Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Slycne]

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.

That's quite the opposite of the truth, seeing that's exactly what laser sights are for.

Despite what you see in the movies/games of snipers picking off guys with laser sights at 1000m, a laser sights primary purpose is not accuracy, in the sense of making your shots more precise, but for faster target acquisition. In close quarters rather than having to line up your shot with your normal sights, you simply put the dot on the target. This transitions into you being able to fire at your target more quickly.

At distance they are no more or less useful than any other sighting device as it can still only be sighted for a single range. Bullets don't travel flat, most barrels are designed to curved up slightly resulting in a parabolic flight. So if you sight your laser sight for center mass at 300m, it's going to be mostly accurate close in, but at 150m you'll need to aim at the dirt as the bullet will be at the top of its arc.

Military and police forces often won't use laser sights unless they are in a non-visible spectrum, like infrared paired with night vision goggles, and then if they can confirm only their forces have the equipment to see them, primary because they can be seen and give away their presence otherwise.

So contrary to there being no reason, a laser sight is actually a very reasonable accessory for someone worried about defending themselves in a close environment, in a rapid manner and is not concerned about the red dot giving away their position.

 

[TNPspectre]

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.

That's quite the opposite of the truth, seeing that's exactly what laser sights are for.

Despite what you see in the movies/games of snipers picking off guys with laser sights at 1000m, a laser sights primary purpose is not accuracy, in the sense of making your shots more precise, but for faster target acquisition. In close quarters rather than having to line up your shot with your normal sights, you simply put the dot on the target. This transitions into you being able to fire at your target more quickly.

At distance they are no more or less useful than any other sighting device as it can still only be sighted for a single range. Bullets don't travel flat, most barrels are designed to curved up slightly resulting in a parabolic flight. So if you sight your laser sight for center mass at 300m, it's going to be mostly accurate close in, but at 150m you'll need to aim at the dirt as the bullet will be at the top of its arc.

Military and police forces often won't use laser sights unless they are in a non-visible spectrum and they can confirm only their forces have the equipment to see them, primary because they can be seen and give away their presence.

So contrary to there being no reason, a laser sight is actually a very reasonable accessory for someone worried about defending themselves in a close environment, in a rapid manner and is not concerned about the red dot giving away their position.

100% this

 

[RDubayoo]

Sorry, you try to mug somebody and you're gambling with your life. And why not? When a person is attacked by a mugger, if he can't defend himself then he has to worry about being robbed, beaten, killed, or even worse. The victims of muggings are the ones we should feel sorry for, not the muggers who pick the wrong marks. Spare me the tiny violins. So, yes, I feel sorry for Baker. As for Mustelier, if there's a Hell, I hope he's in it.

And as far as shooting eight shots, so? Baker was in a potentially life-threatening situation and he had no idea what was going to happen to him. He had adrenaline pumping through his veins and had to make split decisions. He wasn't thinking, "Hm, I daresay three shots shall suffice," he was thinking, "OH CRAP I GOTTA STOP THIS GUY AAHHHHH KEEP SHOOTING AHHHHH!" If anything, the mistake he made in firing eight times is not that it was wrong for him to shoot the mugger that many times, but that it was not tactically sound to fire so many rounds at one mugger while his partner was still up and kicking.* But again, that's also second-guessing a guy in a tough situation.

So, in summary, completely justified and hopefully a good lesson to other street tough wannabes. Also, it's incredibly disingenuous to compare this incident to the Tucson shooting.

*Pity he didn't kill that bastard, too.

 

[mirasiel]

Did the boy deserve death, no.

Did the boy risk death by attacking without provocation, yes.

Does a person have the right to defend themselves against harm, yes.

Baker was clearly in the right, I am actually a little disgusted at the number of people who think that us law abiding types should have no recourse when attacked except to whimper, pray and hope for mercy.

Also the article makes it quite clear that he was carrying 500 bucks from a previous repair jobs he had done that day (?); the time between repairs is unclear, even so, what you're only allowed to carry so much money on you and then you desreve mugging*?

As for the number of shots fired, as others have said it would take about 2 or 3 seconds to empty the mag, with a %50 hit rate from being punched in the head seems pretty reasonable, the thing that worries me is where those other 4 rounds went. The case would most likely have gone very differently if he had hit an actual innocent victim.




*women can only be so pretty and/or drunk/alone and they deserve raping, right guys...

 

[Bat Vader]

I don't believe the mugger deserved to die but I can understand why the Jogger did kill him. He was physically attacked and was most likely panicking. The jogger defended himself and unfortunately it resulted in the death of the mugger.

 

[Chase Yojimbo]

I do agree with the last statement of the victems sister that 8 bullets was to much. If he was even remotely eligible to join the military, he would know that it is always double tap. Besides the trigger happiness though, he did everything right in this case.

