Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man
- Thread starter RamirezDoEverything
- Start date
um just wana point out my northern friend that the state right below you has some..... interesting laws when it comes to firearms and we seem to get along quite well. I fully support the shooter he was attacked and as is his right he defended himself with what he had. Am i sad it came to that? Yes reguardless of the situation a loss of a young life is always sad and i feel even worse for Baker he just took a human life that shit stays with you, always. (BTW the reason he probily fired 4 times is something called panic shooting. You shoot multiple times whiule thinking you fired once.)Jamboxdotcom said:
If I was in that situation I would shoot. It's either me or him and it sure as shit isn't going to be me. He didn't deserve death, but when you mug someone you whatever comes your way is justifiable, whether it results in death or not.
hollow points are designed to inflict maximum tissue damage and maximum shock. they can still pass all the way through a body (in fact they usually do, leaving a huge exit wound). basically, hollow points are designed for maximum stopping-power, which really means maximum lethality.tippy2k2 said:
This "couple of kids" were capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm. This wasn't some guy shooting a ten-year-old for throwing a water balloon at him.Girl With One Eye said:
If you're being attacked and you try to fire a warning shot, it gives your attackers time to possibly take your weapon away. Since he'd already been hit, it's obvious that the attackers were close enough to make a grab for the weapon.
As for eight shots fired: I suspect that he may have emptied the gun's clip due to being alone, terrified, and getting beaten by two total strangers at night. I doubt he had time to make a carefully considered, conscious decision, and I'm sure there were a number of options that were clearer to him in hindsight.
The kid chose assaulting people and robbing them as a hobby, and he discovered that it can be a dangerous way to spend your time. I have no sympathy for him. None whatsoever.
It's a shame that the kid died, but this kind of stuff happens when you decided to mug someone. I can understand that the guy who fired the gun was probably freaked out during the event too.
*Reads article*
He's in the right. I wouldn't have started firing ASAP and would have at least warned them with it, then, if continued, light them up. But, it was in a split-second so I cannot blame him. Most of you would probably do similar.
Though, 8 Times? A little excessive but, he didn't know what was happening with having just been assaulted and you typically are trained to fire until the target is "neutralized", so, justified.
Still kind of a shame at the loss of life but, he did mug him knowing what could happen... but still... ehh.
He's in the right. I wouldn't have started firing ASAP and would have at least warned them with it, then, if continued, light them up. But, it was in a split-second so I cannot blame him. Most of you would probably do similar.
Though, 8 Times? A little excessive but, he didn't know what was happening with having just been assaulted and you typically are trained to fire until the target is "neutralized", so, justified.
Still kind of a shame at the loss of life but, he did mug him knowing what could happen... but still... ehh.
Is it just me or was their a shoot to wound sought of thing that you were meant to do?, I mean I understand maybe two shots at the guy would stop the mugger but 4 shots seams to be a bit overkill....
but I guess I am in favour for the shooter, but he should of shot to wound and not to kill....then kill....and kill again....
but I guess I am in favour for the shooter, but he should of shot to wound and not to kill....then kill....and kill again....
I think Baker was in the right to shoot those kids. I don't think he should have fired 8 times. I don't think he should have loaded his weapon with hollow point rounds, a round designed to inflict maximum bodily damage to un-armoured targets.
It's a shame the kid died, he didn't deserve it.
It's a shame the kid died, he didn't deserve it.
People being shocked that he shot 8 times should note, he probably completly shit himself. It wouldnt have taken him long to unload 8 shots.
For all you saying "I would've fired a warning shot", would you? When you get randomly assaulted or mugged (which is one of the scariest things in the world), you tend to lose your senses and go into survival mode.
It would've been better to shot the kid in the leg, or fired a shot in the air, but he most likely lost his nerve after being punched in the face and unloaded in sheer fear.
I'd like to think if I was in his shoes at the time I'd have fired a warning shot, but most likely I'd have just taken a random shot or two, perhaps more.
Baker was right and the courts were right.
For all you saying "I would've fired a warning shot", would you? When you get randomly assaulted or mugged (which is one of the scariest things in the world), you tend to lose your senses and go into survival mode.
It would've been better to shot the kid in the leg, or fired a shot in the air, but he most likely lost his nerve after being punched in the face and unloaded in sheer fear.
