Also, why is the word mugger written as 'mugger' in the article? Does the journalist try to imply that Carlos Mustelier only pretended to rob someone?
Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man
- Thread starter RamirezDoEverything
- Start date
I believe the correct term is "socially disadvantaged person, whom is only forced to try to feed himself by means of mugging random joggers in the street due to the oppressive nature of society and many coincidences well beyond his control"Marius Speider said:
Just 4 shots man I can say I would not shown that level of restraint and coolness I would have panicked and unloaded the clip in to both of them.
If a guy comes out of nowhere, punches you in the face, and he and his buddy are trying to mug you, you have every right to empty your entire damned gun on them.
Shooter is completely in the right. Don't wanna get shot? Don't be a dipshit and start stuff.
Shooter is completely in the right. Don't wanna get shot? Don't be a dipshit and start stuff.
I think he was fully within his right, and am glad he's not being charged.
I'm sorry, but if anyone brings violence upon your person, they're no longer entitled to their rights of safety. You, meanwhile, are entitled to your right to self defense.
Besides, this guy got quite lucky, too - he was blinded by the attack. For all he knew, the other attacker might've had a gun on him; he's lucky the other kid didn't and ran . . . he might not have lived to tell this tale.
The real BS is how the survivors of the deceased will be allowed to file a civil lawsuit against someone who was fully within their rights. That will waste countless hours of this man's life, if not countless thousands of dollars in attorney fees - not to mention the guilt he's probably facing as a result of this little incident, which he never asked for in the first place.
I mean, c'mon, the guy called police and stayed with the kid he shot until police showed up. He didn't make any attempt to leave the scene, even though he could very well have been fearful of being attacked again. I highly doubt after emptying 8 rounds he had another magazine on him.
I'm sorry, but if anyone brings violence upon your person, they're no longer entitled to their rights of safety. You, meanwhile, are entitled to your right to self defense.
Besides, this guy got quite lucky, too - he was blinded by the attack. For all he knew, the other attacker might've had a gun on him; he's lucky the other kid didn't and ran . . . he might not have lived to tell this tale.
The real BS is how the survivors of the deceased will be allowed to file a civil lawsuit against someone who was fully within their rights. That will waste countless hours of this man's life, if not countless thousands of dollars in attorney fees - not to mention the guilt he's probably facing as a result of this little incident, which he never asked for in the first place.
I mean, c'mon, the guy called police and stayed with the kid he shot until police showed up. He didn't make any attempt to leave the scene, even though he could very well have been fearful of being attacked again. I highly doubt after emptying 8 rounds he had another magazine on him.
I think Baker was right to shoot (though 8 times? really? at 4-6 you'd probably have realised you'd hit them and wouldn't be in such a 'blind panic so let's shoot everything' state of mind). However, contrary to what most people in thsi thread probably feel, the dead teen did not deserve it. No-one deserves to die[footnote]Then again, I view 'deserve' in a way I think most people don't[/footnote], and very few people are better off dead (unarmed, mugging teenagers not being among them).
So yeah, the feeling of threat to Baker's life was such taht he was in the right to defend himself (and his vision was blurry, so killing the teenager as opposed to incapacitating is understandable), but whenever you hurt someone else, it should always be to the minimum extreme possible that still serves your purpose (in this case, the purpose was for Baker to save his own life, which could have been accomplished with a single, non-fatal, successful hit to one of the teenagers).
So yeah, the feeling of threat to Baker's life was such taht he was in the right to defend himself (and his vision was blurry, so killing the teenager as opposed to incapacitating is understandable), but whenever you hurt someone else, it should always be to the minimum extreme possible that still serves your purpose (in this case, the purpose was for Baker to save his own life, which could have been accomplished with a single, non-fatal, successful hit to one of the teenagers).
i feel no sympathy for a criminal who gets killed while committing a crime. Good on Baker for disposing of a criminal.
![[Gavo]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/33/33764.jpg?1620201950){kind=avatar}
I would say the mugger got what he deserved. When people make up their minds to break the law in such a way, they are taking their lives into their own hands. He likely knew that one of his victims could have been armed (somewhere along the line anyway). The whole idea of conceled carry is to deter this sort of thing. I would call this natural selection more than anything else.
I had someone try to mug me once... It didn't work out too well for him.
The moral of the story: Don't go around trying to mug people. They may fight back and kill you.
I had someone try to mug me once... It didn't work out too well for him.
The moral of the story: Don't go around trying to mug people. They may fight back and kill you.
I'm not sure is this has been posted yet, but http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.257862-Things-You-Might-Incorrectly-Believe-About-Guns. I think almost everyone here should read this, because it is representative of proper education on how to handle firearms in this type of situation.
The shooter's actions weren't "right" in the sense of being the most morally praiseworthy actions he could have committed, but they weren't "wrong" in the sense of being the most morally blameworthy actions he could have committed, either. For example, it would have been better for the shooter to have found a way to spare the mugger's life; however, it would have been much, much worse for the shooter to first incapacitate the mugger and then shoot him in cold blood.
He was totally justified, although I feel for the kid.
Regardless, the shooter shouldn't be penalized for self defense.
Regardless, the shooter shouldn't be penalized for self defense.
The kid didn't deserve to die in his defense... But i'm siding with Baker's response, no one really deserves to die hell people who have done next to nothing in life die and don't deserve to be killed but if you attack someone you have to realize there's a chance that they'll hit you back and that you could get killed. If u don't want someone to shoot you... don't punch them in the face.