 

[bz316]

I'm sorry the teens are dead, but they are the one's who decided to try and rob a guy in a state with really lax gun-control regulations and a law that basically said you're allowed to shoot people if you feel endangered (which I'm pretty sure being mugged will make you feel). I don't really like guns, but I doubt we'd be having this argument if the guy had defended himself with a knife or gave them lethal injuries with his fists.

 

[rutger5000]

If I'm completely rational, then Bakker had no reason to assume any of the teens was armed. They used their fists, why do that if they had guns or knives?
If I allow emotions in the thinking process. Then I can understand Bakker was just very scared, and rightly so. I don't think opening fire was the right decision, but I can see where he was going from. 'But things like these do raise questions like: Is there something wrong with America, when a fourteen year old finds it necessary to mug a man? And that man needs to fear for his live during the process? And that man had the option to use a firing arm while he was emotional unstable?

 

[RelexCryo]

If I'm completely rational, then Bakker had no reason to assume any of the teens was armed. They used their fists, why do that if they had guns or knives?
If I allow emotions in the thinking process. Then I can understand Bakker was just very scared, and rightly so. I don't think opening fire was the right decision, but I can see where he was going from. 'But things like these do raise questions like: Is there something wrong with America, when a fourteen year old finds it necessary to mug a man? And that man needs to fear for his live during the process? And that man had the option to use a firing arm while he was emotional unstable?

18 year old. He was an adult, not a kid.

 

[DanielDeFig]

OT: Non-lethal weaponry and basic self-defense training seems like an equal investment of time and money, as lethal weapons and the training neccary to obtain a licence for those. Now you can defend yourself in extreme emergencies, but you don't have to be forced to resort to lethal force.

There's a problem with this, though.

First of all, if you take a "basic self-defense training" class, and the first thing they tell you to do is not "Find any weapon you can get your hands on," you are enrolled in a bullshit, useless self-defense class. Period. Grapple holds and snap kicks are just not going to work in the real world. You're not guaranteed a fair fight, even weight match, or even the same number of opponents.

Good self-defense classes don't teach cute "moves" and "tricks." They teach practical information. Every self-defense class should begin with the following points:

1. In a fight, you WILL get hit. Period. Learn how to deal with it.
2. If the attacker has a knife, you WILL be cut, even if you have a knife or gun. Be ready.
3. Assume the attacker has a weapon and/or partners. If they didn't have an advantage, they wouldn't have attacked.
4. Grab a weapon. Trash, a bottle, a rock, ANYTHING. There is no "honor" in fighting unarmed.
5. You will NOT put an opponent down with one hit, so be ready to keep going until they're still.

That's bare-minimum stuff. So, these classes are teaching people to use lethal force as well... or they're teaching them a false sense of security and how to get dead.

Onto non-lethals:

1. Pepper spray: Civilian stuff is largely ineffective. Propellant is weak, and it's not strong enough to really put someone down. If it hits (big if), you might have a few seconds to run, but now they're PISSED.

2. Stun gun: If you're close enough to use it, they're probably touching you. You risk stunning yourself by closing the circuit. No good unless you have surprise (and then it's not exactly defense). And either way, having to be that close to your opponent guarantees you'll get stabbed if they have a knife. Even a stunned person can shank you in the gut before going down.

3. Taser: Anything a civilian would be allowed to use is going to be to "iffy." It might not get the hooks through the clothes, you might not get the arc you need, and of course you could always miss. Anyway, tasers are not self-defense measures--they cannot effectively be used on someone who has gained the element of surprise, due to the prep time before it can be put into effect. Tasers are non-lethal apprehension tools, meant to be drawn before approaching a subject, not after being approached.

4. Batons/sticks/etc.: Again, getting in that close means you're probably getting stabbed anyway. What's more, a person can take a huge amount of punishment from one of these before it even makes a difference, so good luck stopping them before they use their own weapon... or even take yours an use it back, since it's conveniently located right next to them.

Handguns are compact, they have relatively few moving parts or things that can go wrong (like batteries, etc.), and they have enough power to stop people in their tracks. What you should be asking about is whether or not they could make more effective non-lethal ammunition for civilians.

Effective Non-lethal ammunition for civilian handguns, is a very reasonable solution. A civilian can react just like Baker did: firing 8 rounds in the direction of his attackers, desperately hoping to stop them, but they won't have to live with the guilt of having killed someone.

Guns are popular and effective because you can be trained to use one within a very short amount of time, and they are very effective. I believe there is already a large amount of research and development being done on bullets being able to fit more specific situations. Like you said, if effective less-than lethal bullets can be developed for civilian use, that would be the best of both worlds.

 

[Count Igor]

Have a look at the newpaper. It's incredibly biased...
Plus, as the sister said something like "How do you shoot 8 times in self defence?", I dropped the little respect for them. He could barely see and felt his nose was broken.

