Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Daystar Clarion]

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.

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.

Unfortunately it's real life. You really cant just "shoot someone in the leg" it's not that easy. In a struggle when the bad guys are at close range multiple shots are the only real option.

I understand, and unless we were there, we don't know the specifics, how close was the mugger etc. I just think that shotting the guy 8 times is a tad excessive.

 

[Rednog]

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.

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.

 

[Beffudled Sheep]

Simple, don't want to get shot? don't mug people. He deserved it.

You know, I don't agree with the kid for trying to mug the guy.
I also think the guy was right to defend himself.

But to say that this kid deserved to die for trying to mug a guy is horrifically wrong. This kid didn't deserve to die for his crime. He certainly made poor choices, and, again, the guy had a right to defend himself, but the guy having that right and the kid deserving to die are extremely different things.

He didn't deserve to die. And the loss of his life is a tragic waste.
We don't know all the circumstances of this case, we weren't there. But I hope that the man who was mugged did what he could to avoid the shooting before he took it. Because that was a drastic, permanent reaction. He certainly was within his rights to protect himself, and I don't fault him for that at all. But a kid lost his life, and that's a pretty heavy price to pay.

Don't worry! There will be another worse scumbag to replace the kid! But I do agree the kid did not deserve death. A very firm ass kicking or a bullet to the leg yes. Death? Well, if I feared enough for my life then... hmm this is actually tougher than I thought :/

 

[Woodsey]

All you people saying he deserved it?

Yeah, I'm embarrassed for you. Of course he didn't deserve it for fuck's sake! Death for a mugging, hardly a fair trade.

Note that I'm not defending the mugging, or attacking the shooter, but saying he deserved it is utterly ludicrous.

Get a fucking sense of proportionality.


Also: I'm curious why he shot so many times, and why he'd think someone was armed if they'd just punched him in the face. And further more, aren't hollow-point bullets designed to cause more damage? Why is a man walking around with a handgun full of those? And no, I don't care if he has a license. The whole need in America to have armed civilians is just ludicrous.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Maybe

 

[swat4459]

OK im new here to posting but whatever. I dont see a problem that he fired 8 times. If you have ever been shooting than you realize that as soon as you shoot the first round your adrenaline starts pumping and its very easy to just keep pulling the trigger. Plus think about it he had just been punched in the head and his vision was blurred, he probably just pointed the laser at the guy and kept pulling the trigger until his magazine was empty or the guy fell over. I probably would have don the same thing

 

[CD-R]

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.

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.

According to the article it looks like they jumped him by surprise. In those situations you don't have time to think things through. Besides those teens could have still killed him or caused permanent injury.

 

[RatRace123]

I'd say the mugger deserved to get shot, it's unfortunate that he died, but that's how it goes sometimes.

 

[Shotgunjack1880]

...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.

If you read where he said he had blurred vision, which a good crack to the head will do, he probably just kept pulling the trigger til he was damn sure the threat was neutralized. On top of that he probably panicked, most people aren't trained for situations like that.

 

[MrEnigami]

Yes, shooting the kid in self defense was the "right" thing to do (in that I see nothing wrong with it).

Yes, firing that many shots can be justified, and I agree that it was acceptable given the circumstances.

And I am unsure about whether or not the kid deserved to die, sometimes I think the death penalty should go back to being used for all crimes and sometimes I think people deserve another chance. :/

 

[tippy2k2]

All you people saying he deserved it?

Yeah, I'm embarrassed for you. Of course he didn't deserve it for fuck's sake! Death for a mugging, hardly a fair trade.

Note that I'm not defending the mugging, or attacking the shooter, but saying he deserved it is utterly ludicrous.

Get a fucking sense of proportionality.


Also: I'm curious why he shot so many times, and why he'd think someone was armed if they'd just punched him in the face. And further more, aren't hollow-point bullets designed to cause more damage? Why is a man walking around with a handgun full of those? And no, I don't care if he has a license. The whole need in America to have armed civilians is just ludicrous.