I'd like to think if I was in his shoes at the time I'd have fired a warning shot, but most likely I'd have just taken a random shot or two, perhaps more.
Baker was right and the courts were right.
People are looking at the "eight shots fired" the wrong way, and are assuming there was alot of distance between the offender and the defendee. There wasn't. This was a clear cut cas of close quarters combat, the defendee was hit in the face and was probably about to recieve another.
During this time a person doesn't think: gee, he might go away if I fire a warning shot. If they try that the person usually gets disarmed and the weapon falls into the hands of the offender - who is now scared out of there minds and acts accordingly.
While I wish there were other alternatives and that there were no fatalities, I see no wrongdoing on the defender's part here. It wasn't his choice to get mugged, it was the other kid's, plain and simple. People have to live with there choices, or in this case, die with them.
During this time a person doesn't think: gee, he might go away if I fire a warning shot. If they try that the person usually gets disarmed and the weapon falls into the hands of the offender - who is now scared out of there minds and acts accordingly.
While I wish there were other alternatives and that there were no fatalities, I see no wrongdoing on the defender's part here. It wasn't his choice to get mugged, it was the other kid's, plain and simple. People have to live with there choices, or in this case, die with them.
He wasn't right, but also not wrong. It was self defence, but he kinda pushed it. Perhaps being a mugger in America isn't really smart
[small] aborts plans, sighs [/small]
[small] aborts plans, sighs [/small]
No. He was wrong. If someone mugs you, but punches you rather than draw a weapon on you, then you should at least start by threatening them with the weapon you are carrying. A reflexive response of "shoot first, ask questions later", proves why civilians should not be given the power to end peoples live so easily.
And to all of you that say the mugger "deserved to be shot": that's disgusting. Not even if he'd had a weapon (where lethal self-defence is excusable), would he have "deserved" to die. There is no logical explanation that can ever be given as to why a person "deserves" death.
And to all of you that say the mugger "deserved to be shot": that's disgusting. Not even if he'd had a weapon (where lethal self-defence is excusable), would he have "deserved" to die. There is no logical explanation that can ever be given as to why a person "deserves" death.
I doubt you've ever been in a hostile situation before.Girl With One Eye said:
If you had, then you would've known that you don't have the luxury of afterthought or giving second chances to people. You can't know for sure that the guy assaulting you isn't going to pull a weapon and kill you at the drop of a hat. In the real world it's: ACT or be killed.
These idiot punks shouldn't have assaulted the man in the first place. They CHOSE to risk their lives by attacking him. He didn't choose anything, he was just an innocent bystander of the actions of these criminal scum.
Now one of them is dead. GOOD! Perhaps if the asshole had learned not to punch and try to rob total strangers he would've still been alive...
My overall feeling on lethal defence is that you have a right to defend yourself as the situation warrants. If you are in a fight in a pub, it is unlikely they are aiming to really kill you, so you shouldn't set out to try and kill them, if someone is mugging you with a weapon, you have right to believe your life is in danger, and if you have the means to defend yourself, anything up to and including lethal force is okay.
The caveat to that and where it gets tricky is believing your life is in danger, and how you can determine. If you are being mugging, I would say it is usually safer to assume that the mugger has a deadly weapon, and is prepared to use it, so the use of deadly force in the situation is okay by me. In the dark for example, or when attacked from behind, or when you can't see clearly having been punched in the head, as in this example.
So overall I think he was probably in the right. His attacker wasn't armed, but it was a mugging, he had the legal means to defend himself, and he wasn't sure if his attacker was armed, but he had been struck, so he knew he was in danger, if not lethal danger.
The caveat to that and where it gets tricky is believing your life is in danger, and how you can determine. If you are being mugging, I would say it is usually safer to assume that the mugger has a deadly weapon, and is prepared to use it, so the use of deadly force in the situation is okay by me. In the dark for example, or when attacked from behind, or when you can't see clearly having been punched in the head, as in this example.
So overall I think he was probably in the right. His attacker wasn't armed, but it was a mugging, he had the legal means to defend himself, and he wasn't sure if his attacker was armed, but he had been struck, so he knew he was in danger, if not lethal danger.