 

[Funkysandwich]

I think the moral of the story here is: don't go out jogging late at night.

 

[CommanderKirov]

I feel a bit sorry for the teen that died, but the guy was entirely justified to start shooting.

Hopefully this will be an example for every other idiot thinking that stealing from others is "Cool"

 

[RelexCryo]

"hurr durr criminals are evil they deserve to die"

It's not as simple as that. It's an ignorant kid that made a stupid mistake and ended up dying for it. At that age he's easily influenced by his peers and by the culture that dominates his life, that being hip hop and gangster culture. If he had survived the predicament, he probably would have amended his ways. Heck, if he wasn't even shot and was just chased away, he would have still probably turned away, scared at the life he "chose".

He's obviously not an experienced mugger or anything, he didn't deserve to just "die". Stop being ignorant.

At the same time, it's not Baker's fault. It was probably a fearful reaction since he was ambushed in the middle of the night by 2 strangers. I'd imagine it wasn't the safest neighborhood so his reaction, while not condoned, can't be condemned either.

It was an accident. Neither the kid deserved to die, nor was Baker wrong for defending himself. He fired 8 rounds because he was startled.

End of.

How exactly was he ignorant? What information did he not have? Did he not know that stealing is morally wrong? I doubt it. You grow up your entire life hearing that. Did he not know that many people in America carry guns to defend themselves? I doubt it. Did he not know that criminals tend to die young, and lead painful, horrible lives? Above all else, I doubt this. Everyone who gets involved in thug culture knows that way of life is short, painful, and horrible. They get involved in Thug culture anyways because they want to die as a young badass. And I know that seems wierd...but not everyone wants to live to old age.

When you are born poor in a bad neighborhood, you seem to have two choices: You can work hard your entire life, barely surviving on what money you make, eventually dying of old age after living a long, hard life, or you can die when you are 40 as a badass who at least led an exciting life and who got to take his anger out on somebody. Some people choose the thug route because they care more about excitement than they do about the rights of other human beings.

You can try arguing that he suffered from psychological problems that caused him to possess different priorities from mentally healthy people, but please don't say he was ignorant.

Lastly, he was 18 years old. He was an adult, not a kid.

 

[mirasiel]

If he was even remotely eligible to join the military, he would know that it is always double tap.

No, he wouldn't that is an idiotic thing to say, there is a reason they have to TRAIN soldiers for weeks before they are even considered eligible to be basic grunts.

It depends on the military but all they usually look for is physical/mental fitness and a basic education (not even sure about that to be honest), not fucking about fucking combat tactics that they'll only teach you after they are sure you can comptently hold an assault rifle*.



*I admit this part here is an assumption.

 

[RN7]

This is a fairly difficult decision. "Was the shooter right?" Well...yes and no. I could see the scenario playing out that way. The man was outnumbered, and the mugger (apparently) stated that he intend to knock the man out. The mugger then hit the shooter in the face, causing enough damage to induce bleeding and blur vision. The shooter then pulled out the gun (with a laser sight and loaded with hollow points) and proceeded to fire. The shooter felt his life was threatened and had been wounded afterwards. His vision was impaired, so one could argue that he couldn't tell exactly what was going on, and fired to stop the threat.

On the other hand, the shooters actions were somewhat excessive. His gun was loaded with hollow points, which are designed to cause more damage to fleshy targets, especially an unprotected 16 year old wearing casual clothing. The gun also had a laser sight, a weapon modification, displaying that the shooter apparently had some sort of knowledge and or experience with firearms. Or a large enough wallet. He fired 8 times, hitting the mugger 4. Eight hollow points to anybody in the general area of a kill-zone would likely prove fatal. The fact that he fired eight meant either A.) he wanted the target dead intentionally or B.) he was suffering from severe stress and wasn't thinking properly, coupled with all that adrenaline.

Taking all that in light, there really should have been some sort of "maybe" option here. Both parties were in the wrong to some extent.

 

[Skratt]

He had every right to defend himself. 8 shots seems excessive, but without actually being there it is really hard to tell. Blinded, disoriented, beset by two attackers, middle of the night with no witnesses? I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing in that scenario.

 

[mirasiel]

I think the moral of the story here is: don't go out jogging late at night.

Dont be too pretty, dont be too rich, dont make eye contact, dont dress slutty, dont be white, dont be black, dont be asian, dont be jewish, dont wear the wrong t-shirt, dont have a good looking partner, dont be gay, dont be christian, dont drive a nice car, dont date some one of another race, dont play d&d, dont be a democrat, dont be a republican, dont wear glasses....

I can go on all day.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Go and kick a random dog on the street, see how it responds? Did it come and bite you? Most likely it did. Why? Because it is primitive reaction.
He was attacked he defended himself. He stood by the person he shot and called police, that means he felt responsibility over hes actions. I am sure hes not proud of hes actions, but he was right.