To my knowledge, hollow points are designed to hit and not penetrate through the other side. It'll do more damage to who's being shot but minimal risk of penetrating all the way through, potentially hitting someone behind the attacker.

As to multiple shots, I panic and fire off at random when I'm hit in Call of Duty, let alone when I've been hit in real life. He didn't gun down the kid who ran away, so he must have had some sense of control, not just a berserk rage. Just fired multiple shots at a target he thought might have been armed that he couldn't see.

 

[Jazoni89]

You know he could of just pistol whipped him, or shot him in the leg in self defence, rather than shoot him eight times with the intention of making him dead.

So no, I don't think he had a right to kill him (no one has the right to kill anybody no matter what they do).

 

[Shotgunjack1880]

Most .45's are a 7+1 weapon. Meaning 7 rounds in the mag plus an extra in the chamber totaling 8. He just emptied the mag, most likely in shear reaction or panic. If he would've had a 9mm he might have shot more because it holds more.

 

[Daveman]

Strange how many people are saying he deserved it. I didn't know people wanted the death penalty for mugging. I think the guy probably shouldn't face charges admittedly but to say the guy deserved to get shot (and then die) doesn't sound good to me. But in these situations people can act rashly and I'm sure the guy didn't want to kill the mugger when he shot them, it's just he was protesting himself.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

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.

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.

According to the article it looks like they jumped him by surprise. In those situations you don't have time to think things through. Besides those teens could have still killed him or caused permanent injury.

Agreed, it just seems like that is the only aspect of this story a pro-gun control debater could actually use, though given the situation, I feel like most of here would fire more then one bullet.

Edit: Oh crap, I quoted the wrong person.

 

[MrEnigami]

You know he could of just pistol whipped him, or shot him in the leg in self defence, rather than shoot him eight times with the intention of making him dead.

So no, I don't think he had a right to kill him (no one has the right to kill anybody no matter what they do).

I really... really don't want to pull out the Hitler card here but...

Mass murderers? Saddam Hussein? Serial rapists? They all deserve/d to live, regardless? Why?

 

[Woodsey]

All you people saying he deserved it?

Yeah, I'm embarrassed for you. Of course he didn't deserve it for fuck's sake! Death for a mugging, hardly a fair trade.

Note that I'm not defending the mugging, or attacking the shooter, but saying he deserved it is utterly ludicrous.

Get a fucking sense of proportionality.


Also: I'm curious why he shot so many times, and why he'd think someone was armed if they'd just punched him in the face. And further more, aren't hollow-point bullets designed to cause more damage? Why is a man walking around with a handgun full of those? And no, I don't care if he has a license. The whole need in America to have armed civilians is just ludicrous.

To my knowledge, hollow points are designed to hit and not penetrate through the other side. It'll do more damage to who's being shot but minimal risk of penetrating all the way through, potentially hitting someone behind the attacker.

As to multiple shots, I panic and fire off at random when I'm hit in Call of Duty, let alone when I've been hit in real life. He didn't gun down the kid who ran away, so he must have had some sense of control, not just a berserk rage. Just fired multiple shots at a target he thought might have been armed that he couldn't see.

According to Wikipedia they're designed not to come out the other side so that the person gets the full kinetic force of the bullet, which further damages to tissue, adds to bleeding and shock, etc.

Basically, if you wanted to kill someone, they're how you'd go about it.

As for your second point, that's one interpretation, but certainly not the only one.

 

[demoman_chaos]

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

If the blue collar guy is trying to take money that another fellow earned and needs to feed his family, then yes.
I've never udnerstood why criminals try justifying theft by saying they are just trying to feed their family. Get a real job and stop trying to take what others earned and need for their families.
Unless they are stealing from rich pricks who have millions of dollars horded in their basement. I'd congradulate them if they did that.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

alright, he shot 8 times?

Baker was in the right, I won't deny that, but I think shooting eight times is a bit extreme...