Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[CCountZero]

His gun was loaded with bullets made for maximum damage and lethal force and he had laser sightings attached. Why would you bring all that for a late run? If someone was going to jump you they'd be close so they could get your crap, you wouldn't need laser targeting, and he was training to join the military. If he can't keep his head cool facing a un-armed teenager, how is he going to handle the battle ground?

He brought 500$ with him when he only planned to go on a run. He was basically asking for it. He had a right to defend himself yes but doesn't it seem a tad fishy? Or is it just me?

Hollow Points are highly valued for their lethality, because shooting someone with a military-approved non-HP round just doesn't get the job done.

If I pull a Beretta 92F loaded with Full Metal Jacket rounds, and you pull a Colt 1911 .45 Hollow Point; even if I shoot you twice, the one round you get into me is gonna be fatal.

If you gotta stop someone from harming an innocent, you gotta do it with deliberation. That's why police use HPs and shotguns, and that's why he did too.

Using the laser sight could easily be seen as someone that might help him NOT kill someone.

People in the military loose their cool too, and this guy wasn't even in yet.
Besides, when you're in a hostile environment, as in military operations, you're on your toes, expecting action.
This guy was not. He panicked, pure and simple, just like you and I would.

The article specifically states that the 500 was from fixing some cars.
It's entirely plausible that he had jogged to said cars, and was jogging back home after a job well done.

Now, me, personally, would I kill someone to keep them from taking my 500? Not a chance.
But if a massive guy jumps me, knocks me so hard I'm literally dazzled and then comes back for another punch with a mean look on his face, I'd be fearing for my life too.
And when you fear for you life, you do what you have to.

 

[Scolar Visari]

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.

Nor did I claim that you need to. Instead, I told you that I would take your arguments more seriously if you were to have a more realistic understanding of these kinds of situations (Leg/arm shots are deadly/hard etc..). You had already proved at least some level of ignorance by suggesting that an extremity shot was even in the realm of feasibility.

You do realize that a projectile Tazer has one shot right? And that there were two attackers?

 

[MartialArc]

snip

You didn't read closely enough. The guy's vision was blurred by the punch. That's what happens when you're punched in the face. He thought the guy had a gun, and thus pulled his out and fired. He was panicking; in video games, when I panic I tend to shoot a lot. It's what happens when people have a weapon and they genuinely feel they're in danger, they use the hell out of it to try and get rid of the danger.

Obviously, by the time he was aiming at the other kid, his vision had cleared back up.

I don't know why that's so hard for some people to grasp.

I imagine the other kid didn't get shot because, ya know, he ran away. It sounds like the kid who was shot more or less attacked on his own.

As an aside, the tendency to shoot more when under pressure is why the military quit using automatic weapons for general use. Soldiers tend to shoot like crazy and it basically wasted ammo without being more effective than more disciplined single shots or burst fire.

Shooting alot under circumstances like Baker faced is normal. This is very well documented phenomenon.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

snip

So claiming that it would have been better to aim for an extremity rather than kill an unarmed teen makes me ignorant?

I think I'm done discussing this with you. It's getting annoying to have to keep shouting up to your ivory tower.

 

[Shraggler]

...prosecutors in Florida have ruled Baker should not face any charges, even though 18-year-old Carlos Musteller did not have a weapon.

Thank goodness. I can't stand the kind of "argument" contained in the latter half of the sentence.

Who the fuck cares if he was armed or not after the fact? He attacked someone. Just because the guy had a bigger club does not mean he should go to prison or even remotely face charges. You assault someone and you lose, how is that person at wrongful fault?

And who is going to be able to assess their attacker's current "weapons layout" while remaining alive and unharmed? The article reports after the fact knowledge.

How can you be responsible for the well-being of an attacker? What? How does that make any sense? Where is the reasoning behind this?

Also, it's not like the average person goes around with an "inventory" of different weapons on them for any situation. You eliminate the threat. Simple as that. Law of the jungle. If you can't handle the heat, get outta the kitchen. If you're going to commit a crime, prepare to serve the time.

People need to be able to defend themselves and the government needs to stay out of it. Stop trying to turn basic survival into a bureaucracy. I'm not placing my life in anyone else's hands but my own. It's my life and I am responsible for it.

And while they do not dispute that Baker feared his attacker had a gun they are angry at the number of shots fired.

