Baker was right. He had full rights to defend himself. However, he shouldn't have shot the muggers so many times.(sorry that I'm repeating many peoples opinions, but I agree with them).
Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man
- Thread starter RamirezDoEverything
- Start date
during the Middle Ages, if a man robbed, he had his hand cut, if he robbed again, the other hand was cut too. in the end, he wouldn't even be able to rob ever again.RamirezDoEverything said:
MUHAHAHAHAHA !
Oh, I see. I think the reason he had the cash is that he was jogging back from fixing a car. I usually have like 800 in cash in my wallet though (my card works so rarely :[ ) so maybe he just likes cash. Either way though, "she was asking for it, dressing like that" is a horrible defense.bruein said:
On point 1: Personality does play a role in reactions; we don't all fall back to the same baseline response.Vryyk said:
People interested in fighting might be more aggressive when surprised, where as another type of person might be more inclined to threaten before initiating full-retaliation for aggression.
So, what that does indicate to me is that this is a normal reaction (for people with the type of personality that suits them to being fighters).
On point 2: I'm honestly not sure; people have different reactions to that chemical cocktail our bodies drop when surprised.
Though, from what I've read about the situation, it would seem once he pulled that gun out he had control of the situation... and whilst it does take a while for the cocktail inside of you to go away, I think having the drop on the kid with a gun should've maybe given him a second to think "okay, I'll scare him away".
You see, my honest to goodness reaction in a fight is to make the other person think/know I have more prowess in combat than them and that they should go away for their own safety.
Which is why I don't get why this guy didn't yell "stop" whilst pointing the gun at the mugger in this scenario; but that's me stuck in my own head, I can't enter anyone else's head.
You should be sorry for ignoring the multitude of posts explaining why you would shoot that many times, as should everyone else who posted something along these lines after about the third dude explained it.xXx5Niq3rzxXx said:
If you disagree with what any of these 10 or so folks explained, argue that instead of just repeating one stupid point that's already been rebutted.
If someone tries to mug me, I'm going to assume that they place no value on my life and will assume they are packing like a Rambo cosplayer. The thing is, I am packing (legally) and they will soon be suffering from lead poisoning and make sure that they are dead so they can't sue me and say that the reason they attacked me is because their mommy didn't hug them enough and turn themselves into the victim and make me into the villain.
tl;dr One less future career criminal running the streets and crowding up jails for the state to pay for.
tl;dr One less future career criminal running the streets and crowding up jails for the state to pay for.
Of course, the best case scenario would have been if he took them under citizen's arrest, but we shouldn't hold him to too high of a standard. He was outnumbered and taken by surprise, so 8 shots with a 50% hit rate isn't crazy.
Also, it should be mentioned that a single shot to the leg could have lead to his death easily if it hit the wrong artery, which is why you should always shoot to kill. Shooting to disable is very possible, but it's a lot more difficult than people realize, and it's not worth the effort if you're shooting defensively.
PS- For all the talk about how he was excessive he was, I think that the duo was lucky. If it were me, I would've freaked out and shot both of them.
Also, it should be mentioned that a single shot to the leg could have lead to his death easily if it hit the wrong artery, which is why you should always shoot to kill. Shooting to disable is very possible, but it's a lot more difficult than people realize, and it's not worth the effort if you're shooting defensively.
PS- For all the talk about how he was excessive he was, I think that the duo was lucky. If it were me, I would've freaked out and shot both of them.
Honestly, people that take your stance are the sick reflection of society. I'll give you a tip: life is violent, and it's not something that is about to change anytime soon. People like you are the ones that put men in prison for defending their homes and families, or suing them for their entire livelihood when a burglar breaks in and gets bit by the homeowner's dog.Trildor said:
A man who cannot, or will not defend himself is nothing but a victim waiting to be taken advantage of. Further, a man who relies completely on the police, the state, or the government to protect him is not a man at all.
it says he shot eight bullets and four of them hit. to me that means they were fighting as it happened or the kid attempted to flee and the guy continued to shoot him multiple times. forensics will probably have that answer at some point in time.Daystar Clarion said:
If he were armed, he'd take out his weapons before even coming up to attack me. Even so, I'd at least not shoot him 8 times and shoot him once in the foot. He's just after my wallet, I shouldn't take his life to defend something as insignificant as a wallet.Swollen Goat said:
I am against the widespread amount of guns in the US.
I am against death sentence.
I am against sales of fully automatic weapons to civilians.
Still, I believe Baker did the right thing.
He was attacked by night. Assaulted. This could have resulted in death (and have, on many occasions, even it may not have been the intent of the assailant).
With a blurred vision, fearing for his life, he pulled his gun and emptied his gun at the assailant that struck him. No one in the same sitution would have fired only one shot, unless they had clear visibility, and full knowledge that there was only one assailant.
Baker did not kill the assailant and continued to fire. He emptied his clip (which could have taken about four seconds) at the assailant, who fell. He was not dead, but dying. Baker called 911, and stayed with the dying assailant.
Had Baker been in cover, with a clear view of the assailant, and the assailant had been alone, and not in cover, the number of shots could have been a point of questioning. This was not the case.
The assailant died, which was a tragedy.
The outcome could have been better.
The outcome could also have been much worse.
The family wants to file a lawsuit, because they are in huge grief about loosing a loved one. When loosing a family member, it's hard to see their bad sides. The family understandably wants to feel that the loss of a loved one is punished, and have a hard time taking in the reality of the matter.
Tragic consequenses doesn't always have someone you can blame, even though it might feel that way. The only one to blame in this incident is the assailant, -and possibly, the gun laws in the United States.
I am against death sentence.
I am against sales of fully automatic weapons to civilians.
Still, I believe Baker did the right thing.
He was attacked by night. Assaulted. This could have resulted in death (and have, on many occasions, even it may not have been the intent of the assailant).
With a blurred vision, fearing for his life, he pulled his gun and emptied his gun at the assailant that struck him. No one in the same sitution would have fired only one shot, unless they had clear visibility, and full knowledge that there was only one assailant.
Baker did not kill the assailant and continued to fire. He emptied his clip (which could have taken about four seconds) at the assailant, who fell. He was not dead, but dying. Baker called 911, and stayed with the dying assailant.
Had Baker been in cover, with a clear view of the assailant, and the assailant had been alone, and not in cover, the number of shots could have been a point of questioning. This was not the case.
The assailant died, which was a tragedy.
The outcome could have been better.
The outcome could also have been much worse.
The family wants to file a lawsuit, because they are in huge grief about loosing a loved one. When loosing a family member, it's hard to see their bad sides. The family understandably wants to feel that the loss of a loved one is punished, and have a hard time taking in the reality of the matter.
Tragic consequenses doesn't always have someone you can blame, even though it might feel that way. The only one to blame in this incident is the assailant, -and possibly, the gun laws in the United States.
He shot at him 8 times, hit 4. For the 200th time. If you feel comfortable trusting a mugger not to kill you then just lay down on the street the next time someone pounces on you in a blind alley. For your sake I hope they are after just your wallet and you are not severely hurt. If the thought of pulling a gun not to fire it even seems reasonable to you then you should not carry one and your best bet probably is to turtle up.Ldude893 said:
Pulling a gun just to "scare" someone when they're already in STRIKING RANGE is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. If you have an opportunity to draw just to scare someone you should have taken some other course of action than to draw.
