Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Romblen]

Sounds like he deserved it, if you're being assaulted, you have no reason to believe that they're going to stop. If you wait to see if they are going to stop, it might be too late to defend yourself. I don't really care if he was young, he was old enough to know that you shouldn't just assault somebody with no justification.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

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)

Are you serious? Get over yourself.

 

[alfrodul]

Justified, 100%.

And dear sweet gods... apparently there's a lot of people who forget that most of what comes out of Hollyweird is neither a documentary nor particularly educational.

As others have said:

1) Hollow-points aren't for maximum damage, they're actually BAD FOR YOUR GUN. Real gun owners only load them if they're concerned about the possibility of the bullet passing through the bad guy and continuing on into an innocent bystander. If you think the reason for loading hollow-points is greater damage, you're an idiot and need to remember that Hollywood is not in the business of education.

2) A laser-sight isn't a bad idea if you're concerned about accuracy. Considering this guy was licensed, is training to go into the military, and yet only managed 50% even though he was at arms' length, he needed all the help he could get in this case.

3) POLICE OFFICERS who spend regular days at the shooting range firing hundreds, if not thousands, of rounds into a target don't do anything other than shoot to kill. Center of mass even with rifles which are far more accurate than handguns. Even if he hit an arm or leg, a gunshot that hits the femoral or brachial arteries will kill you just as dead as a shot to the torso. You'll bleed to death long before the ambulance arrives.

4) He was attacked at night by MULTIPLE BAD GUYS. Only a moron, a suicide candidate, a seriously committed pacifist, or a Darwin Award contender would respond with less-than-deadly force and only an exceedingly bad and corrupt government would condemn a citizen for defending himself.

5) Pistol-whipping? Seriously? First, that only works in movies. In real life, severe blunt-force trauma to the HEAD is still life-threatening, if you're unconscious for more than about three minutes, iirc, you're probably not waking up. Also, even for it to work, you usually have to be behind an UNSUSPECTING VICTIM. Otherwise his arms are likely to get in the way and you're just as likely to aggravate the BAD GUY and risk him getting control of your gun and shooting you. Pistol-whipping is not used in SELF-DEFENSE, it's used by the BAD GUYS. And they're not afraid of hurting you, they're afraid of the noise of shooting you drawing attention and someone coming and trying to hurt THEM.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

BTW, yes the teen deserved to die. He when he decided to attack Baker, he decided to take upon all consequences. Be that successfully stealing his money, going to jail, or having Baker turn the tables on him.

If I'm out late at night and someone attacks me, I think it's safe to assume their a sociopath of the worst kind that just wants to kill me for the Lulz.

 

[Grey_Focks]

People are really siding with the mugger? I'm glad to see they are in the vast minority, but come the fuck on. The mugger was in the process of committing a violent crime, Baker had no possible way of knowing if they were intending on just taking his stuff, or possibly killing him. He had a way to defend himself, he used it. I'm not saying the kid deserved to die, but what was Baker supposed to do, curl up and hope they would let him live?

BTW, "firing to wound" is just plain impossible, as any bullet wound can be lethal, especially shots to the leg. As for a warning shot? These guys got the jump on him, they struck first, he was dazed and partially blinded, I really don't think a warning shot would've saved him. There's no way of knowing how things would have played out if he would have done something differently, but what we do know is that his actions saved him, and killed one of his attackers.

 

[soulsabr]

...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.

I see nothing wrong with that. Imagine yourself in Baker's shoes. If you read the article he said his vision was blurred. He probably had no idea, at least for a minute, if he'd hit the guy. Heck, I would have kept firing, too. However, if the mugger had already been shot and on the ground and Baker got up and put a round in him THEN I would say it was excessive.

I hope the judge throws out the civil case against baker.

 

[Sebenko]

I think death was a little extreme, but I'm siding with Baker. Someone attacked him, he fought back and won.

 

[Vryyk]

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?