'I know that he thought my brother had a gun,' said Dianela Gonzalez, Mustelier's sister.

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

He was hit four times - that's why eight shots were fired. That's 50%; a poor hit ratio for a blind man - but there you have it, that's why Ms. Gonzalez. It would make "no sense" if he up and shot at your brother for no reason. However, your brother decided it was a good idea to grab a buddy then assault and rob a random guy on the street. He began by committing the assault and then was foiled by the man being prepared and defending himself. That's it.

Mr Suarex said that the victim's family are considering filing a civil lawsuit against Baker.

First of all, he was a "criminal" not a "victim". Just because the assault and robbery did not end in his favor does not make him a "victim".

Second of all, if the family actually wins a civil suit against Mr. Baker, the system is fucked. Yes, I know things like that have happened before. Burglars slipping in someone's kitchen and getting stabbed by the knife have successfully sued the homeowners. That is fucking ridiculous. The system is fucked.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. People also need to let others take their own responsibility. You raised a kid who grew up to decide to start a life of crime and it ended before it could really get underway. How is that the fault of Mr. Baker? How are someone else's decisions and actions his responsibility? If Mr. Mustelier hadn't assaulted Mr. Baker, Mr. Baker would not have shot (and subsequently killed) Mr. Mustelier.

 

[Ghostkai]

I don't like how the mugger is refered to as a "victim"...

He made a choice to mug someone that night, he paid for his decision.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Even trained soldiers often empty a magazine into an enemy if they get jumped or shot at. Sitting in a comfy chair, having never been in a situation where you don't know if you'll live to see your family again, it's easy to say what you are saying.

The mugger didn't deserve to die, the guy he was trying to mug didn't deserve to be mugged.
I don't need to be shot at or punched in the face to know that killing isn't a very good answer to something.

It's meant to be the last resort, not the most convenient option.

 

[kickyourass]

While I don't think that the mugger necessarily deserved to DIE, I side with Baker. If two complete strangers come up and attack you, you have a right to defend yourself (Or at least you should).

 

[manaman]

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.

I have often said that I wouldn't hesitate to use lethal force if it was required of me to defend myself. At the same time I would hate to have to use lethal force. I feel like you Baby Tea, I think few, if any, people truly deserve to die, but I already know where I stand if it truly comes down to defending my own or another person's life.

I did want to add, for the people that have noted otherwise, that I don't find four shots to excessive. Not even close. Should the situation ever come up where I have to defend myself I am not going to stop firming until the attacker is down of I have emptied the magazine. With a semi automatic handgun that could easily exceed four rounds fired.

 

[Scolar Visari]

snip

So claiming that it would have been better to aim for an extremity rather than kill an unarmed teen makes me ignorant?

I think I'm done discussing this with you. It's getting annoying to have to keep shouting up to your ivory tower.

Just because my tower is bigger than yours doesn't mean you've got to get testy. But whatever, you're done and I'm cool with that. Good talk, honest.

(P.S. I'll drop the ladder so you can climb up next time)

 

[Evangelion_01]

He had a right to shoot the moron trying to mug him, but he shouldn't have fired eight times into the guy. That was totally unnecessary.

 

[Shuvy]

Frankly the muggers decided to jump someone. In America making that decision involves realizing that the guy could well be armed, and legally, mentally and physically prepared to shoot on sight. It is near impossible they did not realize this. Arguments the guy was asking for it in that he had $500 on him AND the guy was over-prepared are pointless.

By making that choice, these two fools ensured their demise. The shooter's actions are easily defended - he could have panicked given the fact that he emptied the whole clip, missed half the shots despite the obvious implications he knew perfectly well how to use the weapon AND had already been physically assaulted leave him in a morally sound position.

meanwhile, the robbers suggested they where prepared to use lethal force and ambushed the guy. certainly knowing he could have been armed, or at least been prepared to defend himself lethally. Maybe where i come from in Australia it would be morally different - the mugger does not rationally expect to die, and the most the other guy will have is a knife, a very different proposition.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

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.

Did the mugger give the victim the benefit of a warning punch? Or an "excuse me, sir, I'm going to attempt to rob you. Are you comfortable with that?" *rolls eyes*

Right on to the dude for defending himself

 

[Vryyk]

Even trained soldiers often empty a magazine into an enemy if they get jumped or shot at. Sitting in a comfy chair, having never been in a situation where you don't know if you'll live to see your family again, it's easy to say what you are saying.

