

I do, however, believe Baker was well within his panicked right to act how he did.

As for those saying that Baker had more reasonable outcomes, I think there's just a bit too much guesswork involved to say so emphatically that he should have exercised restraint.

He could have shown the muggers that he was armed.
Scenario A: The criminals(for those on the Baker = Right side) or the kids (for those on the opposing side) would have ran away without a second thought.

Scenario B: Baker was punched in the face, apparently having blurry vision, if not worse, from the blow. If Mustelier (the criminal/kid who was killed) was feeling desperate enough, he could have tried to wrest the gun away from the guy he could've potentially blinded.

He could have simply given the mugger his money.
Scenario A: Mustelier and his accomplice take Baker's money and run away without further damage.

Scenario B: Mustelier and his accomplice decide that letting someone they just robbed stay conscious (or depending on their level of commitment, alive) isn't very safe for them and they assault the man further.

A lot of escapists have already responded to the "warning shot" and "aim to disarm, not to kill" arguments, and they probably know better than I do. Unless I'm reading some of these responses wrong, it seems that most of the people who believe that Baker was in the wrong for his response believe so due more to the fact that the "victim" was a kid. Ignoring for the moment whether or not 18 is considered adulthood, if someone is old enough to commit a crime, he or she is old enough to get what might come.

 

[Daffy F]

That's what happens when you try to rob people.
He deserved it fully, in my opinion.

/thread... on the first post, too...

 

[Xannieros]

We had something similar around here. Shot someone for stealing stuff from his house, and was armed. He got something like 10 Years in prison... This is why I hate our legal system....

He killed someone, I don't think he should get off free. He could have warned him first, not point and shoot.

 

[Phenakist]

Ahh America has it sensible... Us Brits have to make any potential killers comfortable in our last moments, in case WE somehow harm THEM in anyway, because then they can file a suit against us, and the fact they were say in our house via the smashed window or door with that now broken lock, becomes completely irrelevant, we get charged with attempted murder, locked up, and they get off scott free as the victim and more money than they possibly could have stolen.

OT: I query whether emptying about half a mag was entirely necessary but frankly, the potential of getting shot should be enough of a deterrent for wannabe thieves, so it's nobody's fault but his, as tragic as it is.

 

[Fishyash]

How tragic that the teenager had to die for it. He deserved it, but such a silly mistake at such a young age, with such a harsh punishment. It is tragic, but I do think Baker was in the right here.

 

[Dastardly]

I'm afraid that is his "job". That's not how the legal system works. Everyone has a duty of care to each other and self defense in the courts entails using necessary violence. This guy will go to gaol.

I believe you are responsible for the safety of everyone you encounter. You are legally supposed to act in a way that does not result in someone dying.

I think that's much too much to expect someone to assume. He doesn't know anything about this person who just attacked him, why would he think this person would act reasonably? The attacker's actions have been unreasonably aggressive thus far.
Differences of opinion. Makes the world go round.

---

Let's leave it there guys. I'm really not all that interested in this topic to get my inbox flooded. I said what I think and nothing is going to change my opinion, nor will anything change yours. I don't believe this man acted within the legal boundaries of self defense and I expect he will be punished whether we like it or not. Personally, I think it is upsetting that this man didn't try to avoid killing someone. You guys don't and you think he acted reasonably. Fair enough. People think differently. No point going on about it.

1) He's been released with no charges. He's not going to jail.

2) You are legally supposed to act in a way that does not cause someone to die. This man did not cause this situation. He was forced against his will to react to a situation in which he reasonably felt he was in imminent danger of dying. The two assailants caused the situation. It's called "precipitating event."

3) The legal system says I'm responsible for MY safety. And I'm responsible for not INTERFERING with the safety of others. It doesn't say I'm responsible for their safety--that would mean it's okay for me to shoot someone because I think they might harm YOU. That's a good deal more dangerous, so I'd be careful before accidentally advocating it.

4) If you want to end a discussion, you simply don't reply. Or you make that last little paragraph the ONLY paragraph. You don't say your little tidbits and then smoke-poof before it can be ripped apart. Just something to think about in future discussions, since you're so keen on notions of fairness and justice.

 

[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.

Huh... So lets say he did shoot a warning shot....Where would it go? If he shoots up all that goes up comes down potentially hitting someone innocent, lets say he shoots at the ground it rebounds and hits someones house or someone walking farther down the street. To preserve all innocents in this situation the only option was to shoot the one guilty party. Please think before you post.

Forgive me for not being an expert on guns and propulsion physics. Also a falling gun bullet shot upwards hardly sounds like a serious threat to your health.

 

[toastmaster2k8]

Its like people are shocked in what should happen when peoples lives are at risk.

 

[Joshua Tax]

It's not our right to judge. Yet, Baker will have to live with what he's done and how he feels about it is his problem.

 

[thedeathscythe]

2 on 1, and sure, the kids weren't armed, but if it was a 2 on 1 robbery and I had a gun, I wouldn't wait for them to pull out their gun before I would pull out mine (if I had one/we had the same gun laws). The kid had it coming. That's what happens when you live a life like that, you take those risks. It's a shame he was so young, and that the 16 year old had to see it, but at least the 16 year old can make changes to his life now as opposed to when he's 30 or so. And I repeat, as harsh as it sounds, the kid had it coming. Getting punched in the face and have blurred vision, I probably would unload a full clip at both of these kids to make sure I don't get killed myself.

 

[Mcupobob]

I like how there was a thread about "How would a firearm protect you against a mugging?" not to long ago.

As of my opinion, baker got caught off guard grab his gun and emptied his clip. I bet he wasn't even trying to really hit them or kill them. As whether or not the kids deserved it. Well they rolled the dice when they decided to start mugging people and engaging in crime. It was their fault, and one of them was lucky enough to get away. Karma can be a ***** sometimes, maybe the one that survived will go on to become a doctor.

 

[Hader]

Given that he got off all charges I'm not sure why it would be a bad idea. As for just not doing more damage than was done to you, that's ridiculous since the issue isn't about giving back what you get, it's about making sure you're safe. As for what is very likely going to happen to you, Baker thought that death was possible. And given the circumstances it seems reasonable to think so.

Well it does always depend on the situation. I wasn't really saying anything specific to this case, just giving a somewhat general legal principle (at least from what I remember, I am probably off somewhat).

I can understand what Baker thought at the moment, however I don't think shooting the man in the head was necessary. In the heat of the moment though, quick judgment can take a backseat to better judgment.

He didn't shoot him in the head unless I'm missing something in the article.

My bad, not shot in the head, I misread it I guess. Don't know why I said that. It killed the guy though, that's the point I mean to get at.