If you have a nice TV and leave your door unlocked at night, by that logic I now have the right to come in, beat you unconscious, and take said TV. Because you would clearly be asking for it. Mind you while I would be beating you unconscious, if you were to try and defend yourself in any way I deem excessive (pulling a knife or a gun) then you would be in the wrong.

 

[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.

How could he tell how many he needed to shoot given the situation? It's dark and he's dazed from the punch.

Well they were hollow point bullets. They DESTROY people.

Even if he couldn't see the effect on the target I think it's pretty clear it doesn't take 8 hits to down a mugger.

 

[Scolar Visari]

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)

Are you serious? Get over yourself.

Nothing more than a playfull parting jab. You said you were done and I'm cool with that. I don't press people when they don't want to talk.

Just trying to inject a little humor into the situation.

 

[MartialArc]

snip

I see nothing wrong with that. Imagine yourself in Baker's shoes. If you read the article he said his vision was blurred. He probably had no idea, at least for a minute, if he'd hit the guy. Heck, I would have kept firing, too. However, if the mugger had already been shot and on the ground and Baker got up and put a round in him THEN I would say it was excessive.

I hope the judge throws out the civil case against baker.

The being on the ground thing is pretty much what excessive force would mean. Say he shoots the first 4 shots, the kid starts running, and then he nails him 4 times in the back. That would be excessive. I'm guessing that since this isn't going to trial an autopsy had already come back and all 4 hits were placed on the front of the kid, and about how you'd expect from a situation in which a guy pulls a gun after being clocked.

I think its funny that folks consider pulling the gun the excessive force bit. It seems to be that hitting someone else on the street whom isn't doing anything of danger to you is pretty excessive force for the situation.

 

[ComicsAreWeird]

i cant really judge based on such limited info. It´s truly tragic,since the punishment doesnt fit the crime...but i can understand that Baker only did what he could to ensure his survival.

 

[MartialArc]

Please read one of the many many many posts explaining why you would shoot until someone falls and not count shots before saying anything that sounds like "whai so many shotz." Seriously.

About 10 folks have countered that argument on this thread alone. If your gonna claim its too many then you had really ought to say something to counter what they said.

 

[XT inc]

With one life to live and only one life to live your options are limited. I mean to quote mike Tyson "everyone's got a plan until they get punched in the mouth". Your calm cool attitude, to pull out your c&c handgun and scare someone encroaching on you is one thing. Some crazy fuck rushes you and beats you in the mouth and you have no Idea what is going to happen.

Realistically if you want to live you'd more or less burn the world down to keep your last breath, there isn't time to go oh this guy is going to beat the fuck out of me, and then go on his merry way. I'm willing to bet that he was even more scared knowing the kid could get his gun, so In a way he was fully in the right, to stop violence upon himself.

The question the "victim's" sister charges with "how do you shoot 8 times in self defense," this was no assassination, he was rattled, scared, beaten about the face, and probably scared for his life I would have to take a reasonable guess that his aim would have been way off and he wanted to be assured his safety. It may be cruel, but unless there are new developments, I don't think the family should get a dime out of the shooter. Save your own ass and you get sued for life.

 

[Logic 0]

Ugh, this just makes the gun issue even more complicated.

And baker did have the right to defend himself from people making stupid calls.

 

[Magicman10893]

Considering that when someone's life is in danger, they don't realize how many times they pull the trigger. I saw several security tapes of a convenience store clerks that pulled a gun on a robber and fired the entire magazine without realizing it.

 

[nothinghere]

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?

If you have a nice TV and leave your door unlocked at night, by that logic I now have the right to come in, beat you unconscious, and take said TV. Because you would clearly be asking for it. Mind you while I would be beating you unconscious, if you were to try and defend yourself in any way I deem excessive (pulling a knife or a gun) then you would be in the wrong.

I was never trying to say the mugger had any right to attack him, just that its kinda weird he brings a wad of cash with him and then later say he only planned on just a late night run. Just seemed a bit weird to me, I guess nn emergency could call for some money but 500$ is still a bit much. Guess I should've given it more thought before posting though.