The mugger didn't deserve to die, the guy he was trying to mug didn't deserve to be mugged.
I don't need to be shot at or punched in the face to know that killing isn't a very good answer to something.

It's meant to be the last resort, not the most convenient option.

Suppose the kid had a concealed knife. It is very likely that a mugger will be armed. Now, if Baker had not shot him, things could have easily resulted in Baker bleeding out on the pavement while the kid ran off with his wallet.

Address my points please.

1. Trained soldiers often act as he did, does this not indicate that such an action may have been a normal reaction when faced with potential grievous harm?

2. Considering the nature of a life and death situation, do you really believe he had time to make a calm and reasonable assessment of how much danger he was in and measure his response accordingly?

 

[Spy_Guy]

-snip-

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.

Now, I live in an area with very restrictive legislation, and I have no actual firearm experience. This is based on hearsay and information I've received from police officers, people with actual experience and information off the Internet.

First of all, I've heard that when you pull a gun on someone you're committing yourself to using lethal force. That may be a tad excessive, but a gun isn't supposed to incapacitate people. It's for killing.

Another thing I've heard is about the Instant Death Bullet (which is a myth), while HP rounds does cause more damage, people can keep attacking even after taking a bullet, due to adrenaline, I hear. Therefore you'll have to shoot until the assailant goes down.
I recall there being a guy walking about with a knife, and he got shot five times by a police officer (in America).

Hollowpoints flatten on impact, and will as such send more force into the target, meaning liquid organs. If you were to use a FMJ round it'd pass through the body and retain enough force to keep going, which will reduce the stopping power significantly, as well as risk hitting something behind the target.

Note that if someone were to walk up to you and punch you in the face, then naturally you'd assume your life was in danger. I certainly would.
So, if one were to have a gun then pull it out, one may even end up in a worse situation if the attacker is able to take it, and assuming one is sufficiently dazed, that shouldn't be too difficult, judging by the distance.
In this case, hesitation may actually kill you.

---------------------

Apart from that, I don't mind seeing the teen get shot. I don't even think it was a waste. In fact, the world is better off without people like him.

Reminds me of the phrase "...and nothing of value was lost."

 

[MartialArc]

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.

Where is this information from? Just doing a bit of simple math, a freefalling bullet would have less than 1/100 of the kinetic energy that a freshly fired one would. I can't imagine that being enough to hurt someone.

I believe that the law against shooting the gun in the air is to prevent shots at angles like 45 degrees, which could maintain horizontal speeds to kill someone a hundred meters away. But straight up in the air? I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll trust the math first.


Also, I'll say this guy is quite unjustified. Okay, maybe he shouldn't go away for 2nd degree murder, but there should be some charge laid against him for shooting someone that punched him in the face. If I'm allowed to shoot someone "because I feel threatened", does that mean that I can open fire on a person who I think is following me down the street? Obviously not; and there was no indication whatsoever that the guy had any weapon. Dude got punched in the face, and opened fire. Yes, I'd probably freak out too, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't answer for the consequences; he knows that he's carrying a firearm.

And for everyone saying that the kid deserved to die? You're the real scum of the earth. Firstly, nobody deserves to die period. Secondly, there are people far higher on the list than kids who mug nighttime joggers. And I'm quite sorry that you didn't grow up in the kind of situation that would make you susceptible to leading such a life. It's not like they're born and decide halfway through their life that they're going to start mugging people. Read a social science textbook, for fuck's sake.

I did the math and the round would be traveling about 80m/s at impact assuming it was fired straight up. Straight out of the gun it travels at about 300m/s. I'm pretty sure an 80m/s lead ball to the head is not gonna feel very good. This assumes a round bullet and a 165gr. load with a muzzle velocity of 320m/s and a drag-coefficient of .47(which is for a smooth sphere).

The air-drag is the main factor here, so whether its fired like an artillery piece at a 45 or straight up the speed of the projectile when it hits the ground will be pretty close to that number. Basic physics tells us that in a vaccuum it would hit the ground at the same speed with which it was fired upwards. Obviously the velocity component of kinetic energy is squared, so much energy is lost. It's not a whole lot of energy from the falling projectile, but you do realize that energy isn't really what makes a gun lethal. An entire magazine expends less energy than you release rolling out of bed.