Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Sparcrypt]

With his lip cut and suffering blurred vision he said he pulled out a handgun that was fitted with a laser sight and fired eight times.
Mustelier was hit four times with hollow pointed bullets fired from the .45calibre weapon.

Bit of an overreaction, don't you think?
I don't think it's what I'd do

No, it's not - this kind of situation is not like the movies. When you are being attacked you aren't likely to do anything other then keep shooting till the gun goes click.

Assuming the guy actually feared for his life, what he did was pretty much what ANYONE would do - panic and keep firing until you realise you're safe.

The kid tried to mug him with full intent of knocking him out, injuring him and causing him great mental anguish and probably loss of his confidence to defend himself. He picked someone who was ready and willing to defend themselves and ended up dead.

I would have prefered the kid not to be killed, but it's still his own fault that he's dead.

 

[Partezan]

The problem with defending yourself like this is that yes, one guy will get away with it but then the criminals will smarten up and instead of asking you for money just shoot you on sight and then get the money, and who has the upper hand, a guy who is just jogging or someone who knows they are going to kill you and have the element of suprize

my 2 cents

 

[Kastiel]

He most likely didn't fire 8 shots with the expectation for each bullet to hit his target, let alone be lethal. He most likely panicked and took the first action that came to his mind, which was, in my opinion, a reasonable thing to do.

 

[wkrepelin]

I don't think it's as simple as you put it OP but I do believe than any individual has the right to protect their person and that the shooting was justifiable self defense. Still . . . that poor, stupid, kid lost his life over a moment of impulse and the poor foresight of youth. It's really quite sad.

 

[muffincakes]

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.

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.

It was more than reasonable.

And don't forget, at least for those of us who actually read the article, after being punched in the face he couldn't see straight. Anybody with a brain can understand that he shot eight times because he could hardly see and had no idea if he hit the guy or not, or if they were doing anything in return.

It's sad when the article is right there and people still try to make stuff up about how things happened.

 

[wulfy42]

Um, I've been jumped a few times in my life and you don't have time to think "Hmm, what is the least damaging way I can get these people to stop pounding on me". You react. When I was jumped I didn't have a gun and used the martial arts I did know to throw one of my attackers into another and take off.....I even made sure they were in between me and the limo that they had gotten out of (it was a group of about 8 men) in case someone had a gun in the car.

Nothing about Baker says he was trained to handle situations like this or had the ability to think calmly while being attacked. He was running on adrenaline and reacting to a direct danger to himself and while I am actually against guns (especially having them be so easy to get) in this case I believe it was a good thing Baker had a gun.

If you attack someone out of the blue and don't give them any idea what your intent is....then expect them to resist with anything they have at their disposal. Expect them to be scared out of their freaking minds and desperate to stop you from attacking them. Desperation means that you can easily get killed, and in this case that is what happened.

I don't feel sorry for the kid, I feel sorry for Baker as he now has to deal with killing a kid....and he does not deserve that at all. The only person at fault her were the thugs that attacked him and more then likely would not have felt bad about killing Baker. Meanwhile Baker who as far as we know at least is a nice person (or at least not a monster) probably feels pretty bad about killing someone.

Is it sad the kid died? Yes.

But I suggest it is even worse that Baker was put in that situation and is going to have to live with the consequences of his actions (actions which he did not instigate at all).

I really hope he is not charged in any way for this.

 

[SlasherX]

I fucking love how this site has so damn much common sense, the overwhelming majority said he was right and I love them for it if only the whole world had this much common sense

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

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.

Accuracy isn't important in defending oneself with a gun?

And 8 shots seems reasonable if you're dazed and it's dark. Might not be so easy to tell if you hit him unless he falls over or something.

If he was punched in the face I think that's close enough that you need a laser sight.

Firstly, that would have to be one hell of a punch considering the mugger was 16 and the jogger is 28 and wanting to go into the military.

Secondly, I hardly beleive that there is any reason for anyone to need a laser sight on their gun for self defence. Laser sights aren't for close quarters shooting like that. Hell, the mugger was killed at pretty much point blank range.

Seriously 8 shots is excessive no matter how you put it.

 

[Chronarch]

Baker was in the right. If someone attacks you and you have the means to defend yourself then that's what you should do. It's not like he could risk a warning shot or anything. From what I can tell he would have been close to the mugger. Therefore, a warning shot would have risked getting his gun taken away and that's generally bad. Plus after you've been hit once it's more about surviving than having faith in the fact that you can scare the criminal away.

 

[TriggerOnly]

No and this is why.....

1 you go jogging affter midnight with a gun

2 you get hit ONE time in the face

3 the action you take is to SHOOT the person not RUN or THREATEN with the gun

I say bs he wanted to get attacked he wanted it to end that way, and i get the feeling his ether regreating it (dought it) or his loving it....

 

[Godhead]

Even though it's a sad thing, Baker had the right to open fire on the mugger. And while 8 shots does seem excessive, it probably wasn't. Keep shooting until it stops moving goes a long way for you.

 

[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.

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.

You would think that the mugger would've pulled out a waepon if he had one. And blurry vision or not he was punched in the face, not threatened with a knife or gun. This 28 year military hopeful should be able to take down a 16 kid.

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.

So you're saying that people who panic and use excessive force to defend themselves should just be immune to crime? I'm sorry but this is excatly why they train police officers with guns the way they do. So that they don't panic. 4 shots hit the mugger. The other 4 shots could have become stray bullets that killed an innocent person in their home. Maybe they should train people who apply for concealed weapoons liscences. Killing should be a last resort even if the other person threatens you.

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

But the article never mentioned him aiming at the other kid. In fact the article stated that the other kid was already running as soon as the gun was shown, but saw the laser sight on his friend's chest.

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

It's not hard to grasp. Excessive shots were used, end of story. The family is most likely going to win their civil suit based on how quickly this guy got in and out of court. It's almost like there wasn't much of an investigation.

 

[soulsabr]

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.

Well, the autopsy probably hadn't come back. I think it was a judgement call by the police in this situation. If it came back and he had shot the mugger while he was fleeing they can always go get him.

I agree with you on the second paragraph. They tend to forget that they have all of the time in the world to make a judgment call.

 

[macfluffers]

No and this is why.....

1 you go jogging affter midnight with a gun

2 you get hit ONE time in the face

3 the action you take is to SHOOT the person not RUN or THREATEN with the gun

I say bs he wanted to get attacked he wanted it to end that way, and i get the feeling his ether regreating it (dought it) or his loving it....

Maybe it was poor judgement on his part, but when you think about it, the worst you're accusing him of is vigilantism. Since he didn't provoke the attack, no one can say that he was trying to entrap the muggers...

By the way, I think it's bad to make such a judgement of his character. You don't know what was going through his mind when he drew and used his weapon.