Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[AWDMANOUT]

I'm going with the obvious answer that most other people seem to be stating.

Did the mugger deserve it? Hell yes. Don't rob people.

Was it excessive? Of course. Which might seem wrong, but-

Was the shooter scared, and fired off so many shots out of fear? Well, probably. It's at night, being attacked by something he couldn't see well, might've been armed. Seems like a logical reaction.

I would've done the same. But probably more. It's not every day you can legally shoot a guy.

 

[the_green_dragon]

So he fired more then one shot, whoop dee do. He said his vision was blurry so he unloaded 8 shots to ensure he hit his mark.

One less mugger on the streets, I'm not sheeding any tears.

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

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.

See above.
But seriously, the above post pretty much encapsulates all my feelings about this.

Also, everyone saying "he should have fired a warning shot" or "he should have aimed for the legs" while Baker was dazed and scared for his life is talking out of their ass, for the quoted reasons and/or due to the different way that people think in dangerous situations (unless you're trained to think calmly in such situations, which Baker was not).
I'm hoping people aren't also thinking that he shouldn't have thought they were a threat because they were younger, because there's always that story every month or so about a few (or up to a "gang") of teenagers beating someone close to death, or even killing them, without warning, despite the victim being older. Perhaps Baker thought this was going to happen to him unless he defended himself.

However, that's all "perhaps" and "maybe", which is why I like the quoted post. ^_^

 

[Reptiloid]

In my humble opinion, the guy was well within his rights to shoot. But to kill? Not really. Sure, things can get confusing and chaotic in the heat of the moment, but a bullet to the muggers leg would've sufficed.

 

[Krion_Vark]

...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.

He apparently did empty the clip, but only managed to hit 4 of the 8 shots. Like I said earlier, I figure we would all do the same.

Clips are usually 12 shots not 8 but seeing as how it was a concealed weapon it was probably a smaller than normal gun so 8 shots sounds reasonable for that. even though most concealed weapons would have 6 round clips.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I think he fired too many times, personally.
He should've shot the kid in the leg/arm and if the kid came at him after that, I think it would've been pretty reasonable to shoot him again.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

The jogger has a right to defend himself, but why 8 shots?

And why the hell does he have a laser sight on his gun? The laser sight really serves no purpose in self defence. He also didn't need to shoot 8 freaking times. He was punched in the face, and the first thing he thinks is to shoot the kid? I'm sorry but he crossed the line by jumping to the conclusion.

The mugger's buddy ran off but had enough time to look back and see his friend with a laser sight pointed at his chest. If he had enough time to notice that, the jogger must have had the teenage mugger in a position where shooting him wasn't needed. Something's not right there.

 

[Robby Foxfur]

oh no a robber got shot you don't say. look 8 times is a lot but in my mind your not counting shots in that situation you pull the trigger till you hear click thats it I don't understand why people are making a stink about it cuz if the guy had had a gun well then 8 shots might have seemed like too few.

 

[chadachada123]

snip

Really, this whole argument could be solved by just pushing the use of tasers as a civilian method of self defense.

snip

I wasn't claiming to know everything about guns, ever. I was just pointing out that you were assuming the ignorance of a person you were debating and reducing them to a stereotype.

My point stands. People whose first reaction, when confronted with danger, is to shoot eight times should buy tasers instead.

As someone said, tasers won't always bring a person down, especially if that person is on various narcotics. It also won't help much against multiple assailants. Plus they're illegal for the common person to own in my state.

And, as has been pointed out numerous times, 8 shots from a semi-auto could easily be fired in 4 seconds or less. That's barely enough time for you to register what's going on. There's no use in only firing 1 or 2 shots and HOPING that they hit your target. Hell, only shooting once would look like he was TRYING to be lethal, a lot more so than shooting 8 times and only hitting with half.

That shows just how pants-shittingly scared he really was.

 

[Slycne]

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.

Unless you just so happen to fire exactly straight up in the air(which will cause the bullet to fall back a much slower terminal velocity), a bullet will travel its trajectory and fall to Earth with lethal force. There are confirmed cases of this and thus why it's illegal to fire a gun into the air in many places.

 

[the_green_dragon]

Yes the guy trying defend himself is the bad guy here. *face palm*

If he lived in Massachusetts the gunman would be in jail right now because our self defense law is such bullshit. If you can get away you don't have the right to defend yourself.

He was hit in the head, he stumbled backwards with blurry vision unsure if the 2 muggers were armed with god knows what. He didn't stop to ask, "sorry mate, are you carrying a gun or knife?" "alrightly then, how about a nice shot in the leg?"

 

[GoddyofAus]

Let this be a statement to all future muggers that you may just be playing Russian Roulette.

 

[Naheal]

What the hell is this? Disproportionate retribution? Are we going to be advocating executing shoplifters next?

Edit: Also?

But I mean, it was eight shots fired. How do you shoot someone eight times in self-defence? That makes no sense.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346574/Jogger-Thomas-Baker-shot-dead-unarmed-mugger-released-charge.html#ixzz1BLBK1jRr

This.

 

[BoogieManFL]

People don't appreciate the situation. Unless you've been in a REAL life or death situation you just don't understand.

Adrenaline, fear, uncertainty, instinct for self-preservation.. It all kicks in and these things happens just moments or a few seconds. He was also in pain after getting slugged and he had blurred vision. There isn't time to analyze every little detail. Every little millisecond you waste second guessing the situation is another for your attacker (who is already breaking the law, who knows what they are capable of) to kill you.

 

[Droppa Deuce]

Baker did the right thing, in regards to what the state's laws are.

That douche shouldn't have tried to mug him.

One less perp in the system I guess.

 

[willsham45]

Good that will teach um, don't mug people. Or Mug at your own risk

 

[Random Fella]

It was a good thing that kid was killed in my opinion. Not because i'm evil and wish death apon people but because criminals like this will do worse crimes as they age and just become a problem to the community rather than being a hard working citizen. I don't know why the guy shot him 8 times but good riddance in my mind, and good on baker to be able to protect himself unlike many people who get mugged or killed these days if you think about what happens during muggings baker could have been permanently injured or even worse - dead.
90% of people say baker was right so i'm pretty happy with that.

 

[Megawizard]

He was attacked first, and as far as I'm concerned, he just helped cull some of the stupid out of the gene pool.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

Everyone, go read Dastardly's post. Go do it. Now. Right now. You're still reading this, aren't you? No! I said go read Dastardly's first post on this thread! It's only like two pages back! Go, go, go! Get your heiney over there on the double!

 

[chadachada123]

In my humble opinion, the guy was well within his rights to shoot. But to kill? Not really. Sure, things can get confusing and chaotic in the heat of the moment, but a bullet to the muggers leg would've sufficed.

I don't think you've ever fired a gun before. It's not like in a video game where you have seconds to place your shots or whatever. It's incredible difficult to hit a leg or arm as it is, and if you combine that with him already being hit in the head and currently being attacked in the middle of the night...it's not realistic to expect him to want to place a non-lethal shot there.

It's easy to say from here what SHOULD have happened, yes, but in that kind of situation it'd be nearly impossible for even the most hardened or cool of cops/soldiers/etc to hit such a target and not keep firing.

(Protip: when forced to use a weapon to defend yourself, you don't shoot once and hope you hit, taking precious seconds to see if your shot puts him down. You keep shooting until you're out of bullets or he's on the ground. Same with being in a fist fight. You don't punch once then assess. You punch quite a few times before assessing).