Man, so many armchair generals to be found whenever a thread about firearms pops up... let me address some of the more common pleas against what Baker did to defend himself in this situation.
"Why didn't he just punch back / kick / execute some ninjutsu?" How do we know Mustelier wasn't twice Baker's size? Imagine if Baker had taken a swing and hit Mustelier, with the only effect being to piss him off. That's not a smart idea when up against someone already showing a willingness to harm you.
"Why didn't he fire a warning shot?" You want a bullet flying in some random direction and possibly hitting an innocent person a quarter-mile away? Warning shots are for the military and the movies.
"Why didn't he just say he had a gun / brandish his weapon threateningly?" And risk Mustelier taking it from him? Then you have a known hostile person with a handgun.
"Why didn't he just shoot for the leg / arm?" For one, shooting someone in the leg or arm is NOT guaranteed non-lethal- far from it, in fact. The brachial (arm) and femoral (leg) arteries are quite large, and severing any of them can lead to a death from blood loss inside of a couple of minutes. That aside, Baker managed only 50% accuracy aiming for center mass- which any trained shooter will tell you is respectable under those conditions- and people are expecting him to pull off "trick shots" that would be difficult in a non-stressful situation?
"Why didn't he just shoot once?" Any respectable firearms training course teaches shooters one of two tactics- either three rounds to the upper chest, or two rounds to the chest followed by one between the eyebrows. Baker very likely panicked and emptied the magazine- not wise, but not unexpected in that kind of situation. And again, if he'd missed that one shot and Mustelier had taken the weapon....
"Why didn't he use a tazer?" What if the tazer hadn't penetrated Mustelier's clothing? Possible if it was a cold night and he was wearing thick clothing. Then we're back at the "pissed off mugger versus defenseless jogger" situation.
In short: Mustelier attacked an innocent man, and that man defended himself against what he perceived to be a significant threat to his life and well-being. Did Mustelier deserve to die? It takes a lot for me to think someone deserves to die. But he was not some innocent party either; Baker didn't come hunting him down in an alley to gun him down. I'm curious as to what some of these "he had no right to shoot" people would have thought if Baker had been unarmed and Mustelier, after robbing him, decided he didn't want to leave a witness. "He should have called the cops while his skull was being shattered against a curb"?
"Why didn't he just punch back / kick / execute some ninjutsu?" How do we know Mustelier wasn't twice Baker's size? Imagine if Baker had taken a swing and hit Mustelier, with the only effect being to piss him off. That's not a smart idea when up against someone already showing a willingness to harm you.
"Why didn't he fire a warning shot?" You want a bullet flying in some random direction and possibly hitting an innocent person a quarter-mile away? Warning shots are for the military and the movies.
"Why didn't he just say he had a gun / brandish his weapon threateningly?" And risk Mustelier taking it from him? Then you have a known hostile person with a handgun.
"Why didn't he just shoot for the leg / arm?" For one, shooting someone in the leg or arm is NOT guaranteed non-lethal- far from it, in fact. The brachial (arm) and femoral (leg) arteries are quite large, and severing any of them can lead to a death from blood loss inside of a couple of minutes. That aside, Baker managed only 50% accuracy aiming for center mass- which any trained shooter will tell you is respectable under those conditions- and people are expecting him to pull off "trick shots" that would be difficult in a non-stressful situation?
"Why didn't he just shoot once?" Any respectable firearms training course teaches shooters one of two tactics- either three rounds to the upper chest, or two rounds to the chest followed by one between the eyebrows. Baker very likely panicked and emptied the magazine- not wise, but not unexpected in that kind of situation. And again, if he'd missed that one shot and Mustelier had taken the weapon....
"Why didn't he use a tazer?" What if the tazer hadn't penetrated Mustelier's clothing? Possible if it was a cold night and he was wearing thick clothing. Then we're back at the "pissed off mugger versus defenseless jogger" situation.
In short: Mustelier attacked an innocent man, and that man defended himself against what he perceived to be a significant threat to his life and well-being. Did Mustelier deserve to die? It takes a lot for me to think someone deserves to die. But he was not some innocent party either; Baker didn't come hunting him down in an alley to gun him down. I'm curious as to what some of these "he had no right to shoot" people would have thought if Baker had been unarmed and Mustelier, after robbing him, decided he didn't want to leave a witness. "He should have called the cops while his skull was being shattered against a curb"?
8 shots isn't self defence.
Also, I don't think being mugged qualifies as "reasonable" belief he would die - and risking killing someone over valuables is generally not seen as proportionate or necessary. Not when he saw no weapon (sorry about the double negative).
So I would say he was wrong. And would hope he would be put in jail if it happened in here in the UK - which he probably would. It isn't like he shot to miss as a warning and accidently killed them - he shot to kill.
It is understandable, but I don't think you should be allowed to do that kind of thing.
Also, I don't think being mugged qualifies as "reasonable" belief he would die - and risking killing someone over valuables is generally not seen as proportionate or necessary. Not when he saw no weapon (sorry about the double negative).
So I would say he was wrong. And would hope he would be put in jail if it happened in here in the UK - which he probably would. It isn't like he shot to miss as a warning and accidently killed them - he shot to kill.
It is understandable, but I don't think you should be allowed to do that kind of thing.
The guy came out of nowhere with a buddy in the middle of the night, punched him in the face; without any demands, no words saying that he was after his money.madmatt said:
It was more than reasonable.